text:
Could dhammanupassana be to remember satipatthana?
Could the 4th satipatthana or dhammanupassana be, among other things,  to remember Satipatthana in both heart and mind? Shouldn't viriya  be focused on the focus towards satipatthana when  worldly matters have distracted one down a wrong turn on the path? Do anything Buddhist scriptures talk about this?

Are you talking about Dhammanupassana?

Yes, dhammanupassana.

Maybe Dhammadhatu will give you an answer, but the four Satipatthanas are not practised isolated, but happen sequentially. For example when the breath is sufficiently calmed rapture arises. If you don't cling to the rapture (piti) & let it go, it calms into sukha. This is where from the body, feelings (vedana) are now the prominent object... The last (Dhammanupassana) is where the tendencies are progressively uprooted in the mind because you see the 5 aggregates as impermanent and non self. This is where dispassion and letting go happens.

Your question is about the 'goal' of dhammanupassana. You are rightly careful to not think of it as the only 'benefit' of dhammanupassana.
Establishment of sati, is fourfold. Fourfold establishment means that sati is perfected when sati (awareness) is established over the 4 categorized mind-body phenomenon. That is to say, mind-body phenomenon is viewed in terms of the 4 categories, awareness of body (kayanupassana), awareness of sensations (vedanupassana), awarenesss of mind  (cittanupassana) and awareness of the nature/law of mental-contents (dhammanupassana). Pefrection of sati is gradual and happens in all 4 categories (since there are no 'categories' as such, but the term is used conventionally to make sense of mind-body phenomenon). Of course, establishing awareness of body is easier than the rest, nonetheless, perfection (perfect establishing of sati) which is to say , complete awareness happens only when progress is made on all '4' categories.
I do no unedrstand what you mean by heart in this context. Memory is a mental phenomenon and so perfection of dhammanupassana, of course, results in sharper and clearer memory (only as an off-shoot; not the main goal(or even an intended goal) of dhammanupassana).
As to the question about 'viriya', while in a subtle (and indeed profound) sense, viriya specifically implies for the meditation period, in a superficial sense (very usefull and certainly not wrong) it also implies to right effort in one's everyday life.
But to answer your question in the simplest way, in the context of meditation, certainly viriya must be applied to get back on the path as one strays and becomes aware that one has strayed. Just dont stop with viriya there!
References-
You may refer to Sattipathana sutta and Mahasattipathana sutta for  better understanding based on your own reading.
NOTE-

I have used 'awareness' as the english translation for sati. 'Mind-fullness' works equally well in this case.
I have used 'effort' as the english translation for viriya. 'Energy' would be an equally goood translation in this case.

Yes. Satipatthana (Samma Sati) is an important path factor in Noble Eightfold Path. Viriya or Samma Vayama come before Samma Sati (Satipathana). Samma Vayama, Samma Sati and Samma Samadhi all three come under Samadhi (concentration) category.

When one remembers during meditation to come back to sati already set up is that sati or samadhi? When one remembers during long time worldly distraction to come back to the setting up of sati(satipatthana), is that remembering samadhi, sati or both driven by viriya?

Noble Eightfold Path should be practiced as a whole. Samadhi is a result of the practice.

You could watch TV and go into a  samadhi trance, no eightfold path needed and that's probably bad karma. I get what your sayin though.

Agree. It is called Mitya Samadhi (Wrong concentration)

Could the 4th satipatthana or dhammanupassana be, among other things, to remember Satipatthana in both heart and mind?
Main purpose of various vipassana is to rectify defiled behaviour pattern.
to remember Satipatthana in both heart and mind
Is it referring to passing of meditation-knowledge to next-birth through Citta? Reference
If so, then be assured that it's the behaviour pattern that travels to next birth, otherwise buddha would have taught only satipatthana to everyone whereas, he taught only to rectify defiled behaviour pattern through different Upadesh(lessons cum teachings) to different people.
To think again, What would it(remembering) benefit Citta, if defiled behaviour pattern(within) cannot be rectified?
Nothing
Shouldn't viriya be focused on the focus towards satipatthana when worldly matters have distracted one down a wrong turn on the path?
----:) focused on focus towards satipatthana, where satipatthana in itself is not enlightenment rather a path to enlightenment. Seems like a similar idea used in hindu geeta by krishna for setting-up arjuna-- "I am teaching you a path upon walking on which, you will reach a path that will ultimately reach to me".
Other than stream-enterer, everyone is on wrong path. Stream-enterer is on a path that will reach to enlightening. Others are focusing on the path to attain stream-entry.
If it's about meditation procedure, then from practical experience::
sorry to say, in long-run meditation this focused part won't survive. Meditator will ultimately have to switch to, "focus on sattipatthana' part, still in further journey this focus also won't survive, as meditator will have to switch to, "realizing defilements and rectifying behaviour".
Theoritically, this realizing also won't survive in further running, meditator will have to switch to, "stop worrying/analysing about behaviour" and achieving the state of "impermanence at atomic or tiniest scale" after which there is nothing left to achieve as achiever itself is 'causes&conditions, an impermanence', no-where left to run.
Do anything Buddhist scriptures talk about this?
Again, to focused towards focus on satipatthana part, many teachings in suttas are there for right livelihood through viriya.
One of the reference being Reference 2

The meaning of dhamme-dhamma anu-passi viharati, means, To see/contemplate Dharma as the Dharma [actually is]. A similar phrase in the suttas that occurs frequently is Dhamma-anu-Dhamma patipada, practicing Dharma in accordance to Dharma. Some passages explain that here:
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/05/dhamma-anu-dhamma-practicing-dhamma-in.html
Dhamma/Dharma primarily means the natural laws and teachings of the Buddha that lead one to Nirvana. In other words, it's not just any 'phenomena' or 'mental quality' you're contemplating, or should be contemplating. You should always be practicing for the Dhamma that leads to Nirvana, not dhamma/phenomena of ultimately pointless things.


text:
Nirvana & the fall of the 5 Hinderances
What more is Nirvana than the perminant fall of The Five  Hinderances? Could one perform bad karma with all the hinderances eradicated? What about neutral or even good karma?

Giving up, the home-task first.

5 Hindrances can be suppressed in Jhana. As one is not yet fully liberated when in Jhana though the 5 Hinadraces are suppressed, one accumulates both positive and negative karma.

What more is Nirvana than the perminant fall of The Five Hinderances?
Theravada doctrine is that it's the eradication of the "10 fetters".
The Vimuttimagga (according to Wikipedia) says that "the five hindrances include all ten fetters".

Do not misrepresent the Theravadin doctrine please. It's not good to misrepresent the Theravadin doctrine.

As neither the vimuttimagga nor wikipedia is included in the Theravadin canon it's not clear  why author references it when expressing "the theravadin doctrine"

@sigh... I didn't know or see that the Viimuttimagga wasn't the Visuddhimagga, thanks for the correction.

Afaik in the Theravadin doctrine Nibbana is taught by twofold classification; Nibbana, relinquishment through cessation as giving up and Nibbana relinquishment through cessation as entering into. It is also taught as eightfold classification of Nibbana in a qualified sense and as a singlefold classification of Nibbana in a definitive sense. Removal of greed, anger and delusion is spoken of as Nibbana and it is further classified as element with and without residue. These are the definitions by the sutta method and are afaik representative of the Theravadin doctrine.

The expression "it's the eradication of the 10 fetters" isn't wrong but to say that it's representative of theravadin doctrine isn't correct imo because there is more to it.

Thanks for the comment again. I wouldn't be able to post such a detailed answer on that topic.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Enlightend beings don't make more good or neutral karma?
Does a Buddha or Arahant not make good or neutral karma? If somehow an enlightened one does make karma does it immediately come to a result? Are all the actions enlightened beings  do the result(vipaka) of previous good karma while on on the path to Nirvana? Is all the enlightened karma neutral?

Action done, their results, do no more fall back on oneself, have neither, are neither pleasing or unpleasing perceived. Such. It does not mean, of which might be the actuall point of good householders question, that an Awakended deeds are not pleasing or unpleasing, helpful... perceived by others.

@SamanaJohann plz post that as answer.

In its essence, "kamma" means "action" with attachment.
While the suttas do refer to "kamma without attachment" namely, "neither-dark-nor-bright kamma" (AN 4.237), this type of kamma is also called the "kamma that ends kamma" (AN 6.63). Therefore, it is not really "kamma".
the essential meaning of "kamma" is "action with attachment", as follows:

And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
  resulting in acquisitions (attachment)? 'There is what is given,
  what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of
  good & bad actions....
MN 117

Refer to Bhikkhu Buddhadasa PDF booklet: Kamma in Buddhism

Buddha spoke about cessation of karma and liberation from karma. For Arahant, or for Buddha, there's no acquiring of karma anymore. Indeed, if they still acquired karma, how could we call it "liberation"?
But how can an Arahant or a Buddha act without acquiring karma?
In my understanding, this is possible because only appropriated action, i.e. action considered to be done "by me" counts as that person's own karma.
Since an enlightened being does not reify the concept of "a being" or "self", there is no-one left to acquire karma. There is no way Buddha could appropriate his actions as "I did this", because he had done away with the notion of "I", he only used it for communication with the unenlightened.
So whatever we think is done by Buddha or Arahant, from their perspective is not their (personal) intention, and is therefore not their (personal) karma.
Buddha's actions can still have results. Generally speaking, in terms of results, this is the third type of actions, one that leads to cessation. We can still observe some of the results of Buddha's actions in our own lives - us studying and practicing Dharma. In fact, the results are unfolding in front of our own eyes, in form of this question and answer site. But these results are not Buddha's personal karma, since they did not come bundled with the concept of "self".

