text:
Why did the Lord Buddha criticize natthikavādaṃ (moral nihilism)?
In SN 24.5, the Lord Buddha criticized the following doctrine called "natthikavādaṃ":

There is no benefit in giving, sacrifice or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There is not this world or the
  other world. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are
  reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well
  attained and practiced, and who describes this world and the other
  world after realizing it with their own insight.
This person is made up of the four primary elements. When they die, the earth in their body merges and coalesces with the main mass of
  earth. The water in their body merges and coalesces with the main mass
  of water. The fire in their body merges and coalesces with the main
  mass of fire. The air in their body merges and coalesces with the main
  mass of air.
The faculties are transferred to space. Four men with a bier carry away the corpse. Their footprints show the way to the cemetery. The
  bones become bleached. Offerings dedicated to the gods end in ashes.
  Giving is a doctrine of morons. When anyone affirms a positive
  teaching (atthikavādaṃ) it’s just baseless, false nonsense. Both the
  foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up and don’t exist after death.

According to SN 24.5, why did the Lord Buddha criticize natthikavādaṃ (the doctrine of disbelief)?

Hi @Dhammadhatu, assuming you don't find any of the answers posted here adequate, I would be interested in understanding what you believe to be a correct answer. Maybe post a chat here for it?

@Dhammadhatu I guess you have read my answer. Is there anything which is missing from the answer? In which way the answer is inadequate ? I would be glad to help.

Please refrain from editing my question. Thanks

@Dhammadhatu How does the word "moral" get into (or come from) natthikavāda?

Its disbelief in kamma & results. Its not "annihilationism". The term "nihilism" is a Western term. Disbelief in the efficacy of kamma (natthikavādaṃ) is "moral nihilism". refer to MN 60: Regardless, that individual is still criticized by sensible people in the present life as being an immoral individual of wrong view, a nihilist. atha
ca panāyaṃ bhavaṃ purisapuggalo diṭṭheva dhamme viññūnaṃ gārayho—dussīlo purisapuggalo micchādiṭṭhi natthikavādo’ti.

The answer is present in the same sutta:

“When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, the
  view arises: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. …
  Both the foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when
  their body breaks up, and don’t exist after death.’ When feeling …
  perception … choices … consciousness exists, because of grasping
  consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises:
  ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. … Both the
  foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up, and don’t exist after death.’

In other words when self identification with forms,feelings,perception,consciousness and/or volitional formations occur such a view as highlighted by you also occurs.
I think the the wrong view of moral nihilism gets generated when we say that every self ceases to exist after death(i.e body and self are same) or that every self lives for eternity(i.e body and self are different). In both the case following holds true :

‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no
  fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are
  no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously.
  And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced,
  and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own
  insight. This person is made up of the four primary elements. When
  they die, the earth in their body merges and coalesces with the main
  mass of earth. The water in their body merges and coalesces with the
  main mass of water. The fire in their body merges and coalesces with
  the main mass of fire. The air in their body merges and coalesces with
  the main mass of air. The faculties are transferred to space. Four men
  with a bier carry away the corpse. Their footprints show the way to
  the cemetery. The bones become bleached. Offerings dedicated to the
  gods end in ashes. Giving is a doctrine of morons. When anyone affirms
  a positive teaching it’s just baseless, false nonsense. Both the
  foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up, and don’t exist after death’?”

The truth there is that there is no permanent , unchanging self.  What is happening is Clinging to forms,feelings,perceptions,consciousness and/or volitional formations. These Clingings are not unconditional. Craving gives rise to clinging. This is the midddle way. Depending upon conditions clinging ceases. Depending upon conditions clinging arises. This is the Dhamma. To those who believe in Self it would appear Self arises and ceases which is self contradictory as self is permanent and unchanging. Morality based upon the assumption that Self and body are the same results in moral nihilism. Morality based upon assumption that Self and body are different leads to moral nihilism.
EDIT: I have found another Sutta(saṃyuktāgama 297) to support my answer.
Following quote illustrates the point I have been trying to make:

“What is the great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas? It is this:
  Because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises.
  That is to say: Conditioned by ignorance, activities arise; because of
  activities, consciousness arises, and so on …, and thus arises this
  whole mass of suffering.
“Regarding the statement conditioned by birth, aging-and-death arises,
  someone may ask: Who is it that ages-and-dies? To whom does
  aging-and-death belong?
“And he may answer: It is the self that ages-and-dies. Aging-and-death
  belongs to the self; aging-and-death is the self.
“To say that soul is the same thing as body, or to say that soul is
  one thing and body another, these have the same meaning, though they
  are expressed differently. For one who has the view which says that
  soul is the same thing as body, there is no point in the noble life.
  And for one who has the other view which says that soul is one thing
  and body another, there is also no point in the noble life. Following
  neither of these two extremes, the mind should move rightly toward the
  Middle Way.

Why did the Buddha criticize natthika (moral nihilism)?
Well, it is wrong on many levels:

objectively, moral nihilism leads to careless behavior, which often leads to conflict and suffering.
subjectively, adhering to good morals is a nice rule of thumb for reducing mental afflictions - while moral nihilism would give free reign to the blinding passions.
Right Dharma by its very nature has to be based on reality of how things work - and being based on how things work means its principles can be observed throughout a wide range of human activities - which is why worldly ethics and Buddhism go along 90% of the way. Moral nihilism goes contrary to worldly ethics, which means it's not in accord with how things work.
the entire Buddhist path is based on the idea that some states of existence are "better" (more peaceful) then others, Nirvana being "the best", with better behavior leading to better states, and better views leading to better behavior. Dharma is that "better view". To claim that moral nihilism is the right teaching would imply that moral nihilism is a better view, which is logically inconsistent, since from the standpoint of moral nihilism there cannot be such thing as "better view".
our ideas and results of our actions continue to exist after our death. So whatever we do has influence beyond this life, just like we have inherited actions of previous generations. Moral nihilism denies this factor, this denial being obviously false.

