text:
What does the Tibetan book of the dead say happens 14 days after death?
What does the Tibetan book of the dead say happens 14 days after death?
I don't have my copy to hand. I'm asking, because I suspect a dear friend of mine may have died last week.

In general, the process of the Bardo can last between 7 - 49 days with a chance of rebirth or liberation every 7 days.
Depending on your friend's knowledge of the Bardo he could either still be in the Bardo, or in the process of seeing his next life / being reborn / in utero.

i read that the essential teaching ends after 14 days, the 2nd week being the wrathful deities. i just hope he is ok

@user3293056 even the wrathful deities are trying to teach and guide your friend. They just teach different lessons.

The general heuristics in Bardo Thodol can be summed up - always follow the brightest, most unpleasant/painful light and be brave - never hide in a dark/shadow.
Easier said than done of course. That is why it says that there has to be someone present constantly reading to the deceased. In perfectly calm, legible voice.
Keep in mind that a lot of actual text is derived from their own mythologies and therefore has no meaning to us. The sole thing you can (hopefully) remember for your critical time is the light.
So "reading" can be understood as "talking to" and due to cultural impedance mismatch focusing on short and clear sentences is much more efficient. It may sound almost like a continually repeating "mantra". One of the reason why it's best not done in presence of a group.
So there's nothing you or anyone else can do "from a distance". Bardo Thodol is a very practical book for practitioners.
Assume that the deceased may hear your voice only occasionally and is completely disoriented, unless he's the one who was really, really well prepared. The well prepared will try to transition in the first 7 days, first day if he can.
Normally, the deceased should be reborn in 14-21 days (if he didn't accumulate a lot of bad karma) and no it doesn't have to happen exactly at 7 day boundaries - whenever he consciously/bravely follows that light. Beyond that, chances are slim that he'll come back as a human at all.


text:
Loneliness in Buddhism
I am wondering what is the antidote to loneliness, or the approach towards it, within Buddhism. I am finding myself quite lonely despite being previously familiar and at ease with solitude.
I am using social media quite often, mainly to chat with others; I find this might have exacerbated my feelings of loneliness.
I am wondering two things primarily: (1) What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it? What are the non-social antidotes to loneliness?
(2) Does active and directed attention, whether in meditation or attending to tasks, alleviate feelings of loneliness in the long term?
And perhaps (3) what is the Buddhist view on social media use? Is it inherently fragmenting awareness as I suspect? Does it have no benefits?

What has changed for you since the time when you were "previously familiar and at ease with solitude"? Whatever that change means has to be part of an answer.

I am wondering what is the antidote to loneliness, or the approach towards it, within Buddhism.

In Buddhism loneliness is viewed and treated exactly as any other undesirable mindstate.

What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it?

Any mental activity that involves "feeding" (sustaining) the description or image of the world as such that considers socializing to be a core valuable activity, would naturally cause the feeling of loneliness. This includes watching TV series and using social media. Also, as ChrisW said - comparing one's situation to others who are social, attachment to past pleasant social experiences. All this can be summarized as unwise application of attention which serves as feeding/sustenance of craving.

What are the non-social antidotes to loneliness?

The same old trick, wise application of attention. Moving one's perception into position where the problem of loneliness does not exist. The possibilities are infinite, from getting oneself involved with abstract sciences, to computer programming, creative performance and art, music -- to convincing oneself that loneliness is not only acceptable, but in fact natural for persons of high realization and beneficial for their well-being -- to direct Jhana experience of reviewing one's mental continuum and praising it for the absence of typical ups and downs that would have inevitably accompanied socializing.

(2) Does active and directed attention, whether in meditation or attending to tasks, alleviate feelings of loneliness in the long term?

Yes, exactly. See above.

(3) what is the Buddhist view on social media use? Is it inherently fragmenting awareness as I suspect? Does it have no benefits?

Mahayana view would be, that as long as your motivation is to help others, the use of social networks is appropriate, even if it causes you personal pain. In other words, Mahayana is totally fine with paying the price of suffering for  the higher goal of helping others reduce theirs. This thought in itself reduces personal suffering.
Of course it fragments awareness. But this is the spirit of times, and we want to be in tune with it if we are to be relevant.

OP: What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it?

I see the desire for companionship as a type of sensual craving (kama tanha). When you engage in social media and obtain the pleasure of companionship and entertainment by chatting with others, you could increase this craving. When you imagine pleasures you could enjoy, by watching the lives of other people, who delight themselves in things that you have not, again, you could increase this craving. When you watch others, you could also experience the craving to become like them (bhava tanha).
When craving is not met, it leads to negative feelings. In this case, when the craving for companionship is not satisfied, it leads to loneliness.

OP: What are the non-social antidotes to loneliness?

As stated by other answers, you can redirect your mind to other pursuits, for e.g. reading a book. I suggest the book "In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Please also see this answer.

OP: Does active and directed attention, whether in meditation or
  attending to tasks, alleviate feelings of loneliness in the long term?

Yes.

OP: what is the Buddhist view on social media use?
  Is it inherently fragmenting awareness as I suspect?
  Does it have no benefits?

Over-excessive indulgence in social media could be akin to habitual partying, with potential exposure to bad companionship and potentially increasing laziness.
According to the Sigalovada Sutta:

"These are the six dangers inherent in habitual partying: You
  constantly seek, 'Where's the dancing? Where's the singing? Where's
  the music? Where are the stories? Where's the applause? Where's the
  drumming?'
"These are the six dangers inherent in bad companionship: any rogue,
  drunkard, addict, cheat, swindler, or thug becomes a friend and
  colleague.
"These are the six dangers inherent in laziness: saying, 'It's too
  cold,' one does not work; saying, 'It's too hot,' one does not work;
  saying, 'It's too late,' one does not work; saying, 'It's too early,'
  one does not work; saying, 'I'm too hungry,' one does not work;
  saying, 'I'm too full,' one does not work. With an abundance of
  excuses for not working, new wealth does not accrue and existing
  wealth goes to waste."

Of course, it is also possible to find good friends and be a good friend to others through social media. From the same sutta above:

"Young man, be aware of these four good-hearted friends: the helper,
  the friend who endures in good times and bad, the mentor, and the
  compassionate friend.
"The helper can be identified by four things: by protecting you when
  you are vulnerable, and likewise your wealth, being a refuge when you
  are afraid, and in various tasks providing double what is requested.
"The enduring friend can be identified by four things: by telling you
  secrets, guarding your own secrets closely, not abandoning you in
  misfortune, and even dying for you.
"The mentor can be identified by four things: by restraining you from
  wrongdoing, guiding you towards good actions, telling you what you
  ought to know, and showing you the path to heaven.
"The compassionate friend can be identified by four things: by not
  rejoicing in your misfortune, delighting in your good fortune,
  preventing others from speaking ill of you, and encouraging others who
  praise your good qualities."

Social media is like a knife that both the surgeon and the murderer could use, in my opinion.

.

I am wondering what is the antidote to loneliness>

Be mindful and keep attention on your breath.

I am using social media quite often>

If you investigating Dhamma and discussing Dhamma it is ok.

What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it? >

Unrest

"What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it?"

The cause are mental fabrications that fabricate loneliness.

"What are the non-social antidotes to loneliness?"

Stop fabricating mental fabrications that fabricate loneliness.

"Does active and directed attention, whether in meditation or
  attending to tasks, alleviate feelings of loneliness in the long
  term?"

Try it and see it yourself. Everybody has his own ways to cope with loneliness.

"What is the Buddhist view on social media use? Is it inherently
  fragmenting awareness as I suspect? Does it have no benefits?"

In your case, if you're using social media to ease loneliness, it's like postponing the resolution of suffering to a latter date. Instead of focusing on the cause of your loneliness, you're focusing on social media. You think you need social media to ease loneliness. In reality you most probably don't need social media ... you just need to get rid of loneliness. Once you'll get rid of loneliness, you'll probably stop spending time on social media.
What you're experiencing is normal suffering due to loneliness. Psychologists will tell you it's normal as long as it does not interfere negatively on your physical or mental health. Most people do something to ease feelings of loneliness (make new friends, read, do sports, watch TV, ..). But that's not curing loneliness. It's like having a disease and alleviating its symptoms. This is no different than being depressive and drinking alcohol to ease the depression. Off course it's not dysfunctional as drinking alcohol, but the mechanism is the same: you suffer, and instead of resolving your main problems which are the cause of your suffering, you're postponing their resolution to a later date.

It is important to have loving friends. There are many Buddhist groups around who practice mindfulness meditation. There are also mindfulness centers that offer mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) therapy. Some of these centers support a community of meditators, supervised practice sessions, psychotherapy, and other special therapies such as MBCT (for depression). You might consider joining one of these groups to make new friends.

