text:
What "technically" happens when we chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo?
I have been chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo (daimoku - Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism) for about 4.5 years. I also regularly attend Soka Gakkai International (SGI) meetings. I have experienced a lot of benefits from the practice.
But, I have been unable to understand what  technically  happens when we chant. I have read in some of the texts that we create a good karma when we chant or some of the questions here answered that the "act" of chanting leads us to the path of enlightenment.
But, being a Physics student, I am interested in knowing what exactly happens when we chant. For example- when I chant, I generate sound energy. Now that energy would have some temporal variation as the words "Nam" , "Myoho" etc. would have different sounds but the ratio of amplitudes and frequencies would be almost equal for each person.
I would be happy if someone can give a technical explanation of what exactly happens when we chant.

The simple explanation is that you are practicing mindful concentration. The latter threefold division of concentration required in the Noble Eightfold Path. Whether you are doing sitting meditation, chanting sutras, calling the name of the Buddhas or Bodhisattvas, or chanting mantras, or even following the monastic discipline Vinaya as a monk. You can't simply concentrate on anything though, importantly it must be Right Mindfulness that is skillful.

Abandoning the wrong factors of the path "One is mindful to abandon
  wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right
  mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right
  resolve: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right
  speech: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right
  action: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in
  right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness..."
— MN 117

Chanting holy names is within this criteria, as with Myoho Renge Kyo -the Sublime Dharma of Lotus Sutra, as they do not promote bad unskillful thoughts and encourage positive reverential emotions. (With the added possibility of divine intervention..) The practice of the Noble Eightfold Path is said to lead to liberation from mental afflictions by the purification of mind, speech and action.
As exactly how the exact mechanics of this works, I can't say for certain, but it does work. Abandoning negative thoughts does wonder for the mind and body. At certain level of concentration you enter what is called the Jhana/Chan/Zen where feelings of bliss and peace arise, and is also a state where you can make many realizations. This is certainly possible through chanting.

Excellent answer, as for the mechanics have a look at this video from Gary Weber where he goes into scientific details about it, including the Default Mode Network and the effect of mindfulness on it: What "no thoughts" means - 3 different kinds of thoughts

On the physics side of things, yes, the vibrations do resonate with a frequency necessary to make the connection.
I am also a NMRK practitioner and the way that I see it:

The gohonzon is a representation of various deities who will help and protect you as the Lotus Sutra professes
opening up your altar and closing it acts as a gateway to summon them into your daily life. This is why we do not keep the altar open always but only open when doing gongyo for the day/evening.
sincerity and a lack of self-sabotage are all that is necessary for the deitys' help to reach us.

Going back to the physics side of things, I would suggest that you also add another mantra to your practice, paricularly one with the "A" vowel in it because there is no "A" vowel in the NMRK mantra.
I have been practicing various mantras in conjunction with NMRK and have not had any conflicts but I would suggest to choose Buddhist mantras such as om mane padme hum or the great zhunti mantra.
Also practicing anapana (samatha) and vipassana meditation both are conducive to better spiritual practice and the NMRK practice is no exception.

Funny you should mention doing samatha as supplement to mantra practice.  Chan teacher Sheng Yen recommended the same, but in reverse.  He recommended daily mantra work to supplement meditation!  https://youtu.be/QO7E48Pg2rQ

Nice. That is the truth but in my NMRK circles many people are very opposed to anything other than NMRK because of laziness or because the sutra states that one needs nothing other than chanting this Lotus sutra for full awakening. Whicb is my many do not believe the validity of the said sutra.

Well, thanks for the answer but this was not particularly what I was looking for. I was looking for a more scientific explanation for the working of daimoku (and gongyo).

It has the same science as all mantras. Various deities swore to Buddha to help those who uphold this mantra etc.

Chanting raises your personal vibration. Chanting vibrates on a high frequency so when you chant consistently, you vibrate on a higher frequency therefore the universe must mirror back to you what you are signaling out because we live in a attraction base vibrational universe.
-Also listen to the teachings of Abraham Hicks she really breaks down vibration, frequency etc.
We live in a field of Vibration
We Physical beings are also vibration
Our dominate thoughts, feelings and action is what the universe is mirroring
We experience High Vibration/Frequency when we are Feeling Good.
(releasing Resistance)
Everything we desire is because we feel our desire will make us feel good
So Chanting and Meditating are perfect examples that help raise the personal vibration. But it has to be done consistently and you must be patient.
The teachings of the Buddhist practice is to live with absolute happiness, meaning Unconditional Happiness.
Happy feelings= high vibration
Everything you want= high vibration
Who we are naturally= high vibration
Living with unconditional Happiness, meaning feeling good no matter what and being positive attracts what you want.
But understand EMOTION/FEELING is truly the important manifestation. The actual manifestation is just the proof of your alignment.
the feeling is the real manifestation,whatever feels good... continue to do it

What is personal vibration? What does than mean in relation to the Buddha's teaching?  What is vibrating?

What is Emotion/Feeling in relation to the Buddha's Teachings. How can you relate High Vibration to Uddhacca-Kukkucca? Restlessness (uddhacca) is agitation or excitement, which drives the mind from thought to thought with speed and frenzy; worry (kukkucca) is remorse over past mistakes and anxiety about their possible undesired consequences.

This term 'personal vibration' and others like it are thrown around a lot. What exactly does it even mean? It sounds like a quote from some new age book.

Yes. It would be exciting to find out the scientific aspect/explanation on the mechanisms of the act of of chanting daimoku. Arnold Toynbee had any explanation?
From personal experience I notice metabolism increase in accordance with using my voice and breathing; thus blood circulation is promoted. On a cellular level (I am a beauty therapist and masseuse and assistant nurse btw) I notice a clearer vibrant skin as a result.
From an energy perspective I feel "charged". I think this energy is what attracts others to us when newly-chanted. But energy is really in constant motion and can just as easily be lost. That's why new energy has to be produced morning/evening. The energy achieved puts us in a higher frequency (a bit like a "kick-in") and that's when we produce new happy thoughts and see solutions. Like consuming quality food! There can be not a single defect in chanting. But watch out for using chanting as an excuse to avoid doing some action needed - "escapism". I have seen and experienced this type of hide-away chanting.
The time spent on chanting according to Mrs Asano in Japan (world leader) if you have short of time to chant, your body/mind is SO smart that it can actually give you same effect in 10 minutes of chant as if you would have had in one hour. Here comes the physical law of Determination/Focus. And time is transformed into energy!
The explanation to this phenomenon is your attitude (you would so much like to chant longer but only have this amount of time etc)! What I must admit, however, is I lack physical motion as moving your body in motion at the same time. As I jog, do yoga, and tennis a lot. It would really be that extra complete thing in our act of chanting... Maybe in the future it will be so?

I'm French and have been practicing 29 years. I apologize for my English writing.
Chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo makes a high vibration, 7.5hz, the same as the earth's. Inside our body all cells will activate emotions and feeling registered in Alaya consciousness. At the same time, our life is connected To the Universe.
Following our desires High mains convictions, the Universe sends the results back like a mirror. So your goal and desire need to be clear and to be useful to our life and kosen rufu.
I got achieved many good results and some of them have been very wonderful.

Evidence of these vibrations and alaya consciousness please. It all sounds a bit new agey.