How is this reconciled with the highest (Mahayana's) teaching of emptiness? Emptiness, or groundlessness as it is sometimes called, does NOT mean there is no good & bad. It does NOT mean there's no skillful & unskillful behavior. It means good/bad and skillful/unskillful cannot be simply generalized and reified. This is known even from the modern ethics with its infamous trolley problem. Good & bad is not something you can decide once-and-for-all and always go by the same rule. Same goes for skillful/unskillful. If being wise and skillful were as simple as learning a rule of thumb, everyone would be a buddha by now.
It also involves clear understanding that, in any kind of dispute, to be too attached to one position as "the only good" - is not good, because it leads to trouble. Attachment to reified morals, aversion based on that attachment, and conflict it generates - is not the most skillful approach. It is better than having no clue, sure - but not as good as seeing the situation from all perspectives at once.
So from Mahayana perspective, moral categories are not tangible, they cannot be grasped. Morals and wisdom is a skill one has to master, and the more someone masters it, the more nuanced and less stereotyped it gets, until it's almost like it has no definite shape - and yet you can see it working with clarity.
At the very end of this progression of mastery is what Mahayana calls groundlessness or positionlessness of a great master. Nothing can be further away from the moral nihilism.

It appears the Lord Buddha criticized natthikavādaṃ (moral nihilism) because it is doctrine based on grasping (upadana). In other words, the Lord Buddha appeared to not criticize natthikavādaṃ because of disbelief in an afterlife.

The translation of the sutta says that the view arises "because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness", and wouldn't arise by not grasping ... and that a noble disciple has given up doubt about the six cases (the five skandhas plus all sense objects) and the four noble truths.

The views presented above belong to the ancient Indian materialist Ajita Kesakambalin of the Charvaka or Lokayata school. Ajita Kesakambalin is introduced in the Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life.
The Buddha criticized the materialist world view for many reasons including its amoral (at best) or immoral (at worst) consequences. In contradistinction he taught the Dharma to dissuade those who would harm themselves and others believing that with the breakup of the body at death  one could escape the consequences of negative actions in this very life. The Buddha explicitly criticized and put his own teachings in contradistinction to this by teaching the truth of rebirth and that one cannot escape the negative fruit of ones actions with the breakup of the body at death. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu skillfully cites in The Truth of Rebirth:

[The Buddha then cites similar cases where some people are rewarded
  for stealing, engaging in illicit sex, and lying, whereas other people
  are punished.]
"Now, what do you think, headman: Have you ever seen or heard of such
  a case?"
"I have seen this, lord, have heard of it, and will hear of it [again
  in the future]."
"So, headman, when those contemplatives & brahmans who hold a doctrine
  & view like this say: 'All those who kill living beings [etc.]
  experience pain & distress in the here-&-now,' do they speak
  truthfully or falsely?"
"Falsely, lord."
"And those who babble empty falsehood: Are they moral or immoral?"
"Immoral, lord."
"And those who are immoral and of evil character: Are they practicing
  wrongly or rightly?"
"Wrongly, lord."
"And those who are practicing wrongly: Do they hold wrong view or
  right view?"
"Wrong view, lord."
"And is it proper to place confidence in those who hold wrong view?"
"No, lord."
— SN 42.13

FWIW I think the OP wanted the answer "According to SN 24.5 ..." (and that the argument you quoted would be classified as the "mundane right view").

Yeah, I have no pretension to understanding OP's mind or what he thinks the right answer is :) I know the rhetorical question is frowned upon, but maybe we could have a chat if OP wants as I would like to understand what he's after...

Sure: if you don't understand a question you can post a query (as a comment) under the question.

There is a related sutta, SN44.6 that says:

"For one who loves form (and the rest of the five aggregates), who is
  fond of form, who cherishes form, who does not know or see, as it
  actually is present, the cessation of form, there occurs the thought,
  'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist
  after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after
  death' or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after
  death.'
"But for one who doesn't love form (and the rest of the five
  aggregates), who isn't fond of form, who doesn't cherish form, who
  knows & sees, as it actually is present, the cessation of form, the
  thought, 'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not
  exist after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist
  after death' or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after
  death' doesn't occur.
"For one who loves becoming, who is fond of
  becoming, ...
"But for one who doesn't love becoming, who isn't fond of becoming ...
"For one who loves clinging/sustenance ...
"But for one who doesn't love clinging/sustenance ...
"For one who loves craving ...
"But for one who doesn't love craving ...

I have heard another story about a master saying "think about monkeys", and the meditator thinks about monkeys with his eyes closed. After this, the master says "don't think about monkeys", and again, the meditator never fails to think about monkeys with his eyes closed. Why? Because in both cases, he has an obsession with monkeys.
Similarly, views about whether 'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' all occur only if one has an obsession with the five aggregates, becoming, craving and clinging.
Similarly, having views about whether one (the self) 'exists after death' or 'does not exist after death' or 'both exists and does not exist after death' or 'neither exists nor does not exist after death' are all due to obsession with the five aggregates, becoming, craving and clinging.
The Acela Sutta shows that the Buddha teaches the Right View using dependent origination, rather than eternalism or annihilationism. (This comes from here but the full text can be found here):

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)"
  (S. XII, 17/vol. ii, 20).

The Yamaka Sutta also speaks of an interesting notion:

"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 inconstant... Feeling...
  Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which
  is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and
  gone to its end."
"Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.

So, rather than saying that after Parinibbana, the Buddha exists or does not exist, it's better to say suffering has ceased and gone to its end.
In a similar way, rather than saying that after death, whether an unenlightened person is non-existent or existent or reborn or not reborn, it's better to say that suffering has not ceased. And what happens when suffering has not ceased, is understood using dependent origination.