What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it?
I don't know. Hypothetically or from my own experience, I suppose it includes:

Attachment (contrasting present solitude with memory of previous social situation)
Comparing yourself to others (e.g. "They have friends and are happy, where I do not and am not") -- which, apparently, is an aspect of "conceit"

I guess there could be other reasons too, e.g. imperfect morality (generosity, brahmaviharas, and the implementation of lay social life with friends and family and teachers and so on described in DN 31).
What are the non-social antidotes to loneliness?
I try to rationalize attachment by asking, "Was that relationship impermanent and disatisfactory (in which case it doesn't make sense to wish for it), or is it satisfying (in which case it doesn't make sense to mourn it)?"
What is the Buddhist view on social media use? Is it inherently fragmenting awareness as I suspect? Does it have no benefits?
There's a lot of advice about social media use, but the advice may not be "Buddhist" (or at least not canonical).
Yes there are people who advise you should have some "real friends", and not just "Facebook friends".
I suppose if you suspect that social media use is harmful for you, then you should limit it (perhaps like you would limit alcohol).
I think that a Buddhist retreat, at least, would have a rule that you should put away your social media device.

Funny how everyone here seems to think that wanting to be with other people is a mark of some kind of problem to be solved. Humans are social animals, they survive collectively, and life really has no point if one is alone. Nelson Mandela said that solitary confinement is the most inhumane punishment. Loneliness is no greater of a mystery or problem to be solved than being hungry or tired. It is built in. Just find some people! Doing what you must do is not wrong or a cause of trouble. Why do Buddhists resist ordinary necessities?

The OP asked for "non-social antidotes to loneliness".

And my question to him of what changed has gone unanswered. Without that piece of information, there is no answer. My guess is that he became more mature and realized that "the self is too small an object for perpetual enthusiasm", and so he must interact with others in order to continue to grow (another built-in imperative). The Middle Way doesn't say abandon everything as a matter of dogma, it says choose wisely. Replying without knowing what we are addressing is bad medicine.

I think this site is not exactly trying to prescribe medicine, but to answer questions about "Buddhism". This meta-topic says to answer the question that was asked. Yes there would have been [much] more to say if "social antidotes" hadn't been specifically excluded, and I suppose there are other topics on this site about social relationships.

While many answers have already been provided, and are much more extensive, let me share a simpler version.
Social media is one of dopamine addictions, along with gambling, drugs, sex, status, money, etc.
In general, dopamine makes us pursue things, as we need food for sure. But when used unskillfully, it leads to Dukkha of wanting.
The more social apps we have, the more we are sucked into these virtual environments, with distorted and biased social networks and hierarchies.
When wake up from this virtual social illusion, there is ease of solitude, not loneliness. and instead of "fear of missing out", one can finally discover the "joy of missing out". We get time we never spent to orient ourselves back to the right view, and with mindfulness, with every breath, we fall back to a natural dharma path.
May this conversation brings more light, be happy ♂❤

I’m am not lonely, but I want to express myself. That is a quite a problem. The emotions, the intellect, the conditioning (I want to win). I can’t express without another. This is unfortunate for human beings. Buddha is capable of relying on experience; relating with nature, harmony. But in our world, where is the nature and harmony? It’s near the high cliff.  Krishna is Mara.
Edit: if someone was here I cnot indulge.  I’m bound by formalities. Fine, you might say reality is worth the price, but peace and quiet is only desired when it is no longer available. Basic supply and demand

--Fun Time poetry-- p.s:- can add some more unpredictable examples but let's not pull too much shame here!  If gotama would have been alive, would have made his fun like this too..
Lonely, ohhh! I m so lonely. It's so alone out here.
Lonely, ohhh! I m so lonely. It's so alone out here.
I m still breathing, but it's lonely.
I m hungry, but it's lonely.
I just ate food, but it's lonely.
I listen song 'lonely'. But I m still lonely.
I looked at her but am still lonely.
I looked at another(miss!) but am still lonely.
** Another(miss!) 50 - uncountable numbered ones.. looked all but still lonely.
ohhh! I m so lonely. It's so alone out here.
I approached her and few others, alas! Stepped back when they responded, tried to talk and showed signs. As I will remain lonely.
Dukkha come too much, happiness doesn't stay much. Why to have another one in life. I am so lonely.
Why me! Why not me! Songs good too. But I am still lonely.
May be the living style not good and incorrect. But am still lonely.
Ohhh! Just wrote down /thought mixed instructions with correct(samyak) & ? living style but who cares!
After few days, hmm let's tear this living style having some middle path instructions as who cares. But am still lonely.
After few more days, how those instructions came? Maybe the representation of loneliness. Noone would believe. Now I don't understand and forgot as well. Ooh this loneliness is good.
Maybe I did harm someone that's why I am lonely. Wrote/thought few 100 times as, "my goodness should be there and others goodness should be there too". Oh! But I am still lonely.
Oh this loneliness was good because since that writing, I am having trouble in straight thinking as "who should have goodness first?". And now so many thoughts, so much irritation coming. I want loneliness back.
I am so lonely. Loneliness is good. Loneliness is bad.
Doing so many things, but am still lonely.
--Fun time over--
You came alone and will go alone, will liberate alone. But can share dukkha and sukkha with multi , decide what to do.

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:
How is suffering the supporting condition for faith?
In Upanisa Sutta Suffering is noted as a supporting condition for faith, I have a faint idea of how this could be, but I have a hard time following it as I did all other supporting conditioned listed in a successive order. Could you please shade a light.
Thanks a mil

Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not
  lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for
  faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.

Upanisa Sutta: Discourse on Supporting Conditions_translated from the Pali by
Bhikkhu Bodhi

The sutta lists links of dependent origination, backwards.
So I'd read it as "With existence as condition, birth. With birth as condition, suffering. With suffering as condition, faith."
I expect it means faith in the four noble truths, for example: i.e. because of (conditioned by) suffering you agree with the noble truths (including the first noble truth), and develop confidence in the Buddha's teaching.
Note that suffering is the end or final result of samsara ... and faith is the beginning or first step towards liberation. So this sutta lists two sequences of links (the conditions of suffering and the conditions of liberation), and links the two together there.
There is a longer article on the sutta here, which talks about how faith arises, and a shorter one here.
You might possibly be confused by the term "supporting condition": other translations may include "proximate condition", "requisite condition", "prerequisite".

@ Chris Thank you.

So, in upanissa-commentary said that suffering refer to suffering that buddha or buddhasāvaka explain to the listener who can understand suffering-explanation of buddha. Then the listener has faith arise because of that explained suffering.

Suffering drove Prince Gautama to renounce his comfortable life and find the path to the end of suffering. Hence suffering should be enough to motivate us to have faith in the path found by Gautama Buddha.
From the Sukhamala Sutta:

'Subject to birth, subject to aging,
  subject to death,
  run-of-the-mill people are repelled by those who suffer
  from that to which they are subject.
  And if I were to be repelled
  by beings subject to these things,
  it would not be fitting for me,
  living as they do.'
As I maintained this attitude —
  knowing the Dhamma
  without acquisitions —
  I overcame all intoxication
  with health, youth, & life
  as one who sees
  renunciation as rest.
For me, energy arose,
  Unbinding was clearly seen.
  There's now no way
  I could partake of sensual pleasures.
  Having followed the holy life,
  I will not return.

You can find the definition of the faith (or conviction) follower and dhamma follower in the Kitagiri Sutta and the Vinnana Sutta (and the other suttas in SN25).

It is interesting to note that it was not his own suffering that drove the prince to seek an end to it, but the realization of the truth of the suffering of all people (beings). Perhaps the supporting condition of wisdom and realization is compassion?

It is said in the suttas that one who is suffering will sink even more in suffering or will begin a search out of it. Now when one hears the Dhamma that initial suffering helps the person to have faith in the Path.
Also when one is enjoying the sensual pleasures of the world, somone like a prince, on hearing the Dhamma faith may not be established in him.

Suffering motivates the practice of mindfulness meditation, only if (1) a person understands what type of experience constitutes suffering, (2) a person understands the causes of such suffering, and (3) a person understands how mindfulness meditation removes the causes of such suffering. There is a psychology behind mindfulness meditation that is not easy to understand. You can ask a meditation master who is accustomed to Western students. Or you can read my book on meditation.

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


text:
Processing of Emotions
I would like to ask a question about the psychology of emotions in Buddhism.
I am aware, from reading books on this topic, that emotions are complex phenomena distinct from vedana, or feelings. But what exactly are they? And how does one process such emotions?
Similarly, I wonder which method is most conducive to either processing an existing emotion, or release and allow unfelt (repressed/suppressed) emotions to arise.
I am particularly curious about the relationship of these meditative techniques towards emotions: (1) breathing meditation (2) visualization (3) body awareness
(4) reappraising/re-framing cognitively.
Lastly, I wonder whether it would be more beneficial to focus on feelings (vedana) or emotions themselves as an emphasis.
Thank you for any response.

