text:
How to be kind when you don't like people or the world?
I'm not sure I make a very good Buddhist. The thing is I really don't like people. They constantly disappoint me. I find most people to be so stupid. Take for example half of America and the idiotic orange leader they have elected. What kind of idiots would elect a bigoted narcissistic fool such as this?? I don't care if it's "wrong speech", I'm not going to be polite about it, the man is a delusional scumbag and such a negative force on the planet.   I cannot feel any compassion or kindness for him or his ignorant redneck believers. If someone killed him I would honestly feel glad. Yet a short distance away in Canada there is one of the most compassionate amazing leaders ever to grace the earth.  Go figure.  America seems like hell on earth to me.
Most of the world seems to currently be controlled by dangerous mentally ill people. A lot of the time I dont even want to be here anymore. The amount of money it costs just to scrape by and survive this life now is another reason that I don't want to be here. A life that is sustained by money feels so meaningless. Sure life is more than about money but let's face it without it you die and nobody cares less. It's all so screwed up.

Some related topics might include "How can I become less affected by politics?", and "What is the Antidote for a Hateful Temperament?".

What really matters is whether you follow the noble eightfold path and you understand the four noble truths.

I have answered before on metta threads (where I usually get downvoted) but it is best to start with equanimity towards the world & then move up to metta (when appropriate). Dhammapada states:

171. Come! Behold this world, which is like a decorated royal chariot. Here fools flounder, but the wise have no attachment to it.
58. Upon a heap of rubbish in the road-side ditch blooms a lotus, fragrant and pleasing.
59. Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom.

If you are enlightened, kindness is merely a natural emotion that eminates from your own freedom of heart & kindness towards yourself in your cultivation of liberation.

If the whole world is covered in broken glass, you could either try to wrap the world in leather or you could start wearing sandals. Trying to wrap the world in leather is like trying to change people in  the world. Wearing sandals is like fixing your own mind so the outside factors cannot bother you.
If you are overwhelmed by hate, Metta meditation is the one recommended. Once you have your hate subdued to a degree you could move on to Satipattana meditation which will eventually eliminate anger.

These opinions you have, what is the source of them? What is the source of any opinion? Have you met either man or did you read an article, hear a report or hear someone talking about them in a bar? If you haven't met them, consider how you have relied on intermediaries to form an opinion of two people you don't actually know. Do you trust these intermediaries (tv companies, newspapers, members of the general public)? Why? Meditate on this.

All the world's a stage,
  And all the men and women merely players;
  They have their exits and their entrances,

Consider the double meaning of entrances and exits. What are the entrances and exits of a human being? What goes into the body and via what channels? What is light? What is sound? What is food and water for? What about air? How long can you go without these things? Why?

Could the person who marked this down explain why. I would genuinely like to know why this would not be a good answer to the question.


text:
Meditation help - Am i observing a thought like I should or entertaining it?
I have a question with how to properly meditate, and a quick glance at other questions at this site seem to indicate I believe this exchange can provide answers.
I have two questions:
1) When I meditate, I often find myself daydreaming more than having thoughts bother me, although I can very occasionally find myself daydreaming of something in my past that was unpleasant (doesn't seem to happen much though). To simply observe this thought, do I let it play out or try and
focus on my breathing?
2) I have some symptoms of OCD, such as the whim of my internal voice at times playing out an uncomfortable experience in my head or a statement that bothers me (which is why my mind states it), and I worry if I don't address I might subconsciously believe it. (Such as, if the compulsive thought that bothered me was "I'm a bad person" and if I just let that sit with me instead of addressing it, merely observe it, I might subconsciously believe it. This is just an example but it illustrates what I'm getting at). Can I rest assured just observing such a thought won't cause such subconscious beliefs?

What you have described is not really "observing". It is "thinking".
Thinking & observing are basically two different & antagonist activities.
While there is a place for thinking, pondering or 'reflection' (yoniso manasikara) in Buddhist meditation, it is not observing (anupassi).
Therefore, if you just let thinking continue instead of addressing it, you certainly might subconsciously believe it.

If the thought arises: "I am a bad person", you should investigate or examine the truth or falseness of this thought; but in terms of emotions & actions rather than 'persons'.
In Buddhism, there are five precepts which are about: (i) killing; (ii) stealing; (iii) unwholesome sex; (iv) dishonesty; & (v) drugs & alcohol. These five are bad or harmful actions. In addition, thoughts & emotions of greed, anger/hatred & selfishness are also considered bad or harmful.
In Buddhism, a meditator does not think: "I am a bad person". Instead, a meditator acknowledges or refects: "This is a harmful emotion" or "This a harmful action". The focus here is upon the emotion or the action rather than the person. The meditator then reflects (thinks about) why the emotion or action is bad or harmful, which, in itself, will change the emotion & action towards a good emotion & good action.

So if the thought arises, am I essentially addressing the thought or feeling itself, and disconnecting myself from it?

Like, how can I meditate if I have to address the thought every time it comes up? It comes out obsessive-compulsively.

Generally, the goal is to focus on your breathing. If you can just focus breathing, the compulsion to think will calm down. However, it you cannot calm down with breathing, if you address the thought well, the thought will stop arising. All meditators have to address their habitual thoughts. Kind regards

1) The answer to the first question. Focus on the object, and skillfully reject all your own thoughts. Needs months to years of practice though depending one's ability. Will get it eventually.
2) OCD....

“Bhikshu, as regards the source from which proliferation of conception and perception assails a person: if one were to find nothing there to delight in, nothing there to welcome, nothing to cling to—this is the end of

the latent tendency of lust,
the latent tendency of aversion,
the latent tendency of views,
the latent tendency of doubt,
the latent tendency of conceit,
the latent tendency of desire for existence, and
the latent tendency of ignorance.

This is the ending of the taking up of the rod and the sword, quarrels, disputes, mayhem [strife], slandering and lying —here these evil unwholesome states cease without remainder.”
…
Avuso, dependent on the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind] and [form | sound | smell | taste | touch | mind-object], [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind]-consciousness arises.

The meeting of the three is contact.

With contact as condition, there is feeling.

What one feels, one perceives.

What one perceives, one thinks about.

What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates.

From that as source, proliferation of conception and perception assails a person regarding past, future and present [forms | sounds | smells | tastes | touch | mind-objects] cognizable through the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind].

Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta
Continuous thinking leads to an avalanche of thoughts about the past, present and future.

proliferation of conception and perception assails a person regarding past, future and present

As you have recognised the thoughts can be pleasant or painful.

vi. On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,

one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
Regardless of that they are stimulating and pleasant or depressing you should not get averse or attached to them.

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

Pahāna Sutta
When you get distracting thoughts, look at what sensations they have produced, i.e., they were pleasant thoughts or unpleasant thoughts. Stay with the sensation equanimously for a while until it subsides and then return to your object of mediation. When the sensations subside there will be lesser through proliferation, hence lesser distractions due to thoughts. Prematurely bringing your attention meditation object, while strong sensations persist, may result in further distracting thoughts.
You should break the chain of thoughts. Repeated thinking can lead to view which is a latent tendency. These can be self centered view.

the latent tendency of views,

The view can lead to superiority or inferiority complex. E.g. I am good, I am bad, I am better than X, I am worse than Y, etc. This is Mana which is also a fetter and also an unwholesome mental state.
When these thoughts arise you should look at them in a detached way as a passive observer while being equanimous. Observing in such a way these view slowly dissolve. Getting involved with the thoughts by rejecting, ignoring them or getting attached to them reinforces these beliefs. So you subconscious beliefs will not be affected if you are not equanimously observing them.
Doing so the thoughts will also subside quickly with less thoughts proliferation, in which case you can bring back attention to your meditation object.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Not addressing a thought when meditating
If I, for example, was meditating, and the thought came in my mind, say, obsessive-compulsively (meaning it keeps resurfacing due to the fact that the thought bothers me): "I'm a bad person", if I ignored it and returned to my breathing, would my not addressing the thought and thinking "No, I'm not, and here's why.." cause me to subconsciously believe I'm a bad person? It's holding me back from meditating because I feel uneasy about dropping the thought.

Obsessive-compulsive tendency means attachment to thoughts, giving them too much importance. Instead of addressing thoughts, we can observe our mind. It's like reflections and mirror. If you are captivated by reflections, or struggle against reflections, you manipulate with reflections - and they remain in power. Instead, you can shift your attention to space where reflections happen. Mirror is not touched by reflections.
So if you just observe the thoughts, not trailing them with more thoughts, not being captured by thoughts, then you can remain in stable mind, untouched by thoughts. Your mind will gradually realize their illusory nature. Thoughts have causes and effects, so they have no power by themselves. All their power is brought by causes and conditions.
Meditating, you can gradually develop awareness of thoughts and their causes, and develop non-attachment to them.
For example, you could realize that "I am a bad person" is just a stupid idea, an illusory construction that has nothing to do in your life.
PS. In case of "constant thinking", the thought repeats again and again. Why does it repeat? Because there is some intention beyond repeating thoughts. Then we can use several methods:
(1) Keep the observation and try to let go of thoughts. Eventually the mind may get bored with that thought and stop repeat it.
See also: Letting go (Ch'an Newsletter - No. 24, September 1982)
(2) Investigate the intention. "Why does this thought return, again and again? What for?" Investigating intentions, you could change your mental processes and get rid of obsessions.
For example, the thought "I'm a bad person" can come due to the intention to understand that marking people as "good" and "bad" is not an efficient way to deal with problems.