The true meaning of life is helping others achieve freedom from suffering.I think that somebody can't undergo all the hardships of the right path without having a full compassionate heart.
I understood all phenomena of life’s round and transcendence to be interdependent. I further ascertained that the underlying basis of mind is free from biases. Life’s round is the result of the path conditioned by wrong views. Transcendence is the result of the path conditioned by insight. The essence of both is emptiness and luminosity.
The Buddhist notion of emptiness is often misunderstood as nihilism. Nihilism and the teaching of emptiness can be said to have in common is a skeptical outset. Nihilism concludes that reality is unknowable, that nothing exists, that nothing meaningful can be communicated about the world. The Buddhist notion of emptiness is just the opposite. It states that the ultimate reality is knowable, there is a clear-cut ontological basis for phenomena and we can communicate and derive useful knowledge from it about the world.
This concept of emptiness may easily lead to the negative thought of nihilism. Mahayana Buddhism takes us back out of this extremist concept of emptiness to the middle way.This middle way still commits to the idea that “life is emptiness”; however emptiness here is not different from existence--emptiness is existence, existence is emptiness. This middle way definitely takes away any inkling of nihilist negativism. It is realistic and positive about life.[1]
The very purpose of fertile soil is to cultivate seeds into a fully manifest, healthy plant. Thus the development of our innate compassion is intimately and interdependently linked to the fertile soil-17 Karmapa

The write-up “There’s No Meaning in Giving” by Bhikku Sujato, is still at a draft stage as its proofreading is not complete. But it is in keeping with ‘The Connected Discourses of the Buddha’ 24-5 (There Is Not), of the Book of Aggregates (Khandhavagga).
It talks primarily of the third kind of ‘Tanha’ that exists, namely the vibhava tanhā. Tanhā is “getting attached to things in this world”.  Due to greed, hate, and ignorance, Kāma tanhā, bhava tanhā, and vibhava tanhā arises. It is because of the ignorance that we are grasping things and insisting on things, in thinking that they can provide lasting happiness. This attachment first manifests in greed. But when someone or something gets in the way, we generate hate.
Vibhava tanhā arises from the wrong view that there’s no afterlife. One believes that at death one ceases to exist, i.e., one believes that the mind is a by-product of the body (brain), and thus when the body dies, that is the end of story.
Many immoral acts are done with natthikavādaṃ (nihilism) because one believes that everything in this world is for one’s enjoyment, and all ends with this life. The logic is that If this birth is the one and the last, there is no need for giving, sacrifice or offerings, as there’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds.
This type of tanhā is removed as one progresses on the Path and at Stream Entry. Vibhava tanhā is removed at Sōtapanna stage, since only someone with micca ditthi can have vibhava tanhā. At Stream Entry one sees the truth in the rebirth process.
Tanhā arise due to asāva: One gets “attached” because one has deeply- embedded cravings. In this instance it is due to vibhavāsava. Vibhavāsava is split in to two: ditthāsava (ditthi asāva) and avijjāsava (avijja āsava). This is because vibhavāsava arises due to wrong views and ignorance.
Āsava are “mental fermentations” that lie deep down in us. That can be compared to mud sitting at the bottom of a glass of water. “Asava” are the things we have liked for long, long times through uncountable lives in the samsāra or the rebirth process. They are the deep-seated cravings we have for certain things.  .
Getting attached to things in this world due to greed, hate, and ignorance, lessen gradually with the deeper understanding of the message of the Buddha. This means ridding oneself of the three bonds that tie one down to this plane. Namely Raga, Dvesha and moha (greed, hate, and ignorance). The only way to do this is by eradicating Tanha (Kāma tanhā, bhava tanhā, vibhava tanhā). Ditthāsava is the craving or attachment to certain views. This is why sometimes it is hard to accept or even consider other views. This is why  Buddha criticized natthikavādaṃ (nihilism).


text:
Is there a way to speed up the extinguishment of bad karma?
If you are in a situation/or period of your life, where you think your are reaping the results of bad karma, is there something you can do to mitigate or hasten the results of such bad karma since you can't avoid it?

There may already be some answers to this topic, at Is there a way to hasten the results of bad deeds

If you are not satisfied with existing answers, please ask a more specific follow-up question.

https://lifeisauspicious.com/2016/06/18/mythstruths-about-karma/

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is opinion of Nichiren Buddhism on the concept of a Creator or Supreme Being?
What is the opinion of Nichiren Buddhism on the concept of a Creator or Supreme Being?

Nichiren did not address the concept of a Creator or Supreme Being. Buddhists in general do not address this, basically because Shakyamuni, the founder of buddhism in India, did not address this even when asked what he thought about it.
Also, in Japan in the thirteenth century, the general population was not interested in this so no one is recorded as having asked Nichiren about it. The lack of interest may be attributed to the influence of Shintoism and Confucianism in Japan since neither pay much attention to this question either.
In order to verify that Nichiren did not address this, the Nichiren Buddhism Library offers a searchable database for writings by Nichiren and for a record of his oral teachings as well.
A lack of concern about a creator deity may be difficult for a theist to understand. I do know some buddhists, including some Nichiren buddhists, raised theistic and polytheistic, who do believe in a creator god. In buddhism this is okay, just like it is okay to be an atheist or an agnostic. Since these questions are not considered to be decidable, the choice of belief about a creator is up to the individual. Practicing and living one's life as a human being in this life are primary.

Three Wrong Views from the Flower Garland [Kegon or Avatamsaka] Sutra
"In this world there are three wrong viewpoints. If one clings to these viewpoints, then all things in this world are but to be denied. First, some say that all human experience is based on destiny; second, some hold that everything is created by God and controlled by His will; third, some say that everything happens by chance without having any cause or condition.
If all has been decided by destiny, both good deeds and evil deeds are predetermined, weal and woe are predestined; nothing would exist that has not been foreordained. Then all human plans and efforts for improvement and progress would be in vain and humanity would be without hope.
The same is true of the other viewpoints, for, if everything in the last resort is in the hands of an unknowable God, or of blind chance, what hope has humanity except in submission? It is no wonder that people holding these conceptions lose hope and neglect efforts to act wisely and to avoid evil.
In fact, these three conceptions or viewpoints are all wrong: everything is a succession of appearance whose source is the accumulation of causes and conditions."
from the Avatamsaka-sutra....

Buddhists are atheistic agnostics. Buddhism is not a religion, it is a philosophy and way of living guided by Sakyamuni Buddha. Religion is the devotional relationship between God and his believers, but Buddhism is not the same.

The OP wanted an answer specific to Nichiren Buddhism, preferably with a reference (a quote) I suppose.

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


text:
How long would it take to enter 3rd and 4th Satipatthana?
Let's say I am meditating for 2-3 hours each day. How long would it take?

How long would it take to enter?

That's like asking how long would it take for you to start tasting the curries that are already on your plate. Or like asking how long will it take for you to taste almonds and cashews when you are eating a mix of nuts. It's just a matter of you deciding to practice awareness on them.
Cittanupassana
When your mind wanders thinking about past/present/future or when your mind becomes concentrated/scattered, you can be mindful of it to practice the 3rd Satipattana
Dhammanupassana
If you decide to practice mindfulness on seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting etc. or the five hindrances, that's the 4th Satipattana.

