text:
Is understanding a practice?
Enlightened people doesn't have any desire, because they see impermanence in everything. All the things are useless to them. To achieve enlightenment , one required to practise deattachment, uncertainty through out the samsara. So , Is understanding a practise ?

If it is: We loose skills when we don't do somethings for long time. But enlightenment can not be undone.
If it isn't: When we do vipassana meditation for a long time, we started to see impermanance in every day life. We loose attachments to lot of things . What is happening there ?

I'm not sure I express and structured the question as I want . So Improves are well come.

OP: So , Is understanding a practise ?

Understanding arises through the practice.

OP: If it is: We loose skills when we don't do somethings for long time. But enlightenment can not be undone.

Yes. As enlightenment is understanding of reality as it is and this does not change in light of new experiances.

OP: If it isn't: When we do vipassana meditation for a long time, we started to see impermanance in every day life. We loose attachments to lot of things . What is happening there ?

Attachment leads to pain. When you understand this through Vipassana you do not get attached.

There is wisdom that is practised to develop & support samadhi (concentration) and wisdom that arises from the practise of samadhi (concentration), as described below:

Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In
  one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right
  speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In
  one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right
  mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In
  one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right
  knowledge, right release comes into being.
Maha-cattarisaka Sutta

The wisdom or wise reflection that is practised to develop & support samadhi is called Right Understanding/Right View and sampajjana. This pre-learned or pre-experienced wisdom is brought to and kept in mind by the practise of mindfulness (sati).
The wisdom or direct seeing that arises from the practise of samadhi is called vipassana (insight), samma nana (Right Knowledge), etc.
Note: vipassana is not a 'technique, method or practise'; as commonly taught. As already said, vipassana is a result of practice, as described below:

Having thus developed (practised) the noble eightfold path...these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana).
Maha-salayatanika Sutta

If you've never seen the color red before and someone finally points it out to you, you'll never again be able to unsee the color red.  You don't have to practice to keep seeing red.  Instead, you begin to see it everywhere. You even begin to see different shades - raspberry, scarlet, vermilion - and how they differ from each other yet still can be classified as the color red.
Seeing impermanence works exactly the same way.  An untrained person, even one who's read every book on Buddhism on the planet, has ultimately no idea what impermanence actually is.  One day, after many hours of meditation, maybe that person directly sees impermanence for the first time.  From that day forward, he can't unsee it.  It begins cropping up everywhere.  He doesn't have to practice seeing impermanence, it just becomes an undeniable feature of his existence.  After many more hours on the cushion, perhaps he even begins to see impermanence with even more subtlety - how it ties into other facets of the path, how it powers his meditation, how it liberates him from his fear of death.  Once these these things are perceived, they don't go away.  Even if they are forcefully ignored, they are like irritants...sand in your underwear.  (That's why once you start, it's best to finish!)

So, Is understanding a practise?
There's some idea of progressive enlightenment -- Four stages of enlightenment.
I think that the first stage of enlightenment includes "right view" and seeing the tilakkhaṇa -- "understanding" the dhamma, in general.
But after that is first seen, there remain various attachments -- bad/residual habits, see for example:

What is effluent?
How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

So "practice" may occur after or because of "seeing impermanence" (not just the other way around, i.e. seeing impermanence because of practice) -- because seeing correctly is a start (the first step of the noble eightfold path) but isn't enough for complete/final liberation.
Enlightened people doesn't have any desire, because they see impermanence in everything.
I think it's that fully-enlightened people don't experience "craving"; because craving is associated with suffering, they practised to put an end to craving and to uproot the conditions from which it arises.


text:
What causes addictions and what is the remedy?
What causes addictions and what is the remedy to break free from addictions according to Buddha?

Good question. Possible answers can be found here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/25651/best-meditation-techniques-mindfulness-vipassana-yoga-zazen-tm-etc-to-beat-beh

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=addict+is%3Aquestion

Addiction is simply a recurring craving for a sensory stimulus may it be drugs, alcohol, etc.
This can be eliminated through Vipassana to reduce craving.
There are many studies and resources on this: vipassana+addiction

In brief:
Addiction (craving, tanha), good householder, has not knowing, Avijja, as cause. Not knowing, not seeing what? Suffering, stress, the backwards of short lasting happiness, and the path out of it in a lasting kind.
How one get's free from addiction? By listening to the good Dhamma while maintaining proper attention. By uprooting not knowing, seeing, ignorance. Pointed out the way to view, one sees the suffering for oneself. Seeing the backwards one is able to let go. Having experienced freedom from addiction by certain release, one has gained addiction toward the freedom from it, is bound for liberation.
And what is the most needed condition for getting free from addiction outwardly? Association with those heading toward freedom from drugs or with those already liberated. As long in association with addicted there is less to no way to leave that burden behind.
May all gain touch with the unexcelled replacement-drug and fall addicted to it.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchance, other binding trades or to serve addictions in the world but for escape from this wheel]

Briefly thinking about the question, it appears similar to if you are enjoying playing a sport so much, that afterwards your muscles become so tired, tight, cramped & painful. The muscles have been exerted & stretched to an excessive degree that there is euphoria followed later by pain.
Mental craving & the associated pleasure appear the same. Certain types of pleasure are causing excess euphoria to the nervous system, which later results in pain. Due to the pain & the memories of the source of pleasure embedded in that painful nervous system, the object of euphoria is craved to obtain relief from the pain & stress. This is addiction.
Addiction is when the object of pleasure also causes pain; thus the object of pleasure is craved to relieve the pain.

What causes addictions and what is the remedy to break free from
addictions according to Buddha?

We develop habitual tendencies. There are wholesome tendencies and there are unwholesome tendencies. Addictions are unwholesome tendencies. Habitual lying , habitually suspicious , habitual cruelty, habitual alcoholic, habitual substance abuse etc ... Greed , Hatred , Delusion are the causes behind these addictions. The remedy is to have unwavering faith in Dhamma and to commit wholeheartedly to Nobel 8 fold path.
In other words commit to the wholesome. Commit to non greed, non hatred and Dhamma. Choose not to lie because neither you are afraid nor you are greedy. Choose not to take drugs because you are not afraid of painful emotions nor you wish to enjoy drug induced pleasurable emotions. Meditate on compassion, joy , pity , impurities and equanimity.

DON’T LET YOUR DESIRES CONTROL YOU

Master Lu’s Public Talk in Melbourne, Australia
11th November 2017
All people in the human world have to be responsible for legal consequences, while Buddhist practitioners have to be responsible for karma. As a Buddhist practitioner, you reap what you sow; regardless of good or bad consequences, nobody else would face it but you. Only when you have truly understood this inwardly, would you be able to do it. Do not let your physical desires control your soul. On the contrary, let your soul and conscience control your rapacious physical desires.
Understand that vexation stems from unreasonable desires. If your desire is unreasonable and you still pursue it even though you know it is not attainable, vexation will emerge.
All worldly phenomena are forms of prisons. When we are fond of a thing, we become entangled by it and become its slave, as if we are imprisoned. Just like smoking and gambling, once you have tried them, you will be easily addicted to them, and then you will not be able to be free of the addiction.

Q&A 50. Helping compulsive gamblers return to the right path
February 19, 2016

Q: Master Lu, I would like to ask a question. My older brother is addicted to gambling. He gambles all day and does not work at all. When he is broke, he comes home and forces our parents to give him money. What should we do to direct him onto the right path? Master Lu, please show us the way out of this situation, and tell us specifically what we should do. Thank you.
A:
For an individual who is addicted to gambling, it is best to start with reciting the Heart Sutra at least 7 times per day and give him some time to think things through. In fact, this is a transformation process. Even if he cannot figure himself out and continues to gamble, the Dharma Protectors would treat him in a gentle manner and hand out less severe punishment.
It is best if he can recite the sutra for himself. If he does not believe in Buddhism, then his family members should recite for him. They can say the following prayer: “May the Greatly Merciful and Greatly Compassionate Guan Yin Bodhisattva protect and bless , grant him wisdom and help him completely give up the unwholesome habit of gambling.”
If he does not listen to you, recite the Qi Fo Mie Zui Zhen Yan21 to 49 times per day and say the following prayer: “May the Greatly Merciful and Greatly Compassionate Guan Yin Bodhisattva forgive .” He is just like a child who has committed a wrongdoing and is now asking for forgiveness.
If he has completely fallen into addiction, recite the Eighty-Eight Buddhas Great Repentance 5 times per day. As he has already committed these wrongdoings, you need to say the following prayer: “May the Greatly Merciful and Greatly Compassionate Guan Yin Bodhisattva protect and bless , and help  to repent and eliminate the karmic obstacles caused by gambling.”
  At the same time, you can recite the Mantra to Untie Karmic Knots and say the following prayer: “May the Greatly Merciful and Greatly Compassionate Guan Yin Bodhisattva protect and bless , help  to untie his karmic knots with gambling.”
If you feel that foreign spirits have occupied him, you need to recite Little Houses and address them to the “Karmic Creditor of ”. Otherwise, there is no need to recite Little Houses.
People with a gambling addiction tend to attract foreign spirits easily. The money in gambling areas often has foreign spirits, regardless of whether it is money won or lost.