Correct, emotions are complex psychosomatic events, of which vedana is but a small component.
For the purposes of liberation, Buddhism differentiates between emotions in their affecting or intoxicating function, and emotions experienced as a result.
The first type are called klesha, they are traditionally defined by example, as want, hate, delusion, and all kinds of combinations of the three. (For the sake of accuracy I should say that not all kleshas are exactly emotional in nature... they can be strong mental concepts skewing or clouding one's interpretative and goal-making functions.)
The second type are various shades of "agreable" and "disagreable" experiences, including of course the cornerstone of Buddhism, duhkha and its false opposite, sukha. Again, I'm mixing all kinds of stuff in the same bucket here - some of these experiences are primarily somatic in nature and so would classify as vedana, and some are mostly mental - I suppose the most accurate way of saying would be that they are different mixes of mental and somatic states.
In Buddhism it is generally understood that emotions are conditioned by mental dispositions such as attachments, aversions, prejudices, assumptions, generalizations etc - which in their order come from past experience. Plus, the everpresent component is one's current attitude, conditioned by one's level of insight or ignorance about the nature of phenomena and mind.
The methods for working with emotions vary from one school to another. Traditional summary from later schools, is that earlier schools like Theravada primarily worked with (undesirable) emotions through either suppressing them or switching attention away to a different topic, -- from this we go to Mahayana schools which are said to work with emotions through underlying mental dispositions - by deconstructing the ego complex, and removing attachments, generalizations, assumptions etc. culminating in realization of Emptiness -- and then on to Vajrayana schools which are said to work with emotions directly in their psychosomatic form as energies, by using visualizations and yoga-inspired psychosomatic exercises. This stereotypical classification is obviously wrong, as in reality all schools use combination of all three approaches, presented in various ways. Indeed, if you think about it from psychological perspective, the three approaches are merely different embodiments of the same underlying principle. Especially as it comes to producing desirable emotional states, the schools show surprising unity of approaches, each presenting in their unique style.
To get to your specific questions,

I wonder which method is most conducive to either processing an existing emotion, or release and allow unfelt (repressed/suppressed) emotions to arise.

There is no single method that works for all people in all circumstances, otherwise Buddhism would be a very simple thing. There are cases when suppressing/avoidance /distraction works best, practiced either momentarily or over a long term - there are cases when experiencing emotion in full, without analyzing/feeding its mental stimulus, works best - and then there are cases where analysis of assumptions&attachments is the most effective.
As for unfelt emotions, I think I can safely say that most schools agree that meditation is a very effective practice to help suppressed emotions come up. Also, in Mahayana and Vajrayana schools teachers use all kinds of scenario-based improvisations to have the apprentice meet their suppressed emotion or assumption face-to-face.

I am particularly curious about the relationship of these meditative techniques towards emotions: (1) breathing meditation (2) visualization (3) body awareness (4) reappraising/re-framing cognitively.

To me, (1) breathing meditation is a great way to connect with the body and get in touch with the types of emotions stored in the body that are so deeply habituated as to be effectively unconscious.
(2) As I said, visualization is an active generation technique that may be used to directly stimulate certain emotions. These are primarily practiced in Tibetan Vajrayana schools. These techniques range from, should I say, abstract psychosomatic visualizations (colors, shapes, letters - imagined over various parts of one's body) - to vivid impersonations that involve imagining oneself as a certain persona or deity. complete with not only costume and appearance but most importantly the thoughts, emotions, and attitude that such character would have experienced.
(3) Body awareness is practiced in all schools, usually on beginner's stages - although the significance of this technique cannot be overemphasized. My various teachers were fond of reminding importance of posture, gait, comfort, speed of movement, grace, and generally good connection with the body.
(4) Reappraising/re-framing is taught in all schools, both in form of traditional frameworks, and custom-tailored teacher/student 1:1 work. Theravada, Mahayana/Zen, and Vajrayana has their own favorite themes and contexts that are too numerous and too deep to review in any details here.

Lastly, I wonder whether it would be more beneficial to focus on feelings (vedana) or emotions themselves as an emphasis.

My personal advice is to treat emotions as two separate phenomena: bodily feelings, and mental dispositions that cause them - and to work with each separately, one at a time. Treating emotion as single unit ("here is what happened and now I feel this") can lead to projecting the emotion onto the world ("I can't live without my GF who made me heartbroken; or I hate her etc.") - so in effect you are creating a realm and inhabit it with your imaginary self, at the same time declaring oneself a helpless victim of situation. Instead, treating emotion as bodily feeling + mental disposition allows one to take on master's role and be in charge of one's mind and emotions.

On processing emotion, the Buddha states that emotion can be pursued either with vitaka and vicara (attention and evaluation) or without vitaka and vicara, which is more refined. The only other time I have found vitaka and vicara mentioned in the suttas is with reference to the jhanas. Therefore, one can conclude that a difficult and repeating emotion is best processed in a jhana state. The emotion is the object of meditation and with relaxation, attention and evaluation, the emotion is allowed to move and come out. Invariably in the form of tears. I practice this regularly. and it works. If the body is entirely and deeply relaxed and the mind is directed to unpleasant feeling (which usually collates around the lower chakra areas), processing will occur. As one moves onto the second jhana, without vitaka and vicara, this may happen spontaneously. Furthermore, I have found that breaching the third jhana entails this emotional processing on subconscious level that you have no control over. The body will do it automatically as part of transitioning to third jhana. Its quite intense and can cause convulsions, displays of light and spontaneous tears. It is part and parcel of moving forward in jhana practice.

What is the word for "emotion" used in the suttas?

In the sutta I extrapolate this interpretation from, the Buddha talks about how grief 'soka' should be pursued with vicara and vitaka or without. Pointing towards how to deal with difficult emotion. The Pali term for emotion I believe is cittavega. Which to me reads something like 'mind force'.


text:
Certainty and Skeptical Investigation
I know Buddhism promotes skeptical investigation, and finding things out with a personal conviction about them, i.e. not believing the Buddha on hearsay but rigorous examination.
I wonder: how is such a certainty achieved? I would think the combination of shamatha and vipassana is the answer, but I wonder what EXACTLY is the closest determinant of a feeling of certainty, whether sensory (seeing something and feeling quite certain of the perception) or cognitive (feeling certain of some analytical reasoning).
Personally, I feel like I often achieve a feeling of certainty, but it usually fades into doubts and alternate hypothesis. I can't seem to generate a sturdy sense of truth.
I appreciate any answer to this question.
Thank you.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu explained this very well in one of his works, can't find the link at the moment. He said, Liberation is more like a hands-on skill than a pure sterile insight. As with any skill, the understanding and the dexterity grow in lock-step supporting each other. You learn through trial and error, and as you watch the results of your attempts, you infer the mechanisms at play. At the same time, you study theory - explaining the mechanisms - which sheds light on your practice.
Certainty comes as a result of having acquired the skill. This may or may not come from theory, and may or may not be something you can explain in words. Conceptual model is the optional part that aids one's practice and helps transmit the teaching forward, but cannot give the sense of certainty by itself.
In Vajrayana schools, certainty also comes from the lineage blessings through a ritual known as empowerment (abhisheka).

You mentioned something here, too, about certainty.  Maybe that's of a different kind, though, i.e. about "theories" rather than "hands-on skill".

Yes... that was the certainty of stream-entry... that comes from having exhausted all theories and having finally faced "the elephant in the room". As with samatha and vipassana, learning the theory and mastering the skill grow together and support each other, so both happen before and after stream-entry, but, for me, stream-entry is a turning point from mostly learning to mostly mastering.

"I wonder what EXACTLY is the closest determinant of a feeling of
  certainty, whether sensory (seeing something and feeling quite certain
  of the perception) or cognitive (feeling certain of some analytical
  reasoning)."

When you look at at the sun, you know with certainty the sun is there. Or when you think about something in your mind, you know with certainty the thought is in your mind. This is the feeling of certainty.
To get this feeling I'm talking about you must get insights through shamatha and vipassana, then you need to ask yourself questions and the answers will logically come if you gained enough insight from meditation.

It is sufficient to understand the psychology of mindfulness meditation to be appropriately motivated to practice it. But relative certainty about this psychology can be based only upon skill in very advanced states of mindfulness meditation during which a person can systematically observe the unconscious processes that create karma. This advanced practice is traditionally practiced after Enlightenment by meditating on the Theravadin Abhidharma. The reasonable person seeks evidence, not certainty. No knowledge is certain. At best, knowledge can only make sense given the evidence. This is the nature of the mind.

I use hypothesis testing. Conceptually, theoretically, philosophically, physically, spiritually, scientifically ... I test things against their most staunch adversary in all different points of view. And I demand the most back-breaking, ego busting opposite viewpoints that I can find.
Of course this becomes an almost impossibly hard standard to meet when examining philosophical or theoretical or spiritual areas and checking for their basis in fact and science. So I guess my final test is always true, modern science and then focused more on data than explanations. But at least being a plausible physical theory other than "magic". That's a must.

The Buddha found certainty by only trusting what could be directly observed and verified (is the 'falsified' a pleonasm?). The characteristic of impermanence (anicca), for directly observed things (not inferred 'things' like Plato's Forms or God), is present for all that has been seen at all scales, whether a proton a sandwich or a black hole, whether at the time of the Buddha or now. One can posit permanence somewhere beyond what is observable (the Hubble volume these days), but it would be a hypothesis outside of all observation up to now.
That impermanent experience, is unsatisfactory (dukkha) is simply logical, as even happy experience ends.. (this is subject to the economic problem, 'unlimited wants, limited resources', but then  space-time is not a resource we can extend anyways)
Direct observation of non-self (anatta) with regards to 'oneself', is inferred until nibbana.
The modern world offers more well defined insights along the lines of the Buddha from the scientific method imo, as the two share a core requirement for observational verification. You have Copernican, Gallilean, special, general relativity and relational QM, which explain conditioned experience progressively more and more accurately. Science is heading towards having to accept anatta soon because what is directly observed now is no different from what was observed 2500 years ago - impermanent and empty of self referential information.. or likely more 'impermanent and describes observed experience less accurately if observer independent or self referential properties are assumed'!
Both the scientific method and the Buddha however, cannot offer 'certainty' for conditioned phenomena. QM states that the Sun will not come up tomorrow with some probability (say quantum tunnel into a black hole), statistics cannot reject the null hypothesis at the 100% significance level. It is not necessary to be skeptical about impermanence with regards to conditioned phenomena however, because there is not a single bit of observable and verifiable counter-evidence up till now.