I find your answer a little bit unsufficient and also misleading, but in general, people who think that one can practise the 4 Satipatthanas individually have a wrong understanding. If one indeed could practise the 4 satipatthanas individually, how then do you practise relinquishment and dispassion as mentioned at the end of the sutta? These are 'achieved' under very deep concentration. At each stage the object of meditation automatically changes. If I start with breathing after a certain while rapture arises due to calming the body and mind. Rapture is then the start of vedana level

Wrong! You do not need to attain Jhana to be mindful of Vedana. When you meditate, you feel pains in you legs, back etc. , you might feel itching. Being mindful of those is Vedananupassana. As you practice Satipattana Samdhi is developed at the same time. Relinquishment comes as you start to see Anicca, Dukkha , Anatta.

When do I exactly see Dukkha, Anatta? Now Impermanence can always be seen.. Let it be thoughts, feelings, emotions or even the in-and-out breaths. I find Dhammadhatu's approach  much more convincing. The 4 Satipatthanas are stages which emerge in succession.

@Val ex: when an unpleasant state arises, that is Dukkha. When a pleasant state perishes it is Dukkha. When you notice that you cannot control thoughts at will, it's Anatta. It's really not that difficult to see Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta even for a beginner unless you are doing Samatha only.

The cultivating of  Satipatthāna consists of  kāyānupassanā, vēdanānupassanā, cittānupassanā, and dhammānupassanā,  is a systematic, guaranteed way, of attaining Nibbāna, by purification of the being, i.e., via cleansing one’s mind.  In it Buddha says:

“Katame cattāro? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassi viharati ātāpī sampajānō, satimā vineyya lōke abhijjhā dōmanassam.  Vedanāsu vedanānupassi viharati ātāpī sampajānō, satimā vineyya lōke abhijjhā dōmanassam. Citte cittänupassī viharati ātāpī sampajānō, satimā vineyya lōke abhijjhā dōmanassam. Dhammesu dhammānupassi viharati ātāpī sampajānō, satimā vineyya lōke abhijjhā dōmanassam”

“ātāpi” is to remove that “fire” from the heart and the stress from the mind, and calm the mind. This is the “cooling down”, the early stages of Nibbāna.  In the Buddha’s last words: “..”appamadēna sampādēta” or “..make haste and sort out “immoral tendencies”. When one has done “sampādēta” one becomes “sampajannō”: One knows what is right and what is wrong automatically; it has become a habit. “sati ma vineyya lōke abhijjhā dōmanassam” means establishing moral mindset and moral conduct in order to be free from the debt-ridden world and to be relieved from abhijja and domanassa. This is the key to “cooling down”
Thus we should strive to “get rid of the fire or heat in the mind by being aware of kilesa or defilements and by removing extreme greed (abhijja) that leads to a depressed mind (domanassa)”. This “cooling down” is done in four ways:  kāyānupassanā, vēdanānupassanā, cittānupassanā, and dhammānupassanā..
These are somewhat sequential, in the sense that one needs to start with taking care of major sources of abhijjā and domanassa with kāyānupassanā. One needs to be aware that one’s actions and speech need to be moral, i.e., to abstain from dasa akusala as much as possible. With the mind clear of the worst hindrances, then it will be easier to learn Dhamma with dhammānupassanā, be easier not to react to feelings (vēdanānupassanā) but to take time and evaluate consequences, and to automatically be aware of immoral thoughts that come to the mind (cittānupassanā). Thus, it is gradual process. Each advance helps with gaining confidence in one’s actions, helps not to just react to feelings, helps to think with a clear head, which in turn helps with the understanding process.


text:
Importance of making and sharing merit
What are the benefits of transferring karmic fruitfulness and how is this done by Buddhists?

Make merit is the core of the buddhist practice and is done by being resolute and practice deeds (through mind, speach and body) of generosity, renunciation and goodwill. This will gradually lead to the decrease of the defilements (greed, ill-will and delusion) and to the maturation of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path.
Sharing of merit is one of the Ten ways of Making Merit because is a expression of goodwill and generosity and is done by inviting others to rejoice in the merits that you have done (which by itself is also a source of merit) or be intended that they do so. In other words, the more you practice merits, the closer you are to Nibbana. If you hold the intetion that others also make merit by rejoicing with your merits, this means that you are resolved in goodwill and generosity (which is right view/right resolve), thus, this is again a souce of merit.

May all beings  —  without limit, without end  —  have a share in the
  merit just now made,  and in whatever other merit I have made.
Those who are dear & kind to me  —    beginning with my mother & father
  —     whom I have seen or never seen;     and others, neutral or hostile;
If they know of my dedication of merit,   may they themselves rejoice,
    And if they do not know,    may the devas inform them.
By reason of their rejoicing  in my gift of merit,    may all beings
  always live happily,  free from animosity.
May they attain the Serene State,     and their radiant hopes be
  fulfilled.
Dedication of Merit

If someone understands the value of giving, does it out of the kindness, without wishing for anything in return, it is a truly meritorious deed (kusala kamma). This is the highest merit. Thus understanding Dhamma (true nature of the world) leads to spontaneous meritorious actions done with a joyful heart; this leads to saddha (true faith) , citta pasada (joy), and adhimokkha (resolve) to get the maximum impact of it.
“This world” of 31 realms is very complex. Nothing happens due to a single cause and nothing happens just by itself: Multiple causes lead to multiple effects. People are born with different levels of not only wealth, but also different levels of health, physical appearance, capabilities, etc. These are the results of kamma (good and bad) accrued over very long periods in the past.
Due to our past acts, both good and bad, we get into “sansaric relationships” with other beings; this is how we have friends, family, and enemies. These things do not happen by chance. Everything happens due to a cause, a reason; but since results (vipaka) can materialize later, even in future lives, we cannot see this “cause and effect” in most cases. When we do something harmful to another being we become indebted to that being; that debt will have to be paid with interest that is many many times over. When we have such debts, the nature has set up many ways to pay off such debts. The correct way to pay back old debts is when one does a good deed, is by transfering merits of that good deed to old creditors called “pattidana”.
All intentions have kammic energy. You may remember that the Buddha said, “Cetana ham bhikkave kamman vadami”, or “Bhikkhus, I say intention is kamma”. And kamma is the fundamental potential energy for everything in this world. When one is “transferring merits” by sincerely saying that “May so and so receive merits from this good deed that I have done, one is broadcasting one’s intention. It is possible to “give Dhamma” or to “give kusala” too. In fact the Buddha said, “sabba danan Dhamma danan jinati” or, “from all kinds of giving, Dhamma giving is the most meritorious”.