But does merely observing thoughts, not being captured by them, merely having the thought cross your mind, cause your mind to subconsciously believe it by conditioned, constant thinking?

@sangstar, "constant thinking" means: the thought repeats again and again. Why does it repeat? Because there is some intention beyond repeating thoughts. Then we can use several methods: (1) keep the observation and try to let go of thoughts. Eventually the mind may get bored with that thought and stop repeat it. (2) Investigate the intention. "Why does this thought return, again and again? What for?" Investigating intentions, you could change your mental processes and get rid of obsessions. See also Letting go: http://www.chancenter.org/chanctr/ddp/channews/09-1982.html

Continuous thinking leads to latent tendencies.

“Bhikshu, as regards the source from which proliferation of conception and perception assails a person: if one were to find nothing there to delight in, nothing there to welcome, nothing to cling to—this is the end of

the latent tendency of lust,
the latent tendency of aversion,
the latent tendency of views,
the latent tendency of doubt,
the latent tendency of conceit,
the latent tendency of desire for existence, and
the latent tendency of ignorance.

This is the ending of the taking up of the rod and the sword, quarrels, disputes, mayhem [strife], slandering and lying —here these evil unwholesome states cease without remainder.”
…
Avuso, dependent on the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind] and [form | sound | smell | taste | touch | mind-object], [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind]-consciousness arises.

The meeting of the three is contact.

With contact as condition, there is feeling.

What one feels, one perceives.

What one perceives, one thinks about.

What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates.

From that as source, proliferation of conception and perception assails a person regarding past, future and present [forms | sounds | smells | tastes | touch | mind-objects] cognizable through the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind].

Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta
Best option is to drop it and get back to meditation. Also thinking gives and intellectual stimulation.

vi. On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,

one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
Regardless of that they are stimulating and pleasant or depressing you should not get averse or attached to them.

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

Pahāna Sutta
When you get distracting thoughts, look at what sensations they have produced, i.e., they were pleasant thoughts or unpleasant thoughts. Stay with the sensation equanimously for a while until it subsides and then return to your object of mediation.

Exactly. There is no such thing is good or bad persons because these are arrent overgeneralizations. If one insists that "I am a bad person" that would imply that all his/her acts, deeds and thoughts were bad, are bad and will be bad forever. Giving global ratings to such a complex and ever changing being and given that humans are inherently fallible, it is not recommended to judge one's personhood. Better judge actions, thoughts and feelings but never global judgments.

I don't know if this helps to answer, but I take it as axiomatic that there are bad actions, bad intentions, bad habits, bad environments ... but not "bad people".
If a child bites one of their class-mates, for example, the teacher shouldn't say "you're a bad boy": they should say "don't bite people", or, "use your words instead of biting", or something like that.
I think that Buddhism might tend to discourage adults from thinking you're "a person" at all of any kind, good or bad. And I think that a question to ask is not, "Am I a bad person?", it is, "Is this good behaviour? Good intent?", and so on.

If I, for example, was meditating, and the thought came in my mind, say, obsessive-compulsively (meaning it keeps resurfacing due to the
  fact that the thought bothers me): "I'm a bad person", if I ignored it
  and returned to my breathing

If you return to your breathing, your mind can feel calm. If your mind feels calm, it will not have the habitual (compulsive) thought.

would my not addressing the thought and thinking "No, I'm not, and here's why.." cause me to subconsciously believe I'm a bad person?

No. If your mind can feel calm by focusing on your breathing, your subconscious will start to believe: "I can be a calm person" instead of "I am a bad person".

It's holding me back from meditating because I feel uneasy about dropping the  thought.

You & nobody else can benefit from meditation if it is believed: "I am a bad person". Therefore, I recommend two options:
(1) Ignore the thought & focus on your breathing, until you start to believe: "I can be a calm person".
Otherwise:
(2) Address the thought & change it to: "I am not a bad person. I am just an ordinary person. I am a person who wants to improve my life & be a better person."
The Buddhist path has more components than only focusing on breathing. The other components include to stop doing harmful (negative) actions & to develop love & compassion towards yourself.

The answer depends on whether you are practicing Samatha or Vipassana meditation.  Vipassana meditation has two aspects of knowing and developing. That is Samma Sati (right mindfulness) and Samma Vayama (right effort).

If I, for example, was meditating, and the thought came in my mind, say, obsessive-compulsively (meaning it keeps resurfacing due to the fact that the thought bothers me): "I'm a bad person", if I ignored it and returned to my breathing, would my not addressing the thought and thinking "No, I'm not, and here's why.." cause me to subconsciously believe I'm a bad person?

You are over-thinking/analyzing this which tends to result in further thinking. This is known as mental proliferation (papanca).
If you are practicing Vipassana meditation, then simply note these mental formations as "thinking, thinking" and return attention the rising and falling of the abdomen.
If you are practicing Samatha Meditation, then simply acknowledge the thoughts and return to your primary object (nostrils, upper lip or abdomen).
Do not dwell in in those thoughts. Do not attach to them. They are merely impersonal phenomena, arising and ceasing on their own accord, due to causes and conditions.

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


text:
If a living being is not self aware than can he experience suffering or pleasure?
When some living being like dog or any mini bacteria are killed, since they are not self aware or concious do they feel the same type of pain as we do? what is the difference between their suffering and our suffering?

What do you mean by self-aware? Being conscious?

Dogs don't forget pain. You only have to look at a dog that has been continuously beaten and then cringes or tries to bite anyone who tries to pet it.  Yes it has become an automatic reaction but there must be some kind of memory there about humans not being trustworthy.

Its very clear that dogs are conscious  and feel the same pain as humans do and the suffering is the same suffering
If by self aware you mean mindful- than most people arent mindful 99.9999% of the time     ---  many many monks if good ones are not mindful most of the time
About bacteria i cant say much

I think that (according to Buddhism) humans, animals, ghosts, and residents of hell all belong to the same kind of category: all "sentient", all composed of the five skandhas, and all subject to suffering.
Since all belong to the same continuum (i.e. samsara), I expect that they all "lose memory" and that their "suffering finishes" in much the same way.
I don't consider a dog as like a bacterium, by the way: IMO a bacterium is more like a plant than an animal. I think different schools of Buddhism differ on whether plants are "sentient" and have any "consciousness".
don't they just forget or loose the momory of their suffering after it is finished?
Isn't that more-or-less true (or untrue) of people too?

It is hard to say unless you are an animal or bacteria.
In general observation, it appears animals such as dogs enjoy the sex and they feel the pain.
According to Buddhist teaching animals possess five aggregate same as the human.
Interesting video to watch. In this video, it is explained in plain English that any living and breathing organism has consciousness and how we interpret pain and pleasure.
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality | Anil Seth

More primitive life forms, such as worms or fish, have a nervous system, therefore their nervous system experiences physical pain. Dogs are probably more complex and have emotions such as lust, love, emotional attachment; that makes them experience emotional sorrow & unhappiness.
However. as we can directly experience, homo sapiens (people) have the egoistic attachment (upadana) of self-identity (sakkaya ditthi), which is born from thought conception. This upadana of sakkaya ditthi is the 'suffering' ('dukkha') Buddhism seeks to eliminate.
I think it is a fair assumption worms & fish cannot create the upadana of sakkaya ditthi; and probably also dogs.

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
  be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
  conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. MN 140

In all 31 planes of existence there is attachment to life except for the plane for Unconscious Beings (asaññasatta). So a dog feels pain thus like us.
Also any being in any plane are self aware except for enlightened beings who do not have self conceiving.
Also we all lose some notion of suffering otherwise hence why 1st Noble Truth is not readily comprehensible.


text:
Can somebody remove their bad karma by believing that it doesn't exist?
If somebody does sin or bad karma, harms other living beings, but that person doesn't believe in karma and believes that karma is just an illusion. then how does his bad actions will harm him? For example, if I kill a mouse but I totally believe that nothing will happen, karma or religion is just people's belief, then will I ever be punished for that karma and such believe? Because there is also one saying that everything is just our belief?
And also if I later ask for forgiveness to god for my bad karmas then will my bad karmas be forgiven?

generally speaking, the opposite would be closer to the truth for most buddhists, i think. belief in cause and effect is part of 'right view', surely?

When you follow through with an actions the motivation can be either wholesome or unwholesome . If it is wholesome then the roots are greedlessness, hatelessness, undeludedness (alobha, adosa, amoha) and if they are unwholesome the roots are greed, hate, delusion (lobha, dosa, moha). These also are known as the cause as unwholesome volition results in unwholesome actions, if followed through, and vise versa. The wholesome and unwholesome states are like seeds. They grow and bear fruit. So when you have generate and wholesome/unwholesome state of mind this matures into pleasant/unpleasant experience in the future.
The mechanism is not belief base. Say you believe some corn seed is actually wheat but when you plant it the result is that you get corn plants and not wheat. Also if the ground is fertile and the necessary conditions are there for the seed to germinate and grow they will grown and also giving corn, regardless of belief. Same way wholesome/unwholesome state mature into pleasant/unpleasant experience, regardless of belife system.