The outcome of deeds is discussed in AN4.233:

“Mendicants, I declare these four kinds of deeds, having realized them with my own insight.
What four?
There are dark deeds with dark results;
bright deeds with bright results;
dark and bright deeds with dark and bright results; and
neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.

The fourth is the destination of the Noble Eightfold Path:

And what are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds?
  It’s the intention to give up dark deeds with dark results, bright deeds with bright results, and both dark and bright deeds with both dark and bright results.
  These are called neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.
  These are the four kinds of deeds that I declare, having realized them with my own insight.”

In other words, in giving up identity view and all its wishes, the grasping that leads to rebirth, continued existence and suffering is relinquished and extinguished.
Note that non-arahants with some attainment as well as arahants would both relinquish the first three deeds in favor of the fourth. The difference is that non-arahants would still wish and need to practice towards the realization of the fourth clause. They would still have some identity view (e.g., "the conceit, 'I am'").
With Right Wisdom and Right Freedom, arahants will have given up all deeds. Arahants will, per this sutta, have attained the "ending of deeds".

If you understand by karma to simply mean causation (of some kind) then karma is there, irrespective of whether one is enlightened or not. If you understand by karma as action (at any of the three levels of body, speech or mind) then karma is there, irrespective of whether one is enlightened or not.
The way karma is different is only in the sense of being good or bad karma. A good karma means action that does not lead to further clinging, a cause whose effect is as benficial as the unclinging cause is. A bad karma means action that creates clinging, a causae whose effect is harmful, as one becomes clings slightly strongly than before to the samsaric flow.
Karma comes as a result dependent on conditions. If conditions are right, then the result will arise, endure and cease. If conditions are not right, then the result will not arise, not endure and not cease. The arising (and enduring and ceasation) of every karmic action (and karmic intention) is inevitable. That is, karma is bound to produce some effects, results, consequences; irrespective of the fact that it is the karma of enlightened being or not an enlightened being.
As one builds up more good karma, it becomes easier to build up more good karma even further (habituation, conditioning).
If by enlightened karma, you mean the karma of enlightened beings, then certainly all of it is good- for by very definition of enlightened beings, all there actions, words and thoughts are steeped in wisdom and compassion.

As I see it dukkha or suffering is bad karma, good karma leads to nirvana. And when all karma is purified Nirvana happens.
If all karma is purified then it's not possible to create bad karma because every thought and action is purified and is Nirvana.
Nirvana is having no bad karma and if that is the case then all actions are good karma for all sentient beings.

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


text:
Immediate Remedies to Judgmental Thoughts
I had previously asked a question about contempt. Since then, I noticed a few things, such as that it's not easy for me to 'cancel' out analytically my judgment of others. If I try to question my judgment and invalidate it, it often doesn't work, especially if I get angry. I know that my judgments are false, but they still arise.
Are there alternatives to analyzing/questioning the judgment?
The most effective solution so far has been compassion meditation. But that is not always possible in the moment.
What can be done in the moment where judgmental thoughts arise to remain open?
EDIT: I feel perhaps my question is similar to my previous one, but I'm asking for really in the moment remedies, and the diverse options Buddhism recommends.

I have this problem myself  but it is getting better. The first thing I do is to spot the first movement of the mind toward judgment and I send the person metta (May you be well, happy and free from suffering).  This then changes my attitude to a more accepting and more opened mind. One other thing which I find helpful is to remember their faults are mine, I have a potential to do what I disapprove and judge. This brings me back to earth and to a forgiving attitude.

Are there alternatives to analyzing/questioning the judgment?

If you look at it as one of many possible interpretations you avoid the risk of invalidating your point of view.

What can be done in the moment where judgmental thoughts arise to remain open?

One possible reason why we need to judge others is because it creates a feeling of righting a wrong, in a sense. Without knowing too much about you, i am assuming that there is some form of painful feeling that creates a clinging to judgment (ditthupadana).
Therefore, one way to aid letting go of judgment is to examine any painful emotions (dukkha) you might have had prior to these thoughts, and try to accept the emotions as they are.
Further, try to look behind other people's actions, to see if there are motives for acting the way they do. What is their dukkha, their tanha or upadana? This can be very hard, but can also yield compassion that ameliorates our clinging to judge others.

What can be done in the moment where judgmental thoughts arise to remain open?

Treat the mind as something from a distance. Tell yourself for example: "The mind tells me" or alternatively, "Anger is arising in me".
If possible, observe any bodily phenomena with a curious attitude.
Don't push it away. It's not easy.
If the anger is directed towards others you can reflect how you behaved maybe in a similar way or had similar thoughts.
Otherwise distract yourself for a while.
But whatever you do, it will take some time until the mind changes its state, and from my personal experience, emotions strongly bias subsequent thinking, that's why I recommend to notice anger signals early on to nip them in the bud, but again with an open, allowing & curious attitude.

What is thought?
 You aware  your thoughts
Trace your thoughts till it's root
Beacuse my observation say that  thought is illusion
Beacuse thought  is memory
Memory is thought .
Proof
What is  nirvana (buddhism)
You are thinking  not reach this question Because you don't experience.
You don't experience. You don't thinking.
So your are experience  is thought


text:
Dilemma about Money
I earn well enough. But I don't count how much my money I spend. I mostly spend money on just foods only. But here is the problem. If I cook myself at home, I can save a lot of money. However, I spend twice / thrice the same amount if I spend eating outside. Well, the extra amount I could donate for good purposes. But, I don't want to cook at home as I need to wash the utensils and make necessary arrangements that would take my time. I am confused about what should I do?

Buddhist financial management is as follows:

Sigal’ovada Sutta

(1) personal and family use (eg support of parents, spouse, children, servants, and visiting family
  friends and colleagues);
(2) for the benefit of friends (including entertainment of guests and clients);
(3) invest in security and insurance;
(4) the fivefold offering (pañca,balī): given to relatives, to guests, to the departed, to the government (as payment of taxes, etc), and to devas;
(5) for supporting worthy religious (Dharma work).

You don't have to donate, but if you want then why not.

I mostly spend money on just foods only.

If you don't have money when you what to do charity you just need to wash your dishes and do the preparations. It does not have to be much.
Donations helps the dharma stay alive, it will cultivate good karma, it will help Dharma to flourish and prosper. If Dharma is helping you it will help you more if its strong and bigger. It will also help you to be more detached from money for a better cause. I think


text:
Is Vajrayana the fastest and only way to enlightenment? Bön & Shaivism
Why is Tibetan Buddhism the fastest way to enlightenment?
What is the difference of Kashmir Shaivism and Nyingma School? Why is Tibetan Buddhism faster and the only way?
Tibetan Buddhism developed from traditional Bön and Together with Kashmir Shaivism, and traditional Buddhism was imposed to the Bön tradition. Why was Buddhism better than Bön Religion? Why did Buddhism adopted the lucid dreaming of Bön Religion if it was better?
Am I missing something?

Buddhism at its core is non-dogmatic. It has a number of precepts and principles, but does not ask its practitioners to believe anything in particular. Because of that, when Buddhism expands into a new region, it tends to absorb elements of whatever beliefs already existed in that region, because those beliefs become a bridge between old understandings and new ones. Thus, when Buddhism moved into China it absorbed elements of Daoism; when it moved into Japan it absorbed elements of Shinto; when it moved into Tibet if absorbed elements of Bön; and now that it is moving into the West it is absorbing elements of both Christianity and secular philosophy.
This doesn't mean that Buddhism is better or worse than any of these. It merely means that Buddhism uses the language and understandings of the region it enters in order to express itself more clearly. Most Buddhists will refer to this trend as the creation of a new 'wheel' of Buddhism, with the understanding that one wheel is much like another in the end.
Tibetan Buddhism styles itself as Vajryana (literally, the 'lightning path') on the claim that one can achieve rapid (e.g., in this lifetime) enlightenment. This boils down to a difference in style. Theravada schools focus on a slow, steady process of release through deep meditation, like watching and waiting for a pool of water to become still. Mahayana schools add in a component of service as bodhisattva, but still retain the essentially passive meditation model. But Tibetan Buddhism uses the structures and symbolism of the Bön mythology to actively confront and dispel attachments.
Whether this actually works as advertised is an open question. I have no evidence that Vajrayana teachings produce more enlightened beings per capita than Mahayana or Theravada, and I suspect the difference is more a matter of taste and inclination than anything else. Certainly other schools of Buddhism worry that the active model of Vajryana entails a risk that practitioners will form new attachments through that active desire for immediate enlightenment, but Vajrayanans will counter that the risk is justified by the potentials of the practice. In the end we all have to rely on our one capacity to (as the saying goes) separate the wheat from the chaff.

Brilliant answer and flawless delivery, thank you.

Why is Tibetan Buddhism the fastest way to enlightenment?

There's no specific school of Buddhism that provides the fastest way to enlightenment. Just like there's no specific martial art that turns one into the best fighter. One is the best fighter because one found a martial art that's most suitable to one's own strength, size, flexibility, hence allowing one to maximize their own potential.


text:
How can I find a teacher?
What is the best way, or how would I even go about finding a Buddhist teacher or spiritual guide?  Thanks.

By practicing giving one derives near the Noble Domain, good householder. Yet it requires also to follow the 5 proper occasions for giving into.