Radio Program Extract 077
February 16, 2020

[From the Editor] A caller provided some feedback during “The Art of Applying Comprehensive Metaphysics” radio program on 29th November 2013. The caller’s son was no more addicted to computer games ever since the mother started practising recitation on his behalf. The son also concerned that the addiction to computer games would destroy his future. He is now able to stop himself from stepping into the internet cafe. The caller really appreciated that her son was disciplined with the blessings of the Guan Yin Bodhisattva.
Caller: Master, I’m so touched that the Guan Yin Bodhisattva is so efficacious! I have been performing recitation on behalf of my son for his addiction to computer games. Sometimes he tried to find excuses going to the internet cafe. Somehow he stopped in front of it and realized that the place would destroy his future. It was the blessings of the Guan Yin Bodhisattva who disciplined him and stopped him from stepping into there again.
Master Lu: Exactly. It was the blessings of Guan Yin Bodhisattva that stopped him from playing computer games when he was about to.
Caller: He told me it was dim inside the internet cafe and it was felt like the place would ruin his life. There are so many kids got sucked in and spend most of their time there. What a shame…
Master Lu: This is a place full of karmic obstacles. It is really an improvement for him to stay away from it.
Caller: He’s not doing very well at school and doesn’t like to study.
Master Lu: He doesn’t like to study because of his playing nature. He would settle down as soon as he gains more wisdom.
Caller: Yes. He’s been much better ever since I started practising recitation for him. He spent hours playing computer games when he was in primary school through to the junior high school. But now he rarely plays again.
Master Lu: Isn’t that good enough? You are unable to make him a new person all at once right after practising recitation. It is far over your capability.
Caller: Master, I feel guilty as a mother. I’m not doing well in cultivation myself.
Master Lu: Don’t be guilty. Take it as your motivation so you will not regret as long as you are diligent in performing recitations.

Above from guanyincitta.com  detailed practice instructions can also be found at guanyincittasf.com and Guan Yin Citta local offices worldwide.

Restraint and renunciation is how you break free of addiction. The Buddhadharma is training in both of these. Addiction is a biological state your body/brain can be in. When we do wonderful fun terrible drugs, our brain says "Look at how much serotonin and dopamine I have in here. I'm never going to have to ever make any of this again." Little does that foolish brain know, people get rather depressed without all their usual chemicals. People relapse onto hard drugs when they find their ability to experience good thoughts, good emotions, is hampered by the lack of a functioning biological reward system. The natural cycle of mood regulation has been "replaced" by the drug. Only time repairs these things.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Are probabilistic physics and pratitya samutpada compatible?
Can a physical theory be fundamentally probabilistic (such as the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics) without contradicting pratitya samutpada?
Clarification
Pratitya samutpada is about how all things arise in dependence on conditions. If there is such a thing as a probabilistic event, then I would say there is some part of that event which does not depend on conditions, only on chance, whatever that might mean.

Quantum mechanics and dependent origination are incommensurable, meaning that your question may be more suitable for a forum dealing with epistemology and ontology in a broader sense, rather than being discussed from within a buddhist perspective.

@Erik can you elaborate? a buddhist teacher and friend of mine has views on the relationship between the two, and in particular I got the impression that not all interpretations of QM were so

Buddha never spoke about quantum physics as we know it today. Apart from that i don't have much to add, i'm afraid. I should add that i don't think there is anything wrong with the question, and i don't believe it deserves a downvote.

true, but I'm only using QM as an example. I'm interested more broadly in the question about probabilistic theories

Why do you think they might be incompatible? Would you be satisfied with an answer which says they're "compatible" (i.e. "not mutually contradictory"), because they describe different things -- or do you reckon that they're not just compatible but are related somehow, if so would you like to mention how? When you say "pratitya samutpada", do you mean "dependent origination" in general, or the doctrine of the 12 nidanas in particular?

I'd want to ask what reason there is to suppose they're incompatible.

@ChrisW I'm not entirely clear on it, hence the question, but I've extended my answer

Dependent origination is about how sorrow & grief arise. It is not related to physics.

sure, the buddha's primary, perhaps only concern, was in that, but the teaching has been applied to other areas afaik. There are example in the pali canon. i'll find the sources

ok, maybe it will take a while to find the sources, but an example is the five niyamas (not the positive duties spoken about on wikipedia, but those of physical, biological, primitive consciousness, karmic and dharmic nature)

In a world of dependent origination, how can they not be related? And given both demand direct observation before declaring truth, how could they disagree?

Physical theories would be classified under "name and form" in dependent origination:

MN9:52-54.7: Feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention—this is called name. The four primary elements, and form derived from the four primary elements—this is called form.

The notion of chance and probability is also discussed in DN1, which describes various views that do not yield an end to suffering:

DN1:2.32.2: It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry. They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective:  ‘The self and the cosmos arose by chance.’

DN1 enumerates this and other views and simply states that they are a trap for those interested in the end of suffering:

DN1:3.72.3: In the same way, all of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.

Physical theories enable grasping as well as continued existence. We can reliably place artillery shells or subatomic particles where we wish with high probability and evaluate the results using the six sense fields. Yet the search for the end of suffering leads us to understand and relinquish the craving that drives such grasping.
The Buddha therefore acknowledges physical theories. The Buddha also teaches us that the end of suffering cannot be found in those physical theories.

Rovelli's relational interpretation and Nagarjuna (really the Buddha's anatta doctorine) agree, in that both deny the usefulness of observer independent states of systems.

Huike said to Bodhidharma, "My mind is anxious. Please pacify it."
  Bodhidharma replied, "Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it." Huike
  said, "Although I've sought it, I cannot find it."
  "There,"
  Bodhidharma replied, "I have pacified your mind."

.. Also QM is only probabilistic upon measurement. Measurement is some acceptance of self, an 'x' or a 'y'.
Edit - chance within  QM is qualified by observing a collapse of a wave-function without interference by the observer (spontaneous collapse).. that is, just a thing, changing in and of itself. This has not been observed even once.
All other interactions within QM are relational - because only upon an observer affecting the observed, does any wave function collapse happen. There is no independent collapse observed yet. If there were, Dhamma would suffer unless there was an underlying layer to QM where collapse was made to become not-independent.. kinda like hidden variables. Both hidden variables and independent collapse seem to be unjustifiable through observed experiments atm though.

Rovelli himself has written an article about how his interpretation of QM is strikingly congruous with Nagarjuna’s writings. Not sure why this is voted down.

(it is, of course, a personal opinion, so fair enough! .. the last part is also just a musing, to which I don't have a follow on for now :D )

http://www.corriere.it/la-lettura/17_dicembre_08/carlo-rovelli-nagarjuna-le-cose-sono-solo-relazioni-9e337c3e-dc35-11e7-96bf-2722fd237ccc.shtml

@IlyaGrushevskiy That (article by Rovelli) says that things exist in relation with each other, but it says nothing about things/measurements being probabilistic.

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


text:
What Lord Buddha said about "practicing"?
When we practise some thing, we will get a new skill or improve a current skill. Similar effect happens when we do karma. There is also a result. Is practise another form of karma ?
Is life all about practises ? Will most  of our future depends on our current practises ? Is KARMA = PRACTISE ?
I asked a similar question here: Is understanding a practise ?. But didn't manage to ask as I want.

I found this: Buddha said it's better to travel well than to arrive what does it mean. Is this right ?

Hi! This might be of your interest: Kamma and the End of Kamma

Is life all about practises ?

Generalizations are dangerous, but i'd still say that buddhism deals primarily with reducing defilements/refraining from behaviors that are not beneficial. At the same time, the noble eightfold path also encompasses attaining new habits.
A summary would go something like this:

Guard (the risk of unbeneficial habits, not yet established)
Abandon (unbeneficial habits already established)
Develop (beneficial habits, not yet established)
Maintain (beneficial habits, already established)

https://suttacentral.net/an4.14/en/bodhi

Will most of our future depends on our current practises ?

For a layperson, all actions bear consequences for the future.
"I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do"
https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/bodhi

Don't think of karma or wisdom solely as a skill.  Neither are something that is added on to us.  If anything, they much more resemble something that is taken away.  That said, yeah, that's pretty close to how one might understand karma from a Buddhist perspective.  Personally, I'd tweak your idea of karma as a "skill" into something more resembling an "orientation".  The more you apply body, speech, and mind in noble directions, the easier those practices become.  Over time, and with deliberation, these behaviors start to become natural wholesome patterns.  We don't practice and get better at doing these things (though that is part of it).  Rather, our very nature transforms in such a way that these positive attributes become our natural orientation.  They require less effort and arise instinctively.  The really cool thing is that it actually becomes harder to behave in less wholesome ways.  Big mind yells at you before you even get a chance to act stupidly.


text:
What are the things that the enlightened people know but others don't?
Recently, I heard a list of things that the non-enlightened people don't know about reality. Ex: Some people might think "everything is permenant". but I forgot the complete list. So, what are they ?
It is very useful to know those things becuase I can aware about them in day to day life.

the usual sutta about the higher knowledge is mn112
https://suttacentral.net/mn112/en/sujato
you can read bikkhu analayo analysis with the comparisons with paralel suttas here
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/sixfold-purity.pdf


text:
how to respect older/elderly people who are conceited and demand respect because of age?
How to respond appropriately to people that are significantly older than me if they demand respect because of their age yet are conceited (and typically also conceited about not being conceited)?
Often old folks use their age to gain respect, and then build their authority on top of it to spread false teachings. How would a passionate person handle such situations, not wanting to offend against the Dhamma by insulting the older/elderly person, yet preventing them from getting away with conceit and/or false teaching?
How would the Buddha have handled such situations?
I think a lot of Christian folk use such coercive tactic to gain authority and following, so I think it’s a practical question in the western world.

What should you do when someone teaches false Dharma?

thanks, that’s useful. but additionally, I don’t mean only the Dharma as laid out by the Buddha or the monastic community, but more general wisdoms (the dos and donts) of life, which older people like to give out. Or when older people are sarcastic or critical of younger people.