You are expressing the stock definition of 'wrong view':

And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong
view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what
is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing
sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There
is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no
spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring
rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after
having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong
view... MN117

More graphically, it is described as:

There are some contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold
this view: 'In acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or
getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture,
in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in
tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting
others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given,
breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary,
ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood — one does
no evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living
beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of
flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even
if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and
getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate,
torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from
that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left
bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making
sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no
merit from that cause, no coming of merit. Through generosity,
self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from
that cause, no coming of merit. MN60

You may choose not to believe in cosmic Karma, as in Hinduism, but kamma in Buddhism is only accrued due to intentional actions. Denying intention is denying agency, in one way or another. AN 3.61 deals with that issue, and with respect to God and kamma's place if God is to be believed in.
The Buddha did say:

Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his
transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully
pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are
fools.
These two are wise people. Which two? The one who sees his
transgression as a transgression, and the one who rightfully pardons
another who has confessed his transgression. These two are wise
people. AN 2.21

So confession is understood as wise, and acceptance of such is also, but this confession is to a human being.

This is a variation of Akiriya-ditthi which is basically having the view that there's no merit or demerit to your actions. This is one of the views with a fixed destination. Whether you harm someone or not, if you die with this view, you will have no other destination but hell.
Asking forgiveness from a 'God' will only compound one's ignorance as there is no God.
Reply to OP's comments:
It has a fixed destination as in if you die with that view in the mind, you end up in hell. But if a good Karma comes to the mind at the time of the death, you will go to a good place.  The three roots of evil are not always present. Ignorance is present in unenlightened beings when they do bad or good karma. But the term 'ignorance' is an umbrella term. The Pali word Avijja simply points to the lack of the understanding of the four noble truths. It does not necessarily mean having a wrong view like the one you talk about in the question. On the other hand, Micca Ditthi or having a false view is at a whole new level.
Ex: Not knowing the cure for diabetes is one thing, but thinking that smoking is the cure for diabetes goes way beyond simply not knowing the cure. Not only it does not cure diabetes, it will make the situation worse. In the same way, simple ignorance just extends your Samsara, but wrong views put you in hells.

is this really doctrinally correct? i haven't read your links yet, but wrong view isn't bad karma itself, is it?

Every thought with  craving, aversion or ignorance is bad Karma. Wrong view is ignorance.

yes you're right, my apologies. i'll add an answer!

thanks for this... though i still disagree a) that it has a fixed destination and b) aren't the three poisons always present in some form for any unenlightened being, just more or less active? you could be right, and i'd welcome an edit that shows you are!

replied in the answer

do you mean that the thought at death can be of wrong view or good karma, but never both?

Except for Arahaths,  some karma comes forward to result in the next life at death. It can be either wholesome or unwholesome

sure, but if it is the karma of wrong view is that the only karma that does come forward?

It depends on the severity. There is a priority order. First comes weighty Karma. Second comes near death Karma. Third is habitual Karma. Fourth is random Karma.

sounds good, thanks!

"Wrong view" is one part of Kammapatha, and one of the bad (unwholesome) mental aspects of courses of action, kamma. There are many types of "wrong view", and it seems that this particular one is unwholesome, whereas belief in a self is not

There are many kinds of wrong views and they are of different degrees.
  Three kinds of wrong view are unwholesome courses of action, akusala
  kamma patha, through the mind, and these are capable of causing an
  unhappy rebirth.

I think one can overplay the bad karma, rather than lack of liberation, associated with it, however, especially as people with "wrong view" can end up going to a higher rebirth in their next life.

Right view, by contrast, is both good wholesome (good karma) and part of the Buddhist path to nirvana.

Just be kind to yourself, and don't do any action that you don't have to do , or don't enjoy. This statement can benefit you, if you see and become aware of ,all the energies and sensations, gross and subtle , within your body, feelings, mind , and contents of mind. In other words, your whole being. Good Luck

And also if i latter ask for forgiveness to god for my bad karmas than will my bad karmas be forgiven?

Yes. The kamma will be forgiven because there is the recognition the kamma was wrong.
Just as there is really no god, there is also no magical cosmic kamma. All that exists is: (i) the feeling of internal pain & stress due to performing bad kamma; and (ii) the feeling of relief & pleasantness when the bad kamma is purified.
Therefore, if you ask god for forgiveness, ask buddha for forgiveness, ask yourself for forgiveness or ask a mouse for forgiveness, as long as you see your former bad kamma was wrong & realise you should not do that kamma (action) again, there will be forgiveness & relief.

If you are an Eskimo and believe in some kind of fish god, the Karma still applies because these are rules of nature (Dhammatha). Karmaric results are inevitable just as gravity pulls you down to earth.
Furthermore, reason you live is because of Kamma. Life is a series of good, bad and neutral experiences. When you stop creating causes (Kamma) your lifestream (not just life) itself will cease to exist thus attain Nibbana.
Although the idea or Kamma is different from Jain idea of Kamma (Sanskrit Karma). The Jains believe everything happens due to Kamma. This is not entirely true because you can circumvent most effects of Kamma.
There are 2 things. There is the Kamma and there is also the Kamma Patha (An established Kamma). In order to understand refer to the following example;

The man is hungry and wants to hunt and eat an animal
The man gathers his gun and plans the hunt
The man uses the gun shoots the animal
The animal is shot and falls dead

A Kamma is any single task in the series of tasks. The full Kamma or the Kamma Patha is established when ALL steps are complete. 80% of the karmma that people do are not Kamma Patha since not all steps are completed.
A living being is a symphony of 3 activities.

The physical body (Kardaja Kaya)
The thought processors (Chittada Kaya)
The sub-conscious (Monomaya Kaya)

The word "Kaya" in Magadhi means activity. The Kamma Beeja (Seeds) or the Bawa one creates gets settled in the item 3 -> the Monomaya Kaya. This sets the colour of ones existence.
There are 4 activities a person must complete each day. This 4 activities will clear 60% of the Kamma beeja from the Manomaya Kaya. These are mostly the incomplete Kamma Patha similar to the example above.
Further 20% of the Bawa or Kamma beeja can be removed and rest must be spent.
The act of living experiencing good, bad and the ugly is spending the 20% of the beeja you created in the past.
Please note these figures are merely guidelines and may differ from one being to the next.

If you don't practise mindfulness and meditation, maybe in the moment of death you can do something to become free from the bad karma. The moment of death -If there is real mindfulness- can be an opportunity for enlightenment. Maybe a sudden enlightenment (when you're not facing death) can liberate you too but that is a very little possibility. Other than that there is no way to become free from the bad karma. The bad karmas creating, greed, anger, delusion and all kinds of suffering for the humans. The human actions are creating all kinds of identifications in the human mind that becomes the basis of the "self" and this fake entity called "self" controls and captures the humans completely. All of the human history(and pre-human history) lives in the humans minds and the beliefs like seperate sky-god and asking for forgiveness from it and hoping to go to heaven with this action are just delusions.
That's why realization of Nibbana is very important. Before the realization of Nibbana there are many things for a person that it is simply impossible to see clearly. If a person realizes Nibbana(the person would experience it many times after the first experience) s/he would gradually be more aware of the building blocks of humanity and eventually stop having thoughts like "Why there is so much suffering in the world" or "The situation in the world is totally unacceptable" etc. Also the person would drop meaningless beliefs like "thinking or wishing in a certain way can lead a person to happiness, liberation" etc.

There can be no happiness without peace.

https://plus.google.com/photos/photo/118014954414967440482/5985636131306858418

People have a hard time letting go of their suffering. Out of a fear of the unknown they prefer suffering that is familiar.

http://1zl13gzmcsu3l9yq032yyf51-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/thicht_hahn_suffering.jpg

Once you become an Arahant, there is no future re-birth and no more ripening of your old Kamma. A good example is the story of Angulimala. As an Arahant you are free from both wholesome and unwholesome actions.

After you killed mosquito, these cases will happen without believing:

Most of mosquito's family hate you.
Most of anti-killing-people hate  you, too.
Your memory will memorized that killing consciousness, then everytime you listen about the bad result of that killing conscioueness, you will feel bad.
Etc.

No need believing.

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


text:
Conscious Attention for Inner transformation during daily activities
The life current is extremely strong, if I consciously bring my attention to a single breath, a single movement of my abdomen, a single moment of my weight or sensation of my sitting bones during daily life, would it still be beneficial to my inner transformation?
Or is it long hours of (15min plus) sitting meditation, body scanning is only counted?

Mindfulness should be from awakening to falling asleep, i.e., throughout the day. Formal practice time is just a booster and practice to keep your mindfulness thought out the day.

When this was said, the Blessed One addressed the monks. "Whoever develops mindfulness of death, thinking, 'O, that I might live for a day & night... for a day... for the interval that it takes to eat a meal... for the interval that it takes to swallow having chewed up four morsels of food, that I might attend to the Blessed One's instructions. I would have accomplished a great deal' — they are said to be dwelling heedlessly. They develop mindfulness of death slowly for the sake of ending the fermentations.
"But whoever develops mindfulness of death, thinking, 'O, that I might live for the interval that it takes to swallow having chewed up one morsel of food... for the interval that it takes to breathe out after breathing in, or to breathe in after breathing out, that I might attend to the Blessed One's instructions. I would have accomplished a great deal" — they are said to be dwelling heedfully. They develop mindfulness of death acutely for the sake of ending the fermentations.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/beyondcoping/heedfulness.html


text:
Loving Communication
I am currently reading The Art of Communication by Thich Nhat Hanh and going through some rough spots in a relationship.
From a Buddhist perspective, what is the most loving way to communicate, in a relationship when both people are suffering and have opposite needs? One believes they need space to heal and find themselves, and the other needs understanding that comes through meaningful communication before that time apart will seem restorative.