How ever, a good and generous guide: Into the Stream

Another guide: https://puredhamma.net/

there's advice for in in a number of texts. Kihwa's translation and commentary of the sutra of perfect enlightenment is, i think, one important example. the gist seems to be blame yourself if it's not working! that's a gloss. my two cents is make sure they are well thought of in monastic communities. hth

If you have an interest in learning the Burmese system of Insight or Vipassana Meditation, which was popularized the world over by the Burmese Monk, Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw, recommend his magnum opus "Manual of Insight," (pdf) which was translated into English by the Vipassana Metta Foundation of USA. Also recommend the utube video >Phra Noa Yuttadhammo - How to Meditate< as a visual supplement, for a novice  to get to grips with the subject. Incidentally, Ven. Yuttadhammo is a registered User of the Buddhism Stack Exchange.

oh, i thought my edit would be a suggestion rather than automatic. please do roll back the edit, if you want!

Ven. Yuttadhammo helped to start this site, no longer actively participates here.

@user3293056 The permissions change with 'reputation -- above 2000 you can access moderators tools if you want to -- and edits are automatic, though as you kindly said the OP can view the edit history (by clicking on the link which says "edited [some time ago]"), and from there do a "rollback" to a previous version if they want to.

@user3293056. Sorry, my response was to Kevin Hudson's original  question

My suggestion to you is to familiarise yourself with Tipitaka and other Buddhist books first. Then familiarise yourself with the popular teachers available at the moment by browsing internet and Buddhist forums such as Stack Exchange, Dhamma Wheel and Sutta Central. There are many not so famous teachers. But when the student ready the teacher will appear!

wrt your last sentence: yes i have heard this said!


text:
Sanghas of those who practice like monks but aren't officially monks?
Are there Sanghas(in the more broad meaning of the word) of those who practice like monks but aren't officially monks and have not been ordained as monks by monks? If they could call themselves "Bunks" or something besides "monks", would this be problematic? Are there any scriptures related to this?

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

I won't try answer this question based on theory! Instead I assume it's a question of whether any actually exist now, in practice.

In the Mn140 Pukkusati is referred to as a Bhikkhu before receiving the going forth;

Ven. Pukkusati also spent most of the night sitting [in meditation]. The thought occurred to the Blessed One, "How inspiring is the way this clansman behaves! What if I were to question him?" So he said to Ven. Pukkusati, "Out of dedication to whom, monk, have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? Of whose Dhamma do you approve?"

There aren't any actively recruiting communities that i know of atm.
Also Anagarikas are basically not ordained and are in training.

From DN33:

‘The Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples is practicing the way that’s good, straightforward, methodical, and proper. It consists of the four pairs, the eight individuals.

The four pairs (and eight individuals) are defined indirectly in the same sutta:

The stream-enterer and the one practicing to realize the fruit of stream-entry. The once-returner and the one practicing to realize the fruit of once-return. The non-returner and the one practicing to realize the fruit of non-return. The perfected one, and the one practicing for perfection.

In the broadest sense, the Saṅgha comprises all those who have faith in the Buddha, his teachings and the Saṅgha. And their faith is strong enough that:

... a noble disciple’s ethical conduct is loved by the noble ones, unbroken, impeccable, spotless, and unmarred, liberating, praised by sensible people, not mistaken, and leading to immersion.


text:
Domanassa & Dukkha in enlightened beings?
What is the difference between domanassa & dukkha? Does domanassa arise in enlightened beings? Does bodily dukkha arise in enlightened beings?

OP: What is the difference between domanassa & dukkha?

There are many classifications of feelings:

Vedanā (Feeling)
According to the 5-fold classification, a distinction is made between mental and physical pain and pleasure.

Vedanā (Feeling)
In this classification, physical pain (Kāyika dukkha) is called simply dukkha and mental pain (cetasika dukkha) is called domanassa. Kāyika dukkha and cetasika dukkha are also dukkha, hence classified as such in 3 fold classification.

Dukkha - General Application, & various views regarding dukkha. As simple sensation (: pain) & related to other terms: (a) principally a vedanā, sensation, in particular belonging to the body (kāyika), or physical pain (opp. cetasika dukkha mental ill: see domanassa).
Domanassa - Domanassa means unpleasant feeling in mind. lit. 'sad-mindedness', grief, i.e. mentally painful feeling (cetasika-vedanā), is one of the 5 feelings (vedanā, q.v.)
OP: Does domanassa arise in enlightened beings?

No. An enlightened person feels Dukkha (Kāyika dukkha) but not Domanassa:

Bhikshus, when the instructed noble disciple is touched by a painful feeling, he does not sorrow,
or grieve, or lament, or beat his breast, or become confused. So he feels (only) one feeling: the bodily, not
the mental.

Sall’atthena Sutta

OP: Does bodily dukkha arise in enlightened beings?

Yes. An enlightened person feels Dukkha (Kāyika dukkha) but not Domanassa:

Bhikshus, when the instructed noble disciple is touched by a painful feeling, he does not sorrow,
or grieve, or lament, or beat his breast, or become confused. So he feels (only) one feeling: the bodily, not
the mental.

Sall’atthena Sutta

this seems spot on, and i'm surprised it was downvoted. though i guess a reference for 'Domanassa' would be useful (not a word i recall seeing before)

@user3293056 I updated the answer.

From the way you have framed this question, it seems that you already know the difference-- as you are using words dukkha, domanassa and bodily-dukkha. Again, it seems main purpose is to know the different thinking of different minds regarding their presence in enlightened ones. ---:)
Straight answer to the presence of any dukkha whether it's daurmanasya or bodily-dukkha or unsatisfactoriness- NO.
Dukkha is a term that is being used in 1st Noble Truth
Dukkha :: A broader term used by buddha as a base and concrete word to explain that ,"Whatever happens outside this body or inside this body -- if it generates sankharas within this body" is called as dukkha within. It is a very wide term that is being used for all living beings on Earth and every other realms(if one believes in them).
Domanassa or Daurmanasya to be precise :: A term which is a subset of dukkha. This specific word relates to that part of dukkha where perception gives the final approval of pain in various forms such that these forms might persist within even when there is no pained physical sensation, i.e. these forms have their own separate identity other than pain_perception from physical sensation. For it is generally arisen by(but not limited to) 8 worldly concerns and may vary from person to person.
For eg., Childhood friends talking in abusive language will not give them daurmanasya whereas, if I(a stranger) go to them and start abusive language-- it may cause them daurmanasya if they would have been expecting respectable language from me.
Another Eg. :: Two friends who are used to share even same underwears since childhood, now have grown-up and still puts on a punch at each other's head for any small mistake. I go there and saw an unintentional mistake made by one of them causing me little harm in money and now I gift a punch to the same-- it may cause them daurmanasya but not Bodily-Dukkha(as the same is used to even harder punches).
Another eg. :: Two friends••• underwears••• Undertaker(WWE fighter) goes there along with media and saw••• and now gifts a punch to the same-- It shall result in Bodily-Dukkha and Daurmanasya(insult in public) as well.
Most important point to note here is:: One can get rid of daurmanasya and bodily-dukkha by the 5th attainment out of 8 but cannot get rid of dukkha even by the 8th attainment.
Bodily-Dukkha:: This is a restricted version of dukkha as  the ,"final approval of perception part to be as pain for the sensations at physical_body level.". This also gets eradicated by 5th attainment. This also may vary from person to person depending upon their mental strength to endure physical pain.
Here also to notice that, " daurmanasya might also generate bodily-dukkha". For eg., A beautiful wife starts cheating her husband who was too much attached to her. Upon learning of such act, his heart failed.
Again, a point to be noted-- Bodily-Dukkha might also result in daurmanasya. For eg., A person with an uncurable disease due to which person remains trapped under Bodily-Dukkha but with time it breaks down person mentally also, resulting in daurmanasya.
As far as my experience of meditation practice goes, daurmanasya always results in bodily-dukkha.
Above was What is the difference between domanassa & dukkha?
So, now comes the sweet-dish part-- ... :)
Does dukkha or it's parts arise in enlightened beings?
Practical/Experience Answer:: I don't know, I am not an enlightened one.
In Theory::
Simple Conclusive answer:: Daurmanasya and Bodily-Dukkha end with merely 5th attainment and dukkha ends with eradication of sabbasava, with eradication of ignorance, with establishment in equanimity and having awareness of such equanimity as well.
Conclusion :: No, dukkha or it's parts are not there within Enlightened ones.
Reason :: Back to 1st statement with basics, Noble Truths. Buddha said that his path eradicates dukkha(1st noble truth) by eradicating sabbasava, ignorance and establishing in equanimity with awareness of such equanimity.
This doesn't mean that they don't feel sensation but feeling is merely a feeling in itself. It's by the force of the impulse received by brain that they can say that this particular sensation will act as bodily-dukkha or daurmanasya for some other particular person but for them there is no such bodily-dukkha or dukkha itself. Therefore this mind and body might become to them as ,"Earth and stone... reactionless".
References for basic definitions.
See info. regarding Attainments.
If someone wants to check daurmanasya over here and over here too.
Dukkha over here in Noble Truth. Note here as how word 'dukkham' being used for 2 purposes. 1st as generalized and 2nd as bodily-dukkha. Also, this dukkha might be of some interest to you(for me it was) along with this 11 headed dukkha
8 worldly concerns
Be Happy,

The word 'dukkha' has three different meanings:

'Pain', in relation to painful feelings.
'Unsatisfactoriness', in relation to impermanent things unable to bring lasting happiness.
'Suffering', in relation to how attachment is mental torment.