Does good householder desire to get a following in his toughts? Good to take care of ones own kamma. Qualities and merits of others one could not easy really know but old-age is something that keeps thinks in a frame. A young fool, for example, estimating wrong out of conceit, fetches a lot more demerits even in double regard. Honor old age and those first proper, is never wrong

Situations triggering resentment present challenges. To abandon such resentment and act freely requires mindfulness of body, speech and mind. For example, the conceit you describe is heard and resisted as coercive, impure speech. In this particular case, Venerable Sāriputta details the following advice:

AN5.162:2.5: In the case of a person whose behavior by way of speech is impure, but whose behavior by way of body is pure, … you should get rid of resentment for that kind of person.

This alone is astounding in its uncompromising assertion that it is our own resentment that is a hindrance needing to be abandoned. Venerable Sāriputta continues and provides a more detailed example:

AN5.162:4.2: Suppose there was a lotus pond covered with moss and aquatic plants. Then along comes a person struggling in the oppressive heat, weary, thirsty, and parched. They’d plunge into the lotus pond, sweep apart the moss and aquatic plants, drink from their cupped hands, and be on their way. In the same way, at that time you should ignore that person’s impure behavior by way of speech and focus on their pure behavior by way of body.

In this way one may gently ignore the strident teachings of such people while praising their silent kindness, caring and generosity to others. If you're curious, AN5.162 has more detail for study.


text:
Are there anything to care about in this universe?
Due to impermanance of everything, Are there anything to be happy or sad about ? Even about dhamma ?
If something seems like to be happy, there are some reasons to not to be happy.

It is impermanant for sure. but also,
That happiness make sadness in the future (future includes next lives) (I need to be sure about this sententce, please mention about this in your answer)

Are enlightened people happy ? Or neither happy nor sad ?

both happiness and sadness make only sadness ?

The are two groupss of the feelings, household and renounciation feeling, h-happiness, r-happiness... r-equanimity, good householder. And there is beyond feeling. Renounciation feeling don't lead to dukkha at least, while household still turn back to dukkha at "least".

@Dum, check out Ven. Brahm's "Joy at Last" ( ref: https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha201.htm )

Thanks @santa100. Here is the video. "Knowing that there is no happiness in the world is the ultimate happiness" by Ven. Ajahn Brahm

i've heard it called "happiness without support"... i don't think it's just hedonistic / pleasure tho, that's not why it's different from material happiness. i think @Dum's quote is good, but it depends on what you make of emptiness whether it says it all

"Are there anything to care about in this universe?" in regard of what aim, good householder? What does good householder desire?

"Are there anything to care about in this universe?" in regard of what aim, good householder? What does good householder desire?

I think Buddhism recommends you focus on what's virtuous and moral instead of on what's feels pleasurable.
For example, lying, killing, stealing -- are all to be avoided -- and that's important.
Conversely, generosity, kindness, keeping your promises -- that's important too.
There is a word -- sukha -- which might be translated "happiness". It's used in contexts like the Sukhavagga.
I suspect it's a happiness conditioned or caused by an absence not by a presence -- for example not happiness because you have something ("a chocolate bar") but happiness because of not having something ("anger", "greed", "remorse").

Are there anything to care about in this universe?
Yes, you should care about other sentient beings and practice putting their well-being foremost in your mind. If you have no experience with this, then try practicing the four immeasurables.
Due to impermanance of everything, Are there anything to be happy or sad about?
Rejoice in other's happiness! Rejoice when other's wishes come true! Rejoice in other's sorrowless bliss! Rejoice in other's progress on the path of dhamma as this is the hope of the world!
That happiness make sadness in the future (future includes next lives)
You've got it completely and totally wrong friend. How can happiness make sadness in this life or in the next? The problem is sentient beings don't know what happiness is or how to get it. We chase after things that do not lead to happiness thinking they will and we shun things that do lead to happiness thinking they won't. We are like a dog tied to a pole and wound round-and-round... we pull harder and harder to get free, but only succeed in binding ourselves tighter to the very thing that makes us miserable. We are quite silly and ignorant.
Are enlightened people happy?
Of course! They are immeasurably happy. Indescribably happy. Happy to such an extent that it is impossible to conceive. How do we know this? Because in order to become enlightened they must work for countless lifetimes at accumulating and working at the causes of happiness! They must perfect all virtuous conduct! They must perfect all virtuous minds! Take them to their zenith! Imagine a mind as wide and deep as the ocean filled with the most altruistic and peaceful thoughts. With absolutely zero ill-will and focused on other's well-being to the limit. Such a mind... we cannot even begin to describe the happiness it entails!!
Or neither happy nor sad?
You need to work on discovering what happiness is and the causes and conditions of happiness. Fortunately, that is exactly what the dhamma teaches. Your confusion is caused by misunderstanding. Rest assured you have it blinkered, but keep working at it and working at it and working at it... don't stop! and you'll slowly unwind that leash holding you to the pole.
Dhamma is the Ultimate Medicine. Buddha is the Ultimate Doctor. The Sangha are the Ultimate Nurses.
The disease is dhukka and unhappiness. The cure is happiness... immeasurably so!

when other's wishes come true is temporary. So, Can I be happy ? But if that wish was enlightenment, I can be happy for sure !. I think enlightenment is only the happiness exists in this universe.

When your mind is completely and wholeheartedly devoted to the well-being of others... that is when you will feel happiness for yourself. It sounds paradoxical, but it isn't. Just like I'm sure to the dog the idea of calming down and not pulling at the rope also seems paradoxical.

The problem is people hear this and then half-heartedly try and focus on others with motivation to make their own minds happy... and then it doesn't work, because the motivation is wrong and is actually self-centered and then they give up thinking dhamma does not work. But dhamma needs practice... tons and tons of practicing to establish the habit of spontaneously caring for the well-being of others and to neglect and extinguish the self-cherishing mind. It takes dedicated effort and practice and countless lifetimes. But the practice will lead to reward. Patience is needed.

OP: Due to impermanance of everything, Are there anything to be happy or sad about ? Even about dhamma ?
Are enlightened people happy ? Or neither happy nor sad ?

From AN 9.34 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato):

Ven: Sariputta: “Reverends, extinguishment (Nibbana) is bliss!
“sukhamidaṃ, āvuso, nibbānaṃ.
Ven. Udayi: “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since
  nothing is felt?”
“kiṃ panettha, āvuso sāriputta, sukhaṃ yadettha
  natthi vedayitan”ti?
Ven. Sariputta: “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s
  blissful about it.
“Etadeva khvettha, āvuso, sukhaṃ yadettha natthi
  vedayitaṃ.

Sukha or happiness for an unenlightened person is experienced when encountering pleasant feelings (from the six senses, including thoughts and the intellect) or when encountering the cessation of painful feelings (from the six senses). But for an arahat, sukha or bliss (in this context) is experienced when encountering neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana.
Please see this answer for commentaries by Nyanaponika Thera. The supporting suttas are MN 44, SN 36.5 and AN 9.34.

yes you can care about 4 ''karmas'', with the last one being the intention to get enlightened, ie not getting any birth

And of what sort, brahmin is the deed that is neither dark nor bright,
  with a result that is neither dark nor bright, which, itself a deed,
  conduces to the waning of deeds?
In this case, brahmin the intention to abandon this dark deed with its
  dark result, the intention to abandon this bright deed with its bright
  result, the intention to abandon this deed both dark and bright with a
  its result both dark and bright, - this intention is called "the deed
  that is neither dark nor bright, with a result that is neither dark
  nor bright, which, itself a deed, conduces to the waning of deeds."
These four deeds I have myself comprehended, realized and made known."

https://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.232.wood.pts.htm#p1

A few comments on happiness...
“By stilling thought one kills
Both good and evil deeds:
Self-stilled, abiding in the Self,
One wins unalterable happiness.”
Maitri Upanishad
“People often suppose that the realization of nirvana means the annihilation of all forms of existence. This is not true. What really transpires is that the illusions arising from our ignorance are extinguished, and we know true happiness, independent of any causes or conditions. And we continue to exist.”
The Dalai Lama - Reflections from the Journey of Life
“…[A]ccording to Aristotle, ‘it is necessary that there should be an eternal unchanging substance’ (Metaphysics 12, 6). This will impart change to other things, but will not itself change. Moreover, it will be immaterial, since it is beyond any sort of change or corruption. … It cannot itself change, because all change would be for the worse. And it contemplates the most perfect and best of things, and so exists in pure bliss or beatitude. What is the most perfect of things? Well, it is, so it must be thinking of itself. So God enjoys contemplating the divine being itself, knowing that it is the best thing there is. ‘Its thinking,’ says Aristotle ‘is a thinking on thinking.’ That is, it is the object of its own knowledge, and in such knowledge lies supreme happiness.”
Keith Ward - God: A Guide for the Perplexed
“It is possible to live in a state of stable happiness only when we are completely free of ignorance. Awakening puts an end to unconscious rebirth, and then the conditions and causes of painful effects disappear. This is the realization of a state of happiness which no longer depends on our external circumstances, nor on our emotions.”
The Dalai Lama - Reflections from the Journey of Life

You can enjoy looking at a lovely flower, even though you know it will die at some point.  The colour and scent are not diminished by the fact it only lasts a few weeks/months.


text:
Are there any sila / vinaya for mind?
There are five precepts.

I don't kill living species.
I don't do sexual miaconduct.
........

Similary, Are there any for mind ? Like,

I don't think ......
....