text:
How should one be mindful of death?
Namo Budhaya.
In the Mindfulness of Death sutta Buddha says the following:

When this was said, the Buddha said to those mendicants: “The
  mendicants who develop mindfulness of death by wishing to live for a
  day and night … or to live for a day … or to live for half a day … or
  to live as long as it takes to eat a meal of alms-food … or to live as
  long as it takes to eat half a meal of alms-food … or to live as long
  as it takes to chew and swallow four or five mouthfuls … These are
  called mendicants who live negligently. They slackly develop
  mindfulness of death for the ending of defilements.
But the mendicants who develop mindfulness of death by wishing to live
  as long as it takes to chew and swallow a single mouthful … or to live
  as long as it takes to breathe out after breathing in, or to breathe
  in after breathing out … These are called mendicants who live
  diligently. They keenly develop mindfulness of death for the ending of
  defilements.

Buddha corrects wrong way to mindfulness of death.
But as far as I see , a person who wishes to live as long as it takes to chew and swallo a single mouthful , is same as a person who wishes to live as long as as it takes to chew and swallow ....The translator of the text failed to point out the difference between the mendicant's way of mindfulness of death and Buddha's way of mindfulness of death. I will thankful if someone could explain this sutta in its true essence.
My question is :How should one be mindful of death?

Oh, this is easy. This one I was taught many many times. Here is how it goes:
Regular untrained people live their life as if they will live forever. They 1) worry about small unimportant stuff, get offended, or scared, or enraged at things that are not really important. And 2) they waste days, months and years of life waiting for better life.
However, 1) Everyone dies, sooner or later. Even the Buddha had to die. First, our parents will die. Then our friends of same age will start dying. Then the day will come when our breathing will stop and we will die too. Every day we get a day closer to death. Every time we celebrate our birthday, that's one less year we have left to live. The time seems to go slowly, but if you look back you realize it did not take you that long to reach your current age. Similarly, one day you will look back and realize you have spent all of your time.
Also 2) Death comes without a warning. The other day my friend (a doctor) called me and said his patient died in a car accident. He had a big house, 3 children and a housewife. As he was coming home from work, a truck made a mistake shifting lanes, and pushed his car off the road. We have no idea how we'll die. We hope we'll die from old age, in our bed, surrounded by grandchildren - but there is no guarantee it will be that nice. People die from all kinds of causes: from accidents, to disease, to terrorism, to allergic reactions, to poisonous snakes or insects, to plane crashes, to sudden heart attacks, to cancer.
So 3) We should stop expecting we'll live much longer. There is absolutely no guarantee that we will live to see the next summer, or next Christmas, or our next birthday. In fact, we should get into habit thinking that any day could be our last day on Earth. When we go to work, we should expect that we may not come back. When we go to bed, we should expect that we may not wake up.
Therefore 4) We should not live a lukewarm life. We should live our life as if this was our last day. This pertains both to our Dharma practice, but also to our attitude to life in general. We should perform every act, every conversation as if this was our last battle on earth.
And 5) If we feel like we worry about something too much, we should compare this problem with death. If the problem is worse than death, then we are allowed to worry. But if the problem is not as bad as death, then we should sober up and stop worrying too much.
Mindfulness of death gives us a useful perspective in which truly important things matter and non-important things are seen correctly as unimportant. It also gives us strength to act with courage and not live lukewarm life. So no matter how you look at it, it is a very useful perspective to cultivate. And the way you cultivate it is by thinking about it, meditating on it, until you feel it, until it is with you at all times - judging all of your action and inaction. Then the death becomes your solemn friend: "You don't have that long left. Use it wisely"

In the Lamrim, there is what is known as the nine fold contemplation on death. This has three main points and each of the three has three sub points. I will list and try to explain them:
The main points are:
1. Contemplating death’s certainty.
2. Contemplating the uncertainty of the time of death.
3. Contemplating that at the time of death nothing but the dharma will be of any use.
The first has three parts:
* It is certain that the Lord of Death will come and that nothing
whatsoever can turn him back.
* Life span cannot be extended and it shortens unceasingly.
* Dying without having had the time to practise the teaching while
alive.
As part of this first set of contemplation we should understand that there is nobody around us who has lived for ever. Average lifespan maybe increasing due to better healthcare but immortality is still nowhere in the scientific horizon. Moreover there is a concept of your karmic lifespan, this cannot be extended and death can come in many ways, Old-age, illness,  accidents or wars can bring us death.
The second, contemplating the uncertainty of the time of death, has
three parts:
* In this world in general and in the degenerate age in particular life
span is uncertain.
* Time of death is uncertain as the causes of death are many and
those sustaining life few.
* Time of death is uncertain also as bodies are very fragile.
The second contemplation is about the time of death. I could pass away by the end of this sentence or may be not. There is no telling. In fact we are constantly moving towards death from the moment of our conception.
The third, contemplating that at the time of death nothing but the
dharma will be of any use, has three parts:
Contemplating that
* Wealth is useless.
* Friends and relatives will be useless.
* And even your body will be useless.
Finally we should understand that our understanding of dharma and the Karma that we accumulate is the only thing that will help us during the time of our death.
This according to the Lamrim is the primary way to contemplate on death. And it will provide us with the primary motivation to practice the dharma.
Death itself is the grossest manifestation of Impermanence. This should be followed with contemplation on subtle Impermanence and how things arise and pass away from moment to moment.


text:
How do I practise meditation according to the Satipatthana Sutta?
The Satipatthana Sutta begins in the following manner:

"And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself?
"There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his
  legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the
  fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in;
  mindful he breathes out.
"Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or
  breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or
  breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' Just
  as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn,
  discerns, 'I am making a long turn,' or when making a short turn
  discerns, 'I am making a short turn'; in the same way the monk, when
  breathing in long, discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing
  out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long' ... He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'

Later, the Satipatthana Sutta says:

And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the
  mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that
  the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns
  that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion, he
  discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has
  delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is
  without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion.
"When the mind is constricted, he discerns that the mind is constricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is
  scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is
  enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is
  not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is
  surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is
  unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the mind
  is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns that
  the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he discerns
  that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns
  that the mind is not released.