This is not necessarily an answer, just adding to the questions, as I seek the answer myself.
For a testable hypothesis, we must clearly define what we intend to test for. I tend to find SGI members' explanation of chanting or its powers to be insufficient, superstitious or dissatisfying. To develop a hypothesis on what chanting does, we can source from Nichiren's writings. We could also ask a sample of practitioners what the effects are and perhaps test the 3 most common responses.
I would also be interested in testing "prayer" and determining where chanting ends and prayer begins. We could possibly need an alternate word for prayer in the Buddhist sense, as prayer to a Buddhist is not necessarily equal to prayer for a theist.
Then, we must construct a test. We would test the hypotheses. This is partly where I get hung up and would be interested in actual scientists conducting research.
One thing I think makes testing the realities of chanting difficult is this concept in Buddhism of manifest and latent effects. Say you want to test how fast someone can achieve a goal, by chanting or not chanting. At least if I test this as myself only, there's this problem: If tasked with the same goal, once while chanting and once while not, some things to consider. Either way, the second time would likely be faster, as I would have a previous exposure to the task, although some alteration (like making through a maze with the same distance and number of turns, but different arrangement each time) could reduce the effect of this. Also, there's this chance that the chanting wouldn't manifest in an immediate effect, remaining latent until some other time, possibly during a chant-free test.
So, I have this experiential issue. I really wish I could split my life in two, like a multiverse theory (which I don't really believe in), where one instance of me goes through life chanting and another instance goes through life not chanting. Then, examine each life at the end. Which is preferable?  This isn't going to happen, so we have to test some other way, like having some kind of task performed, measuring the quality, speed with which the task is done. There are almost an infinite number of tests that could be performed.
One other problem I can see in testing is a "spooky action at a distance" concept. Like my desire to split my life, we could try to use perhaps twins who had been separated at birth (let's try to stay ethical?). However, like a split atom showing responses to stimulation of its distant counterpart, my chanting self or the chanting twin could affect the distant/separate counterpart. Can we account for this kind of effect in the test?
I'll outline a few variables that we could test:
- Short term task
- Long term task
- Neuro imaging (before, during, after chanting) [this is one of the more objective angles I'm curious to see actual tests on]
- Chanting "Nam myoho renge kyo"
- Chanting other Buddhist chants/mantras
- Chanting nonsense
- Chanting "negative" words/phrases
- Silently chanting any of the above
- Not chanting at all
- Chanting in front of a gohonzon
- Chanting without a gohonzon
- You could use other "objects of devotion" or focal points as well
- Frequency of chanting (once, twice, 3x daily, or more?)
- Duration of chanting (single daimoku? 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1hr, 2hr, as long as possible?)
Not seeming a concept of Nichiren Daishonin; apparently originating with Lynda Johnson, is this idea of "making the impossible possible" (by chanting). So, we could test something seemingly impossible, like putting test subjects into a room, between two rooms. The room on the left has a candle. the room on the right has a matchbook. Both the rooms with objects are locked and generally inaccessible to test subjects. The test subject is tasked with lighting the candle in one room and they are made aware of the matches in the other room. I would consider this rather seemingly impossible. Then, how much time is given any subject? It could take months or years to develop the karmic energy required to achieve such an "impossible" feat, solely through the power of chanting.
My personal hypothesis at this time is along these lines. Buddhists are often said to be "practitioners". What exactly are they practicing? I would argue that chanting [anything] has the effect of "distraction". It might also be called "centering". Typically, the place we set to chant is a place of peace and security. Chanting, somewhat unlike meditation, helps "clear the mind" as you generally are focused on the chant, although chanting can become like second nature and we can chant without thinking about it and our minds may wander. But, I think that that is what the chanting "does", after some time we will likely realize that our minds are drifting and you can bring it back the centeredness, focusing again on the chant.
So, what does that translate to, what is being practiced? I think that the chanter practices centeredness or self-distraction morning and night (as recommended by SGI/Nichiren). When you encounter a frustrating situation in your daily life, you can basically stop yourself before reacting, chant in your head or out loud, essentially distracting yourself from the frustration, or simply centering/grounding yourself. It "snaps you back" to your Buddha place, gives you a brief moment to rethink your response, and allows you to approach the frustration from a more rational place.
I theorize that chanting any phrase can achieve this same result. I also theorize the presence of a gohonzon or any other object would not have a noticeable effect on the results (although it could depend slightly on the task at hand and also if objects that cause test subjects anxiety could produce some negative result in the testing as well), but having subjects "focus" on anything will help them to recollect their Buddha place and increase their focus rate.
I'm not exactly sure how to test that.
A few fields of science may be needed to make strong determinations.
- Physics
- Neuroscience
- Psychology
- Anthropology
Here's hoping a few scientists might actually be able to shed some light on the realities of chanting. It's good to see I'm not alone in these thoughts.
Namaste!
Disclaimer: I have had involvement with SGI since 2002.

It's called placebo effect. You believe good things will happen and you focus on it so much that it ends up happening. It's not magic, just the power of belief/faith. On the other hand you could just be noticing the good things and then putting it down to the chanting whereas the good things were going to occur anyway. If it works for you then keep doing it but it's like prayer, what happens when good things don't occur but instead bad things happen? Is it because you're not praying or chanting hard enough?

I have been chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo for 2 years. I do attend meetings (enjoy chanting in a group) for the social aspect. I was told to set a goal and then chant for that goal which I have been doing. To date I can honestly say I have not received benefits. When I reported this to the group initially I was told to keep chanting; so I did. I still have not obtained my goal. When I reported very recently to the group that I still had not obtained my goal, I was asked if I had taken action. Truth be known there is no action I personally can take to fulfill my goal. My thought is that if one can take action to fulfill a goal why in the world would you waste time chanting. Just go and do what you need to do to obtain your goal. I have concluded that it is most likely placebo effect and the benefits would have occurred without chanting. We can make ourselves believe anything!

Hello the Ah wovel is included in NAM (N-Ah-M) soundwise!
No other practice is needed besides the chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. Do not try to fix what is not broken.
And any putting other practice besides chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo is likely to become an obstruction.

By chanting at a nice low note, vibrating the mantra low in your body, it may stimulate your Vagus Nerve, and experience pleasant physical and psychological benefits.

Ihave beeen chanting for a goal over a year now ,hours a day attending meetings and doing activities i sometimes get exhausted hopeing tomorrow will be the day i am tired

This does not attempt to answer the question, which is; "What “technically” happens when we chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo?". Please address the question.


text:
Buddhism views on Ancestor Worship
What is Buddhism view on Ancestor Worship? Are there any references which talk about it? Do ancestors occupy any plane/realm ? How to explain the ancestors who come in dreams? Is it manifest of mind?

Ancestor worship, or veneration of the dead, is more of a cultural phenomenon than a religious one (though religions can also influence culture, so it can be difficult to pinpoint the source of different religious/cultural elements).
The practice is most common in countries that also happen to have a larger share of Buddhists, though there's not a huge connection between Buddhism itself and the practice.
Śrāddha is referenced in the Pāli canon, though in a Buddhist context the word has a meaning closer to the notion of "faith". But the word itself has an earlier meaning in the Hindu context, where it was more specifically applied to ancestor worship:

In the Hindu religion, it is the ritual that one performs to pay homage to one's ancestors (Sanskrit: pitṛs), especially to one's dead parents.

Given Buddhism's origins in India, it's easy to see the connection between the cultural practice of ancestor worship and the linguistic fluidity of a single word used to describe both the practice and an early Buddhist concept. Ultimately, though, there doesn't appear to be any direct call for ancestor worship within Buddhist doctrine (which makes sense, given the overall emphasis on our present actions and not clinging to the past).

It would be great to find additional information specific to Tibet (Tibetan Buddhism).

Ancestor worship was an aspect of Bön, but doesn't really survive in modern Tibetan Buddhism as a specific Buddhist practice. There's a Tibetan cultural tradition to pray for deceased ancestors on the anniversary of their death, hoping for a positive reincarnation.

Is Bardo and dreams about ancestor related?

The second Bardo state is the dream state, so there is a connection, though it's more likely a connection to dreams in general and not specific dreams related to ancestors. But, if I can interject a small opinion, I think dreaming of ancestors is nice: for those who have already died before us, it's the only way we have to "visit" with them. :-)

Honor and gratitude, sacrifices toward those having been first and unavoidable paved ones way is a matter of gratitude and the group of departed is one of the relations where a householder is obligated to. The kind of relations, obligated to for everyone are:

parents
wife & children
slaves & workers
friend-&-companion
kinsmen-&-relative
guest duties
departed-ancestor
devatas
king

And of course, to go after ones duties in regard toward ones ancestors, is praised by wise and foremost of them by the Sublime Buddha.
Since modern people have forfotten the basics, have no regards toward that of which was in any culture usual, since marxism, wrong view, took over the main, my person will not go more into deep and those with certain Nissaya will be good reminded by only this.
In traditional countries, btw. are those days now used for especially sacrifices toward and the welfare of ones departed relatives (of the last seven generations usually)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, trades binding in the world, but for escape from this wheel]

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Vipassana report on breathing
In the vipassana practice, my teacher asks me to give a detailed report of one of my breathing rise and falling. I've tried but he tells me that the report is too general, that I need to provide more details. Can someone give me an example of a detailed report? Here it is mine. Some feedback?
Rise:
1- the belly starts to rise slowly, with ease
2- then it speeds up and takes in a lot of air
3- I feel a resistance, belly is close to the maximum volume, but the breathing goes on and it even hurts a bit. It slows down and stops.
Falling:
1- breath out very fast from the beginning. I feel a relieve on the belly.
2- continue to breath out fast
3- I feel there is not much air left and I feel a resistance on the belly, pain again, until it slows down and stops.

LOL this is cheating, no one should reply! Do your own homework! :))

Hihihi, I am not trying to cheat. I am trying to see what could I focus on. For instance, the teacher asked me if I feel great or cold, but that's not the case. What else can I focus on?

Ask that teacher if you don't understand the questions, tell him the truth about your confusion. Vipassana is about truth. Dealing with frustration about the teacher is a part of the learning; face that truth as well, don't escape to forums. Be offline, focus on meditation, that alone is the training.

This is not for other people to answer.
This is your own work. Only we ourselves can work and develop ourselves.
It can actually be harmful for a meditator to hear what lies ahead on the path before he or she has attained those fruits. That is because the Mind can then try to search for the things one has heard or read. That is not good. They should come naturally as practice develops.
Go meditate and find your answers or ask your teacher if you do not understand the practice or technique.

Your teachers seems in the wrong to me.
There is no giving a good description for these things. How can one be expected to describe the mirriad of sensations, workings of attention, succesive arising of knowledges and shifting of focus to fleeting disctractions according to conscious and unconsciouss volition on a moment to moment basis.
Ill go ahead and start with arising of Body-Consciousness which lasts about how many smallest units of what can be called time, and we are not 0.0001 of a second in, not even close probably.
It is way different every time.
Maybe that is what he is trying to make you see, he could tell you probably make it more clear to you so you dont have to ask strangers.

Your master telling you that your meditation not progress. And when I consider your detail I think I know what is the cause makes your meditation not progress. It is because of wrong meditation's procedure.
In tipitaka and commentary, vipassanā-meditation never has special activity like that. Vipassanā-meditation analyses everything as 5 aggregates, etc, then it focuses on these 5 aggregates' 3 characteristics.
So, what you trying to do is not vipassanā-meditation in tipitaka and commentary. It looks like ānāpānassati-samatha-meditation, but you looks confusing it's procedure. Therefore, I advise you to read ānāpānassati-samatha-meditation, here.
The other advising, you should not focus on belly, you should focus only on your breath at the tip of nose.