Doubt(Vicikiccha) is a defilement. Do Vipassana meditation. Samatha is not necessary. Once you attain the first stage of enlightenment(Sotapanna), doubt will be completely cut off. Do not stop the meditation to think up theories regardless of what you saw or felt. That will either take you in wrong paths or slow you down at best. If a thought of doubt enters the mind, note it as doubting... doubting... doubting... until it goes away and then get back to your default place of focus. Keep meditating until you reach Nibbana.

The lack of certainty is doubt, one of the five hindrances.
In this essay on the Five Hindrances, Ajahn Brahm advises on doubt:

Doubt refers to the disturbing inner questions at a time when one
  should be silently moving deeper. Doubt can question one's own ability
  "Can I do This?", or question the method "Is this the right way?", or
  even question the meaning "What is this?". It should be remembered
  that such questions are obstacles to meditation because they are asked
  at the wrong time and thus become an intrusion, obscuring one's
  clarity.
The Lord Buddha likened doubt to being lost in a desert, not
  recognising any landmarks.
Such doubt is overcome by gathering clear instructions, having a good
  map, so that one can recognise the subtle landmarks in the unfamiliar
  territory of deep meditation and so know which way to go. Doubt in
  one's ability is overcome by nurturing self confidence with a good
  teacher. A meditation teacher is like a coach who convinces the sports
  team that they can succeed. The Lord Buddha stated that one can, one
  will, reach Jhana and Enlightenment if one carefully and patiently
  follows the instructions. The only uncertainty is 'when'! Experience
  also overcomes doubt about one's ability and also doubt whether this
  is the right path. As one realised for oneself the beautiful stages of
  the path, one discovers that one is indeed capable of the very
  highest, and that this is the path that leads one there.
The doubt that takes the form of constant assessing "Is this Jhana?"
  "How am I going?", is overcome by realising that such questions are
  best left to the end, to the final couple of minutes of the
  meditation. A jury only makes its judgement at the end of the trial,
  when all the evidence has been presented. Similarly, a skilful
  meditator pursues a silent gathering of evidence, reviewing it only at
  the end to uncover its meaning.
The end of doubt, in meditation, is described by a mind which has full
  trust in the silence, and so doesn't interfere with any inner speech.
  Like having a good chauffeur, one sits silently on the journey out of
  trust in the driver.


text:
Can Stoicism be seen as something close to Buddhism in some aspects?
I am asking this question, for I try to follow much of Stoicism, and I can see that there are certain similarities. But there are also many differences. Could some aspects be the same or at least alike?
For example, Stoics assert that unhappiness and evil are the results of ignorance. If one is cruel, it is because he is unaware of his own universal reason. If one is unhappy, it is because he "forgot" how his true nature actually operates (these concepts seem to me very similar to the Buddha Nature, which belongs to all living beings, but is often in a latent state).
PS : I am sorry if the tags are wrong, I am new here.

There are two other topics about Stoicism on this site -- What does Buddhism add to a Stoic? and Is there evidence of a Buddhist influence on Greek Stoicism?.

I crate a new post in SC. Hope someone will answer. https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/is-stoicism-close-to-buddhist-teaching-what-are-the-salaint-differences/6465

Stoicism can be seen as very similar to Buddhism in that it appeals to an ultimately indefinable reality which, through the denial of ego, awareness of which brings harmony to life.  Also, the stoic acceptance of whatever happens being in accord with nature is like non-attachment.  A Buddhist writer I read recently said that they are in many ways the same other than the Buddhist has greater joy to the extent to which their ego has dissolved.
Stoics permit suicide in a wider range of cases than Buddhists, although the principle that suicide is an option when spiritual practice is no longer possible is the same.

I have seen many people quoting stoicism in Buddhist teaching. Mainly Bhante Sujato from Sutta Central. They use Stoicism to discuss rebirth and Kamma and even Dependent origination.
The way I understand only Buddha came up with the clear path to attain Nibbana.
Buddha is the only person who proclaimed completer four noble truths.

I didn't find those quotes here: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/search?q=stoic -- can you reference/link to any?

You might watch this discussion between Robert Wright and Massimo Pigliucci: THE WRIGHT SHOW -- STOICISM VS. BUDDHISM

Thanks for the link. If you could also summarize, even one sentence of what you remember of it, then so much the better.

All knowledge is conditioned by the same cause. The closer a teacher is to the cause, the more his teachings are similar to Buddhism.


text:
Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business?
China, Japan, Korea, etc. have so many companies and Buddhism is widespread in those areas. My question is: can a Buddhist make the aim of his life to run a billion dollar business?

Sure! It is allowed for lay people, as long as they observe the five precepts and virtue (sila), which includes Right Livelihood (samma ajivo). Please also see this answer.
The Vanijja Sutta states:

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
engage in."

The Sigalovada Sutta states:

The wise endowed with virtue
Shine forth like a burning fire,
Gathering wealth as bees do honey
And heaping it up like an ant hill.
Once wealth is accumulated,
Family and household life may follow.
By dividing wealth into four parts,
True friendships are bound;
One part should be enjoyed;
Two parts invested in business;
And the fourth set aside
Against future misfortunes."

The Dighajanu Sutta states:

"And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
my outflow will not exceed my income.'

The Adiya Sutta talks about the five types of benefits that can be obtained from wealth, which are summarized below:

'My wealth has been enjoyed,
my dependents supported,
protected from calamities by me.
I have given supreme offerings
& performed the five oblations.
I have provided for the virtuous,
the restrained,
followers of the holy life.
For whatever aim a wise householder
would desire wealth,
that aim I have attained.
I have done what will not lead to future distress.'
When this is recollected by a mortal,
a person established in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones,
he is praised in this life
and, after death, rejoices in heaven.

Also from the Anana Sutta which talks about "the four kinds of bliss that can be attained in the proper season, on the proper occasions, by a householder partaking of sensuality", summarizes it as follows:

Knowing the bliss of debtlessness,
& recollecting the bliss of having,
enjoying the bliss of wealth,
the mortal then sees clearly with discernment.
Seeing clearly — the wise one —
he knows both sides:
that these are not worth one sixteenth-sixteenth
of the bliss of blamelessness.

Billionaire businessmen can support society by creating jobs, fulfill the needs and wants of the people through supply for demand, and be philanthropists (similar to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett) who donate to charitable causes and also to Buddhist causes.
As pointed out by Samana Johann, Anathapindika is a great example of a very wealthy man in the time of the Buddha, who used his wealth to contribute to the spread of the Dhamma.

Anathapindika had many carts filled with gold coins, and had them
spread out upon the site. Finally only one small patch of ground at
the entrance remained bare. He gave the instructions that more gold be
brought, but the Prince Jeta announced that he was prepared to build a
mighty gate-tower on that spot at his own expense. This imposing
bastion and gate protected the monastery from the outside world,
shielded it from the noises of the road, and emphasized the dividing
line between the realms of the sacred and the worldly. Anathapindika
then spent another eighteen million for buildings and furnishings. He
built individual cells, a meeting hall, a dining hall, storerooms,
walkways, latrines, wells, and lotus ponds for bathing as well as a
large surrounding wall. Thus the forest glade was transformed into a
monastery and stood apart as a religious sanctuary.

Addendum:
Added later to show the benefit of using one's wealth to give gifts to "the upright ones".
This is the story of householder Ugga of Vesālī, who gave a lot of gifts to the Buddha. The Buddha accepted them out of compassion. I only quote the final portion of the sutta here.
From the Manāpadāyī Sutta:

“Bhante, in the presence of the Blessed One I heard and learned this:
‘The giver of what is agreeable gains what is agreeable.’ Bhante, my
couch spread with rugs, blankets, and covers, with an excellent
covering of antelope hide, with a canopy above and red bolsters at
both ends, is agreeable. Although I know this is not allowable for the
Blessed One, this sandalwood plank of mine is worth over a thousand.
Let the Blessed One accept it from me, out of compassion.” The Blessed
One accepted, out of compassion.
Then the Blessed One expressed his appreciation to the householder
Ugga of Vesālī thus:

“The giver of the agreeable gains the agreeable,
when he gives willingly to the upright ones
clothing, bedding, food, and drink,
and various kinds of requisites.
“Having known the arahants to be like a field
for what is relinquished and offered, not held back,
the good person gives what is hard to give:
the giver of agreeable things gains what is agreeable.”