Buddhism always recommends truthful (sacca) & gentle (soracca) speech in relationship.
Three other qualities emphasised are: (i) training (dama) in self-improvement; (ii) patience (khanti); & (iii) sacrifice (caga). See link.
At this time, the above qualities are obviously crucial in your 'rough spot'.
However, the most important quality of relationship in Buddhism is 'mutual or same needs'.

Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present time but also in the future, they should have the
same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity and the
same wisdom.
Both husband and wife are endowed with faith, charitable and self-controlled, living their lives righteously, addressing each other
with pleasant words,
Then many benefits accrue to them and they dwell at ease. When both are the same in virtue.
Samajivina Sutta: The Same in Living

A commentary on this teaching by Thailand's foremost scholar monk is below:

The compatible couple: there are principles for partners in life to ensure their compatibility, providing a firm foundation for a long married life, called the four qualities for a good match (samajivi-dhamma):
1. Sama-saddha: having compatible faith; they uphold the same religion, revere the same objects of worship, concepts, beliefs or principles,
and share the same lines of interest - they are equally firm in all
these or can reach agreement on them.
2. Sama-sila: having compatible morality; they have conduct, morality, ethics, manners and upbringing which are harmonious or compatible.
3. Sama-caga: having compatible generosity; they are in accord, not conflict, with each other in their generosity, hospitality,
munificence, sacrifice, and readiness to help others.
4. Sama-panna: having compatible intelligence; they are sensible and can understand each other; they can at least reason with each other.
A Constitution for Living: Buddhist Principles for a Fruitful and Harmonious Life

Without same needs or goals, Buddhism would say a relationship is difficult to maintain.

I don't see "same needs" (or any mention of "needs" at all) in the quote you gave.

The same needs comes under the same faith. Faith encompasses more than merely religious faith. It emcompasses a person's life view. Same virtue or morality also encompasses same needs. Try to read my post with wisdom rather than merely as literal words. Read "the link" posted.

The quote mentions being "generous" and so on, which I thought might be the opposite of "needy" ... so it seemed to me that the quote actually contradicted your premise or summary, that the most important quality is "mutual needs".

I have not contradicted anything. All relationship is based on need; such as monks that need requisites from lay people.

"Love" seems to me to be quite an ambiguous word in English ... for example, depending on who's saying it, "I love you" might mean "You give me what I need", or, "I give you what you need."

Brahmaviharas
One of the recommendations about "being loving" is the doctrine of the Brahma-viharas ... for example, this essay introduces them by saying,

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.
The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind ...

I think they're all worth considering. If your partner becomes more enlightened then that would be occasion for mudita, for example.
The recommendation that these are right attitudes isn't specific to people who are "in a relationship" but, given they're for "all situations", that includes someone with whom you have a relationship.

Traditional responsibilities
The suttas include advice for married couples, including a definition of responsibilities ... the duties of the husband and the duties of a wife.
I'm not sure it's sensible (I doubt it's sensible) to have these expectations of your partner if they're unwilling (i.e. if you don't see things from the same perspective).
To the extent that people do have needs, expectations, and duties, I think they're supposed to have different kinds of needs: e.g. what children need (and what your duties towards them are), is different from what your wife needs, your employees need, your parents need, and so on.
I think it's easy in modern society for a couple to try (and fail) to be all things to each other.

Not
Notwithstanding the Brahmaviharas, it seems to me that many Buddhist qualities or ideals are defined as a "not": for example, being "harmless" (Avihimsā, also translated as "friendliness or "absence of cruelty"); or, "attachment" (desire, clinging) is seen as a cause of suffering, so conversely non-attachment is a good thing.
Similarly I think that being selfish (which I think includes having views such as "I need this" and "I need that", and "I need you" and "I need you to do this and that for me") is going to be counter-productive to the aim of reducing suffering.

Expectations
There's a bit of advice in this answer about what to look for in a marriage partner.
If I may say so I think I might interpret the subject of "needs" a little differently than Dhammadhatu does. One of the foundational virtues is "generosity" (i.e. giving), which might be seen as almost the opposite of being "needy".
I expect young children (infants) to be "needy", I kind of expect adults to be the opposite of needy, i.e. generous and independent.

Specifically
You said that the two of you have "opposite needs".
My theory is that you would do better if you were less needy, or at least more independent at satisfying your own needs.
I actually see each of those needs in isolation (rather than being in opposition to each other).

One believes they need space to heal and find themselves
I'm not sure there is a "self" to find (so this "need" might be either doomed to failure, or at least badly expressed).
What more likely I think is that this one has a current view-of-self which they don't like (a view that's self-imposed and/or which their partner is trying to impose on them).
I suspect they might not "find themselves" but do want to escape from a view-of-self which they find constraining. For example if they're being told "You don't meet my needs", that's disparaging (their partner might do better to, instead, encourage what they're good at).
the other needs understanding that comes through meaningful communication
Three theoretical problems I foresee with this include:

Asking for "understanding" is asking for an overcoming of confusion, which is difficult ... not impossible but maybe a central problem or "root" of all other problems
Any communication might be seen as unsatisfactory (unsatisfactoriness might be a characteristic of almost anything), so saying "I need communication" as implying that "My need could be satisfied by communication" might not be true
It puts of burden (a demand) on the partner: "You must communicate with me, otherwise my need will not be satisfied." I think that (perhaps paradoxically) a "loving" relationship might be better when the partners are more independent and less demanding.

If the confusion is the result of a lie, I don't believe that it is demanding to expect the other person to participate in truth finding.

I'm surprised to see you write about independence, considering the non self, compartir nature of each of us... I am the people who I share my life with.

In the suttas (and the Therigathas) people talk about how confining the home-life is or was, and contrast that with freedom, liberation, even autonomy. My experience is that "not to get what one wants is dukkha"; that having fewer demands and expectations of a partner (i.e. being more independent) implied one's behaviour could be happier, less selfish, more "loving" -- after which the partner might eventually be happier too, freer, wise, and see you as a friend, rather than as a part of their problem to escape from.


text:
Weird people and their Karma
So many times I've read and watched in news that people are taking video in their phone while crime is happening and someone burning in fire, one badly bleeding and facing to the death. So does those people are mostly reasonable cause of victims death?
Do they need to pay more than actual criminal when they could save them?
I thought they are real criminals. I'm really afraid what's happening in this "Modern weird world". If I were there I could save those people. I'm really feel very very bad cause I couldn't help them out.People just taking video to viral on social medias. I really don't understand this kind of nature.
So what is waiting for them?

The uncaring kamma will probably affect their life in ways such as problems with their relationships, etc, & also contribute to a bad world, which, if not corrected, will bring a worse world in the future. This is what is waiting for them, namely, hell on earth, either for them; for their family; for their friends; or for their children. As for the hell you seem to be imagining, this is only of the imagination.
But if you realise the results of kamma are felt within the heart & also manifest in the quality of relationships & the world, then you will understand a lack of care inwardly brings a lack of care outwardly. This present "weird world" you see is itself the result of the kamma of not caring. There is no requirement to "wait" because the results of uncaring kamma have already come to fruition.

@Dhmmadhatu Thanks for your priceless time and answer.


text:
What is the general Buddhist consensus on catharsis?
Is it fine if you are mindful while doing it? Or did the Buddha denounce such practices as revelling or exaggerating emotions to provide temporary relief? I find that simply being mindful while repressing emotions has a tendency towards leading to passive aggressiveness.
To be specific, I mean actions like systematically screaming to release anger, systematically feeling to release sorrow... etc. Purposely releasing these mindstates and going over the top instead of repressing them.
What about other traditions aside from Therevada? Do they share a similar view towards catharsis, or is that not the case?

In my opinion, catharsis is a hindrance (non-meditaion) therefore not really related to Buddhism. Catharsis is a product of a deficiency in morality & self-control (as explained in AN 10.61). In other words, catharsis is a secular matter rather than a Buddhist matter.

What is the nutriment for the five hindrances? It should be said: the three kinds of misconduct.
AN 10.61

This said, in MN 20, it is taught as one of five methods that sometimes a person must let a hindrance arise to overcome it. Often emotions are so strong, they must be endured and allowed to arise & run their course.

If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate and with delusion, then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts. When he gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness and concentrated. Just as a man walking fast might consider: ‘Why am I walking fast? What if I walk slowly?’ and he would walk slowly; then he might consider: ‘Why am I walking slowly? What if I stand?’ and he would stand; then he might consider: ‘Why am I standing? What if I sit?’ and he would sit; then he might consider: ‘Why am I sitting? What if I lie down?’ and he would lie down. By doing so he would substitute for each grosser posture (thought) one that was subtler. So too…when a bhikkhu gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts…his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.