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


text:
Dhamma Language Learning
Anyone know of any methods of learning languages within a Buddhist setting? Like learning to read and listen to Dhamma talks and suttas or learning conversation with dialogues of a Buddhist nature.
I mean, for example, languages like Thai, Tibetan, Chinese, Burmese, Vietnamese, Sinhalese, English, Spanish and German. Actually, I mean any language that could be in a Buddhist setting.
Maybe a method of learning both a language and beginning Buddhism , meditation at the same time. Maybe Pali and/or Sanskrit too, that would be teaching three birds with one teaching.

You can take one of the Pariyatti-Patipatti courses at Vipassana Research Institute (VRI). You can contact them for more longer and intensive courses done in partnership with universities. Some additional contact details are available in: Pali Study Program.

If your language list includes Pali, I recommend the Pali Online School by the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies (there are on-site courses there, too), plus other resources listed this answer to 'A good source to learn the Pali language?'.
For learning Chinese, you may want to check out the Humanistic Buddhist Monastic Life Program.
Tibetan Language Institute offers various courses and resources for learning Tibetan.
Many monasteries and Buddhist centres around the world need volunteers. This can be a way to learn the local language and learn something about Buddhism. Just google volunteer Buddhist.
Meditation courses in the Goenka tradition are available in many countries and are usually held in English and in the local language at the same time. Instructions are given in both languages, and you can choose in which language you want to listen to Dhamma talks, so if it may be helpful for learning. However, I don't think you can learn the language this way if you are a complete beginner. It should work well if you already know the language at, say, intermediate level and want to improve your spoken comprehension skills. You may also listen to the Dhamma talks in English first time you take the course, and in another language next time.

You can follow a degree course at the Buddhist & Pali University of Sri Lanka

The best way I know to learn Tibetan is attending the 4 years
Lotsawa Rinchen Zangpo Translator Programme. Once you completed this training, you commit to translate any FPMT Study Program for at least 2 years, but if you are good at translating (interpreting, actually) you can make it a job for the rest of your life.
Another school is Esukhia but it is less Dharma oriented. Since it does not come with a commitment, you are free to roam when your studies are done. I know of people who went there (monks and lay people as well), and one of them (a monk) joined the greatest Gelug monastic university afterwards (Sera). Now, he learns Dharma by way of debating in Tibetan hours every day (this is the Gelug way of learning Dharma) and attending a few hours of class.

When I was growing up in Laos, they were teaching in the Buddhist temple.  Not sure if monk in foreign country knows how to read Pali.

Many western monks know how to read Pali.  If east and west strived to understand each other there would be that much more Metta and wisdom in the world. I didn't even realize what my own culture was like until I studied another culture.


text:
Shouldn't we take Lord Buddha's word above the all others?
I have seen many answers to questions referring teachings of modern teacher in this SE.
But as i have learned
Lord Buddha's understanding is above any other,even above an arahant.
Dhamma/Dharma itself is timeless and therefore does not need modifications or updates.

So what is the need of the term "Modern practice / Modern Buddhism"?
Shouldn't we take Lord Buddha's word above the rest and use any other resource later on for further clarification if there is such a need?
Why there is a trend of drifting away from original teachings, does the followers now believe that Lord Buddha's words are outdated?

Would you clarify the question, please, by adding some (preferably several) links to or examples of the specific "answers to questions" and/or "modern teachers" that you're asking about?

I've amended the title to bring in line with the content of the question. Please roll back if you disagree with the edit. Cheers

You've done great  : ) @CrabBucket

"Shouldn't we" etc. looks like an opinion disguised as a question and looking for confirmation. Please try to ask questions that are real questions.

If you ignore grammar and see the the core of my question you will see what i mean. After all English is my second language : )  After all that part was added by our good friend "Crab Bucket",But i agree with his edit. @AndreiVolkov

A good Dhamma teacher would frequently refer to sutta/vinaya references to back up his point. If s/he doesn't do that, there's no guarantee their point is valid or that it really comes from the Buddha's words. The Buddha instructed us how to handle such situation with the Four Great Referrals in DN 16:

Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: ‘I have heard this directly from the Gracious One, friends, directly I learned it: “This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation.”’ That monk’s speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.
2) If, when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do not fit in with the Discourses, they do not compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is not the Gracious One’s word, it is not well learned by that monk,’ and, monks, you should abandon it. If when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do fit in with the Discourses, they do compare well with the Discipline, you may come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is the Gracious One’s word, it is well-learned by that monk.’ This, monks, is the first Great Referral you should bear in mind...

It is correct, that the Dhamma is both universal and timeless.
The Dhamma is described as being an ancient path, that fully enlightened Buddhas discover by themselves and then teach it to other beings.
The words from a fully enlightened Buddha need not to be renewed or changed.
One needs only to practice insight meditation to find out if these words are true or not.
So there is no need for renewal of the Dhamma. The Dhamma is complete as it is. The Dhamma does not change.
Don't worry about the shifting away from the Dhamma. That is bound to happen. That is why there will arrive a future Buddha. The next fully enlightened Buddha to be, is Maitreya, whom arrives when the Dhamma has been completely forgotten. That is just the nature of a world system.

I have seen many answers to questions referring teachings of modern teacher in this SE.
But as I have learned
Lord Buddha's understanding is above any other,even above an arahant.

I also believe the same. There are 3 things.  pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha (‘theory’, ‘praxis’ and ‘insight’). Generally faith should be based on insight. When you look at the Suttas and do what is there your experience to a varying degree some insight which re reinforces your faith. One should give fair trial and experimentation to the techniques in the Suttas to develop this faith. Many later developments may not give the same results or insights or may hit a wall at some point. The appeal for later developments are that they do give some result or the other which can be mistaken. The Suttas will have the most holistic approach. Nevertheless, there are pitfalls and tips and tricks which are not there in the Suttas. Insights into there are gained through teaching numerous students and their experience. These are also invaluable as long as they are not tangential or contrary to the Tipitaka.
Also it is the lineage of teachers who preserve the teaching and practice. There might be some differences. These are best studies to see what is the best interpretation that works for your and help you further in your practice.

Dhamma/Dharma itself is timeless and therefore does not need modifications or updates.
So what is the need of the term "Modern practice / Modern Buddhism"?
Shouldn't we take Lord Buddha's word above the rest and use any other resource later on for further clarification if there is such a need?
Why there is a trend of drifting away from original teachings, does the followers now believe that Lord Buddha's words are outdated?

I believe this is no needed to modernise Buddhism. Ani Sutta makes references to how the Dhamma may end where disciples tend to study the later works than the original teaching. Also see The Dharma-ending Age which highlights how the Dhamma may end.

Let me try and address this question at the level it was asked on.
Buddha himself said we should go to elders with questions about Dharma. In every generation there are students who learn from elders, and then grow old and become elders themselves. This is how the "modern masters" come to be. Where did you think they came from?
Modern masters are the translators and the explainers who were students like you and me, who had teachers, and those teachers themselves had teachers - all the way back to the Buddha. What's wrong with this?
You don't think commentaries and detailed explanations are useless, do you? Guess what, some of them, like Visuddhimagga, were written 900 years after Buddha's parinirvana! Let's throw away commentaries then? Or do you think written commentaries are better than verbal commentaries? But back in the Buddha's times elders did not write down their explanations...
Or are you saying the role of the teacher is to just repeat exact words of Buddha from suttas, without trying to summarize the points, explain the meaning, and show how it applies in practice? Especially if the elder is an arahant, don't you think they can explain some details that Buddha explained but that were not captured in suttas?
You see that life has changed, don't you? Buddha-Dharma goes to societies and cultures that don't live like ancient Indians at all. People work in offices. There is internet. There is neuroscience. There is genetics and memetics. There is medicine. There are drugs. There is astronomy and space travel. There is psychology and psychiatry. Also, the social discourse has developed many subtleties that were not there. There are many more attachments these days and many more ways to get confused with logic and knowledge.
Despite these changes in life style, knowledge, and culture, the teaching is not drifting anywhere. It's not like in the last 1000 years it has drifted further than in the first 1000 years or even the first 200 years. The teaching is always the same, it is only that every generation of students when they become teachers explain it on the examples that you can see in your actual life.
In short, there is no "modernized" Buddhism vs. "original" Buddhism - there are just people who apply Buddhism in their lives today, and the stories they can tell from their experience. If you deny the real-life experience of the modern elders, then you should be consistent and deny everything except suttas. And maybe we should go to Mahasi Sayadaw, Goenka, Ajahn Chah, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, ven. Yuttadhammo, Dalai Lama etc. - and tell them we don't need them because they explain things in modern ways? I don't think Buddha would approve of that.

Well the OP didn't say that there was anything wrong with 'modern teachers'. His concern was that the term 'Modern Buddhism' is a pointless idea when the original teachings are the suttas. Simply, there is nothing modern about suttas and the meaning behind them.

The OP started his inquiry with questioning answers "referring teachings of modern teacher" - and then extrapolated from there. Suttas document application of Dharma principles to the ancient situations - and modern teachers apply the same principles to modern situations.

I agree with Alex468 , what i said was that it is wrong to alienate original teachings amidst the modern views. New ways of looking at dhamma is admired but it should be guarded safely to maintain the importance of the originals.@AndreiVolkov

I don't know where you heard this "modern Buddhism" term. I never heard it. As far as I know, all schools maintain the importance of the original teaching, just not in the original words.

I agree. No offence to our good friend but if you see the answer by Thiago Silva (as of now right above this one) you will see what i mean.