Then, after expressing his appreciation to the householder Ugga of
Vesālī, the Blessed One rose from his seat and left. Then, some time
later, the householder Ugga of Vesālī passed away. After his death,
the householder Ugga of Vesālī was reborn among a certain group of
mind-made deities. On that occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at
Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park. Then, when the night
had advanced, the young deva Ugga, of stunning beauty, illuminating
the entire Jeta’s Grove, approached the Blessed One, paid homage to
him, and stood to one side. The Blessed One then said to him: “I hope,
Ugga, that it is as you would have wished.”
“Surely, Bhante, it is as I had wished.”
Then the Blessed One addressed the young deva Ugga with verses:

“The giver of the agreeable gains the agreeable;
the giver of the foremost again gains the foremost;
the giver of the excellent gains the excellent;
the giver of the best reaches the best state.
“The person who gives the best,
the giver of the foremost,
the giver of the excellent,
is long-lived and famous
wherever he is reborn.”

i think your quotations are less unequivocal than your "Sure!" captures, but i won't downvote

i just mean, think of it this way. do we need to be billionaires to prevent calamaties for dependents, give supreme offerings, etc., or is some other aim at work there?

Billionaire businessmen can support society by creating jobs, fulfilling the needs and wants of the people through supply for demand and be philanthropists (similar to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett) who donate to charitable causes and also to Buddhism.

yes but who gets into business for philanthropic purposes?

People get into business for their own livelihood. As long as a businessman observes virtue/sila (Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood), he would not be violating the Dhamma. If he has made more money than he needs, then he can enjoy one or more of the five benefits than can be obtained from wealth, which includes charity / philanthrophy.

i think you're oversimplifying. it has little do with the precepts, which few buddhists follow, anyway. all i mean to ask is if the super rich are motivated, to make money, virtuously, as in your quote above. i'm not saying the super rich are maras or anything, and i know that good karma can result in wealth.

Maybe Ruben likes to add a/the Billionars sample and life, next to Buddha, so very practical: Anathapindika: The Great Benefactor

Sure! It is allowed for lay people Real Buddhism is not about allowing and not allowing. It's about controlling the mind.

It is unlikely Buddhist practise can run a major corporation due to so many unethical things occurring in large business. For example, Apple was using cobalt from child labour in Congo; is said to engage in major tax avoidance; is said to engage in cheap non-Buddhist labour practises in Asia, etc, where employees are not treated as the Buddha taught in the Sigalovada Sutta.
The fact that many US businesses are now offshoring their activities in low-labour-cost & low-EPA countries shows unethical practises, namely, to enjoy the safety of US jurisdiction yet not support the US economy commensurately.
That the USA public debt just passed $20 trillion shows the unethical nature of large businesses because it shows a nation reliant on debt & a nation not earning sufficient taxation revenue due to low wages & relatively low corporate tax receipts. In the Anana Sutta, the Buddha said debt is unwholesome yet the business world revolves around making people & nations indebted.
Buddhist practise is based in meeting mutual responsibilities & obligations. This is obviously not occurring in the world of big business.

This is true. There are many examples. And also as you can see in life, you have to make many trade offs. But that does not exactly mean we cannot pursue matters as we see fit. I may be a Buddhist but I will do what’s needed about a situation at my workplace for example.

echo the alerting of unethical practices in corporate world. yet Apple the CEOs also other big Corps are not Buddhists. if saying Steve Job a Buddhist, it's more ludicrous than saying Superman Christopher Reeve indeed a super-human. one of the root problems of these un-checked unethical practices is they negated Karma and Rebirth, or they never heard about it. if death is the end of everything why not just have the maximum of what one capable? Capitalism is bred and groomed by Christianity, on one life then hell/heaven. -- Buddhism without Karma/Rebirth can do more evil than Christian faith.

What I feel is that, people are looking for a manual for leading their life. It doesn't exist. It is whatever you make of it. If we realize this much, then our lives will be a little more conscious.

I couldnt agree with you more here. The Isha Upanishad says at the very beginning RENOUNCE! That is the absolute oldest of religious doctrine in the history of our species tells us to forego attachment to material things. Shakyamuni Buddha recognized the need to part with materiality during his ascetic period. The mind cannot serve two masters as such.

This reads as: nice guys finish last. So if you didn't finish last you must be evil.

I want to say "no", but it's not for me to dictate or question anothers' path. I couldnt. There is no way I could have all of that property and material responsibility and yet have no ego.

Obviously there are lay Buddhists, even-though monks, mendicants, are traditionally not allowed to handle money at all.
Raga is one of the three poisons

Raga (Sanskrit, also rāga; Pali lobha; Tibetan: 'dod chags) is a
Buddhist concept of character affliction or poison referring to any
form of "greed, sensuality, lust, desire" or "attachment to a sensory
object

and whether the mega rich are greedy, or just rich, is probably a matter of opinion. It's probably a bit like asking can a communist be a a billionaire. No, but they can treat the rest of us as more than playthings.

You posted a bounty asking for a "canonical" answer. I'd say that Anathapindika is a canonical billionaire, I don't know what better/other example you might ask for.

I think the answer is yes, that a Buddhist can be a billionaire -- a modern proof-by-example might be Kazuo Inamori.
I don't have insight, though, into whether he made it "the aim of his life to run a billion dollar business" -- I imagine the billion happened as a side-effect of business, and wasn't the original business target when the businesses were founded, but I don't know -- there are probably biographies you could read.
Or, according to the Financial Times "Kazuo Inamori, Kyocera founder, on altruism in business",

His conviction that material wealth is a byproduct of doing business with a deeper purpose has remained consistent — as has his desire to convert others to the same creed. “It is time to change the motivation system from greed towards money to other ways,” he says. “I didn’t want to be a rich person . . . My motivation has been making the people around me happy.”

Some advice, on philosophy and management, is published here: Official Website of Kazuo Inamori.

Incidentally please don't comment that "no true Buddhist could be a billionaire", or use my answer as an opportunity to disparage Mr. Inamori or his business.

There are also, and there have been, Buddhist kings: people born to positions of wealth and authority (some of these might become monks instead, and so on).
There's also, for example, the story of Tetsugen Doko -- who collected money and spent it.
So the trivial answer is "yes"; but maybe  you can't (or shouldn't) make it your "aim in life". A trivial answer to this topic might easy to misinterpret, though (like the Buddha's not answering when asked whether there's a self).
Incidentally a lot of the suttas you may read are for monks. I found it helpful to also read a book called The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity which introduces and summarizes the Pali suttas which have advice for lay-people (for example this answer was a summary of one chapter of it).

Lots of Buddhists own big businesses. I suspect you are really asking whether a person who owns a big business can make progress in mindfulness meditation. It depends. He would have to be a good person and have an accurate understanding of the purpose of meditation. Ultimately, progress in meditation depends upon good karma, which is very difficult to define.

You are asking a question for good destiny as future rewards. But, having known life is momentary, death can come any time, which takes all his wealth in an instance, wise man use this life for utmost aim, total release.
The path to worldiness leade to death for sure, the path of Nirvana is another. The seeker after Nirvana even thrashes out Heavenly realm as equal as poison, as it is temporary destination, not lasted long, eventually bring back again to there, where he was!

Here are canonical verses answering this question;

'I have sons, I have wealth' —
the fool torments himself.
When even he himself
doesn't belong to himself,
how then sons?
How wealth? Dhammapada Verse 62
The path to material gain
goes one way,
the way to Unbinding,
another.
Realizing this, the monk,
a disciple to the Awakened One,
should not relish offerings,
should cultivate        seclusion
instead.
Verse 75

There is traditional [non-canonical] origin story for these verses
As others have mentioned a wealthy householder Anathapindika, a banker, was proclaimed as foremost in giving and a Sotapanna. The story has it that he actually became poor at some point;

...
Anathapindika and Visakha were not only the foremost donors in Savatthi (J 337, 346, 465), but their help was frequently solicited by the Buddha whenever something needed to be arranged with the lay community.
Yet even the wealth of Anathapindika was not inexhaustible. One day treasures worth eighteen million were swept away by a flash flood and washed into the sea. Moreover, he had loaned about the same amount of money to business friends who did not repay him. He was reluctant, however, to ask for the money. Since his fortune amounted to about five times eighteen million, and he had already spent three-fifths of this for the forest monastery, his money was now running out. Anathapindika, once a millionaire, had become poor. Nevertheless, he still continued to provide some food for the monks, even though it was only a modest serving of thin rice gruel. Anathapindika: The Great Benefactor

This wasn't the end of this story which is quasi-canonical at best but it goes to show that it's impossible to pursue both paths wholeheartedly.

This is where the problem lies when you enter into Buddhism or any other spiritual pursuit. You start to compare desires of your living in society, and desires of trying to find out what life is all about. You can guess which one is which.
Spiritual pursuits are for the person's inner nature. It calms and purifies some aspects of it. When we go outside and do things, we get stained in more ways than one but we can't help it.
I split these 2 things up on purpose.
But, tell me, can you imagine that you could pursue your spirituality, every moment, and still do whatever you are supposed to do outside in society as a responsible, good functional human being? It is possible, right? Then there's your answer.

that's why monastery life comes in. but the Buddha warned that by living on offering of other Buddhists, Bhiksus are in urgency to reach enlightenment, for a really enlightened being can do millions of good deeds for humans. Else these Bhiksus are in debt, they are also living on the merits of the Buddha, for the Buddhists in paying homage to the Buddha hence supporting the Bhiksus. But I'm really disappointed if I read books written by some Bhikkhus teaching Dhamma or meditation, not to mention if there issue about profit from book selling...