I mostly agree with Dhammadhatu's answer.
And, so far as I know, modern Western psychology too doesn't necessarily agree with "catharthis" (popularized by Freud as a treatment for "hysteria") -- it may be that activity like screaming doesn't especially release anger, but may instead accustom/train/reward you for screaming.
You ask about "other traditions aside from Theravada", and I don't know, but the only thing I can think of that seems to me even vaguely related to catharsis are statements or attitudes associated with overcoming taboos: statements like, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him"; or warnings against "the stink of Zen".
See also this answer as an example; though according to this comment I guess that's more to do with abandoning than embracing. Or this answer on "attachments as obstacles to enlightenment".


text:
Rarity of the Human World
I've read in Buddhist texts that being born into the human world is a rare and privileged event.
If that's the case, then why are killers and "bad" people allowed to be born into the human world?
I'm not sure if Buddhists teaching elaborate on the ability to predict a person's future actions but it is my belief and understanding that a person's past karma can foreshadow such a thing.

The word translated as 'human' namely, 'manussa' means 'high minded'. It does not mean a 'homo sapien'. SN 56.47 describes the meaning of what is not the human state, as follows:

Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole
  than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the
  human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus...
...there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails
  mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because,
  bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The
  noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the
  cessation of suffering.

Therefore, it can be discerned quite plainly, without any dispute or contraversy, the human state refers to living a harmless righteous enlightened life, which is indeed extremely rare in this world of people devouring, exploiting, abusing, raping & harming themselves & each other.

I see your point. I never thought of it like that. +1

"bad" people allowed to be born into the human world

This statement does not make sense. Are you assuming there's some kind of God who is allowing beings to be born as humans?
Just because it is hard to get a human birth, it doesn't mean they are going to act virtuous after being born human.
To give a simile, think of it as becoming the president of a country. How hard it is to achieve that? But does it mean all of them are going to act virtuous after coming to power? Becoming a god is even more rare. But look at how the Mara behaves despite being from the highest heaven.

Kamma is not resultant, so while old wholesome kamma making it's resultant arising, the killer can make new unwholesome kamma, together, in the same vithicitta.
Kamma fight kamma to take a occasion to make their resultant arise. In a second we have done millions kamma. And each kamma have their resultant. See 4 kamma in chapter 5th of abhidhammatthasangaha.
Killer maybe born in niraya 500 times, then in peta 500 times, then in tiracchana 500 times, then in cripple 500 times before being as killers, again, in the present life. See dhammapathattakatha.

Kamma is uprightly.

People do good and bad both.
People who have done some good kamma is be born as a human.
Due to various factors they become killers and bad people.


text:
What are do's & dont's which should be followed for serene & calm life?
I would like some rules in the form of dos & don'ts to ensure happiness & eradication of miseries for making life calm & serene.

The don'ts:
Buddhism teaches ten kinds of unskilful action the serious lay Buddhist to refrain from, namely:

Killing.
Stealing
Unwholesome (uncaring) sex
Dishonest speech
Harsh speech
Divisive speech
Frivolous speech
Greed
Hatred
Selfishness & ungratefulness (delusion).

To this add avoiding the roads to ruin (DN 31), namely:

Addiction to drugs & alcohol
Gambling
Nightlife/nightclubbing
Addiction to sensual entertainment
Bad friends
Chronically laziness.

Add to this:

Avoid borrowing money leading to living beyond your means (AN 4.62).

The dos:

The opposite of the above.
Safeguard your social relationships in the 'six directions' (DN 31).
Practise friendliness, compassion, appreciation for goodness & equanimity.
Engage in wholesome pleasures, such as exercise, sports, outdoors nature, arts, contemplative music, charity work, generosity, meditation. etc.

The entire list is here: https://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/Contents.html

Not sure why you say nightlife is "road to ruin". It's a massive generalisation.  It's entirely up to the individual.  I see no harm in going out and having fun dancing with friends occasionally. I think it's very healthy to let ones hair down every now and then.

@Arturia It's a paraphrase of DN 31 which is taken as the Buddha's advice to laypeople (householders).

How can i fight laziness ?

These rules are quite good. Will they help you to gain acceptance with God?
If you follow all these beautiful rules will be right with God?
What will happen to all the bad things that one has done before starting to practice these good rules?

For #10 under the don't's, can you elaborate on why is selfishness and ungratefulness delusion?

Thanks. I posted the teaching of the 10 skilful (kusala) dhammas. These are connected with wholesomeness rather than vipassana. Therefore, delusion here is when you do not recognise what you receive from relationships & what you must return in relationships. Therefore, I called this delusion 'selfishness & ungratefulness'. As for vipassana, delusion here means to view things as permanent, satisfactory & self, which is a higher teaching. This is not called "wholesomeness" but "enlightenment".  Regards

@Arturia I guess in Buddha's age most people slept early, and only people who addicts to sensual entertainment have a nightlife. Today few people go to sleep at sundown, thus nightlife is a different thing today.

Observing the "five precepts" is the starting point.
The five precepts are the "don't do" things (the things to avoid). Then you have to practice things to do -- I ask people in my meditation group not only to observe the five precepts but also practice the opposite. That is:

Killing vs loving kindness
Stealing vs generosity
Inappropriate sex vs refrain
Lying vs telling the truth
Alcohol vs practicing mindfulness

Shamelessly stolen from Dhammadhatu's great answer:

Practise friendliness, compassion, appreciation for goodness & equanimity.

In my personal experience, this is really the make-or-break-factor. It is the one thing which you can positively, actively influence daily, nay, in each moment. It needs no study of any text or "rules".
It can often be very easy, but sometimes very hard, which means you can often practise it, and sometimes learn very much from it.
This includes being nice to your enemies, loving people who would be hated by others, appreciating things other people do which would otherwise seem unappreciable to you, and so on. All of these things are not obvious if you really think them through, but they are possible.
It is very important that what you do to achieve this goal is not running around with a constant insincere smile, but the feelings expressed above need to be real. You need to really see what is good about someone who seemingly is "out to get you", or someone who is "stupid", and so on. This is the hard part, which will lead to your personal development. But it is noticeable.
There is some quote about Marilyn Monroe, visiting some GIs in Vietnam, where some guys said that she had such an overwhelming presence not because she was beautiful, a goddess even, but because she sincerly made everyone feel liked and "on the same level". That's the kind of quality you're looking for.
Another example would be if you were to be attacked - your goal would be to be able to defend from attacks, but in a way that really is good for the attacker. You would not want to "break" or kill your attacker. But you would also try, while "winning" decisively, to leave him with his honor intact, or, better yet, find ways so that you both can win and there is no loser at all.
Equanimity obviously entails that you keep your calm in difficult situations, and not only by suppressing your anger, but by really letting the stressfull things "pass through" without letting them harm you. There is a lot of mind work you can do to achieve that.

Thank you for your deeply thought out question.
I have been looking at the Buddhist Stack site for a little while, and I notice some real similarities in the way many of the questions are formed.
  So, first , it is good to study, by which I mean get a perspective of the landscape, in this case the Buddha's Dharma. Think for yourself. If someone tells you to jump of a cliff, you probably will not, Thank God, for that.So , when this hypothetical person told you to jump , what happened? you had an insight that there would probably be a bad result. So, the Buddha was quoted as saying do not believe any think he tells you , until you have tested the truth of that saying and the possible benefit of that idea for you to apply. So, much for that , for now. So you study, then you get the big picture and you actually start to see how using your mind in a certain way is much more beneficial that using your mind in another way. This is the beginning of good judgement. So, Here's the biggie. Cease to do Evil, Learn to do Good, remove all defilements , follow this way to Compete, total, supreme Enlightenment. So, How do I stop doing evil, well , let's start on the simplest level. What if you determine that to get really frustrated and angry and nervous about what just happened to you is not good. So , then , you go to a quiet place or find some friends and calm down. This is ceasing to do evil and learning to do good.So now, you might have gotten a little , "good idea" . If you keep doing this , with all your experiences, you will learn to relax, and better still , you will say. "Oh, I am relaxed now, that is better that going crazy." What if I start to develop some real concentration. I bet I could do this even better, and maybe, just maybe, I could help someone else learn to become happier, too.
And so on. Of course there is much more. Good Luck.

Oh, I forgot to say, I personally think there is studying about such and such, and then actually studying within the method. Do you understand what I just wrote? We might become familiar with Politics and , at first this is overwhelmingly complicated. But then, we keep learning, and then we might see , oh, there are this many different view about politics. We keep studying, and then we meet some one and the give us a really good idea. Oh, I never heard of that kind of politics, Oh, you mean there was a previous first amendment that our Founding Fathers wanted us to use?

Oh, the after some time you learn of all the ways people could live. You start to become an expert, and you speak with other experts, then you see some people like this , other like that. But why?  Then you learn more. So with Dharma, you can study like this, but then some day, you have to decide, "is this way helping me ?"  How can I be happy, and help other people become happy? Then you start to really study. Some day , you might become so Wise, you can start your own Country. Good Luck.


text:
Any reconstructions of earliest mentioned classification of canon?

Monks, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma:
  dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses,
  spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events,
  question & answer sessions [the earliest classifications of the Buddha's teachings]. MN22

It's probably a hazy endeavour, but has anyone attempted to reconstruct such a classification from either the suttas or agamas?

Is this a dodgy quote (despite coming from the exalted MN 22) because birth stories appear to be later additions?
This said, I did try to compile 'birth stories' and only found around a dozen in the Buddhavaca suttas, such as AN 3.15; MN 50; MN 81; MN 123; MN 143; etc; which seem to be in the style of later works, such as the Jataka Tales, Buddhavamsa & Apadana.
The lokuttara dhamma in SN 22.79 says all memories of the past are mere aggregates & not-self.


text:
If someone steals my goods/harms me then is it ok to take revenge on him/her?
If someone has done some big bad thing bad to me, which can't be forgotten easily, then is it ok to take revenge on them, if that person is guilty in this matter?  Will it generate any negative karmic impression in me? should it? Which is important: peace or justice?