We can think according to the five precepts , Not thinking about killing or harming others etc. However, are there any especially for mind ?
Is "indriya samvara" some thing like that ? If it is, how to practise it ?

There are three types of Sankhara. Mano,Vaci and Kaya.
Avoiding Vaci Sankhara and Kaya Sankhara considered Sila. They are also called "Papa"
Suppressing Mano Sankhara considered as Samadhi. These are also termed Kusala when practice in conjunction with Sila.
http://buddhismpathtowellbeing.blogspot.com/2017/11/18-avoid-ten-immoral-actions-dasa.html
There is another set of precepts called eight and ten precepts. They are considered higher Sila as it contained Sila required to contain wholesome mental activities.
To answer your question I would say that Samadhi is the Sila for the mind. Even the term is not used in that way.

There are "Dhamma lists" listed here: Dhamma Lists -- many of these are lists of (harmful) mental states to avoid or escape, or of (beneficial or virtuous) mental states to cultivate.

Yeah, actually there any sil and vinaya. Vinaya Pitakaya is the book you should read to know about it.
There are kind of sil. Basic sil is Pansil.
Atasil and Dasasil which are observe in poya day.
Samanera sil for samanera monk.
Upasampada sil for upasampada monk.


text:
Why is the 16th Karmapa visualized rather than the 17th Karmapa in Karma Kagyu?
From what I have seen observing Kagyu ceremonies, the 17th Karmapa (either of them, actually) is treated with great awe, respect and reverence. However in their daily rituals, Kagyu buddhists usually visualize the late 16th Karmapa. I assume this is the result of a certain prescription within Karma Kagyu but I was unable to find explanations of this on the Internet.
So, why do Kagyu followers visualize the late instead of the current holders of the Karmapa office? Does this have to do with the status of the late living Buddha as opposed to the living living Buddha?

No, it is not true that it is done by the prescription of the Kagyu. I asked one of the senior students at the Dagpo Kagyu Ling center near me, who is very close to the head of that center, so he is in a position to know the answer. He told me that people can choose who they visualize during their practice, either the 17th Karmapa, Thaye Dorje, or the 16th Karmapa, Rangdrung Rigpe Dorje. What is true, is that there exists a special Guru Yoga practice text for the 16th Karmapa and not yet a formal Guru Yoga practice text for the 17th Karmapa.

So, why do Kagyu followers visualize the late instead of the current holders of the Karmapa office? Does this have to do with the status of the late living Buddha as opposed to the living living Buddha?

Maybe because there's yet any conclusive resolution to the Karmapa controversy? But anyway, just to clarify, you probably meant living Tulkus, not living Buddhas, for there can't be multiple Buddhas existing in the same world system. After Gotama Buddha's passing, and after a long period, the next Buddha will be Metteyya, who's currently carrying out His bodhisattvic duties up there in the Tusita heaven. All others will be just teachers with various degrees of attainments from now until that time.

“He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones, Fully Enlightened Ones, could arise contemporaneously in one world-system—there is no such possibility.’1089 And he understands: ‘It is possible that one Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system—there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Wheel-turning Monarchs could arise contemporaneously in one world-system…It is possible that one Wheel-turning Monarch might arise in one worldsystem—there is such a possibility.’ ~~ MN 115 ~~

I think that the definition of a 'Buddha' varies according to each tradition. For traditions that considerate EBTs as their primary source, you definition is valid.

@BrianDíazFlores, MN 115 is not an EBT, but a universal text common to all Buddhist traditions. See this link for a long list of its equivalents from various sources: https://suttacentral.net/mn115/

EBT means Early Buddhist Text, which MN definitely is. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_texts

@AndreiVolkov, have u looked at its Chinese, Taisho, and Tibetan equivalents on the link I gave? No, MN 115 is not solely EBT. By the way, the Karmapa's never claimed himself to be a living Buddha. Feel free to provide proof and/or backup evidence saying the opposite.

I'm just saying "early buddhist text" means "a Buddhist text written relatively early". Can't argue with that, can you? Or do you think Majjhima Nikaya is not a buddhist text or that it was not written early?

And I'm just saying the Karmapas are no living Buddhas. Can't argue with that, can you? Or do you think there're a bunch of living Buddhas right here in our wold system?

Hi Santa! I was just trying to say that if a sect or tradition doesn't care about EBTs, they might use another definition for the word "Buddha". For instance, I've read some mahayana fellows who don't think that texts widely considered EBTs to be actually early nor authentic. And so, they use their own definition of 'Buddha'; one that might see Nagarjuna as a second Buddha, even within the current world-system. Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores, as mentioned, MN 115 has its parallels in so many texts in all traditions. So it'd be mistaken to say that this is solely an EBT thingy. Anyway, of course people are entitled to their own opinions and there's nothing we can do about that. We can only cite the sources and leave it up to them to decide what to believe.

@santa100 I'm not if we agree on this, but when I speak about EBTs, I'm not only referring to texts of the Pali Canon, but all those other texts and fragments that are parallel (in content and/or time of writing) to those of the Pali Canon. And as long as a tradition sees EBTs as a primary source of authority, then they might agree on your definition of "a Buddha". But not every tradition (AFAIK) holds EBTs in the same hierarchical position. Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores, ok, even given that position, my point still holds: that none of the Karmapa's have outright proclaimed that they are living Buddhas, nor any other masters in any other traditions. Therefore, it wouldn't make any sense at all to elevate some master to the level of a Buddha while s/he's never made that claim themselves!

@santa100 from my complete ignorance about the Tibetan traditions, I agree. Just to be clear, I was just offering my opinion about your statement: "there can't be multiple Buddhas existing in the same world system". Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores, no problem. Also just to be clear, "there can't be multiple Buddhas existing in the same world system" is not my statement. it's a statement proclaimed not only in the Pali system, but also in the Chinese, Taisho, AND the Tibetan system itself, as cited in the provided link previously.

The old unanswered question is: since not a single master in all traditions of the modern time claim themselves to be living Buddhas, isn't it a gross ignorance on the part of the followers to elevate their status to be the same as the Buddha??

Thank you for deepening my understanding. I used the term "living Buddha" since it was in a documentary I watched. Now I realize this is mostly a term the Chinese use in the context of Tibetan Buddhism. I would like to avoid arguing over terminology here since it is inconsequential in context of the asked question itself.

As to the question itself, I feel no answer was provided. According to my understanding, the Karmapa controversy leads people to believe in one of the Karmapas or both of them being authentic and it does not lead people to believe in the 16th Karmapa being the last authentic Karmapa and neither of the 17th Karmapas being authentic. Besides, it seems to me the Karmapa controversy was more or less resolved recently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmapa_controversy#Recent_developments). Therefore the Karmapa controversy is likely inconsequential as well.


text:
Does Yogacara and its Alayavijnana fail compared to a Permanent Self?
So I've been Reading a bit of the Buddhist's boogeyman Shankara and I admit I am maybe biased in writing this(I am open to any refutation of my view,but I have not seen any adequate logical refutation of such),but I'd like to see a buddhist refutation or answer of this following viewpoint of mine based on a reading of Shankara's writings:
the temporary momentary alaya vijnana in yogachara buddhism is the substratum of momentary impressions,desires and ideas wich give rise to the false perception of external objects in their system.ideas and impressions(vasana samskaras)give rise to the appearance of external objects,wich give rise to further ideas and impressions wich give rise to further objects of external perception.however how can this not be a infinite regress(the appearance of external objects give rise to impressions,impressions give rise to the appearance external objects)?if external objects' (even just initial in some starting point in the past,wich buddhism denies due to its adherance to pratityasamutpada)existance is altogether denied to possibly exist rather than the mere appearance of them,how can impressions and desires come about for such objects ''appearance''?
and if there is no permanent substratum to the mind wherein impressions and desires can leave a mark or effect,how can anything be cognized externally(i.e how can vasana samskaras be configured or accumulated(with out wich it cant exist)without a permanent substratum?
such latent impressions cannot exist in a fresh new substratum (i.e person )each moment,because neither desire would arise from the appearance of external objects nor the appearance of external objects from impressions' desire(and the Yogacarin must admit a certain illogical infinite regress even in the case of a assumed permanent substratum)?
a new subtratum cannot have any impressions nor appearance of external objects to give impressions because the substratum,in this case the Alaya vijnana has no connection with its 'causal' substratum due to kshanabhanga.
if there were no permanent substratum there would literally be no experience or consciousness it seems based on the above.
only if a permanent substratum exists can such infinite regress of impression arising the appearance of external objects and vice versa even have any meaning(and even that is illogical as actual regressive infinites do not exist logically but I know that buddhism believes in infinite regression so I'm Granting you this.but such infinite regress would only 'make sence'within a permanent substratum).
I don't See how the Buddhist Doctrine of alayavijnana does not fail,and how only a permanent self can explain the infinite regress of ideas leading to (the appearance of) external objects and vice versa(wich itself is illogical in my opinion,but I am granting you guys' this for the sake of argument only).
if Kshanabhanga(wich is a Buddhist Tenet fundamental to buddhism) is Denied here,as some may Wish to do,and the substratums have a causal chain wich must be substantial;then how is this not a Permanent Self of the tirthikas for all intents and purposes?
buddhism denies this,and all of buddhism except Jonang would all fail if this were admitted,but if this were the case we have a permanent cognizing substantial 'self'/'person' through all the 3 times.
I don't see how the momentary alayavijnana is not a failure.