Enlightened beings experience painful feelings & the unsatisfactoriness of impermanent things but enlightened beings do not experience suffering.
When 'dukkha' means 'suffering, 'domanassa' is an attribute or component of suffering, as follows:

Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, sadness and distress are suffering; not getting
  what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates
  are suffering.
Jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ,
  sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsāpi dukkhā, yampicchaṃ na labhati
  tampi dukkhaṃ; saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.
And what is sadness?
Katamañcāvuso, domanassaṃ?
Mental pain, mental displeasure, the painful, unpleasant feeling
  that’s born from mind contact.
Yaṃ kho, āvuso, cetasikaṃ dukkhaṃ cetasikaṃ asātaṃ manosamphassajaṃ
  dukkhaṃ asātaṃ vedayitaṃ,
This is called sadness.
idaṃ vuccatāvuso: ‘domanassaṃ’.
MN 141

Birth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  sadness and distress to come to be.
jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā sambhavanti.
That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti.
SN 12.2


text:
Are the majority of humans reincarnated from the lower worlds?
I read the following on the internet:

Birth as a human is extremely rare the majority of humans most likely
  came from hellish worlds, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts
  prior to this human existence.....

Is it true or false according to the Pali suttas?

Teacher of the Devas:

In the round of samsara it is extremely rare to rise above the realms
  of woe, where the way out of suffering cannot be followed, and a human
  birth is even more favorable to awakening than birth in the realm of
  the gods.

Given that human life, because of its possibility for awakening, is even higher in terms of value to that of the devas, it would seem surprising in my opinion that the majority of humans come from lower realms where virtuous karma is very difficult to generate.
The majority of humans, from a relative viewpoint, have had greater karma than the majority of sentient beings:
The Nakhasikha Sutta says:

"In the same way, monks, few are the beings reborn among human beings. Far more are those reborn elsewhere [...]"

Hence, even seemingly unfortunate individuals of the human realm have had a very fortunate rebirth, wherever they came from.
Also, there is a certain futility in speculating about karma, I believe, and the Buddha has somewhat suggested this in the Acintita Sutta:

"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 [precise working out of the] results of kamma [...]"

Because rebirths may take different paths, and an individual may be reborn in the lower realms from lifetimes in the heavenly realms, or vice versa, there seems to be little meaning as to what realms human beings come from: they come from samsara. If a human being comes from the lower realm when they have spent infinite eons in every other realms, only a minute perspective would make their last rebirth significant; seeing the vastness of samsaric life, any specific rebirth is meaningless in the whole. My take is that such a minute analysis was what was reprimanded by the Buddha. Only a vast perspective gives a right impression.
I mean, is there a meaning to a person reincarnating from heavenly realms to the hellish realms to a human birth, different from the hellish realms to the heavenly realms to a human birth? I don't see any.
Now, relative to your exact question, 'Is the majority of humans from lower realms', there is the notion of different periods of time such as anatarakalpas, where different levels of fortune and virtue appears among human beings. If fortunate karma is different across time periods for humans, how could the same phenomenon of rebirth explain this? Do low points of human civilization and high points with the presence of Dhamma involve the same process of rebirth? Difficult to say. I think that Maitraya's time involving eighty-thousand years of life and the subsequent period where humans live ten much worse years may not have the same level of karmic fortune.
All this to say that these considerations -- even without including the perspective of selflessness of phenomena -- suggest that the question is a difficult one.
Hope this helps!

That quote is from me, let me explain in more detail where I got that idea from.
The Buddha posits five destinations:

"Sariputta, there are these five destinations. What are the five?
  Hell, the animal realm, the realm of ghosts, human beings and devas."
  (MN 12)

In the Pansu Suttas it's stated it nearly never happens that after death a human or deva is reborn as a human:

"Then the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of
  his fingernail, said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Which is
  greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my
  fingernail, or the great earth?"
"The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the
  Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to
  nothing. It doesn't even count. It's no comparison. It's not even a
  fraction, this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with
  the tip of his fingernail, when compared with the great earth.
"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from
  the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the
  beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell,
  the animal realm, the realm of ghosts.
....
"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from
  the deva realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the beings
  who, on passing away from the deva realm, are reborn in hell... in the
  animal realm... in the realm of ghosts." (Pansu Suttas, SN
  56.102-113)

So this clearly implies that the majority of humans came from hellish worlds, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts if it rarely ever happens that a human or deva after death is reborn as a human....but other suttas state that it's also rare for those in lower realms to take birth as a human well so I'm not sure but the past existence prior to this human existence would be one of the five (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts, human, deva).
I guess it could change from time to time when things become better on Earth perhaps more beings from deva realms will take birth as humans.
This is very different from the more popular media portrayal of Buddhist rebirth which the media seems to think means "rebirth only as a human over and over again" which had been debunked many times in the Pali suttas...the majority of people in general including people perceived as good still go to hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts after death...birth as a human is extremely rare and almost never happens.
One of the Noble truths is acknowledging that there is suffering or pain rather than denying it whereas other religions try to deny that suffering exists saying things like "it always works out in the end, it's always a happy story, happy ending, nothing can wrong, there's no such thing as suffering or pain, everyone goes to heaven".
It's also mentioned that the ascetics who practice painful austerities actually came from hellish worlds or a lower destination and were violent or murderers in the past:

"That being the case, those in the world who are murderers,
  bloody-handed doers of what is cruel, when they are later reborn among
  human beings, go forth with the Niganthas.'" (MN 14)

How many people do you encounter who are virtuous, kind-hearted, and even when mistreated still treat others well? Very very few do I encounter.

“Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb
  with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards
  them would not be carrying out my teaching.” (MN 21)

When someone hates others or generates painful feelings even if it's perceived as rational it still generates bad kamma leading downward towards hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts.
It seems more than likely that the majority of people will go to hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts after death unless perhaps the entire world's kamma has changed for the better which it seems it still hasn't yet since the life expectancy if you control for the infant mortality rate is still like the same since Gautama Buddha's time...but maybe in the future things will change.

This above reference to SN 56.102-113 appears wrong & illogical. SN 56.102-113 says because of not realising the Four Noble Truths, which includes having wrong view about the Dhamma, the majority who at one time were "human" (which means "morally righteous but not enlightened") will experience the dukkha (the unpleasant experiences called "hell" - refer to SN 35.135). Pansu Suttas, SN 56.102-113 does not appear to say those hell beings will be reincarnated later as "humans". In fact, SN 56.47 says it is very difficult for a person who falls into the lower realms to regain the human state,

Pansu Suttas does say that the majority of humans after death go to hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts. It's true that it's rare for beings in both the lower and higher realms to gain a human birth but it's also mentioned that even some arahants like Moggallana came from a hellish world prior to his human existence...since the world we exist in isn't all happy and life expectancy is around the same as Gautama Buddha's time it seems implied that the majority of human beings came from hellish worlds, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts but I guess not directly stated

each Pansu sutta says the majority of beings, regardless of which realm they psychologically mostly dwell in, goes to hell, however, each Panchu Sutta says a minority in each realm, DUE TO REALISING THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS, comes back as human. Obviously the "animals", for example, becoming human, are similar to Angulimala rather than dogs & cats realising the noble truths

Yes but it still says that the majority of humans after death go to hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts that was my point it's not clearly stated where the majority of humans come from prior to this existence but it's been stated many times that long-lived means "a hundred years or a little longer" which is the same as modern times so the world's kamma hasn't improved yet some scientists think that in the future humans will live 1,000+ years but that hasn't happened yet...either way I don't want to debate anymore until I achieve arahantship and six higher knowledges or come close

Its not about reincarnation, for god's sake. It says animals can realise the four noble truths. The word "paccājāyanti" does not necessarily mean reincarnation.


text:
What is reincarnated?
What is reincarnated? Does reincarnation occur in the realm of conventional reality?
Well I had to put in some superfluous words because the website wouldn't accept just a simple question.

Hi. I'm pretty sure this question has been asked and answered -- please review some of the topics tagged 'rebirth' as well as topics tagged 'reincarnation'. There are so many in the past that it's hard to choose which one this question is a duplicate of!!

It appears original Buddhism did not teach about "reincarnation". It appears "reincarnation" was introduced into Buddhism at a later time.
The Pali suttas show original Buddhism taught about "upapajjati" ("re-arising"), which means a certain result arising following from certain actions. "Upapajjati" is concerned with the results of kamma or morality.
The original Pali suttas most often say what is "re-arises" is the former sense of "being" or "self".
For example, you have the idea: "I will rob this bank because I want to have money". Then when you are imprisoned for robbing the bank, you have the painful regret: "Why was I so stupid to get get caught?". What "re-arises" is the same sense of "being", "self" or "I"; that is caught up or strongly attached to the idea of robbing a bank for money.
The scriptures say:

'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.'

Therefore what "re-arises" is "a being". The scriptures also say "a being" is a mental state of strong attachment, as follows:

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to
  be 'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
  caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
  fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
  when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
  being.'
SN 23.2

While "a being" is a mental state of delusion; it is this delusion that "re-arises" or "upapajjati".

There are further details about upapajjati in e.g. this topic, if you'd like to reference that.


text:
Waves of Sadness
I've cut out many addictive behaviours recently, and in line with what I read about addictive things, I've experienced the return of feelings of great sadness and discouragement. Seemingly without pattern, I feel utter sadness, despair, etc. But, as quickly as they are felt, they seem to go away very fast and leave a happy state.
Is there any way to deal more effectively with such states of sadness and despair? I noticed I tend to project these emotions as blame, finding fault in everything.
What does Buddhism recommend for such states?