Well, I am not sure about the profiteering nature of some organizations. Maybe that's how they can conduct further programs? You never really know the true intentions. But if you fix your own intentions, then your next choices become clear. But nowadays our minds are not conscious of whatever is going on.

Buddhists are endowed with the most precious things money can't buy. Buddhists own more precious things than the richest man on earth can. In fact a Buddhist can own the whole Universe and beyond. A billion dollar is nothing compared to the whole Universe.

Billionaire super star Andy Lau in HK
Lau converted to Buddhism in the 1980s.[12] He was raised in a nominally Buddhist household and is now a follower of the Lingyan Mountain Temple in Taiwan.[13]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Lau
Best Male Actor Award Buddhism Movie - in this movie, Andy give up as monk due to his attaining the one of the psychic ability to see past life of sentients under the tree, a great distraction of life thereafter and he is In purpose to against the Buddhism perception to get rid this ability. It is implicitly told me why Buddha was still remain meditating under the tree till full enlightenment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_on_Karma


text:
How to concentrate to suppress hindrances?
I heard one needs concentration to abandon the hindrances -- however to have strong concentration, you need to have [already] abandoned hindrances, so that nothing can stop your focus. Which one is it? How do I abandon the hindrances: one hindrance at a time or all together?

This question is a duplicate of During jhana do you eliminate all hindrance at once?, isn't it?

Kusala means  minds that arise to abandon chance to arise of akusala-minds. While kusala arising, akusala-minds can't not arise ( just in the same person).
3 sikkha = adhisila-kusala-training, adhicitta-kusala-training (concentration meditation), and adhipanna-kusala-training.
So, the practitioner practices adhisila-kusala to abandon a chance of  akusala arising that form action/speech, practices adhicitta for just  some other akusala arising--such as beauty-attachment (akusala) by asubha-adhicittasikkha, etc, and practices adhipanna for whole akusala arising--11 khandha such as the past khandha, etc.
While whatever sikkha arising, no hindrances, no akusala arising.

Samatha meditation suppresses hindrances and Vipassna meditation eradicates them.


text:
"Not experiencing the effects of actions you did not do" as a characteristic of karma
Referring to the Four Characteristics of Karma (catvāri karmasvabhāva), as taught in Tibetan schools:

The certainty of karma.
The magnification of karma.
Not experiencing the effects of actions you did not do.
The actions you have done do not perish.

(From "The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, Tib. Lam rim chen mo, Volume 1: Volume One" by Tsong-Kha-Pa.)
I have no issue with 3 of the 4 characteristics of Karma, but it seems to me that #3 Not experiencing the effects of actions you did not do has been incorrectly extended by many to nothing can be experienced unless you have created the cause. The problem with this is that there must be some random events mixed in with cause and effect.

My english is terrible. I need some example.

You said:

...but it seems to me that a result will always have a cause has been incorrectly extended by many to nothing can be experienced unless you have created the cause. The problem with this is that there must be some random events mixed in with cause and effect.

You are correct! You have a bright discerning mind, that's the most precious which guided you in choosing the right path, also guarded you against misleading teachings. Learning Buddha's authentic teachings, or anything this days, is a path tracked along traps and hypocriticals.
In one instant (Ksaṇa), one is experiencing the results of causes also creating new causes; the mind discerns, then chooses the associated factors/responses at hand - in it there are random events, in your words; else this whole Karma equation will fall into the grip of Fatalism (Determinism), what the Buddha rebuked.
Like you, I don't understand why there is this 1. karma is determined in the list of Four Characteristics of Karma in Tibetan Buddhism. In Chinese Mahayana teachings, I've not heard about nor came across this FCK saying. It would be helpful if there is Sutra, or even Sastra can be quoted to refer to it's origin. Or it's the Guru's (Lama's) teaching? Or modern Buddhist scholar's (scholar-monk's) summery?
One of the notions of Karma I think that's closely related to this karma is determined is, Bearer of Karma can't be Replaced (自作自受, the doer bears his own deed), in Chinese Mahayana. That said, even if you are the father/mother of the BKR, you can't replace your son/daughter to bear his/her Karma. Karma is like debt/saving but also unlike debt/saving, for no one can replace another to take it.
However, above Chinese Mahayana understanding is conflicting to some Tibetan teachings for I learnt that some Gurus can help their disciples to bear their Karmas. In fact, this is the initial when a student accepted a Lama as his Guru, i.e., right there this Guru has taken over this student's Karma, this student is "reborn" by the moment he accepting the Guru...
To say "Karma is determined" is very dangerous. So is @Andrei Volkov explaint in his "On a mundane level...", although I believed he intended to emphasize one should take full responsibility of one's life. Yet it's easily fallen into the trap of fatalist. Indeed this saying has been hijacked/exploited by many ruling classes before our modern time. Examples in distance past and present is the Indian Caste System, and Tibetan Serfs System. (There are many articles both false and true surfing on the internet, the best is to see the photos and videos for they are the least capable of lying):

Free Tibet: Do you know what Tibet looked like before 1959?
The miserable life of Tibetan serfs!
Inside Tibet: Rare file of pre-Chinese invasion | 1940s

I stress, it's very precious to maintain your doubt: "how could Karma be determined?" "how could there no random events mixed in?"... etc. Keep your sane mind keep your reasoning until you realize yourself, not by anyone's telling you so and so. In fact any "super-master", "H.H. master", "Harvard PhD master"... etc. their job is not to transmit you a set of teachings sealed with "authorized", but to help you realize the knowledge by awakening your own wisdom.

Karma multiples. Chinese Mahayana thus teaches, don't disregard insignificant good because it's insignificant; don't do petty evil because it's petty. Be in awe of the rippling effect of Karma!
The better way to state your 3 is, "Karma will not come to fruition unless ripen". This explains neatly why there disbelief and argument of Karma, since the time of fruition is unpredictable, compounded with the superlative cause-effects and endless birth-deaths.
Karma doesn't dissipate is a warning that one should Think Thrice (三思) before his conducting life. The well-known example for this is about Maudgalyāyana/Moggallāna being beaten to death by the heretics. Despite his superior Rddhi/Iddhi accomplishment, by the moment of attack (fruition of Karma), he lost his powers completely, helpless and mindless to even remember a name of them.

Again, A. Volkov is thorough to point out "On the enlightened level", Karma is understood differently. Yet still greatly different is Andrei's elaboration to Nagarjuna's. Nagarjuna said, Karma is empty. Why? Because in enlightened level, "I" is no longer constructed, hence, "others" ceased; if I ceased, the doer disappeared, therefore the doing no longer there; thus, Karma nixed. I think the key explanation is in Chapter 1 and 2 in Madhyamaka, however I don't think there good translation work in English around that enable one understand what he said, not to say his analogy required a very bright mind to grasp what he said. Maybe until a right moment will come for you to conduct the right study :).

My last friendly reminder, keep your bright discerning mind, do not accept because someone said so, only until you realize it's true, that's the guide and guard helping you along the path.
=====

 - answering the newly edited -
Your new version of

Not experiencing the effects of actions you did not do.

There are 3 aspects:

A) This is a, if you will excuse me, bad sentence. This is called a sentence that "Begging the Question". It's like saying, you will not die if you haven't consumed the deadly toxin of the pufferfish; or Not experiencing the pain (effect) of cutting (action) if you did not cut yourself (do).
B) I was not able to locate where exactly this saying in the Lam Rim Chenmo 1, Tsong-Kha-Pa written in Tibetan, there are 4 Chinese translations, different English translations too. I believe it's making more sense to revert to your original quote, or as Andrei's quote If karma were not accomplished, the result would not be experienced. These versions of translation/summery may better transmit TKP's original meaning.
C) Taking the sensible, more acceptable translation, still this way of saying is in logical conflict. How could a Karma be not accomplished? A Karma is the effect of an action, how could an effect be obtained if the action is not completed? Example, you hit someone, the fist contacted the body part of your object, this is a karma: hit someone; if your fist hasn't contacted your object, it's not called hit someone, right? Likewise, how could karma were not accomplished, the result would not be experienced be established? Therefore, I think it's a corrupted statement trying to convey this statement Karma will not come to fruition unless ripen - what I learnt from the Chinese Mahayana source. And the translated Tibetan statement is really easily being hijacked again. For one can be playing with the marginal/edge. Like a boat will sink if overloaded, but the boat will never sink if it's even so close to overload but not overloaded, so that you can keep loading because the boat will not sink if not overloaded, even so close to overload... I think this may be employed as an aid and explanation, when to the higher level, the Tibetan teaching telling, to prove that one's realized a higher understanding of reality, one should disregard social norms... the more one challenging the existing/known norms, the more advance one's achievement in Dharma.