Shankara is Advaita Vedanta, a branch of Hindu philosophy inspired by Buddhism, so why are we talking about him? I guess you were reading his critics of Buddhism and this is what you ask?
Your confusion about "infinite regress" comes from your materialistic assumption that separate objects exist in and of themselves, without observers. But in reality, separation into objects is a feature of the observing mind.
The observing mind does not arise all at once but emerges gradually from impressions of interactions. These impressions and interactions are automatic and undifferentiated, they have to accumulate until the patterns in them become obvious enough so that individual objects can be delineated. The mind is nothing other than the sum total of these accumulated impressions giving rise to an ability to recognize.
It's not that nothing exists prior to the delineation, but whatever does exist is not delineated, so before delineation there are no separate objects to talk about. The boundaries between objects are arbitrary and are drawn by the observing mind. Different beings delineate different objects thereby creating their specific subjective realms. The desires beings have are for those subjectively delineated objects.
What you call substratum is nothing other than the cyclicaly dying and reemerging medium of living beings. They are the carriers or the bearers of the samsaric mind. This mind is partially taught to and partially reinvented by every newly born baby. No permanent self is necessary because beings take turns carrying the torch of the samsaric mind and passing it on down the line.
Alayavijnana is the sum total of information carrying forward by the diversity of media that the samsaric mind can draw upon as it recreates itself in the new generations of sentient beings.

this fails to adress any of my points.

I made clear that I am talking about the appearance of objects,not objects themselves in OP,and infinite regress still applies to the fact that without samskaras,the rupabhedam of external object cannot come into being and vice versa,so we have a chicken and an egg problem,unless sometime in the infinite past there actually was a external object to give rise to the first samskara and then rupa-bhedams starting the process,but this is anathema to buddhism because of paticasamupada as all outlined in the OP.there was no starting point where original impressions could be made from actual objects.

As I explained, it's not the objects that give rise to samskaras but the undifferentiated interaction. Objects only exist as appearances. Outside of appearance there are no objects, only the undifferentiated "stuff". This is why Yogacara is dubbed the Representation-Only teaching.

that doesn't refute anything I've said.its the APPEARANCE of objects that give rise to samskaras,wich is what I said in OP.you are attacking a strawman.

No, no - appearances of objects EMERGE from Samskaras, not the other way around.

and further samskaras emerge from the appearances of objects.samskaras enable appearances and vice versa.

samskaras and appearances are in a infinite regressive cycle.there needs to be explained them how samskaras arise and from what if appearances do not give rise to samskaras(wich is basic yogacara,but you are denying it to save your metaphysics)

So, here's the way it works (you asked a question to get an answer, didn't you, not just to asert your position, I hope?): Imprints of interactions are samskaras. As they accumulate they grow into ability to delineate objects and recognize them. The appearance of these subjectively delineated objects feed back into the process of interaction, thereby stimulating and conditioning formation of new samskaras and maintenance of existing samskaras. So the process is not truly an infinite loop, more like an iterative progression with feedback.

that doesn't answer from where the first samskara arises.

The first samskaras arise from accumulation or memorizing of patterns of similar interactions in series of random interactions. Please reread my answer and all comments. You keep thinking that object is something external. Instead, information about similarities accumulates until it becomes memory, recognition, delineation of object, and finally subjective experience. First information accumulates on the basis of random interactions, which despite being random and undelineated nevertheless discover some regularity or patterns.

so this still doesnt answer my question.how were initial interactions possible if actual objects dont exist?how did the first appearances of objects arise?

Interactions were analog, not discrete, unseparated, like the turbulence in air or in water. Some of these turbulence-like interactions had feedback cycles so they effectively fed and supported their own continuation. As they continued, they accumulated information about past interactions. This information eventually supported emergence of semiosis, the ability to recognize an upcoming interaction by its characteristic signs. These recognitions is what we now know as appearances of objects.

@johnyman in my opinion you are correct the process is infinite. But that is not a problem. I think in Buddhism infinite past is accepted. This process has been going on from infinite past.

@johnyman your question is wrong in so kany levels. First it assumes the infinite regress is a flaw then it assumes the Vedantic sepf can store information, which is wrong, according Advaita the self is nirguna, it can't store any info. So both Advaita Vedantins and Buddhists agree on this.

@AndreiVolkov it seems that you are making your own theories as to how Alyavijana and Samkaras came about rather than sticking with tradition. Samkaras and Alayavijanana are interdependent and if I understand correctly Samkaras can only be caused by Alayavijnana, not by some random interactions. These so called random io interactions also have minimal basic Alayavijanana, which you are missing to understand.


text:
Why work on one thing at a time?
Why work on one thing at a time according to the buddhism ? Did Lord Buddha advise us to do that ?
Are there any deep desires in multi-tasking ? (Like wanting to gain more in short amount of time)
Edit:  I mean by "doing one thing at a time" is working on 2 different subjects at the same time(Without finishing the first work) . Ex: practising samatha and vipassana together, learning maths and arts at the same time.
Edit: Example for "not doing one thing at a time" : Started to write a book yesterday. Whithout finishing it, starting to write an another book today.

I'm looking for buddhism prespective of this video : 3 reasons to work on one thing at a time.

The instruction to do "one thing at a time" is implied by the Buddha's praise of Sāriputta's practice, which was intense, deep and accomplished methodically one by one:

MN111:1.6: The Buddha said this: “Sāriputta is astute, mendicants. He has great wisdom,  widespread wisdom,  laughing wisdom, swift wisdom,  sharp wisdom,  and penetrating wisdom. For a fortnight he practiced discernment of phenomena one by one.

That fortnight was critical for Sariputta because it made him an arahant.

MN111:21.1: And if there’s anyone of whom it may be rightly said that they have attained mastery and perfection in noble ethics, immersion, wisdom, and freedom, it’s Sāriputta. And if there’s anyone of whom it may be rightly said that they’re the Buddha’s true-born child, born from his mouth, born of the teaching, created by the teaching, heir to the teaching, not the heir in material things, it’s Sāriputta.

Multi-tasking entails that one momentarily averts attention from one task in order to attend to other things in rapid succession. Clearly, driving while listening to the radio and thinking about what we want for dinner isn't practicing "one by one". Instead, conventional multi-tasking normally manifests as intermittent aversion to the unpleasant necessities while intermittently attending to the pleasant. The delusion that multi-tasking is effective is what makes it necessary to have laws that forbid dangerous multi-tasking such as texting and driving. Multi-tasking is therefore unskillful.
Practicing one by one is skillful.

According to Abhidhamma, we can do only one thing at a time. (mind or thought-moment) However, as we are not paying attention we think they all happen at once. When you practice Satipathana you will understand this. When you practice Samatha you keep your attention only on the meditation object. In Vipassana you keep your attention only on one bodily activity (walking or breathing normally) but when you are experienced you extend to various daily activities.

Is it only "do" one thing at a time? Or is it only "be aware of" one thing at a time. or only "think" one thing at a time?

@SarathW I updated the question. I mean by "doing one thing at a time" is starting an another task without finishing the current task. Thanks.

This is a very complex question. You have to read and practice for a while to fully grasp this.

It is not possible to practice Samatha and Vipassana together. When it says practicing Samatha and Vipassana in tandem does not mean you practice them at the same time. However, you can interchange between the two. Generally in Vipassana, the first four stages (upto "He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.'[3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'" are considered Samatha.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html

"Never half ass two things; whole ass one thing." - Ron Swanson
Put another way, there's only one road to enlightenment.  The terrain of that road is less important than there only being one of them.  What is your one road?

Case 48 of the Mumonkan
Kempõ's One Road
A monk asked Kempõ Oshõ, "It is written, 'Bhagavats in the ten
  directions. One straight road to Nirvana.'
I still wonder where the road can be."
Kempõ lifted his staff, drew a line, and said, "Here it is."
Later the monks asked the same question to Unmon, who held up his fan
  and said, "This fan jumps up to the thirty-third heaven and hits the
  nose of the deity Sakra Devanam Indra.
When you strike the carp of the eastern sea, the rain comes down in
  torrents."
Mumon's Comment
One, going to the bottom of the sea, lifts up clouds of dust; the
  other, on the top of the highest mountain, rises towering waves to
  wash the sky. One holding fast, the other letting go, each stretches
  out his hand to support the profound teaching. They are just like two
  riders starting from opposite ends of the course and meeting in the
  middle. But none on earth can be absolutely direct. When examined with
  a true eye, neither of these two great masters knows the road.


text:
Do I carry false identity?
Buddha said he is Buddha.
Did Buddha carried a false sense of self like you and me?

This isn't the same question but I think its answers answer this question: Is this talk just a convention?

When Buddha say me and myself, he uses the words without clinging to the five aggregate. Even the Buddha has to use conventional language when speaking. What matters is not the word you use but the underlying grasping to the idea of it.

Agreed. Was Buddha's grasping idea of me was different from yours and mine?

There is a Sutta to support my post but I can't locate it.

There was no grasping whatsoever in the Buddha’s usage of conventional language.