Then later, again, the Satipatthana Sutta says:

"And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves?
"There is the case where a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. And how does
  a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with
  reference to the five hindrances? There is the case where, there being
  sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that 'There is sensual
  desire present within me.' Or, there being no sensual desire present
  within, he discerns that 'There is no sensual desire present within
  me.' He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen sensual desire.
  And he discerns how there is the abandoning of sensual desire once it
  has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of sensual
  desire that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the
  remaining hindrances: ill will, sloth & drowsiness, restlessness &
  anxiety, and uncertainty

Now the problem I have with practising according to the Satipatthana Sutta is when I practise the first part (remain focused on the body in & of itself) there are no mental defilements and no five hindrances to observe. Therefore, how can practise everything said in the Satipatthana Sutta when the mind has no hindrances if I practise the first body section very well?

There's a high chance you might be just practicing Samatha instead of Vipassana.
When you sit for meditation, If you feel a pain, itching or any other sensation on the body, being mindful of those is Vedananupassana. In Samatha you just ignore those and focus on the breath. That's not Vipassana.
If the mind starts to wander, thinking of past/present/future thoughts or if it becomes focused, being mindful of those mental activities is Cittanupassana. In Samatha you just ignore those and focus on the breath. That's not Vipassana.
If you hear a sound, smell etc. or if desire, aversion, laziness etc. arise in the mind, being aware of them is Dhammanupassana. In Samatha you just ignore those and focus on the breath. That's not Vipassana.

Sankha, to my knowledge Buddha never made a distinction between samatha and vipassana but rather both of these are the result of a developed and desireless mind. Also: Why is desire and aversion under 'Dhammanupassana'? It was cleary mentioned under citta.

@Val separating them is very useful to point out what you are doing wrong. Pure tranquility will never lead to understanding reality. Here's a related video. Dhammanupassana includes all the other 3 but you are looking at them as phenomena. Ex: Desire, aversion are part of the five hindrances and Vedana comes under the five aggregates.

I marked this post down because it is non-sense by claiming an itch or hindrance will result in enlightenment.

@Dhammadhatu I made no such claim. You are actually downvoting a thought that occurred only in your head. :) Being mindful of any feeling makes the meditator progress in the path to enlightenment.


text:
Have Buddhas escaped samsara?
Have Buddhas escaped samsara? Obviously there is the mainly Chinese term "non-abiding in nirvana". I'm interested in an answer from any tradition at all, and for enlightened non-Buddhas, too.
To be specific, I would like to know if when a Buddha dies they then suffer death, or whether their death is somehow something over and above the suffering of samsara.
I'm asking just because I think that's how I'd like the near eternal rounds of rebirth to end, perhaps with a little regret.
Cheers.

Regret requires aversion and ignorance. It's ignorance that makes one think that there's anything worth in Samsara to miss. Enlightened beings(Arahaths and Buddhas) have uprooted all defilements. So it's technically impossible for them to feel regret or sadness.

My impression from the Pali suttas is that ...
The Buddha did escape samsara.
That escape (or liberation), nibbana, is understood as permanent -- perhaps contrasted with a Mahayana doctrine, which views the nibbana of arahants as temporary (?) -- and contrasted with earlier stages of enlightenment, which include some glimpse (but only glimpses) of nibbana.
I'm not sure about the dtstinction between "permanent" and "timeless". Dhamma for example is described as akalika (without time). I don't know what Pali words are used to describe nibbana as permanent ... maybe I've misremembered or misunderstood, and instead of "permanent" it's more a word like "total" or "complete" or "final".
I think it's permanent is that the underlying roots have been severed: like if you cut the top of a tree that might grow again, but if you cut its roots then that doesn't happen; or if you smother a fire it continues to smoulder, but if you remove the fuel it won't.
I think that an aspect of the Buddha's nibbana was the ability to easily attain jhana states, e.g. to escape physical pain --- and, to escape mental pain, non-attachment (to avoid any sense of loss or yearning) as a result of right view (seeing everything world as impermanent and not as an object of desire); plus entirely ethical intentions and behaviour (therefore no sense of remorse).
Death is called Parinirvana a.k.a. cessation of the aggregates -- which is also I think "nibbana without remainder", in that after enlightenment but while the person is still alive, remaining karma is coming to fruition though no new karma is created.
No "regret", I'd presume -- because doesn't the word "regret" imply attachment or remorse? ... unless perhaps you might infer or project regret from the fact that he was still trying to help his followers gain enlightenment themselves: that might be better described as "compassion" though, or something like that.
As for whether the Tathagata exists after death, that's one of the canonically "unanswered questions".
I guess perhaps you'd say yes, if you equated the Tathagata with the Dhamma -- the Maha-parinibbana Sutta says,

Now the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: "It may be, Ananda, that to some among you the thought will come: 'Ended is the word of the Master; we have a Master no longer.' But it should not, Ananda, be so considered. For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone.

... is that like what the Mahayana means when it talks about the Dharmakāya?
There's a description of the Buddha's "death" in the Pali Maha-parinibbana Sutta -- scroll towards the end: the beginning of "Part Six: The Passing Away".
The Pali suttas generally only talk about one Buddha, not all "Buddhas" in general.

In my tradition it is taught that consciousness is endless including the Buddha's. Just as matter and energy are conserved... so is consciousness. Is this your understanding of the Pali teachings?

@YesheTenley No (although I don't have a complete understanding). I associate "consciousness" with the aggregates, especially the six senses (e.g. "eye consciousness" etc.). I don't recall anything being "endless" (except perhaps descriptions of samsara). The Buddha was said to have supernormal powers including the "Divine Eye" but I'm not sure if or why that's important, and seems unrelated to the dhamma (they say that yogis can acquire some iddhis without gaining enlightenment).

The idea of "endless consciousness" and "Buddha's consciousness" sounds to me like Brahman. And it sounds like some kind of metaphysics -- doctrine which I suspect of being not even wrong (though it's plausible that I'm wrong in saying that, since so many people have studied it and found it worthwhile, whereas I haven't).