Does "they seem to go away very fast" mean that you already "deal effectively" with such states?

AN 10.61 says the food/nutriment (ahara) of the five hindrances (which include sadness & despair) are the three unwholesome types of action.
It follows sadness & despair are actually results of addictive behaviours.
If addictive behaviours are stopped, completely, the sadness & despair will eventually disappear, also, because they are not fed/nourished.
You have already experienced the reality that as quickly as they are felt, they seem to go away very fast, and leave a happy state. This is natural mental purification that occurs from avoidance of addictive behaviours. In other words, nature/dhamma is forgiving.
Buddhism recommends patient endurance, mindfulness & ready-wisdom for such states; to avoid a relapse into addictive behaviours.
Mindfulness means 'remembering'. Mindfulness remembers the ready-wisdom (sampajjana) that addictive behaviours lead to sadness & despair. The Buddha said:

They bring little enjoyment and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater.
MN 22

Always remembering the Buddha's advice is recommended. This is the meaning of mindfulness.

Very helpful, Thanks.

You know, it's probably the reaction to the sadness that we want to deal with by just witnessing it. If we just witness it in one moment then at that moment we cannot react because our mind is filled with sati.
"Oh, there is sadness there, hello sadness would you like something to drink while your here?". You know, I would try to cultivate a metta/karuna attitude about the sadness and anything else that I felt separate from. I have found it surprisingly effective to chant in my head, "It's ok, it's ok" in a compassionate way that aims to have kindness arise with whatever sadness, tension or other dukkha that happens to be laying around my experiencial wilderness.
I might actually see the reaction to the sadness and before I can say hello to the reaction, I have another reaction: I saw the reaction to the sadness! I'm such a great meditator! Then I think,  darn it, there went my ego!  and that is yet another reaction.
These reactions can move so fast one by one like dominoes.

"Neutral feelings with ignorance is painful and the numeral feeling with wisdom is pleasant"
Withdrawal symptoms are the result of not understanding the normal (neutral). So the first action is to understand the cause behind the sadness.
Replace your old habits with some wholesome habits which make you happy.

If you are practicing the technique of Vipassana, then that is a very effective way of dealing with this. It will deal at the root of the problem of your "waves of sadness", without creating any additional "wave" that might errupt at some later time.

As a Buddhist, I can tell you that what you feel is probably the collective suffering in the "state of Man".  That is, there is suffering in the world, so you feel it.
As we are originate from one source, so some degree, we are all responsible for the suffering in the world.
Most, if not all, Buddhist traditions have some concept of karma, and you should see the world as a divine world -- showing who and where your karma can be cleansed every day.  You have to watch for it, and many people look away or avoid it, and they will never reach enlightenment in their lifetime.


text:
How to differentiate between natural vs artificial breathing pattern during meditation?
When we do a simple observation of breath (in & out) during meditation, how to know if its natural flow I am observing or forced one?
Regards

A forced breath requires a conscious effort to control it. A natural one simply requires some gentle watching or observing of the process.

If your aim is vipassana then what forced the breath? If the breath is forced or not forced that is what is and can just be witnessed mindfuly as it happens. If the breath was seemingly controlled by you, were you in control if you couldn't even tell when you were forcing it or not?
If you just keep watching mindfully then you will see everything is rising and falling constantly while being forced  by nobody.
This tripped me up in the beginning. I was told to let it go because if I was controlling it or not, ultimately I wasn't in control anyway.

In whatever way objects come, do not try to change them. Whatever comes is the buddha-dharma, not objects at all.  Even if you try to control what comes, it cannot be controlled. -Dogen

If the instruction says "breathe naturally" I think that means "just breathe" and "don't try to hyperventilate".
When I cycle (exercise) my breathing increases to meet the increased demand (and my heart does too) -- don't have to "force" that -- couldn't even stop if I wanted to!
So it's rare that I intentionally "force" a breath -- I think that "force" means "breathe before I need to", or "more than I need to"? -- I do that rarely, only to make a temporary surplus of oxygen, a few seconds before a sprint.
If you're worried, try not breathing?! Then instead of "you" forcing "the body" to breath, the body will force you to breathe! So I let the breath out, relax, pause, and the body takes another breath. And I let it breathe again before it becomes uncomfortable. And so the breathing (at rest, not during exercise) tends to be a little slower (waiting for the body), and deeper/bigger breaths.
That's my experience, perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
One other thing I've found useful to know of: if I do force the breath then I force it out (exhale), not in. If you only try to breathe in, without breathing out, then the lungs accumulate stale air. Better to breathe out, let go, then the body will breathe in again.

ChrisW's advice to not breath is a really good one.  I always use that method in my meditation when I find that I'm 'attacking' the breath or being otherwise willful with it.  Another method I'd add is 'waiting for the breath'.  Just sit and wait for breathing to happen - like you're sitting on a bench waiting for a bus to come.  Both will help you experience natural breathing.


text:
Why are Buddhist concepts so difficult?
Why are Buddhist concepts so challenging for people to understand? What do people who  understand know that  average people don't know? What are some of the barriers to the understanding of Dharma? What facilitates understanding of Dharma?

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

part of the reason is that there's so many conflicting opinions

The concepts are difficult because of the nature of Reality. It's not something that can be blamed on anyone.

when reading, anything not just buddhism, best ask yourself what you are trying to achieve from doing so, whatever it is, even if that's slow reading and verbal comprehension

They both "are" and "are not" difficult to understand?
For example I just told my mum what the four or five precept are, starting with "no killing" -- because when we met in the morning we agreed that it had been a full moon overnight, and I mentioned it's a Buddhist holiday world-wide on full moon days, and she asked how Buddhist celebrate -- so I explained the five and the eight precepts, that monks have 227 rules, that lay people practice 5 all the time, and practice 8 on holy days, to be like monks -- some lay people practice the 8 all the time, many practice just on holy days (like, Christians go to church on Sundays, while Christian priests go to church every day).
She said she wouldn't be able to remember 227 rules -- I told her that people are trained, before and after ordination! -- and that for lay people, there are only 5.
The 5 are easy to remember! "No killing", "no lying", "no sexual misconduct", etc. I think those are easy to understand, someone will do that anyway even without being Buddhist.
And after that: generosity, kindness, reserve, maybe prudence, good social behaviour. Not rocket science, amirite?
And then the noble truths and so on.
I find two or three big difficulties. Two are linguistic:

Some people or texts use words like "mindfulness" without explaining them, like I'm supposed to know already what they're talking about, but perhaps the word means something different to each person. Normally when you learn a word like "cat" or "dog" it might be with reference to an example (of a cat or dog) -- demonstrating "mindfulness" isn't so easy, it's a bit intangible/abstract or requiring definition, and/or examples.
My mum at least won't put up with Pali. Couldn't you explain it in English? :-) Not that she's never learned another language, but it isn't easy (to do so) and why should she.

The third of course are the real difficulties, i.e. what you might call Mara or something ...

... which I'd also know as: ignorance, foolishness, lack of discipline, bad habits, rationalisation ('voice of temptation'), and what not -- projection, identification -- denial -- and what might be understood as logical mistakes such false dilemmas, faulty generalisation. Also lack of energy, lack of joy, and so on ...
... these (like "the seven factors of enlightenment" and so on) are, kind of, the diagnoses or prescriptions of the Buddhist teaching. I guess they're "difficult" in the same way as it's "difficult" to be doctor! Different beings, seemingly with different problems ... and the general advice doesn't always work for them, and "concepts" can be difficult to convey (perhaps especially at moments when people think they have real problems).
We're not all trying to be full-time doctors though, maybe, so, perhaps it's not that difficult?
Or maybe it doesn't seem as difficult as it used to, when you're relatively well, "not so bad".
I'm a bit mindful of this advice I got from MatthewMartin, the last time I asked about this topic -- How to explain what Buddhism is? -- one bit of it was,

If someone really has no problems, that's great, they are Enlightened! The historical Buddha (According to Stephen Batchelor's retelling) said as much on his death bed, when he asked if anyone had any questions left, no one did, so he said, well you all must be enlightened then. People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita).

You may or may not agree, I think it helps me to reconcile the difficult Buddhist concepts with the daily life of people who aren't overtly Buddhist.

Yeah, the teaching can seem so contradictory. I agree, especially with the value of  reconciliation.

Who defines what "sexual misconduct" is? A bunch of virgins in a mountain?

@Davor I think it's defined in the Dhamma (the doctrine) as for example, something like, somebody seducing your wife, or your children -- harming families.

@Davor, a pretty good rule of thumb is "If you're asking yourself whether or not it's sexual misconduct, it probably is."  ;)

Agreed with Dhammadhatu.
Buddhism is incomprehensible when it is based on hearsay, cargo cult, and book knowledge.
Buddhism is simple and clear when you learn from the first-hand experience of the basic principles.
If your teacher shows you how to practice "no ego" and "suchness", and if you really "get" the practice, then all theories - both from the Pali Canon as well as from Mahayana - make perfect sense.

+1 this is the first answer to mention a teacher -- which is relevant to the question. Also the OP's profile says, "Looking for a teacher".

If you understand it as gradual training it is much easier to follow Buddha's teaching. The only way you can eat an elephant is only one bite at a time. some people think that they have to eat the elephant in one bite.
The journey is more important than the destination.