The term 'Buddha' means 'awakened'. At that time that the Buddha was speaking, the word was not the honorific that it is today. He literally meant that he had awakened to understand the nature of reality; the term was merely descriptive, and did not take on the role of being an identity until some time later.
Of course, there's a tricky aspect to this. The factual condition of awakening to the true nature of reality makes one buddha whether or not one proclaims it, but it is easy for the ego to convince itself that it has 'awakened,' leading one to cling to an identity of 'being buddha.' Obviously one who clings to an identity isn't awakened, but that is often a difficult and subtle discrimination to make. We take it as read that Gautama was using the term in the descriptive mode — as part of his effort to lead people to their own awakening — and not succumbing to attachments in his own right.


text:
Difference between Kamma, Kammanto, and Kammanta?
Question
Hi all, i would like to ask if anyone knows the difference in meaning between these three pali words:

Kamma
Kammanto
Kammanta

What i've found so far
I can see from looking at the pali words for "right action" that this is called "samma kammanto" (sometimes "samma kammanta"), so i'm guessing that these two are the same?
I'm also guessing that Kamma is a more general term which includes speech and thought/intention as well as physical action?
Context
I'm building a to-do-list and life-organizing application and since i have a Buddhist background i'd like to give the application a name inspired by Buddhism

They are basically the same word, though the anta suffix does give it some specific meaning. Remember that the word karma has heavy religious baggage in ancient India every though it simply means action, from the verbal root /kar = "in regards to doing". So kammanta is a way of specifying that one is merely talking about actual mundane action or work. kamma is still often used to mean mundane  work, however, e.g.:

tena kho pana samayena aññatarā itthī kammaṃ karoti. aññataro bhikkhu sāratto taṃ itthiṃ etadavoca -- “tiṭṭha, bhagini, ahaṃ karissāmīti
At one time, a certain woman was doing some work. A certain bhikkhu, enamoured with that woman, said this to her: " Rest, sister, I will do it."
(duṭṭhullavācāsikkhāpadaṃ)

Nouns in Pali and Sanskrit are "declined", meaning their endings change depending on how they are used. -o declension is used in Pali for masculine singular nominative (when it is the subject of the sentence) of -a nouns. That's where kammanto comes from.
As to the idea of a task, something one must or should do, there are words like karaṇiya and katabba.

Hi and thank you for your help! I wanted to ask because i'm confused: access to insight is using kammanto when describing right action, wouldn't it be better to use kammanta if that is gender-neutral? Or can kammanto be used also in a gender-neutral way? (Grammar is not my strong suite). Grateful for help with this!

The word is masculine either way; changing the ending to o just means it's the subject of the sentence.

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

From the New Concise Pali English Dictionary:

kamma neuter
  work, occupation; activity, performance.
  act, deed, action or actions of moral import (producing for the agent an inevitable result or consequence in the same or another life; the action appears to exist in some sense until the effect is completed)
  an official act of the saṅgha (i.e. an action or ceremony agreed on and ratified by a properly constituted group of bhikkhus).
kammanta
masculine (& n.)
  action; work, task, business, occupation (esp. farming, agriculture); place of work (esp. the fields).

Perhaps kammanto is the nominative version of kammanta.

From the New Concise Pali English Dictionary:

kamma neuter
  work, occupation; activity, performance.
  act, deed, action or actions of moral import (producing for the agent an inevitable result or consequence in the same or another life; the action appears to exist in some sense until the effect is completed)
  an official act of the saṅgha (i.e. an action or ceremony agreed on and ratified by a properly constituted group of bhikkhus).
kammanta
masculine (& n.)
  action; work, task, business, occupation (esp. farming, agriculture); place of work (esp. the fields).

Kammanta is the basic or 'stem' word for kammanta.
Note: In the sutta quote below, the word 'kammanta' has been translated as both 'work' & 'workplace'. In the sutta below:

'kammante' appears to be the accusative (object of a verb) case of 'kammanta' , i.e., "supervising (verb; anusaññāyamāno) the work (object; noun; kammante)"
'kammanto' is the nominative (subject) case of 'kammanta', i.e, "Moggallāna’s workplace or Moggallāna’s work".

For just then the brahmin Vassakāra, a chief minister of Magadha,
  while supervising the work [plural] at Rājagaha, approached Ānanda at
  Moggallāna’s workplace [singular] and exchanged greetings with him.
Atha kho vassakāro brāhmaṇo magadhamahāmatto rājagahe kammante
  anusaññāyamāno yena gopakamoggallānassa brāhmaṇassa kammanto,
  yenāyasmā ānando tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā āyasmatā ānandena
  saddhiṃ sammodi.

In your situation, if you named your app 'The Work App' or 'Sunyata's Work App', the Pali would probably be (merely guessing) 'kammanta' because the word 'kammanta' would be an adjective and form the first part of a khammadharaya (merely guessing) word compound, as follows:

When nouns join together with two or more words they are called
  nominal compounds or samāsa. The first member of a compound can be
  another noun, an adjective, an adverb, a pronoun, a verbal form, or a
  numeral. In general the last member of the compound gets inflected
  according to its declension while the other members keep their stem
  form
book page 21

Therefore, your app might be called:

Kammanta-App (The Work App)
Suññatāya Kammanta-App (Sunyata's Work App)


text:
Uncertainty vs Cause and Effect
Isn't uncertainty and cause and effect conflict each other ? Did Lord Buddha teach about uncertainty ? (Ven. Ajahn Brahma thero on uncertainty - Life is a series of unexpected events )
My understanding: To the Buddha, life is not uncertain. Because Lord Buddha knew his and other people's past karma. He knew almost everything about the universe. So, He had ability to predict the future. But for us, We don't have that knowledge. So, Life is uncertain to us.

Here are two related questions/answers perhaps you would find interesting: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30590/buddhist-perspective-uncertainty and https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/36960/is-uncertainty-incompatible-with-the-doctrine-of-emptiness

The subject of universe is infinite. It's impossible to analize all past events, karma of all living species and all current situations for anyone. Because of that, Life is uncertain. Am I correct ?

Buddha didn't answered to the question "When was the beginning of samsara ?". To predict the future, We have to consider karmas from beginning of samsara to current moment.

Uncertainty occurs because of causes. There is no difference between uncertainty and cause & effect.

Death is certain, life is uncertain: maranam niyatam, jivitam aniyatam
It disintegrates, monk, that is why it’s called ‘the world’: lujjatīti kho, bhikkhu, tasmā lokoti vuccatī
'Many are the [possible] causes of my death. A snake might bite me, a scorpion might sting me, a centipede might bite me. That would be how my death would come about. That would be an obstruction for me. Stumbling, I might fall; my food, digested, might trouble me; my bile might be provoked, my phlegm... piercing wind forces [in the body] might be provoked. That would be how my death would come about.


text:
Are we waiting for a disaster to happen?
Buddha says all sanskars are annicca. If harmony is a sanskar then disharmony is waiting to happen.
Therefore my question is are we waiting for disaster to happen ?

Why did you write, "harmony is a sanskar" -- is that based on something which you read or heard?

Harmony or Unity is a kind of Sanskar ... I read it in a sutta... harmony is impermanent.

In which sutta?

I don’t remember the Sutta .,,I remember unity is impermanent ...diversity is impermanent. I think unity is a sign of harmony.., if we all agree that this is suffering then this will create ideological unity which will generate harmony but because some believe this is not suffering disharmony arises...

I don't remember any suttas talking about "harmony" and "unity" in that kind of abstract, metaphysical, impractical way. If you can't reference or provide an exact quote for what you're asking about then it's difficult (perhaps impossible) to post an answer which explains what you were reading.

Give me some time , I will search and quote ...

It is in Root of All things  ->He perceives unity as unity. Having perceived unity as unity, he conceives himself as unity, he conceives himself in unity, he conceives himself apart from unity, he conceives unity to be ‘mine,’ he delights in unity. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

@SacrificialEquation Based on that quote, I'd say that "unity" and "harmony" are perceptions, that if taken as "me" or "mine", lead to dukkha. Kind regards!

MN 1 is about various "conceptions of self" -- various including "unity" and "diversity" and "all" etc. -- and doesn't mention Saṅkhāra at all.

Unity is a sankhara....

@SacrificialEquation a question stops making sense and lose all its utility and purpose if one is not open to question one's own pre-assumptions. In such case, one is only waiting for what one wants to hear; in other words, one gets no new information beyond the confirmation of what he/she already thinks. Kind regards!

What is the problem dear ? unity is achieved ... it has a beginning and that what has a beginning must have an end... what do you want me to question? That harmony or unity is forever ... ?

There are three types of emotions, pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. Just like everything else, they are impermanent/anicca, as you already have stated.
When we attach (upadana) to pleasant emotions we create unwholesome karma, since pleasure/sukha becomes dukkha/unsatisfaction as soon as it ceases. So yes, clinging to harmony means "waiting for a disaster" as you put it.
Looking at the four noble truths, the above is covered in the first two truths regarding dukkha and samudaya (how unsatisfaction arises). There are also the truths about nirodha (cessation of dukkha) and magga, telling us that dukkha can end with the right means. The point is that there's more to life than just waiting for a disaster.

What is more to life than just waiting for disaster ?

If you ask me, harmony and chaos are just arbitrary labels the mind uses to evaluate things based on some also arbitrary criteria. By understading the conventionality of such concepts, and by understanding where do they come from (the mind, preferences, attachments and points of view), harmony and chaos stop being some objective measures of reality, and they are seen for what they are: arbitrary assessments arising from the proliferations of the ignorant mind, imposing its judgements and expectations into the outside world.
So, I'd say that disaster is on the eye of the beholder.
Not because something goes against ones desires and expectations, does it mean it deserves to be labeled as "objectively" and inherently chaotic or disastrous. It all depends on your definitions of those words. To define, you need some criteria; but language, as a conventional tool used for practical purposes, requieres to assume that we all agree on such criteria. Why is death more disastrous than life? I think all we can say is that when ignorance and craving are present, dukkha arises; everything else are just subjective points of view.
In sum, I'd say that we suffer because we expect things from the world that go against how things truly work: all conditioned things behave according to the three marks of conditioned phenomena: things are impermanent, not-self and do not lead to complete and utter satisfaction.
And so, I'd say disaster is on the mind of the one expecting states and results ignoring these three marks of conditioned phenomena.
Kind regards!