However, your core question is triggered by the 3. Not experiencing the effects of actions you did not do., though not really about the 3th of FCK. Because in your mind there is a question about when/how the 1st cause happened if experience must be experiencing the effect of a cause, an effect without cause is impossible, therefore experiencing the 1st effect is impossible, then how the 1st experience happened?
Think of a loop, or electric circuit, the end is the beginning, the beginning is the end. So in eons of death-births, in the perfect circle (not linear, that's how electricity can be live constantly, by switching on/off; not like a battery that after used up then dead), no beginning and end, so is cause-effects. Your this question arisen in the same way as in this post, a construct confined in the Four-statement when searching for the ultimate in the mind of intellect. In the Ultimate Truth, it's Suchness. Nagarjuan said in Madhyamaka, my transl. from Chi.:

... ... [excerpt]
The effect comes from cause, from non-cause?
The cause contains the effect, contains not the effect?
If from this comes the effect, thus called the cause;
If the effect is not yet born, why not called this non-cause?
Has or Hasn’t the effect already been in the cause, invalid are both;
If hasn’t how rendered it that cause, if has how it would need the cause?
If the effect not coming from cause, nor coming from non-cause;
Neither both, how renders it there the cause?
... ... [excerpt]

Nag. concluded:

The effect not comes from cause, nor from non-cause;
There the effect unobtainable, hence vain is the cause and non-cause.

A graphical depiction in my words to help understanding this question: In the Ultimate, there's no spatial/temporal conditioning; there is no "I", hence no "others"; no observer (subject), hence no observed (object). It is you taking a position, now you have the cause causing your existing, defining your positioning... and the world is created.
I don't think I can give a solid answer to this question, maybe by analyzing your question you may come to understand the question and answer by yourself.

As far as I leant, Tsong-Kha-Pa (1357–1419CE) his teachings and writings were coming from a background with the Lama political power established, a need for religious reform due to the power struggles of different lineages, he synthesis the teachings and condensed in this The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment. Traditional Chinese Mahayana held we should 1st consult and learn the Sutras - teaching spoken directly by the Buddha; then the Sastras - explanation of Sutras written by the Bodhisattvas or Great Masters with achievements. Tsong-Kha-Pa's in the Sastras category the max., however not sure which Sutras he was referring to. As far as I learnt, TKP himself didn't practice his own teaching, he was never a Tantra Yoga practitioner himself. His last vow was hoping to be reborn in Tusita, until then when Maitreya Buddha be born, to complete his quest together .
There is not lack of controversy in the Tibetan Tantra Yoga practice. In the linked article the former Dakini even has strained relationship with her own father for she thought her father set it up. Little did she know nor she was able to mention, in Tsong-Kha-Pa's Lamrim Chenmo/Nagkrim Chenmo it taught the apprentice should offer his women, from wife (girlfriend), daughter, sister, aunt to anyone related to him, to his Guru...
It's not such a mystery or it's also very mysterious of the Tibetan Tantra Yoga. I believe it has it's psycho-physiological reasoning, also the reasoning in the way of Qi (氣, Prana), Chakra, Nidas (Mài 脈)... etc. The Daoist having this type of harnessing sexual energy skill, so the Indian... though I can't say these are all the same. There is certain truth about desire is not rid by suppression... But I really can't discern if the Buddha will teach such technique (or it's not for human, but for celestial beings some said) even if it's having effect, if the harm is bigger than the effect, especially the harm to the objects that's used in aiding the practitioner.
Tibetan Tantra Yoga was a skill widely adopted by the Emperors, especially after China fell to the Mogonlian rule around 1360CE, inside the Emperor's zenana. So was the Lamas ruling Tibet. Not sure how do general public carry out the practice; perhaps Hugh Hefner that type of super-rich has the exclusivity, without causing complaints since those were knowingly working like his playgirls.
Anyhow, I think it's always good to learn something. It is in my task to give Tsong-Kha-Pa's writings a read, but there are many other more important Sutras also Sastras I need to study first. I've already save a copy of Lamrim Chenmo in my collection.
I read some learnt said Tibetan Buddhism built upon the wrong interpretation of Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka, it mistaken the 6th Vijnana the foundation; not the 8th Vijnana. Nagarjuna's Emptiness is referring to the 8th... Some said the real Tibetan School was extinct, it was Jonang, teaching the real Tathāgatagarbha, but wiped out and replaced by the 5th Dalai Lama... And Vajrayana (金剛乘) is not exclusivity of Tibetan Buddhism, historically there are Vajrayana teaching in different schools, like Tientai, Huayan, and Ch'an/Zen is the greatest of Vajrayana, like a great secret laid open in plain sight but only for those can see it. In fact the fundamental Sutra for Ch'an school is Diamond Sutra, which, diamond and Vajra are the same word: 金剛 (Pinyin: Jīngāng), thus Diamond Sutra in Pinyin is Jīngāng Jīng... I think it's too deep for the general Western practitioners due to they are new in contacting Buddhism, due to the lack of Sutras they can read in English, also English Sutras correctly transmitting the teaching...
If you are interested to dab more a bit in Buddhism, I think a good translation work was Blue Cliff Record, done by Thomas Clearly. I read by chance one or two chapters I was impressed, until recently I learnt who is Thomas Clearly and he also translated the Avatamsaka Sutra, I will recommend and also is in my list to acquire this work. the Platform Sutra (grasping the fundamental principles in the most plain words) by Red Pine is not a bad read, though the accuracy is in question but I see Red Pine is genuine in his trying his best. These are suggestions if you are interested, though I think to follow whichever teaching is purely a personal choice. But to read something in the different sect is always a good balance also good cross-checking process ;).
My last, keep your bright discerning mind as guide and in guarded, be safe in your venture!

Excellent @ Mishu... if Karma is Volitions and Volitions are Choices, Choice cannot be intrinsically detemined, but if determined then its pure fatalism!

@Epic true. However there is a hindrance with this word "Volitions". It's a loaned word from the Eng translators dabbed in Christian doctrines. Volition is needed in the system of "God created world, how could his creatures Adam + Eve sinned, since God is perfect?" To round the argument, God has to grant them "Volition/Free Will" to sin 囧. The better way to say is mind of discern. This "mind of discern" is the key that we humans can follow the path and realize Nirvana. Only when the mind is free of contamination, spotless, it can do correct discerning...

Thanks @ Mishu... my understanding of Volition stem from the early Stoic they called it "Prohairesis"  it's nothing but the choice involved in giving or withholding assent to impressions..it is the faculty that distinguishes human beings from all other creatures.

@Epic I always eager to learn new things :). No idea of Stoic, at time of Classical Greek philosophy? It's not surprise Christian Bible loaned terms from Greek... I read few posts related to Stoic in this forum, think most of the writers greatly misunderstanding Buddhism that's why they thought the two are similar/same. Argument to say human with Volition is by the fact human can commit suicide. Yet Buddhism explaint, by discerning one concluded death is the max. beneficial. No one chosen death simply wills so, fact is he thought death is more beneficial than alive...

@Mishu..Perhaps those you read have misunderstood the Stoics... Only the wise are free according to the stoic...Here is a Stoic quote......."He is free who lives as he likes; who is not subject to compulsion, to restraint, or to violence; whose pursuits are unhindered, his desires successful, his aversions unincurred. Who, then, would wish to lead a wrong course of life? "No one." Who would live deceived, erring, unjust, dissolute, discontented, dejected? "No one." No wicked man, then, lives as he likes; therefore no such man is free.

@Epic I remember learning, at school, that Plato wrote that you should lead a good (virtuous) life in order to have a good (pleasant) life -- which is OK as far as it goes, but which I thought seemed to depend (at least in translation) on some ambiguity in the meaning of the word "good", and was also a bit light or trite in terms of being prescriptive/actionable ... conversely, Buddhist doctrine seems to me to supply a lot more detail[s] than that.

@ Chris I couldn't agree more. Certainly, Buddhism is rich and alive. It has ardent followers and uninterrupted written record with detail exposition to attain the "good" for those who can. Even for those who don't aim at the higher end, but follow in faith, it leads to contentment, which is what I witnessed on my visit to Cambodia. …As to the Ancient Greeks, what we have is fragments in the hand of academics whose very aim is a play on words. So as you put it is a dry-land with no action.

@Mishu米殊 Thank you for your kind response. After looking at your comments and a bit more study in the lam rim chen mo I realize that I actually have some issue with 2 of the 4 characteristics. It seems #1 and #3 are similar but oppositely stated, neither accounting for a mix of random actions. OTOH I am very comfortable with the teachings of HHDL, Lama Zopa, and this Tibetan lineage so I plan to continue with it.

@jacknad i'll edit my answer to response to your new edit. for the Tibetan lineage i'm afraid i'm NOT in the moment pro their teachings... i will mention something i know in a mild tone and let you decide, at least hopefully you will take precaution if later you learn teachings that's really against your conscience, or conflicting with your "discerning mind". having said that, indeed my introduction to Buddhism was related to a Guru - Shifu,  上師 - 師父 who belongs to certain Tibetan lineage, of which he is also a Qigong master, Martial Art master, he taught Dharma on the ethical aspect...

@Friends - let's try and stick to the Q&A format... It's nice to have lively community discussions on good topics, but let's try and be careful with very long answers and long comment threads. It's not bad necessarily, but I'm afraid of setting a precedent that everyone will follow and it could get out of hand...

@AndreiVolkov Thx. Intended to borrow the comment section for a brief time, meant to delete when mssgs. transmitted.

Same situation can have many results from many causes.
For the example: eyes have 34 elements that are formed from 4 kinds of difference causes (kamma, consciousness, temperature, and nutrient).
Another example: pathavi-dhatu, that is arise by temperature in eyes, also depend on the other co arising elements, same time arising causes, too.