The journey is more important than the destination. - you sound almost like a taoist here chuckle

If the destination is so important the Arahant will commit suicide immediately after his attainment.

I never said it is; I wholeheartedly believe it's the Road that counts. I only pointed that noticing the importance of the Road is a belief inherent to taoism (which, actually, predates Buddhism, and was a foundation for Gautama's views).

Mainstream Buddhism is often complex because many of the teachings are not about real things due to misinterpretions and embellishments. If a student starts with the right foundation, Buddhism won't be too difficult. The Buddha said:

Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open, evident and free of patchwork.
MN 22

Are they that difficult?
There are a variety of concepts in Buddhism, some easier to grasp "Don't kill" or "Don't steal" (which are hopefully easier to grasp), and some harder, as more profound (e.g. emptiness). One cannot say that all Buddhist concepts are hard as they are all different.
The moral prescriptions of Buddhism have parallels in other religions, and other religions have most likely equally difficult concepts; worldly religions have similar amounts of adherents. Thus, if such a great quantity of individuals follow moral paths, their concepts cannot be that hard.
As to profound concepts as emptiness: attachment and self-grasping might be a factor, as developing emptiness counters this. More so, if occidental civilization has a theist bias, emptiness -- which questions such independent, intrinsically existent entities -- goes against this bias. But, as emptiness even in Nagarjuna's day was misunderstood, leading to conclusions that 'nothing exists', one might wonder if there isn't something proper to emptiness hard to understand.
I will try to give an answer to the difficulty of emptiness and no-self as I believe it is one of the most difficult Buddhist concepts. Why do people mistake its meaning? What about emptiness is difficult to understand?
As the Dalai Lama and others suggest, one grasps emptiness by reflecting on all its meanings acquired via teachings. Thus, different sources may all provide an understanding of emptiness, suggesting the necessity for synthesis. If categories, which are often countered by non-dual approaches of emptiness, pose a barrier to seeing different teachings as reflecting the same thing, then the tendency to see things as very different, as categorical, might hinder understanding emptiness.
More so, in Stages of Meditation by Kamalashila, emptiness is at first considered analytically, but then one focuses on its feeling, focuses single-pointedly on the conclusion. This implies that emptiness is distinct from the words, the literal statements linked to its understanding. It appears rather that emptiness isn't the literal meaning, but rather the interpretative meaning required in all the suttas about emptiness itself, e.g. Heart Sutta, Lotus Sutta. This may be difficult for some because, if independent from the words themselves and the literal meaning, people have nothing concrete to understand emptiness by.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, emptiness is difficult to grasp perhaps because you cannot 'grasp' it in the normal sense. It develops in the mindstream, and even then. As Nagarjuna mentioned that those seizing emptiness as a view were hopeless, it seems that understanding emptiness is certainly not acquiring a fixated variant of it. Rather, emptiness itself is 'empty', lacks intrinsic essence.
Hence, overall, I believe the main cause of difficulty of understanding Buddhist concepts may be attachment which one doesn't want to relinquish, but also in a summary of the paragraph of emptiness, belief in a 'fixated' self. In a sense, the irony is that causes obstacles towards Buddhism's concepts appear to be the opposite of the three marks: attachment (not seeing things as suffering), permanence, and self-grasping. This, I believe, would make some sense, given it is what the concepts counter. I feel that difficulty in adopting concepts is proportional to the possession of mental traits these very concepts clash with.
Hope this helps!

Great Points! I found I made progress with some reading when I started taking "emptiness" and other terms non-literally. Still more in trying to avoid false-dichotomies. Sometimes I feel like I'm truly understanding some statement. Other times I very much do not. Upon revisiting something I thought I understood, I find still more.

Buddhist concepts are challenging for most people to understand, beacuse I think, when you say people, you have in  mind people who have been trained/brought up in western categories of thinking  (whose roots go back to Ancient greek). The western categories of thinking, for one, falls in either of the two extremes of reification (eternal substance, god, etc) or annihilation (nothingness, radical skepticism, etc.) For another, the purposes are very different- western thinking is aimed at knowledge, while buddhist thinking is just another (one of the most important and difficult certainly) skillfull means, which goes hand in hand with practice, aimed at the benefit of all beings. Therefore, the culture in which language develops and therefore the concepts, would seem very strange, odd, difficult, etc. to someone who suddenly encounters them, coming from an entirely differently conceptualized culture.
The people who understand, understand the same world as the people who don't understand, but in a conceptual scheme that does not fall in either of the two extremes. Therefore, they do no cling to those things which people who do no understand cling. The more one understands (through cultivation of wisdom and practice) the more unclinging one becomes, and the more one understands what other people who cling more don't. There is nothing mystical about it.
The barriers are only conditions that either make access to the Dhamma impossible or break up the practice of dhamma. All barriers are to be overcome by us as we walk on the path of dhamma. They are only barriers- not impasses.
Philosophically, one could say that the two barriers are thinking in terms of a reified concept or thinking there is nothing.
Meditatively, there are many barriers as such which can all be overcome by cultivating the paramitas.
This is not in any way a systematic list. Certainly you can look at the works of Candrakirti (e.g. Four Illusions: Candrakirti's Advice to Travelers on the Bodhisattva Path) and likewise find many suttas in Abhidhamma Pitaka which make a mention of hindrances that a meditator faces and how to overcome them.
Persistent practice of the technique and generation of boddhi citta, by developing valid cognitions, greatly facilitate understanding of dhamma.

Sounds right to me but are the Abhidhamma scriptures called suttas?

@Lowbrow Suttas are the records of the words of Buddha. Abhidhamma, like all later schools use the suttas as the authority. However, unlike later schools, Abhidhamma does not philosophise over the suttas- that is, it does not seek to interpret them. It takes them at face value.

The Suttas are used more like a framework for the Abhidhamma?

While Buddhist concepts do involve special technical concepts with its domain-specific lingo/vocabulary, I don't think it's as difficult as quantum physics or theoretical math. The part that is difficult is how to implement those theoretical concepts in one's daily life. One can recite all the teachings about greed, hatred, and delusion, but can s/he apply/incorporate those teachings into their daily life? That's the difficult part.

Physics and maths aren't too special -- they are a gradual training, given teachers, half the classroom time listening to the teacher lecturing, half supervised practice-exercise to learn to use the newly-taught techniques, plus homework. Buddhism is useful in a different way, and more often. Math tests at school are simple questions, usually designed to require/demonstrate a specific technique which you've just been taught, and designed to have a right answer. People don't explicitly use a lot of math in daily life except professionals and students.

The discourse at the Vipassana course (Goenka) I go to annually says you need equal parts knowledge and practice.  Reading, learning, should be paired with an equal amount of meditation.  This has helped me to learn and understand a lot of concepts at an experiential level.

Welcome to BuddhismSE

@Lowbrow Thanks!  :-)

Buddhist concept is difficult..
You are saying right
 buddha  want to don't flow  his way beacuse his way croupt  like river.
River is very pure  but his way in the city  so river are impure and dirty.. human make river so dirty  so dirty.We can't  drink water.
Cloths,urine,toilet, in river
Buddhist path is impure like river

They are easy to understand and practice but if you want to "be a buddhist" then it comes with a lot of baggage which is complicated.  Four precepts, living in the moment and a bit of meditation.  That is all there is to it.  Who said what in which translation is just a distraction that misses the whole point of buddhism.

If all phenomena are mind made then they are reasonably spawned in that their coming into play would be based on philosophical principles of mind.
Understanding the Dhamma requires a person to understand what can be understood about thinking and language by using thinking and language.
People try to look for phenomena like consciousness, trying to observe it but i would claim that the thing they are trying to observe is closer to a philosophical principle rather than an observable entity.
I think that obviously Intellectual capability plays a role and I think easily grasping the Dhamma requires a favorable pre-disposition and a lot of development along the lines of inquiry, critical thinking, general semantics and experimental physics if anything.
Dhamma isn't easy to understand and Buddha reprimanded Ananda when he expressed that Dhamma was easily grasped by him and "as clear as clear can be";

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "It's amazing, lord, it's astounding, how deep this dependent co-arising is, and how deep its appearance, and yet to me it seems as clear as clear can be."
[The Buddha:] "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It's because of not understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.

Also here Buddha explains why Dhamma is hard to understand;

"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. [3] But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'

At least to some extent i think people have a lot of preconceived notions about the world that they bring with when they come to study the Dhamma. If these notions are false in their nature they will hinder penetration of meaning until they are known as such.
On the comprehensible nature of the world;

“The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility…The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.”

Buddhist concepts are at a very high level of intelligence. On the Einstein level of intelligence. People who understand the teachings of Buddha can understand (actually, see) why and how are people suffering and how to help them.
Barriers to understanding Dharma are impurities in your heart. By cleansing your heart with Metta you gain intelligence for understanding the Dharma, and Dharma becomes attractive to you.
Metta facillitates the underatans od Dharma. Wihtout regular Metta, you will noly have mental speculations.


text:
How does the བར་དོ་ཐོས་གྲོལ (Bardo Thodol) "Tibetan Book of the Dead" fit in with the Kangyur and Tengyur
I am looking for a public domain copy of the Tibetan book of the dead (in original Tibetan script, not a translation) online in text format (i.e. not a PDF). This lead me to the main question...
My question is, I have seen the large volumes of the Kangyur and Tengyur, but then independently there is this book Bardo Thodol, The Tibetan Book of the Dead. They say it is from Nyingma literature. Being a novice, I am trying to understand the relation between Nyingma and Kangyur/Tengyur. And thus how the Tibetan Book of the Dead fits in. Wondering if one could outline the relations between them.