@Theravada sometimes I disagree with some people here - but I stay inside my answers and don't go to others to criticize. I feel that is better as it does not create conflict. That is how Sankha and Suminda do it as well, and I respect that. This is a democratic site, and if readers see the truth in your answer, they will vote it up - what's the need to argue with other answers? I deleted your comment on Thiago's answer. Please don't do it again - if everyone starts doing this to each other, this site will turn into war.

What are you saying?
The teachings must be interpreted because they are very subtle, deep and difficult to understand even if one is an arahant. Also the Buddha taught to many different students, gods and audiences. This causes much need for interpretation.

But as i have learned, Lord Buddha's understanding is above any other,even above an arahant.

Maybe. But I haven't met him, and I'm inclined to believe none of us have. So I can't really put his word (which word? where?) above any other even if I wanted to.

Dhamma/Dharma itself is timeless and therefore does not need modifications or updates.

There are proposals for clarifications and emphasis -- people just disagree with them and each other.

So what is the need of the term "Modern practice / Modern Buddhism"?

Times change, methods change, pedagogy changes. The subject at hand might still be the same, what one ends up learning might still be the same, but the ways of teaching them always change with cultural and geographical developments.

Shouldn't we take Lord Buddha's word above the rest and use any other resource later on for further clarification if there is such a need?

Some people take mainly the surtas (e.g. pali) to be his words, others take mainly their master's teachings as his word, and so on. Could the sutras contain misrepresentation of his words? Could a master misrepresent him? If so, what is the Buddha's word?

Why there is a trend of drifting away from original teachings, does the followers now believe that Lord Buddha's words are outdated?

What original teachings? Hundreds of years after his death, different regions across asia ended up developing different canons. There are remarkable overlappings, but there are also some disagreements. And within agreements in words, there are disagreements in interpretation. What is the original interpretation?
Some literal teachings could be deemed outdated, yes. For example, westerns have a very hard time sitting cross-legged. Should sitting in that position be paramount for buddhist practice just because a text have the Buddha mentioning that one sits cross-legged when practicing meditation?
Other teachings could be seen as figurative and unfitting for a "modern mind": rebirth is a favorite one here.
There's always a trend of drifting away of anything. One (buddhist) answer is because that's what a wordling mind does: it drifts away.
But in a gist, those who bring something new (or modern) in contrast to a set of texts are either doing because:

they regard it as compatible and the same with what the texts teach
they challenge the authenticity of the text


text:
Buddhism view on mercy
When I come across animal or bird or bug injured and in pain, no resources available nearby to shelter, do I leave it to nature or kill it to end its misery. What is Buddhism view on mercy?

Dupe, see https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2825/euthanasia-for-animals and https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2280/euthanasia-and-buddhism

Definitely no killing. That's the first among the Five Precept to be observed. Do what you can to help. If it's a large animal, call the local animal shelter helpline. If it's a small animal like a bird or a bug, at least move it to a safer place like under shade of a tree to avoid the hot sun and to prevent people from stepping on it, cover it with some large leaves, etc.. Any kind of help no matter how small might still bring great peace to other beings.

Apart from breaking the first precept and creating bad Karma for yourself, there's no guarantee that by killing you are going to reduce it's suffering. What if it was born in a realm lower than the animal realm?
So if you can't think of any way to help, practice Upekkha: Beings are owners of their deeds. Whose [if not theirs] is the
choice by which they will suffer or become happy?
You can also contemplate on yourself not being free from such suffering in the future and use it as a motivation to progress in the path.


text:
Is all attachment equal in nature?
In the general view of "attachment" in Buddhism, is the quality of attachment considered to be the same across all possible types of attachments? Or are there different qualities or degrees of attachment?
Put another way, can one kind of attachment be considered "less bad" or "more bad" than another kind? Or is it all just "attachment" in a general sense, without distinction?
For example: Is clinging to the nostalgia of an old childhood friendship any different than clinging to money or cars?

According to my first teacher, attachments to concrete worldly things are not as bad as attachments to abstract principles - which generate massive conceit and world-scale aversion.
Compare attachment to tasty food with attachment to religion - which one creates more suffering?
In my understanding, the way attachment works is via appropriation of a dharma (an object of mind) which then creates the duality of "this" vs "that" (and its special cases, "I" vs. "you" and "us" vs. "them"). There are four major quadrants here:

Low contrast between "this" and "that" and small scale of identification.
Strong contrast between "this" and "that" and small scale of identification.
Low contrast between "this" and "that" and large scale of identification.
Strong contrast between "this" and "that" and large scale of identification.

An example of the first kind is attachment to certain flavor, like the taste of some food cooked in a particular way. Even if one can't find this specific cooking style, one can find fairly similar kinds - and the resulting aversion to other flavors will not be that strong. In this case suffering generated by this attachment is both weak and small-scale (only applies to one small area of experience).
An example of the second kind is attachment to one's own life. Here the contrast between living and dying is very high, but the scale of identification is rather small. So even if one's fight for survival manifested as external violence it would unlikely create a world-scale conflict - so the suffering will be strong but not vast.
The third type can be explained on the example of attachment to gender identity. In this case the scale of attachment is massive - one identifies oneself with "I like men" or "I like women", but the contrast between the two is not polarized enough -- not black and white enough -- to create a major issue, like a war between genders. There are certainly some very common tensions between genders (can we call this "very weak but vast suffering"?), but very few women would say that men are harmful and should not exist - and vice versa.
Finally the fourth type is attachment to an abstract and highly polarized view or principle that is very prone to emergence of group identity - such attachment to religion. In this case the contrast between "good" and "bad" is very high - the carriers of the other view are considered harmful and evil. And the scale of identification is very large - all carriers of the same view are considered "us" and all carriers of the other view are "them". This results in a very explosive combination of "good us" vs. "evil them" - hence strong and vast suffering.
And then of course there are all kinds of intermediate qualities between "strong" and "weak" and between "small" and "large".
In your example, the difference is in the real object of attachment. If the reason you attach to an old childhood friendship is because it exemplifies some abstract quality that your old friend possessed that you now idealize (and on this basis cultivate aversion to those lacking such quality) - than that could be a fairly dangerous attachment. On the other hand, if attachment to old childhood friend is solely on the basis of her beautiful voice - then it's not such a big deal.
Similarly, if attachment to wealth is on the basis of simple idea that wealth gives one access to comfort and material pleasures - then it may be a medium-contrast/medium-scale problem. But if attachment to wealth is part an abstract view that all wealthy people are smart and hard-working and poor people are lazy and immoral, - then it could be feeding a global-scale conflict.
To summarize, whenever you want to evaluate an attachment you should
 - identify the real object of attachment, the root of attachment (aka the preconception)
 - assess the degree of polarization between the object of attachment and its opposite
 - assess the scale of identification and the size of the potential conflict
As a rule of thumb, watch out for abstract and highly polarizing attachments - they tend to create the strongest and largest-scale suffering.

Thank you so much for this incredibly thorough and helpful answer. I sincerely appreciate it!

Did you develop this 4 compartment model or was it taught to you or you found it, and if so, from where? Another point: It is possible for a liking to NOT be accompanied by a dislike of something else. You say: "(and on this basis cultivate aversion to those lacking such quality)" but there is no reason to be averse to, say, diet soda because I like coffee. Are not aversions things in themselves and not just the other end of a see-saw? Can't we have "monopoles" of like or dislike, in your view? Or does one inevitably bring about the other? Thank you.

As for the four quadrants model, I "brought it out from the depths of meditative insight". As for the attachment/aversion - it ALWAYS comes in pairs just not always in crude/obvious ways. Liking (=enjoying/appreciating) coffee is not attachment, attachment is when you feel entitled to liking coffee and get frustrated when you travel to places where there is none.

This depends, of course and as always, on what we mean by "nature". If viewed from the side of ultimate truth, everything is of the same nature, namely empty of inherent exitence.
I've found it very useful to view all attachment and all the afflictions as dependent arisings, imputed by mind and hence empty of inherent existence. In this sense it's easier to work on myself from the perspective "how does these afflictions and my attacment arise in me? What are their mode of arising and being?" As they are all equally empty of inherent nature/existence they are in this way equal.
That does not mean that they are experienced as equal from the relative perspective of my experience, but knowing that they are of the same nature helps getting less attached to the 8 worldly concerns.
I asked a teacher about this. Since I am very keen on reading and thinking about emptiness, I wondered "isn't this "wrong" somehow?" To be very attached to studies? But his answer was that "no, it is not "wrong", it is enthusiasm for virtue. So, being captivated is not necessarily a bad thing, especially insofar as one finds it helpful in daily life and not contrary to the moral precepts.
I guess "helpful in your daily life" and "enthusiasm for virtue" are central here. Maybe we can use that as a "measure". If an old childhood friendship or cars are "helpful in your daily life" and don't make you more attached to the 8 worldly concerns, neither are necessarily "bad" attachment.
I think like this. As long as I uphold the moral precepsts, then whatever decreases attachment to the 8 worldly concerns is "good" - whatever increases attachment to the 8 worldly concerns is "bad".
But they are all - the attachment and the car and the friend and your thoughts about the car and about the friend - by nature empty of inherent existence and so equal in nature.


text:
I'm just interested in buddhism
Do buddhists pray? Do they ever speak to the universe in a spiritual manner? What are buddhists views on suicide? Do you help plan out your life before being reincarnated?

This looks like 3 questions - please post separately to get more detailed answers.