Beauty is multidimensional. There is no singular definition of beauty sometimes emotions are more valuable than face features .,,that is why it is said Beauty is in the eye of beholder. But for disaster we can not say so .., Harmony is when all things according to the way it is supposed to work but chaos is when all things do not work according the way they should... break of trust is chaos... it not arbitrary assessment... dear ... remember this ...

How could something work in a way it's not "supposed" to? Who decides the limits between the way things are supposed to be, and the way they are not supposed to be? What is chaos, if not an order and harmony we do not comprehend yet?

I have seen things like that... I have seen a heart working properly until it stops working properly. I have seen a love affair of supreme importance getting trashed. You have not understood chaos... You can manage Hell but you can not manage Chaos.

That which doesn’t work according to desires and expectations explains how things do not work as they are supposed to work ...every thing is supposed to generate satisfaction but they do not ... harmony is supposed to generate satisfaction forever but it doesn’t ... may I ask why ?

Why would you create pain and disharmony ? You would not. Every thing around us was supposed to give us happiness and joy but they failed to do so .... my conclusion is right ...

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand where do you get that assumption from. I don't think things are "supposed" to give us anything at all. With my very limited understanding of the Teaching of the Buddha, I think that dukkha (distress, dissatisfaction and suffering) arise due to the presence of some conditions (which are indicated in the 12 links of Dependent Co-arising); and if those conditions are uprooted, dukkha is eradicated as well.

You do not get even a pinch of satisfaction.., not knowing this is ignorance...

From getting some amount of temporary satisfaction does not follow that "everything is supposed to give us happiness". For starters, not everyone feel pleasure from the same stimuli. Have you asked yourself why? And even talking about "the same" individual, one's preference might change over time. Have you asked yourself why?

I imagine that "harmony"" and "disharmony" are opposite extremes. That seems to me to be the sort of "dual" about which the Buddha said,

Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way:

‘Ignorance is a condition for choices.
    Choices are a condition for consciousness. …
    That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
    When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease.

SN 12.48
There the word "choices" is a translation of saṅkhāra.
The word saṅkhāra seems to have a wide range of meaning -- Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?

Buddha teaches the middle way. But we are accustomed to harmony. We want peace. In other words we trapped in the world of dualities. Given that aren't we waiting for the disaster to happen ? Are you or Buddha denying or denied  the existence of duality?

I associate the word "harmony" with morality (ethics), and "peace" with non-craving.

The "middle way" is an important concept in Buddhism, I think it means specifically "neither one extreme not the other".

Are you or Buddha denying or denied the existence of duality? The duality you're talking about seems to me to be "desire" (e.g. for peace and harmony) and "aversion" (for disaster). Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of this duality but instead identifies it (as you said) as what causes beings to be "trapped in the world of dualities" -- see Three poisons.

Given that aren't we waiting for the disaster to happen ? I don't know -- if you want to assume that there is disaster (that "disaster" is real), then maybe disaster has already happened? Buddhism isn't only "waiting" for disaster to happen but for understanding its cause and its cessation (see the four noble truths) if and when it arises.


text:
Is there a serious TV channel which is for Buddhist community?
I watch TV. As a Buddhist which TV channels should I watch?

which country are you from?

@GeethW I am not seeking geographically bound Channel.

good question! there's countless Christian ones...

While I'm not aware of any TV channels which are not geographically bound, I think you can use YouTube channels, that have regularly published content, as sort of TV channels.
Here are some Theravada Buddhist YouTube channels with content in English:

Buddhist Society of Western Australia
Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu
Abhayagiri Buddhist Monastery
Ajahn Sona
Vimutti Buddhist Monastery

Here are some Tibetan Buddhist YouTube channels with content in English:

Dalai Lama
Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche
Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche
Bodhicharya Dharma Channel

https://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/ -
While this is not TV, it's a huge collection of Buddhist audio tracks / podcasts:


text:
Developing a intense focus on materialistic things
Can we make our daily activities as a meditation practise ?
I'm not asking about being aware on what we are doing. When we do samatha meditation, we focused on the breath only. I'm asking, When we do day to day activities, focusing only what we supposed to do.
This practise will give good materialstic achivements for sure. But, is this help to be enilightened ? Did Lord Buddha advice us to do something like this ?
I lost interest to do day to day things. Because, the results gives from those are impermanant, useless in the long run (samsara). I'm looking for a way that help me to maintain the life while help me to be enlightened.
Edit: We all have a certain level of focus when we do something. Is building a intense focus on something (materialstic things) a good practise ? Will it help me learn dhamma ?

For day to day activities the ideal is:

SN35.95:10.1: “In that case, when it comes to things that are to be seen, heard, thought, and known: in the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.

But this is also quite difficult, since day to day activities bring experiences that capture, repel or deceive us. For example, watching a favorite TV show while ignoring the baby's diaper is foolish.
The Buddha therefore qualifies his advice with a very tough prerequisite:

SN35.95:5.1: “Do you have any desire or greed or affection for sounds known by the ear …  smells known by the nose …  tastes known by the tongue …  touches known by the body … thoughts known by the mind that you haven’t known, you’ve never known before, you don’t know, and you don’t think would be known?”

Meditation firmly grounds our practice in the prerequisites. It provides a basis for the restraint needed to go about our day to day activities unentangled. Not only do we have to disentangle ourselves from what is desirable, but we also have to disentangle ourselves from what is repulsive. We have to clean the dishes, scrub the toilet, and more. Chores are endless and impermanent. Yet they are also important. Fortunately, because others shun such activities, one can earn a living doing the necessary things which others avoid. Indeed one can maintain one's life with Right Livelihood doing necessary things which others avoid.
Such a practice of day to day activities requires a measure of equanimity. And with equanimity, we might answer the Buddha's question:

SN35.95:9.2: “No, sir.”

And having asserted this to the Buddha, we might then also say this about our day to day activities:

SN35.95:25.1: Even as you see a sight and get familiar with how it feels you wear away, you don’t heap up:  that’s how to live mindfully. Eroding suffering like this, you’re said to be in the presence of extinguishment.

To which the Buddha answered long ago:

SN35.95:36.2: “Good, good, Māluṅkyaputta!

Regarding focus of meditation, notice that the Buddha says "you don't heap up". The Buddha also says "wear away". Heaping strain upon strain grasping at intense focus is therefore unskillful. It is more skillful to ease and wear away the strain so that clarity and insight emerge in our meditation. Materialism can be confused with focus. However, we can wear away that attachment by practicing contentment whether the cushion is coarse or fine. For support in this day to day practice, good spiritual friends will become important.

focusing only what we do like focusing on breath when we do samath meditation , is this a good practise ? , (If we wonder while doing something , directing thoughts to that thing). We all have a certain level of focus when we do something. Is  building a intense focus on something (materialstic things) a good practise ? Will it help me learn dhamma ?

Thanks for the feedback. I've added clarification on materialistic intensity of focus.


text:
Are there "safe" practices to follow before meeting one's teacher?
I sincerely want to practice Tibetan Buddhism. It is a tradition which places great emphasis on one's relationship with their teacher. This makes a lot of sense to me. I plan to visit a Karma Kagyu centre near me when the coronavirus pandemic and associated quarantine measures subside and it is open to the public again. Are there any "safe" preliminary practices I can do in the meanwhile given that I have not formally taken refuge, received any empowerment or explanation and all my knowledge comes from literature? I am particularly unsure about whether it is a good idea to practice mantra meditation and mandala offerings without a teacher's guidance and my current view is that it is not.
For what it's worth I have been practicing breathing meditation and calm abiding (zazen) daily for a few months now as well as reading Buddhist texts and commentaries. But I don't feel like it has led to any non-intellectual understanding or insight yet.

Do not rush out trying to find a teacher. When you are ready the teacher will find you. Let the Buddha be your teacher and the Dharma be your medicine. When you do go to the center consider them as Sangha and learn how to engage them and see what you can learn. Be mindful of your own expectations and excitement for what that meeting will be like.
It is important to integrate the teachings in a heartfelt and sincere way. Intellectual understanding is important, but not nearly sufficient. Without actually practicing the teachings mere intellectual understanding can do nothing to help us. It is like being a chemist and understanding perfectly well the chemical mechanism of a medicinal drug. Unless one actually takes the medicine - not just understands how it works - there will be no hope of benefiting from it.
As for what practices to start out with... have you tried cultivating the four immeasurables as the Buddha instructed? The dharma is safe and you should feel free to practice it to your best understanding. I would begin with mindfulness, cherishing others, reducing or at least recognizing the non-virtuous minds, lay vows/practices and understanding what refuge is and means along with the four immeasurables.


text:
Why we must have a confident mind?

“Here, bhikkhus, some person has a confident mind. Having examined his mind with my mind, I know that if this person were to die at this time, as if carried there he would be placed in heaven. What is the reason for that? It is because his mind is confident. It is because of the mind’s confidence that some beings here, when the body perishes, are reborn after death in a good bourn, in a heavenly world.”
Iti 21

Why we must have a confident mind ? What is a confident mind according to the Lord Buddha ?
What are the differences between confident and

Conceit
Clinging to a view

What is a confident mind according to the Lord Buddha?

From your quote, confidence is translated from the pali word pasannacitta. Pasannacitta literally means devoted mind, and can be interpreted as a person having faith (saddha).
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/pasannacitta

Why we must have a confident mind?

It is considered one of the five mental faculties/indryas that aids progression towards enlightenment.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.010.than.html

What are the differences between confident and conceit

Conceit (mana), is a cetasika with attachment/lobha as base. Mana means that we are attached to the misconception that there is a self that is superior to others.