The Bardo Thodol is an extract from the Guhyagarbha tantra, which is the most important tantra in the Mahayoga class, and the most studied tantra within the Nyingma school. The Guhyagarbha is certainly in the Kangyur.


text:
How are the three marks of existence experienced through Samadhi meditation?
Could dry vipassana & pure one-pointed samadhi type meditations just be different approaches to the same enlightenment?
If one attains the fourth jhana with one pointed concentration does one experience anatta? What about anicca & dukkha? How is sunyata related to anatta?
Is it really necessary to focus on non-consepts at some point in order for one pointed
(ekaggata) concentration to lead to enlightenment?
Are there scriptures that can help us understand this?

The question is loaded with erroneous doctrines that epitomise this other question.

There is no such thing as "dry vipassana". Since the suttas (SN 22.59) say vipassana results in dispassion & nirodha, obviously any vipassana-dispassion-nirodha will contribute to calmness & samadhi.
Vipassana means 'clear seeing'. Since 'vipassana' is 'seeing', it is 'non-conceptual'. When the Burmese teach the practise of "mental noting", such mental noting is not vipassana. Instead, it is a crude form of 'sampajjana'.
Samadhi means the mind is not distracted; which is the meaning of 'one-pointedness'. 'One-pointedness' does not mean have narrow awareness upon a tiny object or point.
Vipassana is a result or fruit of samadhi (AN 4.41; AN 11.2; MN 149). Samadhi & vipassana are not "two different approaches".
When the mind is not distracted, it naturally automatically knows the breathing.
When the mind naturally knows the breathing, it also naturally automatically experiences the breathing is impermanent and also experiences the body breathes rather than the self breathes. Seeing this not-self of the breathing is what the suttas mean by "alien". This is the beginning of vipassana.
"Dukkha" in relation to impermanence has a different meaning to "dukkha" as a noble truth. In relationship to impermanence, "dukkha" means "unsatisfactoriness", i.e., the incapacity of an impermanent thing to bring lasting reliable happiness.
Suttas about how vipassana is a result of samadhi include AN 4.41, AN 11.2 and MN 149.
In summary, the Buddha taught one path (Noble Eightfold Path) which culminates in samadhi and has two fruits (samatha & vipassana) that occur in tandem.

Having thus developed the noble eightfold path... for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight.
MN 149

but when the mind is not distracted it really enjoys a movie too

A search for anicca dukkha anatta jhana yields 9 suttas, including AN9.36 which starts with the first absorption and continues deeper. Notice that the meditator is not just experiencing passively, but is encouraged to be actively involved.

Mendicants, I say that the first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.
  ...
  They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self.

The instructions given in the suttas are terse and can be misinterpreted. Please consult with a teacher for personal guidance.

Members are welcome to consult with Dhammadhatu, however for Dhamma rather than personal guidance.

Parrot Thinking
if you can think
In india
I am hindu.
I am muslim.
I am Christian .
I am  buddhist .
 That create  division from human beings. If you see
Christian hate hindu.
Hindu hate Christian
That "I" create division I am that.
Every one is same you know that but our believe i am buddhist.  I am hindu .I am Christian. Create division
Parrot never understand truth
Parrot replay words.
I am buddhist.
I am that .this is division form me and you beacuse your are Buddhist and I am Christian ..
So parrot caught in  me
Me divide

but who is teaching parrot?


text:
Buddhist forums & communities
What are the Buddhist communities & forums on the internet and in the real world? What are their history? How does BuddhismSE fit in with the others?

My impression is BSE is 5.4 years old and is unrelated to other Buddhist forums.
The first major Buddhist forum I was aware of was called E-Sangha, which was extremely sectarian, and banned lots of folks, including DD. Legend says it was cyber-attacked. Read here.
From the ashes of E-Sangha appeared to arise a number of Buddhist chatsites created by David N. Snyder Ph.D, such as:

dhammawheel.com (Theravada)
zenforuminternational.org (Zen; now defunk)
dharmawheel.net (Mahayana)

Most of the founding members of dhammawheel.com were active on E-Sangha, such as the current admin Retrofuturist and Venerable Dhammanando (and some now ex-DW moderators).
There is also a current chatsite at newbuddhist.com with moderators who were E-Sangha members (however, possibly not the site owner).
Another independent forum is buddhismwithoutboundaries.com, which I and another ex-E-Sangha-bannee posted a lot on.
There is the low traffic Goenka orientated vipassanaforum.net and more low traffic off & on forum called freesangha.com and low traffic secularbuddhism.org/community/
There is dharmaoverground.org, where members focus heavily on personal claims of attainments.
There is discourse.suttacentral.net, which appears to have a narrow doctrinal focus
There is bswa.org/forum/, connected to Ajahn Brahm's monastery.
That's probably it.
Oh... and there is Reddit, which looks like a sectarian free-for-all to me; where folks can set up their own site and cult.
I post/have posted on most of them, under various pseudonyms, unless I am banned or forget them.

Because I'm in the habit of reinterpreting scripture, and questioning traditional authorities, I often find that fundamentalists are upset by what I write. For instance some time ago a chap going by the name of 'Namdrol' on the E-Sangha bulletin board, in a discussion of the Theravāda three lifetimes model of the nidāna chain - for which there is no Pāli Canonical authority - declared: "to reject the three lifetimes model is harming the dharma". I mentioned back then that I thought this a fundamentalist view, but was told that the word "fundamentalist" was banned in that forum (along with any reference to the New Kadampa Tradition which was a bit of a give away). E-Sangha died not long afterwards, but not before I realised that online forums, and arguing with strangers on the internet generally, were a waste of my time and started focussing on writing this blog.
Jayarava - BSE member

Sympathies to Jayarava -- he hasn't posted here since 2015 actually.

Last seen Aug 25 at 21:29  https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/5715/jayarava

Yes but last posted -- sic transit -- some people aren't up for much "arguing with strangers", Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote something similar when he retired.

Personally, i find arguing with strangers to be extremely beneficial. I have found my knowledge of dhamma theory growing strongly, particularly with the help of SC sutta facilities.

Yes, good. And argument might be traditional in some schools, like part of the curriculum: important. People volunteer for that though, imo, know what they're getting into as students in that school. People here on BSE asked, "don't assume a teacher's mantle". Quakers are aka "Friends", did you know? Well I met a Young Friend when I was a teen -- he mentioned, "I'll discuss anything with anyone, but as soon as it turns into an argument I walk away."

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

What DD wrote is fairly accurate. I would add that on SC has imo a fairly prominent ideological bent on feminism and climate change, such that they even made ToS policy reflecting it.
Dhammawheel.com is run by Retrofuturist (Paul Davy) and David Snyder. According to Dr. Snyder's wikipage he isn't a Fully Enlightened individual but had a miraculous birth like the Buddha and thinks original Buddhism is a mix between Theravadin, Zen and Mahayana doctrines, whereas Paul Davy keeps teaching people about existence of "Non-Dhamma which the Buddha didn't teach" albeit  does not answer questions if you ask him about it.
It is a small community of like 20 active posters and it is rather hopeless imho.
These communities also have little to no experts because people who can teach generally don't post there because they don't want to be abused, patronized and harassed everytime someone can neither disprove nor understand what they are saying and are in disagreement.
People who know their stuff don't want to deal with it and the Admins are uneducated and are unable to say; 'This guy is irrational,is wrong, jumping from one thing to another, is inconsistent and is unfit to participate in a discussion. Let's ban him so he doesn't confuse junior members nor annoys the knowledgeable members.'
Many people on these forums have been there for years and years and are probably not going to have much to show for it in the end.
Also since the early days of online Buddhist communities there have been conspiracy theories about the real motivations and people behind them.
Btw i am not saying that these people on dw & sc are wrong and worthless, it's just kind of weird and confusing dynamic.

Well I act like an admin here -- and on this site, I am not meant to delete an answer which I think is not well explained, that is not my role -- my role is to keep users from being "abused, patronized and harassed" though, so if you see that happening please "flag" that for attention (in case I or another moderator didn't notice). See also this help topic which describes "when should I and when shouldn't I comment?"

I was speaking loosely about my impression of the dw. I like SE because it's very chill and one can just type up mostly whatever without getting into a discussion which could annoy and anger. It is like all are free to give their take on a matter here based on their interpretation, that is fine and clean imo. The forum format is a lot more tricky and is more of a multi round debate format whereas here it is just 1 opener each + comments.


text:
Not seeing the wood, for the trees
How can I clearly see the lessons my soul needs to learn this lifetime?  I am a householder who has a wonderful life in New Zealand. There have been difficult times too, but even though, as a child I suffered, I was able to self soothe with meditation which I have no idea how I discovered. I have carried this practise with me through my life. Happy as I am, I have this feeling that I am not seeing clearly , the things my soul needs to work on this reincarnation. How can I make sure I don’t waste this rebirth?

Hello Sue. This is a comment, not an answer, but it seems that you are already on your way to seeing things clearly, most likely as a result of your meditation practice. You are certainly paying attention to the feeling that there are things that you need to do in this life, that you are not presently doing. That’s awakening. Most people unfortunately sleep through their life. How early did you start meditating? Is there anything unusual about your practice vis-a-vis common “mindfulness” meditation? Do you have a teacher who you can approach with your questions?