To be honest this is too broad for me. I would be in favour of closing unless OP is willing to break this down into other questions or tighten up this question

Would you like this to be understood as a single question, for example, "Do Buddhists pray, suicide, and then hope to be reincarnated with a life they pre-planned?" Or were you asking it more as three separate questions, i.e. about prayer, suicide, and planning before reincarnation? Also if there is a specific school of Buddhism that you're interested in, then mention which of the schools you're asking about (it's also OK to ask questions without specifying a school).

This person is new so why not answer these according to the order given?

So this is your questions: Do buddhists pray? Do they ever speak to the universe in a spiritual manner? What are buddhists views on suicide? Do you help plan out your life before being reincarnated?
1) Do buddhists pray?

yes we pray.

2) Do they ever speak to the universe in a spiritual manner?

Um, not to the universe, a universe is a science thing (which is actually existed outside of the earth. So rather just say "Heaven".
  We usually pray in our prayer to wish for the Heaven and let the wish go to the heaven and we believe something good will happen to us.

3) What are buddhists views on suicide?

We believe someone who suicided will have to recycle in their another ten lifes - will end each of their life by suicides.
  But nowadays, I think people don't take it too much.

4) Do you help plan out your life before being reincarnated?

should say yes, I also believe being reincarnated is because of that thing - planning out a life or wishing to have something they have before. (means) They just can't leave their previous life and want to hold on it in any possible ways...

P.S: maybe my answers are not complete but I tried to let you know the basic things I wish I knew. Hope you find smth in it.


text:
What if a course lacks a proper introduction to Buddhist philosophy?
I'm new to the practice of Buddhism. But I'm not new to the philosophical ideas of Buddhism. I've just begun a ground course in Tibetan Buddhism. The shamata parts are good, the philosophy parts not so much. I feel that the "view" is not really explained at all (for example, emptiness and the two truths). This creates a tension when I sit in "class". If this was university I'd go right ahead and state my opinion about the lack of proper introduction to these views. But somehow I feel I'm not supposed to object or criticize, I'm a bit afraid to offend and so on. But honestly I feel the philosophy part is not duly taken care of and explained.
My question is, does anyone have any advice for me about how to relate to this feeling of lack of teaching on basic Buddhist philosophy when in "class"? And what if some of what the teacher says is simply wrong or misleading: would you comment directly on that?

I'm having a slightly similar experience: in that I'm taking a Yang style Tai Chi class for beginners, however I'm not quite a beginner i.e. I previously practised Chen style for a few years with a relatively expert teacher.
Now in this class, I hear the teacher explain the basics, but during that I notice that there are (what I'd consider) some important fundamentals (e.g. to stand up straight), which this teacher never explains.

My question is, does anyone have any advice for me about how to relate to this feeling of lack of teaching on basic Buddhist philosophy when in "class"?

I'm not sure what "how to relate" means as a question, but FYI some of my thoughts during class have been like:

I don't want to be a guy who argues or interrupts the teacher, shows lack of respect and disrupts class: other students came to learn from him, not to learn from me (see also conceit)
Occasionally I have added some sentence in my own words, if there's a verbal pause, if the teacher just answered someone's question and seems at a slight loss for what to explain further
Teachers and students have to start somewhere and maybe you can't teach nor learn everything at once; more time teaching theory would be less time practising, maybe it's his intention to teach barely enough of the static fundamentals so that he can begin to teach the dynamic movements of the form.
I'm at the class to learn how to practice the (Yang style) form, so as long as I'm getting that (instruction in the form even if not instruction in the fundamentals) I can't complain that me personally isn't getting from the class what I wanted
It sometimes worries me that other students who are beginners aren't getting enough instruction in the fundamentals (because this teacher isn't teaching everything my previous teacher taught) -- then I think that at my previous class we used to have lessons once a week, but we the students would also choose to meet during the week to practice. I haven't made time here, to do the same this time, but that remains an option: if I were really worried for the other students I could ask to meet them during the week so we could practice the lessons together (without disrupting class).

But what if some of what he says is simply wrong or misleading, would you - in your situation - comment directly on that?

If that were to happen, in my situation I should probably be unsure of myself: because perhaps what he says is one way in which the Yang style that he's teaching is different from the Chen style that I was taught previously.
Also there are few students in our class, so we have every opportunity to ask individual questions. So if he said that we ought to 'something' and I disagreed, I could query that and ask for confirmation, "Is it meant to be like this (demonstrates this) or is it more meant to be like this (demonstrates this)?"
In your case you might (if you wanted to) ask that as a more pointed question, "Is what you just said contradicted by so-and-so who wrote such-and-such?" Perhaps that's an example of a question to ask privately after class, to see whether and how the teacher is able to respond to such a question?
If you're correct in claiming that he said something "wrong or misleading", then what you reply might (if what you say must be "disagreeable") belong to this category of 'right speech' defined in MN 58, i.e.:

[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

(but I think it's worth reading that whole page of 'right speech' guidelines for further insight).
Or perhaps you could find a less confrontational way to say that, e.g. "I previously read so-and-so say such-and-such" without emphasizing that that contradicts the teacher. In general I hope questions are welcome as long as you act towards the teacher as if they're a teacher who you want to learn from. If they say things that contradict your prior knowledge then I hope it's on-topic to ask a sincere question ("can the teacher resolve this contradiction/doubt of yours?"), maybe less OK to make an accusation veiled as a question (e.g. "I know more about this than you do and you're wrong, don't you agree?").

"how to relate" wasn't very well put, but you got my point anyhow. I have had some of the same thoughts as you. Specially the "there's a verbal pause, if the teacher just answered someone's question and seems at a slight loss for what to explain further" I think might be helpful to try. But what if some of what he says is simply wrong or misleading, would you - in your situation - comment directly on that? (Pardon me if my English ain't flawless, it's not my mother tongue, but you get the meaning - I hope). Thanks

Welcome to the site. I added to your question and to my answer to try to address the question you asked in your comment.


text:
Varieties of emptiness
Does anyone have a good tip for literature about different varieties of rangtong (empty of self) and shentong (empty of other) perspectives on emptiness?

Judging from your answer to this, it sounds like you're more interested in different varieties of Madhyamaka and how they treat the subject of Relative Truth and Ultimate Truth. As for Relative Truth, some schools say that all phenomena exist as nominal designations, while others say that to assert any existence or non-existence of phenomena is a mistake - although we may go with the conventions of the majority for practical purposes. As for the Ultimate Truth, some schools says any assertions about it are empty but the Truth beyond assertions is not empty, while others say that this was an assertion as well - and the best thing is to avoid any assertions.
In my opinion, as long as you get what the argument is about there is not much sense in nitpicking the exact words. However, some traditional teachers - particularly in Gelug school - insist that these polemics facilitate analysis and therefore deeper understanding of emptiness.
There are many works comparing Madhyamaka flavors - it would be excessive to list them all here.
One work have I recently read that comes to mind is The Ri-me Philosophy of Jamgon Kongtrul the Great: A Study of the Buddhist Lineages of Tibet

Thanks for telling me what I'm interested in. As far as I can understand, the shentong and rangtong is varieties of emptiness, ultimate truth. I am curious as to how it's consisten to deduce such a concept - shentong - of emptiness on the basis of Nagarjunas writings. Ri-me writers might not be the most unbiased in that respect

From what I know about Ri-me, the explicitly non-sectarian movement, they are supposed to be the most unbiased of them all. They compare and contrast the views of all the different (Tibetan) sects, and how they emerged from the writings of Chandrakirti, Buddhapalita, Bhaviveka, Tsongkhapa, Ju Mipham, Jamgon Kongtrul and others.

I think how unbiased the Rime is, varies very much. Some times, yes they are purely  non-secterian. And that is also supposed to be the inention. But I've read stuff from Ringu Tulku that completely mistreats and ignores Gelug. And directliy misunderstands Tsongkhapa. But the intention is pure, sure. And thanks

He is a Kagyupa


text:
Dependent arising
Dependent arising is often explained in three different levels, from the coarse to the depest.
On the first level dependent arising is explained according to causes and conditions. That is, things arise dependently on causes. This is referring to nonstatic phenomena – phenomena that change from moment to moment and are affected by things, namely causes and conditions.
And then the second level of understanding dependent arising is that things arise dependently on parts. And that refers to everything, both static and nonstatic; in other words, things that don’t change from moment to moment and things that do change from moment to moment.
The third level of dependent arising is things arise dependently in terms of or in relation to mental labeling. And this deals with the deepest truth about things: how they exist.
I sometimes feel that the first level is deeper than the second. If i meditate on causes on coniditions there is no end to it. There's no end to it regarding dependence on parts either, but the time aspect seems to be different.

Are there any Buddhist philosophies that put special emphasis on the first level of dependent arising as perhaps even more suptle than the second?
About the third level. Is this mainly a Mahayana/Madhyamka idea? I'm not asking if it's a good or bad/ right or wrong idea. (It seems to me that some of the discussions here are from such different perspective according to what tenet system the writer writes from) But is there a very generally accepted answer to this?

I am putting great effort to understanding your Question, you seem to ask some very subtle ones... I wish to answer, but 1) I do not have the references that you seek 2) I see (what I think you are asking about) very differently. It is good to meditate on something to get understanding. My experience has been that what often happens is that the concepts fall apart and the question is no longer there. "To comprehend a nectar requires sorest need." If you look at all of your uses of the word "Things" I think you will see what I mean. Good Hunting!

things that don’t change from moment to moment ? For example?

I think, f.ex mathematihical axioms don't change from moment to moment

That's a concept. Not a thing.