I think that the opening verses of the Dhammapada, for example, make it clear that "revenge" is not a way to appease emnity; and that "the wise" would "cease their quarrels" instead.

"He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those harbouring such thoughts cannot be appeased.
"He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those not harbouring such thoughts can be appeased.
Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.
People, other than the wise, do not realize, "We in this world must all die," (and, not realizing it, continue their quarrels). The wise realize it and thereby their quarrels cease.

The problem seems to arise with the initial thought, "someone has done some big bad thing to me". I think that's the kind of problem which the doctrines of anatta and averena are meant to help solve.

this is wonderful quotes from buddha.

The Dhammapada is a popular introduction or summary of doctrine. You can read it all here; or here is a slightly more literal translation (and includes a story/commentary for each verse).

Justice can be performed peacefully; without anger & violence. Simply use the police.

No.
Consider the phrase "revenge is like a boomarang, it just keeps coming back"
In fact from a karmic view point revenge is just ensuring you will experience like in the future.

Yes the back story to verse 5 is of a feud continued over lifetimes.


text:
Has anyone read Nagarjuna as claiming only that an effect is never its cause?
Has anyone read Nagarjuna as claiming only that an effect can never be conceived of as its cause?
I'm asking because it would neatly fit my own views on how to understand science, as well as I think rendering annihilation a conceptual impossibilty (for reasons other than that thesis assuming a person).

i want to delete the question

Why do you want to delete it? Might it be possible to improve the question or the answers, instead?

@ChrisW hm not sure. the question makes sense, as it is, it's just that it's not a very interesting / good one. i thought the reply may have same bearing on textual understanding, but my motivation was silly

rarely a good question with depth here, nice! i recall in Madhyamaka: 穀子中芽無所從來 (the sprout comes from nothingness of the grain) [slit the grain found no sprout in it]... 若果非有生  亦復非無生  亦非有無生  何得言有緣 (if the effect is not a production [生], neither non-production, nor production and non-production, how renders it there the cause)... rendering annihilation a conceptual impossibilty that is very insightful :) you may like to read about the Zeno's Paradoxes as well.

usually the one who doesn't understand Nagarjuna will refute him, or those who never read his works will; or read the bad translations. Anyone who caught a spark will be so captivated by an extra-ordinary mind. Nag's original texts (his very original was lost) exist only in Chinese translated by Kumarajiva. The later Sanskrit was back-translated from Chi. Seemed Kum (my personal reading of his works) was so fascinated by and admired Nag he particularly wrote a biography for him, only 2 pages very easy to read but very interesting storylines I wonder if anyone translated it.

if Nagarjuna is not a profuse meditator none of the monks today are doing meditation; if Nag is not an accomplished meditator none of the meditator today can expect to accomplish anything, neither the Buddha meditated at all! those claimed meditating and how superb their so-called "dhammas/ insights" are only but gabbling, do they really know what is meditation apart from their superficial yelling of calming the mind? while Nagarjuna sat on the Dharma Platform in silence only radiating lights.

See "Mula-madhyamaka-karika" by Nagarjuna:

Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

Later Chandrakirti wrote detailed explanations of these ideas.
The purpose was to demonstrate the middle way between extremes of eternalism and nihilism regarding causes.
Otherwise causes could be viewed as "substance of self" of phenomena.
For practical purposes, we can meditate thusly:

Realize that all things depend on causes,

and therefore they lack independent existence.
For example, my feelings depend on causes. All my thoughts depend on causes. Also my wishes and my actions all depend on causes.
Therefore, is there anything in "me" this moment, not dependent on something else?

Then realize also that causality itself is illusory.

For example, we can contemplate that causality is rather our assumption than reliably known truth.
We guess that this is the cause of that. But it's just our guess, conventional truth. In the absolute sense, we can not ultimately know it.
"Absolute truth" is understood here as something that appears directly (phenomena, dharmas). Any judgments - e.g. views about causality - are just guesses.
For practical purposes, we take such guesses to be "true", but we should realize that's just a convention in our mind.

This understanding helps to see the selflessness of phenomena, and thus to liberate from samsara.

I just want to remark that this answer should not be regarded as a true understanding of Nagarjuna's 中論. Your understanding is far from Nag's. Suggest to read the orginal work 1st, only 68 pages incl. 青目(Chandrakriti?) in Kumarajiva's translation. Also recommend reading Sutra 摩訶般若波羅密多.

Not sure who did good eng translation, very unfortunate the contemporary eng tranl. of almost all Mahayana Sutras (Chinese) were done by Theosophical scholars, they were twisted (erroneous), you shouldn't believe them don't read them as the 1st if you could read Classical Chinese.

These scholars promote what they called early (authentic) Buddhism recorded in - ONLY - Pali, they promote "Mahayana Sutras were great - a later invention (not originally taught by the Buddha, or Buddha not a person, Sutras were group creation". This is a forum that adores Pali Canon, with most of the moderators trumpeting that one voice, you get what I meant ;)

@Mishu米殊, multilingual edition is here: https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index.php?page=volume&vid=27 So what is incorrect in my understanding, and what is correct understanding? I respectfully beg you to explain.

Your quoted is only a close translation, from this verse: 1諸法不自生 2亦不從他生 3不共不無因 4是故知無生 transl.: '1All dharmas (rules, laws, ways... there not an equivalent word in eng to either the Sanskrit dharma or Chinese 法) are not coming from themselves, 2neither from others, 3nor from both (themselves and others) or without causes, 4Thus should know there no becoming [suchness].' your quote missed the 4, also misinterpreted the verse by reversively stating "something arises" which is grotesquely contradictory to Emptiness, the core meaning in fact is the missing 4, 「諸法無生」, no becoming.

"Realize that all things depend on causes" this is very wrong. Nag doesn't state this, in contrast, nothing can be a cause of another thing, see my comment on the OP about the sprout and grain, things arise depends on conditions, not causes. 因緣 condition; 因果 causality or cause-effect (don't confuse it with Karma, Nag confirms Karma in his analogy too, not because it's morally necessary), Chinese is very distinct on these two terms. Your link was broken, also it will take too much time to explain point by point. I suggest you read the original Chinese work if you could. Hope that help :)

One more remark, 中論, your "middle way" and the scholars sayings are blind translation of this word: 中. In Chi 中 apart from meaning middle, it also means real, central. As the great ancient Chinese Buddhist scholar 僧叡 wrote in introduction: ...以中為名者，照其實也。It only further confirmed that the Sanskrit was back-translated from Chinese. We don't know if Nagarjuna named this Sastra "Mula-madhy..." but Kumarajiva got his meaning giving it the Chi eqivalent 中, 僧叡 if I remembered correctly is Kum's student.

@Mishu米殊, the link works in my browser. It says:
諸法不自生 亦不從他生
不共不無因 是故知無生
如諸法自性 不在於緣中
以無自性故 他性亦復無
因緣次第緣 緣緣增上緣
四緣生諸法 更無第五緣
The order of verses 2 & 3 might be changed because translations from other languages were used to join them all into one text. - Your criticism of my words is based on not understanding that causality is explained as conditional view (see Nag. comments), and any verbal expression is conditional. E.g. if you deny that "something arises" you fall into nihilism and don't understand emptiness of this expression. Anyway, thanks for your opinion. We may talk in chat.

One last revert to your comment, you didn't get my meaning, I said Nag means no becoming - suchness, definitely "something arises" is not Nag, and you don't need to have something arises to fill the world so that it is not nihilism, suchness is fully "filling" the world, read Surangama, also the Buddha said he is Tathagata, as come and well gone, means suchness. Logically thinking, if anything arises, over long enough time of accumulation, it will burst the world :D

@Mishu米殊, I disagree with this view. You need to see that terms are relative. "Suchness" is just a word. Is it correct or not depends on how we understand it. We can understand "suchness" as (1) what is: momentary appearances of phenomena. Or (2) in reified way, as what really exists. I could say that "suchness doesn't fill anything, and so your words are wrong". Likewise, "something arises" is wrong in a reified sense; but if that phrase points at momentary appearances then there's nothing wrong. Please study the concept of absolute and relative truths.

healthy debate is good to refine the understanding of Dharma, i appreciate, sure you do so too :). "absolute and relative truths" - you're strongly influenced by certain Tibetan concepts. But, isn't 色即是空, 空即是色 (Emptiness is form, form is emptiness)? i'm not sure using absolute/relative as a frequent stoppage how helpful it is. surely from the original Sutras that this is not often the manner of presenting Buddha his Dharma. did you read that Sastra the original text?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@Mishu米殊 it would be very good if you could post your own answer, much better for other readers than a thread of comments.