What are the differences between confident and clinging to a view

Primarily the difference is the fruit of their karma. Besides being a mental faculty mentioned above, AN 5.38 also lists five benefits of saddha for laypersons, for instance.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.038.than.html
Clinging to a view, on the other hand is simply not beneficial, and perpetuates dissatisfaction. Your comparison with conceit seems like an appropriate example.

The word in question is pasanna (see dictionary definition here).
I don't know why Ireland translated that as "confident". The other modern translations I'm able to read are Italian, "una mente pura" (meaning a mind that is "pure" or "sinless"), and French, "l'esprit clair" (meaning a mind or spirit that's "clear" or "transparent" or "bright") -- though I beware that any modern language might not have a single word that's an exact translation.
In SN 55.40 there's a word translated "experiential confidence" or "verified confidence" -- that word is aveccappasāda, a compound of pasāda with avecca.
I note that the definitions of pasanna and pasāda are similar.

Good point. I read 'confident' in the OPs post as 'experiential' or 'verified' confidence, since any other sort of confidence would at best seem to be just faith.

Confidence may arise without conceit and clinging to views.
Confidence can be the result of seeing directly some phenomena by oneself. After seeing, if one is paying attention wisely, real understanding can be developed over what one has seen.
A mind with confidence is a mind that has all its emotional and rational assessment and values aligned towards the wisdome developed; is a mind that has no doubts and contradictions on its judgements.
If you ask me, I don't see the need to attach to such understanding, because, at least theoretically, there's always the possibility of the arising of new information that could contradict what one has learnt in the past. I think one should be always open to the possibility the unknown, while in the meantime, until contradictory information arrives, using what has been learnt as a valid and useful, tentative hypothesis for go through the events of life. Also, there's no need to take such understanding as 'I' or 'mine'.
Conceit and clinging to views arise alongside confidence when ignorance hasn't been uprooted yet.
Despite all of the above said, what's really amazing is that the Dhamma seems to be timeless in its application. But do not trust me on that; you might be able to see it for yourself (or maybe you already have).
Kind regards!


text:
Why do I get a feeling on my forehead as if someone is touching it during meditation?
I do meditate sometimes,not everyday.
After 5 to 10 minutes during meditation I start getting a feeling  on my forehead as if someone is touching in it.
Sometimes after listening to binaural waves or do yoga, I get this same feeling.
I understand that something is happening to the pineal gland.But my friends who meditate they don't get this, its only me.
What exactly happens here and how does it work? Can someone explain?

Due to ones past store of conditioning one gets different experiences. The main thing is not to attach too much importance to these experiences as thinking about it will be a distraction main task at hand which is the meditation and also perhaps a source of attachment or aversion on how you react to it which is also decremental to meditation.

Okay. Understood. But what do you mean by - 'Due to ones past store of conditioning'  ? @Suminda Sirinath Dharmasena

Saṅkhāra manifests as some experience or sensation. When meditating, at least when doing it properly, one is not accumulating new Saṅkhāra. Then past Saṅkhāra arises as some experience or sensation. This varies from person to person and time to time as no 2 beings have the same store of Saṅkhāra.

I would suggest that this is a quite normal phenomenon. However, it is nothing to be concerned about, and there is nothing in the Buddhist teachings in the ways of interpreting this as something special.
Rather, there is the teaching of noticing the sensation as just a sensation - as one of the six sense inputs - and noticing the feeling that arises from it as just a feeling. The purpose is to not get caught up in sensations like these, but being mindfully aware, notice them, acknowledge them and by knowing them for just sensations, remaining equanimously unattached to them.
I would suggest that with patient endurance, including this as just a phenomenon of your practice, deliberately avoiding getting enchanted by it or averse to it.

It's very normal and common for people to feel the sensation such as someone is touching a particular area, or ants crawling on your skin. That comes as a natural result of relaxation. The conditions of the body are always changing, so that's likely to change. The underlying principle at work, is when you deeply relax, force pervades through the entire body. If your energy channels are open, then this will be experienced as the 4 jhanas described with similes in AN 5.28. If your channels aren't open yet, then the force will feel uncomfortable, itchy, strange, and painful wherever the force is hitting energy channel blockage.

You might be concentrating too hard, causing stress in your forehead.

I’m experiencing the exact same thing.. it felt like there’s someone pushing their forefinger on your forehead. I tried my best to not focus on the sensation and to recenter my attention to the breath but to no avail, the strange feeling crawls to my neck and back that it became too difficult to concentrate so.. I opened my eyes :(

Hello, and welcome! I would encourage you to post this kind of conversational content in the comments of the original question, instead of as an answer, to keep the answer posts focused on providing answers.


text:
Doing the opposite of not skillfull things
Will it helpful to do the opposite of not skillfull things without having deeper knowledge of that thing ?
Ex: I asked a question on Laziness, here. But didn't recived a satisfying answer. So,Can being aware on laziness and being not lazy help to understand laziness ?
Some other similar topic : conceit

I think that this topic has answers which explain what "conceit" is, also the Wikipedia article Māna.

MN8 is a notable sutta that has a long list of skillful qualities, forty-four to be exact. Here is the first:

MN8:13.1: Cunda, I say that even giving rise to the thought of skillful qualities is very helpful, let alone following that path in body and speech.  That’s why you should give rise to the following thoughts. ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’ ...

I have found this list extremely practical and it requires no deeper knowledge. Indeed, the sutta remarkably starts out emphasizing that meditation itself (and therefore the deeper insight thereby gained) is separate from the exercise and practice of the listed qualities, the practice of self-effacement. Ethics, wisdom and immersion are all required. They are the three practices. MN8 directly addresses details of ethics, of skillful qualities.

What matters is not the action but the motivation. Pushing someone in anger vs pushing someone to save him/her getting hit by a vehicle has different karmic consequences. So one should develop the opposite mental qualities of those which are unwholesome (greed, hatred & delusion). What is no unwholesome will be wholesome (non-greed, non-hatred & non-delusion). See p21-33 The Roots of Good and Evil By Nyanaponika Thera for details. The whole book might be good to read.


text:
How can I overcome the breathing trouble while meditating and increase concentration?
At  certain point of meditation,I feel like I can't breathe properly as in the beginning of meditation(lose of oxygen) and thus I stop meditating and try to get oxygen into my brain.
I do no know why this is happening or how to overcome this condition.
Is that not a correct way of meditating? Or what am I doing is wrong ?Or do I have to push through?

It is difficult to answer your question due to not many facts. However, the impression is you are suppressing your mind or pushing your forehead down into your body; making your mind & forehead/forebrain rigidly still; and, at the same time, pushing your air/breath/outbreathes out; clenching your jaw & emptying the lungs & nostrils of breath.
In Buddhist meditation, the face should be relaxed and the mind/brain bright, awake & open. The Buddha taught to start meditation by establishing awareness in front of one's face. Possibly do some practise keeping your eyes gently open and keeping your face & jaw relaxed. Buddhist meditation is the practise of "non-attachment" rather than forceful suppression.
It is probably best to visit a Buddhist/meditation centre and talk to a teacher.

Just before the nimitta appears, a lot of yogis encounter difficulties.
  Mostly they find that the breath becomes very subtle and unclear; they
  may think the breath has stopped. If this happens, you should keep your
  awareness where you last noticed the breath, and wait for it there.
A dead person, a foetus in the womb, a drowned person, an unconscious
  person, a person in the fourth jhāna, a person in the attainment of cessation (nirodha·samāpatti), and a brahmā: only these seven types of person do
  not breathe. Reflect on the fact that you are not one of them, that you are
  in reality breathing, and that it is just your mindfulness which is not
  strong enough for you to be aware of the breath.
When it is subtle, you should not make the breath more obvious, as the
  effort will cause agitation, and your concentration will not develop. Just
  be aware of the breath as it is, and if it is not clear, simply wait for it
  where you last noticed it. You will find that, as you apply your mindfulness and wisdom in this way, the breath will reappear.

Knowing and Seeing (Fourth Revised Edition) Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw

How do i avoid this and not lose concentration
Some instructions suggest that concentration is developed gradually -- for example the article Calm Abiding describes three stages, starting "with external support" and then "internal support" etc.
Instructions don't tell you to stop breathing.
Some instructions tell you to be aware of the breath -- notice whether the breath is long or short.
at a certain point in meditation i feel like i cant breathe (lose of oxygen)
If I ever feel I can't breathe or "I forget to breathe" then I breathe out (exhale, blow out) -- after that the body will breathe in.
I think that the body is meant to be able to breathe by itself i.e. without "my" help, it's that "I" shouldn't try to stop that.
It sounds like you might be attaching to a specific point in the breathing cycle and wanting to prolong that moment, instead perhaps you should allow that point to happen again and again as the breathing cycles -- i.e. "continually" (again and again) not "continuously".

It's impossible to lose consciousness through meditation in the way you're describing.  Your reptilian brain simply won't allow you to not breath for any length of time.  Just let go.  Don't force your breath.  Your body is going to take what air it needs.
What you are running into right now is a mental obstacle, not a physical one.  Your body/mind is trying to act - trying to stay in control.  Don't let that happen.  Don't be taken aback if the next few breaths are sharp or jagged.  If you let go, they will taper off into more subtle inhalations.
I'd also second dhammadhatu's answer - you might be slouching.  Make sure your body is erect and relaxed.  Imagine someone hold you up by a loop that's attached to the top of your head.  The body just kinda hangs from that point.  Everything is in a perfect line from the top of your head to your coccyx.