Axioms are not concepts, they consist of concepts. "Thing" was not a good word here, sorry. But axioms and tautologies don't change, but are dependent on parts was my point.

Car is a concept which is made up of other concepts like engine, tires, seats etc. They are not realities.

I agree completely;  ultimately they are not realities. Conventionally things exist. To say otherwise would be nihilism. A car is a conventionally existing thing consisting of many conventionally existing parts. "Car" is a concept.

First, not that I know of.
Second, the third type of dependent-arising is a unique tenet of the Middle-Way Consequence School (Madhyamika Prasangika). Other schools posit that phenomena exist by way of their own characteristics/from their own side/inherently. For instance, Madhyamika-Svatantrika posit that an existent is empty of true existence (because it appears to exist from its own side without being imputed by mind) but exists inherently (for it exists from its own side indeed, although it is also imputed by mind). So, as they posit inherent existence, they do not posit the third type of dependent arising, dependence on name.
Moreover, although permanent phenomena are dependent-arisings, I would say that 'they exist in dependence on parts, and so forth' rather than 'they arise in dependence'. Although Yogacara and Madhyamika are Mahayana tenets, there are four possibilities between 'being a proponent of Mahayana tenets' and 'being Mahayana by practice'. A practitioner could be Mahayana by practice and Hinayana by tenets, such as Hinayana foe destroyers according to Khedrup Je, and vice versa.
Daniel Cozort's Unique Tenets Of The Middle Way Consequence School elaborates on the topic (and what distingues Prasangika from other schools). It is valuable but few of his assertions do not accord with the intent of the Geluk tradition. Generally, you will find distinctions between all schools of thoughts in Tenets.


text:
What is the best way to practice humility
I've studied both "Western" and "Eastern" philosophy (mainly Buddhism) for some time, and enjoying it a lot. Western philosophy is all about clarifying concepts. The exception might perhaps be phenomenology (I include Heidegger in that category, and so did he. When Heidegger talked about existentialism, he specifically referred to Sartre).
When I was writing my MA, I asked my fellow students "how does studying philosophy affect your personal life?" The general answer was "not the slightest bit". I generally had the feeling that it was a lot of competition and everyone were trying to be better and smarter than the next guy. This is one of the things I find so utterly different in Buddhist philosophy - it's affecting my daily life and ethical outlook to a much greater extent. I think our culture is so fixated on competition and being the best, and that outlook is still affecting me to a certain extent.
Does anyone have good advice for practising humility, both on and off the cushion?

I think this answer on spiritual materialism may also be of interest

In my personal experience the best ways are: 1) Try new things you aren't an expert at. 2) Have teenage children.

Good start is to do 100000 prostrations, say 100 a day.
Another practice is to identify and drop your attachments to intelligence, accumulation of knowledge, and making spiritual progress. Any time you catch yourself indulging in a thought which implies that intelligence, knowledge, or spiritual progress makes you better than others - you should get frustrated with yourself and drop that thought immediately.
Another practice is to surrender in all disagreements even if you are right, especially if you are right.
Another practice is to always take all blame upon yourself.
Another practice is the transfer of merit.
Reverence to Dharma books, handling them with care, not placing them in the floor, not placing other objects on top of them.
Reverence to teachers of Dharma - the attitude of a good servant: show respect, listen intently, follow exactly.

Very helpful to read your comments, as always. About prostrations, can you share with me some more thoughts on that subject? I suspect prostrations, like your other advice, will be very helpful for me. But I don't really have a real shrine, although I have a beautiful Buddha statue. I'm a little hesitant to aquire a lot of "stuff" for my practice, but I also want to do it as properly as I can. Thanks again

Stand straight, raise your arms on the two sides all the way until the hands touch above your head, bring them down to touch your crown, then your throat, then your diaphragm. Bend down still holding your hands at the diaphragm, then kneel down without touching your hands on the floor, release your feet, keep going down, separate your hands, put your hands on the floor, then your elbows, then your forehead, then lift your hands and turn the palms up and out - giving out all your merit, all your knowledge, all your accumulation, all your pride. You don't need a shrine for this, just imagination

If "humility" is understood as an opposite (an absence) of "conceit", then "How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?" might be a related topic, whose answers are worth reading.
The "stages of path" says that conceit is one of the final fetters (one of the last to be eradicated).

The English word "humility" suggests the presence of a (humble) positive quality. Conversely in Pali many important words instead denote the absence of some quality (see for example anatta, nirvana, etc.). And so I think it is with the word "humility", for which a Pali word is literally "without wind":

Nivāta1 (adj.) [Sk. nivāta, ni+vāta "wind -- down"] with the wind gone down, i. e. without wind, sheltered from the wind, protected, safe, secure
Nivāta2 [identical with nivāta1, sheltered from the wind =low] lowliness, humbleness, obedience, gentleness

For more on the subject I recommend this commentary on verse 8 of the Maha Magala Sutta (Sn 2.4), which suggests associations between humility and:

Reverence: veneration of the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha; of teachers, wise people, good people ... "in fact, a general high regard for everyone".
As well as being a "view" or practice, respect can be an action, it can demonstrated or acted on,

How does one show respect or reverence? The Buddha says that one gives such a person a good seat, stands up to receive them, makes way for them and, for religious teachers, one places one's hands together and bows at their feet. This is a blessing resulting in good future births and harmony in the present life.

There are other topics on this site about this kind of practice, see e.g. Prostration and attachment to rites and rituals and Tradition and purpose of prostration practice.
Without preconceptions, perhaps suspending prior beliefs, listening (and perhaps dismissing internal monolog when doing so):

The fact that we encounter a number of "blessings" which deal with non-pride should make us realize how important humility is for successful practice of Dhamma. The person who knows it all, who always replies "I know," who has his own theories about Dhamma, or anyone else's theories for that matter, does not have humility. Because of this he can never train under a good teacher.

The metaphors used in second half of that paragraph also remind me of Ahimsa i.e. the principle of being harmless, non-injury, non-violence, compassion:

The Commentary gives the right attitude to have: to be lowly "like a foot-wiping cloth," "like a bull with horns cut off," or "like a snake with fangs extracted." People like this get on with Dhamma. Of course, this does not mean that one is obsequiously "humble" — just another disguise for pride and a revolting one at that.

Contentment: perhaps conceit is a form of thirst -- a thirst for flattery or something like that?
Gratitude literally "knowing what has been done": if you know something it's because you were lucky fortunate enough to have been taught it, so rather than conceit ("I know it") you might feel respect and gratitude ("I'm grateful they taught it")
Timely hearing of Dhamma

One more story -- in one of Ven. Yuttadhammo's videos (I have forgotten which one) he describes his experience of becoming a monk, and if I remember rightly the story was something like (I paraphrase):

When I first started as a novice, I thought "I'm a good monk, a great monk, and I'm better than those other monks." After the first six months or a year I thought, "Well looking back I can see now that I wasn't a good monk. But now I'm a good monk." And, ten years later, "Just a monk."

A lot of this answer is trying to understand or define humility rather than "advice for practising"; and I expect it's missing Mahayana-based perspective. I hope other people will answer this question too.

I think understanding or defining humility is very helpful, you have given me lots of thoughts on how to practice. Regarding "Timely hearing of Dhamma", can you elaborate a bit on that?

The referenced commentary explains "timely hearing of Dhamma" (I summarized that commentary).

Always understand that everything is dependent on something else.
One can be talented but it takes another who is a fool to notice one's talent.
Understanding dependency brings us down to earth, otherwise called humility.


text:
Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara in depth?
Can someone provide a canonical explanation to  Sanskara/Sankara?
I appreciate if you can provide some sources, Suttras/Suttas so that I can expand my knowledge.

I think you meant "Sankhara" for the pali word.

There's an article in English titled Anicca Vata Sankhara in which Bhikkhu Bodhi describes the various meanings of the word. Here are very brief extracts from that article, a summary:

The word sankhara is derived from the prefix sam, meaning "together," joined to the noun kara, "doing, making."

The suttas distinguish the sankharas active in dependent origination into three types: bodily, verbal, and mental.
A second major domain where the word sankharas applies is among the five aggregates. The fourth aggregate is the sankhara-khandha, the aggregate of volitional formations. The texts define the sankhara-khandha as the six classes of volition (cha cetanakaya): volition regarding forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, and ideas.
The third major domain in which the word sankhara occurs is as a designation for all conditioned things. In this context the word has a passive derivation, denoting whatever is formed by a combination of conditions; whatever is conditioned, constructed, or compounded.

The suttas
I don't know whether there is a good/long/detailed canonical description in the Suttas.
Suminda's answer references the Abhidhamma.
One of the places it's described is the Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta, very short:

And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.

The aggregates
This page contain three essays by Ajaan Lee. The last essay on that page titled "Part III: The Buddhist Way" describes various types of Sankhara, which is "a brief outline of the Buddha's teachings based on the synopsis of the Ovada Patimokkha". It includes (again I'm heavily summarizing the article):

"Sankharas on the level of the world": status, fortune, praise
"Sankharas on the level of the Dhamma": Dhatu, Khandha, and Ayatana

I think that all khandhas are sankharas, i.e. each khandha is some-things-put-together; for example they include:

Putting things together so that they can be sensed (or more specifically, contact between the sense and sense-object)
Putting a "feeling" with the thing (e.g. "I feel that's good" or "I think that's bad")

The sense of self (identity view) is presumably a sankhara too (see the simile of the chariot).
The same article also mentions some important attributes of sankharas, e.g. impermanence:

The Buddha taught in line with the true nature of the world. He said, "Khaya-vaya-dhamma sankhara, appamadena sampadetha," which means, "All sankharas, once they have arisen, decay by their very nature. Don't be heedless or complacent. Be thoroughly mindful and completely alert, and you will attain peace and security."
What this means is this: All things that appear in the world arising from actions (kamma) are called sankharas — formations, fashionings, compounded things. Sankharas, by their nature, or of two sorts — sankharas on the level of the world and sankharas on the level of the Dhamma.