The Viññana Sutta for example teaches that consciousness (as one of the aggregates) is inconstant, not "endless".

If you're asking about rebirth (e.g. "if consciousness isn't endless then how does rebirth happen?") then I'm not sure. I think that's a question which later schools tried to ask and answer, and when they did so postulated e.g. an "alaya consciousness" -- but I think that's later than the suttas. I think the suttas don't explain the metaphysics of rebirth in detail -- I think they talk about "karma" being ended or not. My first question on this site was about rebirth, you might like to read people's answers to that.

Having said that, a Dhamma talk like this one points toward the possibility or reality that there is (now), and/or was (in the Buddha), such a thing as enlightened consciousness.

@Yeshe Tenley what is your tradition that says consciousness is endless?

Gelug branch of Tibetan Buddhism. I don’t think the endlessness of consciousness is equivalent at all to Brahman. It just means that this mere experience continues on with no end in sight. And yes, I think it is related to rebirth but not alaya and I did read that question and the answers! It is great question. It seems the truth of rebirth is one of the biggest stick points on this site.

@YesheTenley Is "consciousness" one of the aggregates, i.e. vijñāna? To be clear I meant that (SFAIK) the suttas don't talk about "endless consciousness", nor about "Buddha's consciousness". And (not the suttas saying this) it was my (personal, perhaps ill-founded) opinion or understanding that those terms remind me of the little or nothing which I know of the "Brahman" doctrine. Isn't one (i.e. "endless") contradicted by impermanence, and the other (i.e. "Buddha's") contradicted by anatta? I don't know/understand the Gelug doctrine either.

well, this is fuzzy to my mind and an active area of contemplation. i think what i'm saying is the conservation of mere experience is analogous to the conservation of energy. in the same way that energy/matter can be transformed, but not destroyed I think the same is true of mere experience. also, the question about brain+mind and emptiness is relevant here... anyway, i don't want to represent that I know more than I do... I don't :) @ChrisW that make any sense?

@YesheTenley Accumulation of energy and experience sounds maybe something like the ālayavijñāna doctrine: is it? Which maybe isn't in the suttas? But if "experience" were a sankhara (a composite thing) then wouldn't it be anicca instead? And what is "'mere' experience"? I think it doesn't make specific sense to me in detail, e.g. I haven't seen all the various words defined, seen the motive and logic of the reasoning, and understood the results or consequences. of the doctrine.

Definitely not talking about ālayavijñāna ... it is more like saying that if consciousness were to just abruptly end when a Buddha dies it would be like saying that all matter in the universe would end as well

@ChrisW in the same way the matter (or form) that made up the Buddha's body doesn't just disappear upon the Buddhas death, just so the consciousness...

According to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda
  the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he
  suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them
  mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

After Nibbana, the Buddha could indeed experience the sensation of pain (as he did in the case of dysentery), but he nevertheless does not suffer from it. Hence, suffering had indeed ended for the Buddha.
According to Itivuttaka 44:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
  Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding
  property with no fuel remaining.
  Footnote
  And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining."
Commentary (Thanissaro):
  With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel
  remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first
  case, the flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the
  second, the fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold.
  The "fuel" here is the five aggregates (see the Glossary). While the
  arahant is still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates,
  but they do not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion.
  When the arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of
  aggregates here or anywhere else.

After attaining Nibbana, but being still alive, the Arahant or Buddha still could experience the sensations of pain because the five aggregates are still operating. But he will not suffer from it, or have passion, aversion and delusion. Meanwhile, after death, the five aggregates no longer operate anywhere.
In any case, suffering ends completely after Nibbana. The Buddha does not suffer from disease and death, although he may experience it.

This is what Archarya Nagarjuna has to say on this topic:

25.17 Having passed into nirvana, the Transcendent Lord
  Is neither perceived to be existent
  Nor perceived to be nonexistent.
  He is neither perceived to be both nor to be neither.
25.18 So, when the Transcendent Lord was alive, he
  Was neither perceived to be existent
  Nor perceived to be nonexistent.
  He was neither perceived to be both nor to be neither.
25.19 Cyclic existence is not the slightest bit
  Different from nirvana.
  Nirvana is not the slightest bit
  Different from cyclic existence.
25.20 Whatever is the limit of nirvana,
  That is the limit of cyclic existence.
  There is not even the slightest difference between them,
  Or even the subtlest thing.
25.21 Views regarding his status after his passing; extremes, etc.,
  And views regarding the permanent, etc.,
  Are grounded upon nirvana, the final limit,
  And the prior limit.
25.22 Since all existents are empty,
  What is finite or infinite?
  What is finite and infinite?
  What is neither finite nor infinite?
25.23 What is identical and what is different?
  What is permanent and what is impermanent?
  What is both permanent and impermanent?
  What is neither?
25.24 The pacification of all objectification
  And the pacification of all fabrication is peace.
  No Dharma was taught by the Buddha
  At any time, in any place, to any person.

Warning:
If you take anything said above as indicating that nothing exists or that this line of thought refutes the Four Noble Truths, Karma, Rebirth, the Dharma, the Buddha, the Path and the Fruits, etc., ... nothing could be further than the truth! Consider this warning a handrail to lean on if you take the above to indicate nihilism:

By a misperception of emptiness
  A person of little intelligence is destroyed:
  Like a snake incorrectly seized,
  Or like a spell incorrectly cast.


text:
How does Karma work for an inventor who changed lives of millions?
Consider an inventor who has nothing to do with spirituality but her innovation helped change lives of millions. Her innovation helps people even after her death. Further, innovations can be used for evil as well.

Did she hope/know that the innovation could have such an effect (especially the negative possibility)?

May I know why you're contemplating karma at all? Forget about specific cases.

The Buddhist version of karma may not be the same as the version of karma in other Indian religions.
It's not a system of cosmic justice. If you invented something to help millions of people, you would not get more rewards compared to someone who helped just 10 people.
In Buddhism, karma is about cause and effect, due to intention and volition (see this page). It's about one's state of mind and its expressions in actions and words. It's not about the impact made on the world or on others.
This means that one who has unintentionally helped others, but out of originally evil intentions in mind, he would experience negative karmic results.
On the other hand, if one had good intentions, but his actions inadvertently harmed others, he would still experience positive karmic results.
It's all about intentions.
From the Dhammapada:

Verse 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they
  have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts
  with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the
  hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.
Verse 124: If there is no wound on the hand, one may handle
  poison; poison does not affect one who has no wound; there can be no
  evil for one who has no evil intention.