You refer to the Four Characteristics of Karma (catvāri karmasvabhāva), as taught in Tibetan schools:

Karma is definite, or deterministic.
Karma creates inertia and tendency to proliferate.
If karma were not accomplished, the result would not be experienced.
Karma does not disappear.

This is a lamrim teaching, so it's meant for beginner students. What the third point is meant to teach is:

On a mundane level: We should not blame our problems on other people and on the circumstances. Our life is a result of our own karma. We should not feel like helpless victims tossed by the wind, nor should we be angry at the unfair world and society. Instead, we should take responsibility for our lives. Whatever we experience today, was in one way or another caused by a choice we made in the past.
On a supramundane level: There are hidden connections between our attitude and our future experiences. Selfish and negative intentions seed subtle seeds that over time ripen into unpleasant experiences. Selfish attachments, and negative emotions they generate, manifest as problems downstream. Knowing this we should always be very careful with the condition of our mind and our hidden/inner attitudes. Being outwardly friendly but having selfish and negative thoughts creates latent conditions for future trouble.
On the enlightened level: All our experiences come from our own mind. Any problem we experience comes from our mind and any happiness we experience also comes from our own mind. Our body, our senses, the objects of our senses—everything we see is our view, and it is the projection of our mind. Our view has to do with our own mind, with the level of our own mind. If our mind is impure, we see things as impure. If our mind is pure, we see things as pure. Reality is an interpretation we make. Therefore, in a very fundamental, very personal way, we are directly responsible for 100% of our own experiences, in fact we ourselves fabricate it.

As you can see, this not about the physics of cause-and-condition, the second law of thermodynamics, and the philosophy of free-will. We are not arguing whether every result has a cause or is there anything like true randomness in the Universe. Instead, this is about our attitude to life - and taking responsibility for everything that happens, past, future, and present.

All potential probabilities exist around us. ([Multiple Universe explanation here])1 It is our very perceptions that shape the material content of the universe we will experience - albeit a combination of ours and all those we bring into our world. ([Double Slit experiment explanation])2 These perceptions and their resulting change in quantum mechanic probabilities are the karma. A chain reaction of the resultants of our perceptions. Research now suggests that these changes of probability and other resultant karma are stored in the micro-lobules of the brain.([tie between quantum physics and karma])3
So, in short, our sensory experience creates the very cause and effect that further creates. Thus the maxim becomes true that nothing is experienced unless you created the cause - either directly or by your inclusion of others in your world.

You do not create anything. ex: When you do something evil, you don't do it with the intention of wanting to suffer for it in the future. Things happen due to causes. Even the causes themselves cannot create anything. It's simply a case of the result occurring when the causes are present.

Perhaps the word "create" is something to be avoided, but I think when you do evil it's not because of some random presence of causes. You are the culprit, and due to your ignorance, you have chosen the wrong path.

There's no 'you' or a doer. There's simply a thought moment which performs the task of decision making. If the decision is evil, suffering follows.

@ Sankha, I think you're verging to fatalism. There's certainly a doer... here is a quote from Attakārī Sutta........................“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

No it is not fatalism. If it's fatalism, the determining thought moment would be defunct. But just because it performs the function of deciding, it does not qualify as a self in the ultimate sense as it is also caused and perishes. There are 4 such false views of self: owner, dweller, doer, experiencer. In the Attakārī Sutta the Buddha is talking at a conceptual level to make it clear that beings are responsible for their deeds. But at no place he mentions that any of the five aggregates can be regarded as a self.

Thanks, Sankha... I agree "non-self" is the correct view!  But I think declaring non-self too quickly without explaining the power of Karma / Volition (free will) of the being could be a problem.  The being "Mr. Sankha" when he does evil he is responsible...!

It probably depends on the audience and the way you present it. So yes, it could easily cause confusion. But Karma can be explained both at the conceptual level and the ultimate reality level. Free will is a Christian concept. Buddhists don't use that. There's willingness, which is again a  thought moment. But how free is that when it can be influenced by greed, aversion and ignorance?

In some schools of Buddhism, everything is mind. Even the random effects are created by mind, which is karma. In other words, the random effects do not exist outside the mind. Which means, since the random effects exist within the mind, it does create experience.


text:
During body-scan ('sweeping') meditation, what does brain-imaging (e.g. fMRI) look like?
I do not know how extensively body scans have been studied with brain-imaging techniques, e.g. fMRI.
Body scan is a meditation technique developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn. It was derived from a meditation practice ('sweeping') of the Burmese U Ba Khin tradition.

"It involves systematically sweeping through the body with the mind,
  bringing an affectionate, openhearted, interested attention to its
  various regions, customarily starting from the toes of the left foot
  and then moving through the entirety of the foot [...] From there, the
  focus moves into, successively, and slowly, the entirety of the pelvic
  region, including the buttocks and the genitals [...] and finally, to
  the face and head."
"We are systematically and intentionally moving our attention through
  the body, attending to the various sensations in the different
  regions. That we can attend to these body sensations at all is quite
  remarkable. That we can do it at will, either impulsively or in a more
  disciplined systematic way, is even more so."
"We might describe what we are doing during a body scan as tuning in
  or opening to those sensations, allowing ourselves to become aware of
  what is already unfolding."

I found it quite easy to practice and had interesting and unusual experiences (mostly pleasant).
My question is: Would any brain and brain-imaging expert - given this description - dare to guess roughly how a body scan may look like in a "brain scanner", e.g. recorded with fMRI?
I am not such an expert, nevertheless I dare to guess.
Presumably, a body scan will - mainly but not solely - take place in the areas of the cortical homunculus in the primary motor and sensory cortices.
I would guess that it is here that most of body scan related neural activity will occur. But in which manner: how will activity evolve and literally move around, how will it look like in the "brain scanner"?
Five possibilities come to my mind:

Experts and laymen will see nothing but a generally increased, enigmatically billowing activity of the cortical homunculus.
An expert would see some significant patterns, but only vague and hard to communicate.
Even the layman could see something:

an overall increased activity of the cortical homunculus with somehow changing peaks of activity (highlights, representing the body region the attentional focus is currently on)
a mostly "dark" cortical homunculus with a wandering spotlight of activity
a mostly dark cortical homunculus with a fading-in/fading-out spotlight every now and then

Which of these possibilities do you - if you happen to be a brain and/or brain-imaging expert - consider the most probable one? Other possibilities are welcome!
And of course hints to studies where this question has been experimentally attacked.
(I found one study but didn't delve deeper into it: there are too few images in it.)

Your asking, "you - as a brain and/or brain-imaging expert" suggests this question is less about Buddhism and more about brain-imaging ... it might be better asked on another site, though I don't know which one ... Biology.SE perhaps.

I also asked it at CognitiveSciences.SE. But since it's about an originally Buddhist technique, I dared to ask it here, too. (Why shouldn't there some brain-imaging experts be around here?)

I changed the question a bit: "if you happen to be a brain and/or brain-imaging expert".

It is on-topic on this site, just probably not the focus or area of expertise of the majority.

It's just the way it is.

Disclaimer: I'm not a brain expert or brain-imaging expert or neuroscientist.
In this YouTube video at around 15 minutes, you can find Dr. Zindel Segal presenting fMRI scans on depression patients practising mindfulness-based meditation (most probably Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy or MBCT). But I'm not sure if it includes body scanning. MBCT was based on Kabat-Zinn's Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR).
There are more fMRI scans shown in this YouTube video by neuroscientists presenting at the 10th Global Conference on Buddhism in Toronto this year. Again, I'm not sure if it includes body scanning.
Probably, you can contact the four neuroscientists in these videos plus Kabat-Zinn, to seek the precise answer to your question. Who knows? Maybe you might give them a new idea for a study, if it has not been done already.
Also see this answer.


text:
'Impermanence' during vipassana practice
Thoughts stopped when seen them. Either happy or sad feelings of mind disappears by seen them. Is this impermanence?

Yes. This is impermanence, at the experiential level. You are getting the hang of the fact that experiences come and go, and they get affected by mere looking at them.
There is also impermanence at a deeper or subtler level, where every sensation becomes ripply or vibratory - that can be seen when mind is trained to see impermanence at a deeper/subtler level.
edit: I don't know a better term to use than ripply to describe it, anyways my usage of the term comes from Shinzen Young's meditation manual, page 41. (A beautiful illustration of meditation path up to the arising and passing away stage can be found in pages 40-45)

Why the downvote? Care to explain? Is it because it doesn't answer the question or because of some other reason like it differs from your view of what impermanence is...

I did not downvote the answer. I suspect it might be due to using the words "ripply or vibratory". I think what is meant, is that things are transitory and in a constant flux, is that correct? Anyway, I think its a good answer and I upvoted it.

Yes, that is correct... transitory, constant flux are good terms to describe it. Just that they don't capture the feeling of shaking one's identity or sense of continuity that generally happens as one observes impermanence at a deeper level, so the use of word "ripply". But looks like that doesn't make it any clearer..

For a practitioner of insight meditation it makes sense, but for a non-practitioner or beginner it might not. Thanks for adding the elaboration with a reference.

Impermanence is when you see something arise and then pass. So yes, when you see thoughts and then see them stop, that is impermanence. Same is with feelings.

During Vipassana, you will see the impermanence in all Sankhara.
Seen impermanence in Jhana also an aspect of Vipassana.