I may be wrong but I suspect that vipassana meditation might be supposed to help you understand that, at least at the sensory level. I think vipassana is supposed to make you aware of impermanence, but because sankharas are impermanent perhaps "becoming aware of impermanence" means "becoming aware of sankharas".
I also like the explanation, "All things that appear in the world arising from actions (kamma) are called sankharas": because I think that helps to explain why sankharas are sometimes translated as not just "formations" but "volitional formations": i.e. perhaps it's because kamma (action) is also associated with will (see "This volition and the resultant actions constitute kamma" in this commentary).

One of the five aggregates
The terminology turns out to be confusing because all five khandhas are sankharas, but also one of the khandhas in particular is called sankharas.
I think that means "all khandhas are fabricated or put together, but one of the khandhas is what people do when they put things together or fabricate things in their mind."
Wikipedia summarizes this meaning of sankhara as a specific one one of the five aggregates:

"mental formations", "impulses", "volition", "fabrications" or "compositional factors" (Skt. samskāra, Pāli saṅkhāra, Tib. 'du-byed): all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object

This too matches (is an even better match for) the "volitional formation" translation.
The footnote to that Wikipedia paragraph begins with, "The Theravada Abhidhamma divides saṅkhāra into fifty mental factors".

All conditioned things
There's an example of this usage in the Buddha's last words (in the The Mahāparinibbāna Sutta),

And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: “Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!”58

This was the last word of the Tathāgata.

The footnote gives the Pali,

Handa dāni bhikkhave āmantayāmi vo: Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādetha.

Jayarava explores that phrase, and how difficult it is to translate, in this article, The last words of the Buddha.

The Pali word ‘sankhara’ has multiple meanings dependent on the context. It can mean:
(i) a conditioned thing (formed from various causes or parts);
(ii) something that conditions another conditioned thing, i.e., a ‘conditioner’;
(iii) the process of conditioning;
(iv) the aggregate of mental forming, such as desiring, intention, thinking, etc and
(v) mental conditioning/concocting by greed, hatred & delusion, i.e., uncontrolled disturbing mental proliferating.
For example, shampoo is a ‘conditioned thing’, because it is manufactured from & comprises of many ingredients. When shampoo is applied to hair, a ‘conditioning’ process takes place, which makes hair soft, clean & shiny. Therefore, shampoo is also a (hair) ‘conditioner’.
Examples of each context from the Pali suttas are below:

1. ‘Sankhara’ as ‘conditioned things’.

Rūpaṃ kho āvuso channa, aniccaṃ, vedanā aniccā, saññā aniccā, saṃkhārā aniccā, viññāṇaṃ aniccaṃ, rūpaṃ anantā, vedanā anattā, saññā
anattā, saṃkhārā anattā, viññāṇaṃ anattā, sabbe saṃkhārā aniccā, sabbe
dhammā anattā
Form, friend Channa, is impermanent. Feeling is impermanent. Perception is impermanent. Mental formations (saṃkhārā) are
impermanent. Consciousness is impermanent. Form is not-self. Feeling
is not-self. Perception is not-self. Mental formations are not-self.
Consciousness is not-self. All (sabbe) conditioned things (saṃkhārā)
are impermanent (aniccā). All (sabbe) phenomena (dhammā) are not-self
(anattā).
SN 22.90

The verse above contains the word ‘sankhara’ twice: (i) as the aggregate of mental forming; and (ii) as all conditioned things, referring to each of the aggregates.
This stock phrase – sabbe saṃkhārā aniccā – is found in the exact same context at AN 3.134 and at Dhammapada 277.
The five aggregates are conditioned things because they arise & exist subject to & dependent upon various causes and conditions. Thus, SN 22.21 states:

Rūpaṃ kho ānanda, aniccaṃ, saṃkhataṃ paṭiccasamuppannaṃ khayadhammaṃ
Form…feeling…perception…mental formations…consciousness  are
impermanent,  conditioned (saṃkhataṃ), dependently arisen
(paṭiccasamuppannaṃ), subject to destruction (khayadhammaṃ)…

Therefore, in this context, ‘sankhara’ also refers to physical or material things, as found in the Pali terms ‘kaya sankhara’ (which is defined in MN 44 as the ‘in & out breathing’) & ‘aayu sankhara’ (defined in MN 43 as the ‘vitality’ or ‘life force’ of the physical body that remains when the mind is unconscious).

2.  ‘Sankhara’ as ‘conditioners’.
Here, ‘sankhara’ as ‘conditioners’ refers to the words ‘kaya sankhara’, ‘vaci sankhara’ & ‘citta sankhara’, which are found at the 2nd condition of Dependent Origination & at stages 4, 7 and 8 of the Anapanasati Sutta and which are defined in MN 44 as follows:

In-&-out breaths are the body conditioner (kāyasaṅkhāro). Initial & sustained thought are the verbal conditioner (vacīsaṅkhāro).
Perceptions & feelings are the mind conditioner (cittasaṅkhāroti).
Why are in-&-out breaths the body conditioner? Why are directed
thought & evaluation the verbal conditioner? Why are perceptions &
feelings the mind conditioner?
In-&-out breaths are a bodily thing upon which the body depends on (or is bound on). That’s why in-&-out breaths are the body
conditioner. Having first applied & sustained one’s thought, one then
breaks out into speech. That’s why applied & sustained thought are the
verbal conditioner. Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are
things that determine mental states (i.e., upon which mental states
depend). That’s why perceptions & feelings are the mind conditioner.

The above translation has been done liberally to demonstrate the meaning. However, the part of the translation about why thought is the verbal conditioner is the same as all translators. This part demonstrates clearly what the mean of ‘sankhara’ is in this context, namely, the ‘verbal sankhara’ is a preceding cause that determines the happening of speech. Thus ‘thought’ is not the ‘verbal condition’ or ‘verbal fabrication’ but, instead, the ‘verbal conditioner’ or the ‘verbal fabricator’.
Thus, the ‘kaya’ & ‘cittta sankhara’ have the same meaning. The breathing conditions the state of the body. Breathing gives life to the body. If breathing is healthy, the body is healthy & energetic. If breathing is poor, the body is unhealthy & weak. This is why breathing is the body ‘conditioner’ (rather than the bodily condition). Similarly, pleasant feelings & perceptions condition mental formations of love, greed or lust; whilst unpleasant feelings & perceptions condition mental formations of anger or hatred. This is why perception & feeling is the mind ‘conditioner’ (rather than the mental condition).

3. ‘Sankhara’ as ‘conditioning’.
Below are two straightforward examples of the word ‘abhisaṃkharontīti’.

Kiñca bhikkhave, saṃkhāre vadetha: saṃkhataṃ abhisaṃkharontīti bhikkhave
And why do you call them ‘fabricators’? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called ‘fabricators.’
SN 22.79
Avijjāgatoyaṃ bhikkhave, purisapuggalo puññaṃ ce saṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti
Monks, if a person immersed in ignorance generates a meritorious formation…
SN 12.51

4.  ‘Sankhara’ as the ‘mental formations aggregate’.
There are five aggregates (khandha) of life (body, feeling, perception, mental formations & consciousness), of which ‘sankhara khandha’ (mental formations/forming) is the 4th.
The  ‘sankhara khandha’ operates in all people, including Buddhas. For example, about the end of the life of a fully enlightened being, the scriptures state:

Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
break-up of the body, after death?
Thus asked, I would answer, ‘Form is impermanent… Feeling… Perception… Fabrications… Consciousness is impermanent. That which is
impermanent is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased
and gone to its end.’
Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.
Yamaka Sutta

Therefore, for a Buddha to think or speak, the sankhara aggregate must operate in the mind/brain of a Buddha. In this context, ‘sankhara’ is not ‘mental suffering’ but referring to a neutral mental faculty.

5.  ‘Sankhara’ as the ‘mental concocting’.
There are many passages about how ‘sankhara’ is the greatest suffering & about how Nibbana is the stilling of ‘sankhara’. Since a Buddha must think (in order to teach) & is comprised of five undefiled pure five aggregates, the term ‘sankhara’ is these passages does not refer to ‘sankhara’ as ‘conditioned things’ or the ‘sankhara aggregate’. Sankhara, here, also probably does not refer to ‘sankhara’ as ‘conditioners’ since Buddhas still have breathing, feeling, perception & thought. Therefore, ‘sankhkara’ here must refer to the mind being ‘conditioned’, ‘concocted’, ‘stirred up’ & ‘polluted’ by greed, hatred & delusion, i.e., uncontrolled disturbing mental proliferating.
Some relevant well-known passages are below:

Saṅkhāra paramā dukhā…nibbāṇa paramaṃ sukhaṃ.
Mental concocting is the worst suffering….Nibbana is the highest bliss.
Dhammapada 203
Tisso imā āvuso dukkhatā, dukkhadukkhatā saṅkhāradukkhatā vipariṇāmadukkhatā.
There are these three kinds of suffering, my friend: suffering due to/about pain; suffering due to/of mental concocting; and suffering
due to/about change. These are the three kinds of suffering.
SN 38.14
Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at
peace.
MN 140
Idampi kho ṭhānaṃ duddasaṃ yadidaṃ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṃ.
This state, too, is hard to see: the calming (samatho) of all (sabba) mental concocting (saṅkhāra), the relinquishment of all acquisitions,
the destruction of craving; dispassion; cessation [of suffering];
Nibbana.
MN 26

Conclusion: In the Pali, the word ‘sankhara’ is used in many different contexts. For a clear & practical comprehension of the Pali teachings, the suitable context is best discerned.
Below is an example of an internet translation & the alternate translation of this webpage.