@AndreiVolkov let me think... :)

An effect is a cause because it is an effect that is the cause of a cause being defined as a 'cause'. In other words, since a cause is dependent upon an effect to be defined as a 'cause', an effect is the cause of a cause & an effect and is therefore a cause. A cause is similar. Since a cause is also an effect and since an effect is also a cause, there are not really any true causes & true effects.
This is merely intellectual gymnastics & not the experience of meditation.
In meditation, the mind sees causes creating effects, such as feelings causing craving or feeling & craving stimulating attachment or refined smooth long breathing causing calmness.
These ideas of Nagarjuna are from thinking rather than from observation.
In meditation, the mind does not really see 'causes' & 'effects'. Instead, the mind sees one 'phenomena' stimulating another 'phenomena'.
To think in the manner of Nagarjuna is alien to contemplation (observation) meditation.
If there was not the belief X causes the effect Y the path would never be practised because it would not be believed practising the path causes liberation.
In fact, the only reason Nagarjuna must have formulated his idiosyncratic philosophies was for those philosophies to cause a positive effect.
If Nagarjuna was actually not seeking to cause a positive effect from his idiosyncratic philosophies then that philosophizing was in vain & for no purpose.
Nagarjuna was often very illogical why Nagarjuna is so easy to refute.
The refutations of Nagarjuna could be as lengthy as his idiosyncratic philosophies.

hm well, he was quite an important monk. i've seen very many people try and refute him, and i guess it just seems that they read whatever they like into his terse arguments.

See my answer. "Manner of Nagarjuna is alien to contemplation" presents your experience of meditation: not distinguishing between original phenomena (sense perception) and their supposed relations (conceptualizing perception). Without such distinction we generalize our limited experience and come to incorrect conclusions. "If there was not the belief X causes the effect" is eternalism. See chapter 1 of "Mula madhyamaka karika": Nagarjuna doesn't refute dependent origination, but explains the correct view on it.

You're right. An effect is never its cause. However, the action that one does due to the effect will create a new cause, and to an untrained mind, it always happens.

I haven't read about Nagarjuna's claims nor I have read or heard anywhere about such claims, but I know Nagarjuna is speaking the truth.
What is the truth?
An effect always arises independently of the cause.
A cause always arises independently of the effect which produced the cause.
All causes and effects arise completely independently.
There are no causes, nor effects.
Everything arises and ceases independently.
Thus, everything being independent:

Nothing ever can be made to be annihilated.
Nothing ever can be made to last forever.

This is the truth. This is how it was said. This is how it was seen. This is what I know.
If a fire is burning due to fuel, it is not burning due to fuel, but it burns independent of the fuel. In other words: the fire does not burn due to fuel.
If a castle of cards is made, then a card is removed and that castle crashes to the ground, the crashing of that castle has not started due to the card being removed, but it started independent of the "removal of the card". In other words: the removal of the card did not cause the crashing of the castle.
If a red marble hits a blue marble and the blue marble moves due to being hit, the movement of the blue marble was not produced by the red marble hitting the blue marble, but the movement was produced independently. In other words: the hit of the red marble into the blue marble did not cause the movement of the blue marble.
If a truck crashes into a car and the car gets shattered to pieces, the car is not shattered to pieces by the forces the truck exerted on the car, but the forces were produced independently of the truck. In other words: the truck is not the cause of forces that shattered the car.
If you were to build a house, no matter what technology you would use, no matter what hi-tech materials you would use, no matter how you would built it, no matter what you would do, that house would be subject to decay.
If you were to knew and understood in its entirety why things are subject to decay, no technology nor any actions you would perform on things to eliminate their decay, would made things last forever. They would be subjected to decay no matter what you do.
If you destroy something, you destroy nothing. You can only dismantle an object to many pieces, but you destroy nothing. Everything rebuilds, no matter if you destroy it. If you were to destroy the universe, it would be rebuilt again. Everything in the universe is independent from everything. You can't destroy anything.
If you kill somebody, you kill nobody. You can only dismantle a being to many pieces, but you destroy nothing. All ignorant beings are reborn, no matter if you kill them. If you were to kill all the ignorant beings in the universe, they would be reborn again. All beings are independent from all beings. You can't destroy anything.
Etc.
I guess you're not bewildered by this nonsense. Good my friend, good. Does your understanding come from ignorance or from wisdom?
What is the cause of all this nonsense?

If a plant were a seed, or the totality of a plant was in a seed, then where's the plant not, and hence cause what and effect what?
Annihalationism is not possible because 'nothing', 0, is more concrete than 'no thing', and the laws of nature follow the 'valley of the world', so to steal a Tao Te Ching expression. Action settles at the lowest energy level it can, 0 is as much effort as 1 in the end.


text:
Buddhism view on idol worship?
I would like to make a little temple in my home. Something that has my little singing bowl and its' pillow and a container for incense and maybe a little Buddha in a pagoda. Like a desktop thing. I'd use it for meditation.
Is this frowned upon or allowed or even addressed? I see little temples at businesses and I didnt know how that all worked. Honestly I dont really care about a reputation or anything like that. I just need a tenable, defendable position about it if asked and you people are smarter than I.

According to the Pali suttas, the Buddha seemed to praise honoring him & his virtues, i.e., for the right purpose (such as did not occur in the case of Vakkali, who was rebuked).
If a Buddha pagoda helps you practise better, be more mindful, virtuous & wise, it is generally held to be praiseworthy.

Thank you so much. That example of Vakkali was right on point and answered my question completely.

@Dhammadhatu Really nice question and answer.


text:
How to breathe into your stomach and not get light headed during meditation?
During conventional Buddhist sitting meditation I have a problem whereby because I am thinking about my breathing my breath is quite short (I can't seem to change that) and just a few minutes in, just as I am starting to get into a deeper state and see something, I find that I start feeling quite light headed and almost hyperventilating because I am thinking about the breath and thus not breathing as I usually (which may still not be the perfect way for meditation, but at least normally when I'm not thinking about my breath I don't hyperventilate).
I have been told by teachers that I should try to breathe into my stomach as this is good energetically and will make the breath to the degree and the length it needs to be.
However, no matter what I try, I don't seem to be managing to achieve this stomach breathing.
So I was wondering if there is a particular knack to it or any advice? Am I actually trying to breathe into my stomach or just to expand my lungs down there (different teachers have said contradictory things on this matter)?

How to breath into your stomach and not get light headed during meditation?
When you breathe with your diaphragm (instead of just with your rib cage) you breathe more deeply.
To avoid hyperventilating then, you presumably need to breathe more slowly:

Longer pause between breaths
Longer duration during breaths (during each inhale or exhale)

Try both:

Breathe slowly (because deeply; the only time I deliberately breathe deeply and rapidly would be during vigorous exercise)
Don't be in a hurry to deliberately take/start the next breath after exhaling (instead, taking a next breath is a reaction to needing more air)

I have a problem whereby because I am thinking about my breathing my breath is quite short
"Where" are you think about your breathing: is your focus somewhere around your nose?
An alternative might be to focus somewhere lower: e.g. on your diaphragm; or lower (e.g., according to the Chinese, "The Lower Dantian (Jing), located two inches below the navel, is the source of energy which builds the physical body").
Or even lower: my Tai Chi teacher once said to imagine breathing through your heels!
In Anapanasati -- Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Bikkhu Buddhadasa, it recommends you shift your point of awareness (in Appendix D in the section titled "Getting Started: Establishing Sati"):

Note the three primary segments of each breath: beginning, middle, and end. For the inhalation these
  correspond to the nose, the middle of the chest, and the abdomen. For the exhalation the reverse is true, beginning at the
  belly and ending at the nose. Watch and wait at the nose until the incoming breath is felt there. Then skip to the middle
  of the chest and watch there until the breath is felt. Then skip to the abdomen and watch there until the breath is felt.
  Continue watching as the inhalation ends and wait for the exhalation to begin.

That's just a preliminary practice though:

This hopping from point to
  point is a relatively easy way to establish sati on the breath. It is a good way to get started. It becomes, however,
  somewhat crude and agitating after a while. Once we are skilled at it, we will want a more refined and peaceful way to
  be mindful of the breath

After that, it says,

Next, we connect the three points into a continuous sweep or flow. This more closely approximates the breath
  itself. We call this "following, chasing, hunting, stalking." While breathing naturally, without any forcing or
  manipulating of the breath, sati follows the breath in and out, between the tip of the nose and the navel.

And finally:

Once "following" becomes easy and constant, it will begin to feel unnecessarily busy and disruptive. Now we
  are ready for "guarding," a more peaceful way to practice sati with the breathing. By this time, a certain point in the
  nose will stand out.

In summary:

If at first our breaths are short and shallow, with movement in the chest only and not in the abdomen, then simply
  follow the breath down however far it goes. After sati is established we will relax and the breathing will become deeper.
  Before long we will feel movement in the abdomen. If we see that the breath is passing by many places at the same
  time, do not use this fact as an opportunity to complicate things. Keep it simple. A simple flow from the tip of the nose
  to the navel and from the navel to the tip of the nose is sufficient for our purpose.