Work on testing the credibility of these assumptions: soul, I, me ,mine, "I am happy" etc.  Practice Satipatthana meditation to get the answers you are looking for,

Thank you for this, although one does wonder how one may have written this in a way that may have elicited a different response. Although always helpful to be reminded of the nothingness that is this human, the everythingness that is this human, I am still searching for something that this rebirth aches to remember. Although this does not feel like it,  I shall read about satipatthana meditation.

Welcome! But be careful of this idea 'everythingness'. Don't let it stray towards an idea of a universal soul.

Thank you. That’s an interesting idea, but I’ve got enough responsibility with this one

What i'm saying is it's an unskillful notion. Also the notion of "this one".

How would it have been better to have expressed this acknowledgement of personal responsibility?

Imagine there many cups of milk. Some dirt falls into one cup of milk. To identify the cup with the spoiled milk, do we need to associate a soul with either the milk or cup? No! In the same way, if a mental process gets soiled with defilements, we need not take it as a soul to know that it has gone bad and will result in suffering.

I dream of a world where the purpose of life is to help others. Reduce suffering and conflicts, nurture harmony and peace. In my dream, success is defined in terms of how much you helped others, especially by doing what you love. This way you are happy because you're doing what you love doing - and you are also helping others. In my dream, this is a life well-lived, not a wasted life.

@Sue_Hamilton: you asked, “How can I clearly see the lessons my soul needs to learn this lifetime?” The way this can be accomplished is through a continuing and serious meditative practice. In short, by training you mind, achieving tranquillity, and then, while in such a tranquil state, opening your heart to the possibility of the answer you seek manifesting as a spiritual insight—the answer which you now sense only as a liminal presence, but which leads to a certain uneasiness in your thoughts.
The following, which is on this subject specifically, is take from my article: “What is a Spiritual Insight and How Does it Occur?” on Medium.com: https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/what-is-a-spiritual-insight-and-how-does-it-occur-7e206e02b811?source=friends_link&sk=360f6f222ae0dcca51aedf6c16684b6e

A spiritual insight is never the result of thinking about something. An insight is “food for thought.” That is, it conditions your thoughts, changing their direction perhaps, or clarifying their subject, or—in the best of cases—completely changing your thoughts. Even a good dictionary can tell you that insights never come from thinking.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “insight” as: “immediate and clear understanding (as seeing the solution to a problem or the means to reaching a goal) that takes place without recourse to overt trial-and-error behavior.” Thinking, of course, in the sense that it is a kind of behavior, is very trial-and-error in its approach.
...
Another word that is often used for an insight is “intuition”. Though technically, an insight is what intuition provides you. The insight being what comes, and intuition being how it arrives; but we often use “intuition” when we mean “insight.” Intuition is defined by the same dictionary as “the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and  inference.” So, as I said, an insight is never the result of thinking about something.
...
Insights arise intuitively, that is, spontaneously and without a cause. Yet, the possibility for gaining insights can be conditioned via making a heartfelt aspiration to achieve insights and following a meditative practice with dedication. These acts do not cause an insight to arise, nor do their absence cause insights not to arise—they just create the conditions for insights to arise.
...
Why is this? Because insights derived from discursive thinking are about conceptual knowledge based upon the error of believing that different phenomena are independently real as a result of having an inherent self-nature. As such they can only be insights about erroneous conceptual knowledge and not about the nature of reality. Even discursive thinking about insights gained during meditation can lead to completely false and misleading conclusions. Remember, an insight is a recognition of some truth—not a string of words and references to conceptual ideas.

The direction may be more clear, but the way forward is difficult because it requires dedicated effort to achieve. I hope this is of some help to you.

This has been helpful. I’ll let go of the need to intellectualize.  ‘Om mani Padme hum’ chanted is incredibly powerful. It changes the energy


text:
Alone with a woman
Are monks allowed to be in the same room as a nun alone (not a laywoman)?
Are monks allowed to be in the same room as a nun (considering the rule applies) while others a present?
Is there a specific rule in the Vinaya for this, if so please cite.
What should one do if one sees a monk alone with a female nun and it is not allowed (if that's a rule)?

Women should be aware that it is an offence against his discipline if a monk touches a woman. If offering something to a monk either place it in his bowl or on his special receiving cloth — never directly into his hands. Male visitors should be aware that women with shaved heads may prefer not to hand anything to or receive anything directly from you. Put it down first and let the other person pick it up.
Women must be careful entering rooms (such as the library) where a monk might be present; it is an offence for a monk to be alone with a woman in "a secluded place" -- more details here.
Nuns also come under women. So the same rule applies.
What should one do if one sees a monk alone with a female nun and it is not allowed
If it is indeed a closed room and if you think they will be receptive to your suggestions, ask the monk in a non-offensive way. ex:  "Bhante, I've heard about this Vinaya rule regarding closed rooms. Would you like me to keep the door open?".
Regardless of whether they agree or not, most important thing for you is to not to get upset. If you get upset, you fail no matter what other people do.

With respect, surely there must be a more 'enlightened' understanding than what is referred to here?
Is the responsibility, onus not belong to the individual rather than that responsibility passed to the 'attachment' in the Buddhist sense?

The question was the OP's trying to understand or interpret the vinaya (i.e. the monastic code of discipline). There is a literal answer to that, how enlightened you are in your understanding of it is a different topic -- but on-topic if you want to answer it (I imagine that kind of answer could lead to disputes though if not carefully worded, people may tell you that the vinaya exists for some good reasons).


text:
Sacrificing myself...or not?
If someone was holding many hostages and I came along and offered to trade myself for the hostages place so they can be let free, would this be right to do or wrong to do and would be detrimental to my practice if I am killed?

Also see Sutta/Sutra guideline for choosing actions in ethical dilemmas , Trolley problem and its variants in Buddhist ethics , How do you decide when to stick up for yourself and when to let things go?

Seasonable Gifts, and a gift should neither harm others nor oneself. Would you feel harmed?

Good if knowing that Jesus follower have other ideals than the Buddhas liberating. To and up on a cross and use it for ones gain, isn't really heroic...

Sortly there was the moom-deity Uposatha where people follow the tradition of own-sacrifices toward virtuous: Sasapaṇḍitajātakaṃ

There are no general rules for action and everything depends on the circumstances, so no definite answer can be given. Apparently even being crucified doesn't cut it for some theoretical moralists. .

While it's certainly a noble deed, just remember the Dhamma emphasizes both compassion and wisdom. They are like the 2 wings of a bird and are both equally important. A good Buddhist should also be a good and skillful problem solver. So before resorting to sacrficing oneself, one should be smart and use his intelligence to come up with novel creative solutions that maximize the benefits to both others and oneself first. Self-sacrifice is most noble because not everyone can do it, but it should be a last resort if one decides to do it AFTER all other options have been exhausted.

"Self-sacrifice is most noble" who says so?

It is a highly meritorious deed that could potentially give you heavenly births. But that doesn't mean you have to do it. Using all your money to free the cattle from slaughter houses and starving in the process is also a great deed. But that doesn't mean you have to do it. Offering your life to cultivate goodness is only a requirement of Bodhisattas who aim for Buddhahood. It is called Paramatta Parami. Unless you are aiming for Buddhahood, you don't have to do such things.

"It is a highly meritorious deed" who said so?

It would be detrimental to one's practice if one sacrificed there life out of some  belief that it was  noble rather than  sacrificing thier life because that's the appropriate thing to do for all involved including oneself. One would be less likely to be reborn in the right conditions for practice.
The ideal, the Buddha may or may not find it appropriate to sacrifice themselves(I don't know) but a Buddha wouldn't trade their free mind for it to be taken hostage again. I mean the Buddha wouldn't or couldn't sacrifice Buddhahood, the Buddha would do whatever was appropriate.

"Buddha may find it appropriate to sacrifice themselves", who said so?

A Buddha may or may not find it appropriate. I don't know.

so "but a Buddha wouldn't trade their free mind for it to be taken hostage again."?

I meant a Buddha wouldn't or couldn't sacrifice Buddhahood. I probably could have been a little clearer on that one.

Good that trusting that one wouldn't exchange real liberation for anything, and that real liberation can't be given but needs to be worked out by oneself. mudita

I don't what situation you're considering, but spare a thought for your long-suffering parents?
One of the problems with suicide is the grief it causes to those who are left alive.
I think an axiom of ethics is, that an ethical action is an action which doesn't cause regret or remorse (and, is "praised by the wise").
Depending on the situation, you might at least consider whether an action is, an action which your parents would approve of.
Even if you wanted to become a Buddhist monk, for example, I think the Vinaya requires you to get your parents' permission first, doesn't it? There are ways of doing that, in time, it's not impossible, it is a consideration though.

Sure that not confusing topic? The was one on permission from parents, yes.

If you offer yourself up as a sacrificial lamb thinking that it is a noble or heroic act, you are merely casting yourself into delusion. If you choose to preserve your life because you think doing otherwise would be detrimental to your practice, you are also casting yourself into delusion. This situation — violent men holding hostages — is completely dominated by competing delusions and attachments. It's unwise to view it as a question with a simple, monolithic answer.
The only real question you should ask yourself, as a buddhist, is whether you can guide the people involved — the criminals, the hostages, the police, the bystanders... — out of the collective delusion they have become trapped in, without becoming trapped in it yourself. This is an intensely karmic context, like walking into a hurricane, and unless you have the grounding in being to drain off that maddening energy you'll just get swept up by it, and do no good for anyone.