These three feelings have been spoken of by me: a feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain & a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain.
These are the three feelings spoken of by me. But I have also said:
‘Whatever is felt comes under stress.’ That I have stated simply in
connection with the inconstancy of fabrications (sankhara). That I
have stated simply in connection with the nature of fabrications to
end… in connection with the nature of fabrications to fall away… to
fade away… to cease… in connection with the nature of fabrications to
change.
These three feelings have been spoken of by me: a feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain & a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain.
These are the three feelings spoken of by me. But I have also said:
‘Whatever is felt comes under unsatisfactoriness.’ That I have stated
simply in connection with the inconstancy of conditioned things
(sankhara). That I have stated simply in connection with the nature of
conditioned things (sankhara) to end… in connection with the nature of
conditioned things to fall away… to fade away… to cease… in connection
with the nature of conditioned things to change.
SN 36.11

This is wonderful! I have a question though about the first part about the meaning of sankhara as 'conditioned things.' The question is a bit involved so I'll post it as a real question and not a comment I guess.

Question here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49762/what-is-the-proper-translation-of-sabbe-sa%e1%b9%85kh%c4%81r%c4%81-anicc%c4%81

Most in depth explanations happens in the Abhi Dhamma. There are 52 Cetasikas our of which 50 come under Sankara (with the exception of Feeling and Perception). Explaining the 50 would need a small size book and maybe beyond the scope of an answer in this format hence refer to: Mental Factors By Dharmacharya Ruwan Buddhika, The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis, Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Mental factors.
According to the Suttas there are 3 types of Sankaran (Cūla Vedalla Sutta, (Paṭicca,samuppada) Vibhanga Sutta):

the bodily formations - breath
the verbal formations - thinking and pondering
the mental formations - feeling and perception

2 above related to the 50 Cetasikas in the Abhi Dhamma while 3 refers to the other 2 Cetasikas. Mental formations are the last to calm. (Anupubba Nirodha Sutta)
Sankara are formed when there is either greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), delusion (moha), greedlessness (alobha), hatelessness (adosa), and undeludedness (amoha) volitional motivated thoughts (this also based on sensation as any through has sensation associated with it) or when you react with clinging or aversion to any sensation that is felt. (Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2)

Thanks Suminda! what are the pali words for "feeling and perception"

Feeling / sensation - vedanā, Perception - sañña

I recommend the book "How to Measure and deepen your spiritual realization" for the most modern analysis and cross correlations. It has been 15 years since i read this and i have not found anything better. There is a 100+ page chapter to analyzing the skandhas (including sankhara) and how they relate to daily life, samadhi, and the various gongfus as described in the surangama sutra (which is a Mahayana sutra, by the way), various modern Buddhist books, and some Theravada references as well since the 5 aggregates is a universal dharma common to many schools.

I think this entire universe is made up of Sankara, which cannot be seen thorough our 5 senses(Vinyana-Perception).Also "San" means collection and "kara" means information. It is the collection of information. Buddha said "Pragnya" eye can see this small particles..Buddha told Rahula, "you and that tree are the same"...it has a nature of "create" and "cessation" at the same time...

Sankhara as a karmic-formation can be understood to be a schema, as defined by Immanuel Kant. From this point of view, sankhara as a cognitive process that transforms experience into belief. For example, by means of a sankhara process can take a set of sensations of a chair and "put them together" into a concept of a chair, in this way a person acquires perceptual knowledge about chairs. Kant called this a process of synthesis. Subsequent experiences with chairs can result in the growth or development of this perceptual knowledge, such as having feelings about and a desire for our favorite chair. The process of "putting together" is a form of mental action and therefore a form of kamma (karma in Sanskrit). The product of the process of "putting together" is "that which has been put together," which is also called sankhara. Defined in this way, sankhara or schemata are the cause of all intelligent behavior such as perception, feeling, believing, wishing, knowing, and having emotions. Such behavior can be wholesome, unwholesome, or functional. In advanced states of mindfulness meditation, it is possible to access the history of a karmic-formation and, if necessary, correct, revise, or unlearn it. I have written a book on how mindfulness meditation works that relates meditation to various sankhara.

As ChrisW says “The word sankhara is derived from the prefix sam, meaning "together," joined to the noun kara, "doing, making."
saṅkhāra = come together & do.
What precisely does “come together” mean?
It means “orienting oneself” in sensory experience.
It means saying “I am here”. (See the 36 streams of craving).
saṅkhāra = get oriented & do.
saṅkhāra = in THIS place with THIS aim, DO this
saṅkhāra = a sensory motor prediction
The sensory motor brain predicts sensory experience.
We construct maps to guide our movements in the world.
All maps, including the dhamma, are composed of saṅkhāra.
Each saṅkhāra starts off as a hypothesis with a degree of uncertainty.
However, as it predicts sensory experience correctly, it hardens into a “habit” and we cease to be conscious of the fact that it is just a hypothesis and may be proved incorrect by future sensory experience.
What does this have to do with “suffering & the end of suffering”?
Āsava are saṅkhāra corrupted by avijjā.
Āsava are saṅkhāra which predict sensory experience badly.
The destruction of the āsava is the end of suffering.
Why?
Because dukkha is a notification of misprediction.
The biological purpose of dukkha is to alert us to an error in our predictive model of the world of sensory experience.
How we respond to this arrow in the heart is important.
If we respond by ignoring the feedback and clinging to our wrong map of the world, we create an inner civil war between (1) the part which wants to predict sensory experience accurately so that our movements will be skillful and (2) the part which wants to cling to the wrong view.
This inner civil war between these 2 parts is all suffering.
All suffering that we have ever experienced is an inner civil war between these 2 parts.
When, with viriya, this bad habit of avijjā [ignoring uncomfortable truths] (avijjāsava) is extinguished, all suffering is ended.

My dead mother said, sanjhara is hurting me before she died, that is all the problem of letting go, or perhaps she was willing to accept the abuse so not to take another rebirth

The Buddha knew that humans do not need to decay and die 2500 years ago. He told us directly that our choice to cling to āsava instead of destroying them is the reason we decay and die. Longevity science says the same. Aging, the cause of most disease, is itself caused by the sirtuins in our epigenome being overwhelmed to the point where epigenetic information is lost. Why overwhelmed? Because we choose to cling to āsava instead of destroying them. We destroy them by letting go of saṅkhāra which predict sensory experience incorrectly and replacing them with saṅkhāra which predict it correctly.

Instead, we cling to wrong views and this clinging causes the suffering which overwhelms our sirtuins causing aging and death. This is why we decay & die. If we choose, instead, to see the world the way it actually is, the stress which is the root cause of aging will cease to exist. See David Sinclair's book: Lifespan: Why we age and why we don't have to.

"Sabbe saṅkhāra aniccā" does not refer to the impermanence of the material world. It refers to the impermanence of our perception of it. The map is NOT the territory. Our maps of the the world are constructed entirely of saṅkhāra. We can choose to respond to the dukkha of misprediction by creating and destroying them to more accurately predict sensory experience. By increasing our understanding in this fashion, we can solve any problem. Including the problem of aging and death.

sounds good...can u answer my question? https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/48268/is-merit-just-ok-not-great

@blue_ego: Re: “saṅkhāra are hurting me.”
Note the word “me”.
In my experience, self-absorption in the narrative is an accurate predictor of the presence of āsava.
The āsava bring suffering, decay and death.
For the welfare of all beings, the āsava must be destroyed.
The Buddha counseled anattā: The renunciation of this self-absorption in the narrative.
When this has been done and narrative has been exposed as false, it becomes possible to destroy the āsava.

And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.
"In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications.
Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications.
Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."
‘Whatever fabrications , bhikkhus, has passed, ceased, changed: the term, label, and description ‘was’ applies to it, not the term ‘is’ or the term ‘will be.’
"And what are fabrications? These six classes of intention [pali cetana] — intention with regard to form, intention with regard to sound, intention with regard to smell, intention with regard to taste, intention with regard to tactile sensation, intention with regard to ideas: these are called fabrications. From the origination of contact comes the origination of fabrications. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of fabrications. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of fabrications... The fact that pleasure & happiness arises in dependence on fabrications: that is the allure of fabrications. The fact that fabrications are inconstant, stressful, subject to change: that is the drawback of fabrications. The subduing of desire & passion for fabrications, the abandoning of desire & passion for fabrications: that is the escape from fabrications...
"Intention [cetana], I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.
"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.
"And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma.
"And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.
"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.
“And why, bhikkhus, do you call them fabrications? ‘They fabricate the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called fabrications. SN 22.79
And what is the conditioned that they fabrications?
They fabricate conditioned form as form;
they fabricate conditioned feeling as feeling;
they fabricate conditioned perception as perception;
they fabricate conditioned fabrications as fabrications;
they fabricate conditioned consciousness as consciousness.
‘They fabricate the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called fabrications.
(Here end sutta excerpts)

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