These quotes are extracts; I'd recommend you read the book for a further or more complete description.
Am I actually trying to breath into my stomach
Air should go into the lungs as usual, not literally into your stomach!
I think it means to drop your diaphragm (so that the lungs expand downwards).
When you do that there's less room (less volume remaining) for your stomach, intestines, etc.: so you need to relax your abdominal muscles (which might normally keep the belly from protruding) and let your belly appear to push forward when you breathe in.
Imagine you had a metal band, tied around your ribs, so that you couldn't inhale by expanding your rib-cage: you'd still be able to breathe by using your "stomach" (i.e. diaphragm and belly) ... that's what "breathing into the stomach" means.
To be honest what I just described seems to be contradicted by something in the Anapanasati book I referenced above (in Lecture Two, in the section titled "Step One: The Long Breath"):

When there is a deepest
  possible long breath, does the chest expand or contract? Does the abdomen expand or contract? These are things to
  examine. In doing so, you may learn that it works differently than you thought. Most people have the overly simple idea
  that when we breathe in the chest expands and when we breathe old: the chest contracts. In studying the breath
  carefully, however, we find that in taking the longest inhalation, the abdomen will contract and the chest will expand.
  With the very long exhalation, then, the abdomen will expand and the chest will contract or deflate. We find the reverse
  of what common sense teaches. You ought to investigate this business of the very long breath, the longest possible
  breath, to see what changes happen. Do not take anything for granted. You ought to understand even these most basic
  natural facts.

This is explained later (in Appendix D, in the section titled "Long & Short Breaths),

After sati is established (techniques two or three) we begin to notice the long and short breathing. The mind still may
  wander some but stays with the breath enough to learn what it is like. The first and easiest quality to note is length, in
  terms of both time and extent of physical movement. For our purposes, an exact dividing line between short and long is
  not important. Become familiar with your own breathing and learn what your longest breaths and shortest breaths are
  like relative to each other. There is no need to compare your breaths with someone else's. (D. 29)
Generally, you will find that abdominal breathing is longer than chest breathing, that is, if abdominal breathing comes
  naturally. This is something we observe, however, it is not something we desire or seek. We are not "supposed" to
  breath in a certain way and we do not use Anapanasati to develop this or that way of breathing. So do not try to force
  abdominal breathing, the results would not be very relaxing. But should it occur naturally, you will see that it is longer,
  more relaxed, and healthier. (D. 30)
Should your breaths become very long, you will discover an interesting point. You may have thought it strange when
  Ajahn Buddhadasa said that the chest expands and the abdomen contracts with the long in-breath (Marker 58). Common
  sense says that the abdomen expands on the in-breath and contracts on the out-breath. The two seem to contradict each
  other. Which is right? First, we observe the normal breathing. As we inhale, the diaphragm drops and pushes the tummy
  outward. When we exhale the tummy falls in again. This is the ordinary abdominal breathing before it becomes very
  long. It is a simple movement of the abdomen expanding (or rising) with the in-breath and contracting (or falling) with
  the out-breath. Some people will consider this short and others will feel it is relatively long. (D. 31)
Now, there is a limit to how far the abdomen can expand. As we relax and breathe more deeply this limit will be
  reached. At that point there is, however, room left in the chest (lungs) for more air. If we continue to breathe in, the
  chest will then expand. This in turn pulls up and flattens the tummy. This is what Ajahn Buddhadasa meant. A very
  long inhalation begins just like a normal breath. The abdomen expands but the chest barely moves at all. After the
  abdomen's limit is reached the chest expands and the abdomen contracts. When the breath is really long you will
  discover this for yourself. The opposite movements (roughly) occur with the very long exhalations. So the very long
  breath is an ordinary breath plus more. Many of us will seldom experience this very long breathing until the body
  becomes very relaxed through Anapanasati. Eventually, it will happen more and more regularly - even outside the
  formal sittings. (D. 32)

In other words, a very long breath starts by depressing the diaphragm (abdominal breathing), and when that's full then the in-breath continues by expanding the rib-cage.

You should not think about the breath but just passively observe natural process of respiration. Also you should not try to influence it. If it is becoming short just observe it is short. If it is long just observe it is long.
The perfection of meditation is when you can observe things as they are without any influence.


text:
Killing a Animal to prevent painful of that Animal.Is it consider as a bad thing for me according to buddhism?
Note : Sorry for my bad English. If anyone can please edit the question for better meaning.
There is a dog. But dog is spending very painful life after huge burning(just before 10-20 minutes ago). It is very painful. I repeat it it is very very painful.
So if I kill Dog, is it consider as a bad thing for me according to buddhism?
If I do it, I will do it just only stop painful of dog.
So is it consider as a bad thing for me  according to buddhism?

See also related questions; "Why not kill animals to hasten their rebirth?", "Euthanasia for animals", "Why does killing produce bad karma?".

Possible duplicate of Are there any exceptions to the first precept?

Even mercy killing is considered bad and also breaks the precepts.
The dog is going through its pain due to karma. Say you kill it and goes to a worst hellish state by killing it you are putting to a far worse experience.
If you treat the dog's wounds and try to heal it you are creating good karma for yourself and also easing the pain for the dog. This is be best avenue to consider.

Some verses from the Dhammapada;

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

Though a dog might fear pain, is it possible they'd fear death (or a person's violence resulting in their death) even more?
Buddhism doesn't recommend "mercy killing". It's considered very wrong (unforgivable) for a monk to even recommend the alleged "advantages" of suicide, to someone who's in pain.

is it a bad thing for me

Do you believe the karma system?
If you do not believe it, then it is neither good/right nor bad/wrong
according to Buddhism.
This is not a topic that Buddhism can address,
just like Buddhism cannot address how to heal burning.
In fact, this may be the answer.
You do not need to go to Buddhism for an answer.
Just go back to common sense.
In real life, a lot of problems can be solved by common sense.
If you believe the karma system,
it is not a good thing to the dog.
The dog is suffering because of the fire,
but what drives it to the fire and the suffering is its karma.
The dog will have a new life if you killed it,
and continues suffering.
Unfortunately you can rescue it from the suffering of burning,
but not rescue it from the suffering.
Even Buddha can not rescue the dog from suffering.
However, in many lives later, the dog may bore as a human,
and may learn about Buddhism.
And since it is not a good thing to the dog,
it is not a good thing to you.
I am not sure if it is a bad thing.
I guess it may not be a bad thing
as long as you kill the dog solely for free it from suffering,
not as an excuse to fulfill your desire for killing,
or an excuse to stop yourself feel uncomfortable
or an excuse to stop your helplessness (the eager that "I have to do something").
You may need to examine your mind carefully via, say, mediation,
since desires sometimes hide deeply.
Also, it is dangerous if you are not a butcher already.
You need to find a proper way to kill the dog.
Some people get used to killing or even get excited after they actually kill an animal.
Also, do not think too much about whether it is good or bad for you.
The bad thing is dog has been burned.
And it is bad for the dog.
And it already happens.
If you can heal it, then go ahead.
If you cannot, then you may ask someone else's help.
If neither of the above applies, then it is a difficult choice,
because the situation is difficult.
And Buddhism cannot let you choose among difficult choices blindly.
It is difficult for the dog, and it is difficult for you.
The Buddhism cannot help much here,
since the very assumption of Buddhism is life is suffering, and life is difficult.
Buddhism is not karma economics
trying to maximizing good karma and minimizing bad karma.
Otherwise you may get illogical conclusion like killing the dog violently may speed up its process to become human again.
Buddha gave some examples of karma, which are just illustrations to help you understand the system.
Buddha is teaching relief, not karma calculation.
Good karma is good because it drives you towards relief.
You should not try to pursuit good karma.
It is not the goal of Buddhism.
In fact the ultimate goal of Buddhism is not be ignorant about karma
to avoid producing new karma,
and eventually get rid of the karma system after paying off all existing karma.


text:
Is my guilt natural?
I find this troubling. My poor relationship with my adult children causes me distress. Logic and the dharma would suggest that severing ties with them would be a positive for both sides. But I cannot get over the feelings for neglect and guilt. Plus I may be causing them some current discomfort. They neglect me because they don't understand me seeking the jewel so I try to respect that BUT how do I get past this guilt and sadness?

Hi. Are you saying your practise of Buddhism is causing your children to be alienated from you?

yes. That is the situation.

Maybe there isn't, and maybe there even can't be, enough information in this question for people to understand and advise on the situation you're describing. Maybe it's a topic to discuss in person, perhaps with a teacher, or with a counsellor (Buddhist or otherwise) who might mediate between you and your children (if your children could accept such mediation, for the sake of improving or continuing their relationship with you).

I am not sure whether I understood your question properly, however, from my personal experience, it's best to make no public announcments that you are a Buddhist. Peopld are often confused about Buddhism and associate many different things. Similarly, a lot of people are just not interested in spirituality and/or don't know it any better. Don't talk about your 'philosophy'. Embody it. Don't even talk about Buddhist doctrines because intellectually they might comprehend, but constant reflection & direct experience is missing. Regards

Buddha-Dhamma & Western families are often a problematic combination. Even in Asia, some families object to their members pursing the Dhamma. Even when a person's life is transformed so much for the better by Buddhist practise, often family members struggle to attribute appreciation towards Buddhism due to their own prejudices, misunderstandings &/or lack of spiritual values.
Ways to overcome sadness & guilt in respect to his situation is:

Reflect on the correctness of the Buddhist path.
Properly attribute causes or 'blame' to the other rather than to yourself.
Keep being nice & hopefully they will change via appreciation.

There are two nice stories, Nyom Kauva Aatma, The Healing of the Bull: A Story and Prisoners of Karma

When adding links to answers, please make a short content-description in case the link goes missing.

They're not easy to summarise -- they're a summary of basic Buddhist doctrine, gradually explained in the form of a dialog between animals, e.g. one unhappy talking with another who's more enlightened (or knowledgeable). Anyway the titles are included there in the hyperlinks -- and they're both by "Suvimalee Karunaratna" if you want to Google them (e.g. if the above links go missing).

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