From the Nibbedhika Sutta:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
  body, speech, & intellect.

The Buddhist version of karma may not be the same as the version of karma in other Indian religions. Please elucidate this. I can vouch for Hinduism looking at Karma in the exact same way as Buddhism. It has all the aspects of intention and volition.

And if you meant this -> a system of cosmic justice towards other "Indian" religions, then you're wrong.

This means that one who has unintentionally helped others, but out of originally evil intentions in mind, he would experience negative karmic results. There are so many dimensions to karma. How can you conclude in this way??? It is too vast to come to such conclusions simply by looking at a couple of lines !

@esh Please see this answer for details on the difference between karma in Hinduism and Buddhism.

So, let's get this straight. If you get an answer of how Karma works for the particular situation you're mentioning, OR any answer at all as to how Karma works, then you may be lead the wrong way. Because you need to understand that all this is NOT true in your experience. It won't make a difference.
You may ask the question and somebody may give you an answer. You can either choose to believe or disbelieve that answer. But, consider this. What is the truth? Will you be closer to the truth by either believing it or disbelieving it? Contemplate this.

Karma depends on the mindstate. If she invented something with the intention that it will be beneficial to others, it is good Karma. At least if she became happy after seeing how others benefited from her inventions, it's good Karma. If no such thoughts arose in her mind, it does not amount to much other than improving her worldly skills.

The fundamental structure and workings of Kamma is the same for all beings, i.e. "only mangos can grow from a mango tree", meaning that only wholesome intentions can cause wholesome future resultants to arise and vice versa.
The exact workings of a beings Kamma cannot be known, unless one is a fully enlightened Buddha.
Its volition, intention (cetana), that is kammically potent.


text:
About wisdom during meditation
Do thoughts have energy  or they are in a energy field? During meditation when thoughts are there experience high energy and when  the mind is calm experience less energy.

By energy, do you mean motivation, confidence and high spirits? Or do you mean like electrical or electromagnetic energy? Or perhaps psychic energy?

Electromagnetic energy

Thought is not a well defined scientific concept. If you restrict yourself to the biochemistry of the brain, then yes the brain converts energy into work from a physical perspective. I'm marking the question down as it is not a question about Buddhism and mixes concepts from science with ill-defined concepts not pertinent to that field.

There's no such thing as "Electromagnetic energy" from a Vipassana(insight) meditator's point of view in Buddhism. It's all just seeing, hearing, smelling ,tasting, touching, thinking.

How do you know

Read the Sabba sutta and the Bahiya Sutta

What about  Bermuda triangle. It's all energy  you have ultimately. During cessation can experience this. I suppose.

Bermuda triangle doesn't exit to a meditator. Energy doesn't exist.

What do you mean by energy doesn't exist

Energy is just a concept in your mind. You only have 6 senses and none of them can sense anything called 'energy'.

If every person on one side of the Earth jumps at the same time, it will not change the rotation of the Earth.
Similarly, the electrical and/or electromagnetic energy in or of your brain, while perceptible using EEG or other such instruments, does not make any noticeable difference in the physical world, in or out of meditation. It's relatively weak.

Can a fMRI  detected citta

@user12686 Sorry. It's EEG. fMRI detects blood flow changes. Take a look at this video by Tibetan monk and "world's happiest man" Matthieu Ricard.

Theravada Buddhist Answer.
Conventionally speaking, yes mental phenomena might be described to have some kind of energy or momentum to them. Take anger for example, if its allowed to snowball it becomes completely uncontrollable, making beings perform unwholesome actions. In a way, one becomes a victim to anger. When anger snowballs, one can feel how momentum is build up.
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi describes anger as looking into a bowl of boiling water, not being able to see ones own reflection.
Having a still and peaceful mind is like looking into a lake with no surface ripples. One is able to clearly see the bottom of the lake.
Ultimately speaking, there are no such things as "energy or momentum" - these are concepts.
Here is a quote from a well written chapter, describing Ultimate Reality - its from the book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda, p. 105-111:

The Abhidharma teaches that the egoistic beliefs and other concepts such as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘person’ and ‘the world’ , which we use in daily conversation, do not adequately describe the real nature of existence. The conventional concepts do not reflect the fleeting nature of pleasures, uncertainties, impermanence of every component thing, and the conflict among the elements and energies intrinsic in all animate or inanimate things. The Abhidharma doctrine gives a clear exposition of the ultimate nature of human beings and brings the analysis of the human condition further than other studies known to them.
The Abhidharma deals with realities existing in the ultimate sense, or paramattha dhamma in Pali. There are four such realities:

Citta, mind or consciousness, defined as ‘that which knows or experiences’ an object. Citta occurs as distinct momentary states of consciousness.
Cetasika, the mental factors that arise and occur along with the citta.
Rupa, physical phenomenon or material form.
Nirvana, the unconditioned state of bliss which is the final
  goal.

Citta, the cetasika, and rupa are conditioned realities. They arise because of conditions, and will disappear when the conditions sustaining them cease to continue to do so. They are impermanent states. Nirvana, on the other hand, is an unconditioned reality. It does not arise and, therefore, does not fall away. These four realities can be experienced regardless of the names we may choose to give them. Other than these realities, everything—be they within ourselves or without, whether in the past, present or future, whether coarse or subtle, low or lofty, far or near—is a concept and not the ultimate reality.
Citta, cetasika, and Nirvana are also called nama. Nirvana is an unconditioned nama. The two conditioned nama, that is, citta and cetasika, together with rupa (form), make up psychophysical organisms, including human beings. Both mind and matter, or nama-rupa, are analysed in Abhidharma as though under a microscope. Events connected with the process of birth and death are explained in detail. The Abhidharma clarifies intricate points of the Dharma and enables the arising of an understanding of reality, thereby setting forth in clear terms the Path of Emancipation. The realization we gain from the Abhidharma with regard to our lives and the world is not to be understood in a conventional sense, but is an absolute reality.