text:
Lies as self defence vs. Physical self defence
Why is a lie for the purposes of self defence necessarily unwholesome? Why is using a lie as defence for another from attack considered  parajeeka for a monk when a monk can use physical self defence and it's not parajeeka? Why can't a monk misrepresent reality(lie) for self defense instead of resorting to physical violence?
As long as you know what the truth is why give it to someone who would exploit it?
I was thinking that our intentions aren't unwholesome because we lie but a lie is unwholesome because of our unwholesome intentions. -Metta

Related topic: Should a person never lie?

The key is intent to deceive and the person understanding the deceptive communication. If the intention to deceive is not there then there is no unwholesome. If you mistakenly believe something and say this it is not breaking the precept of lying because there is no intention to deceive.
Generally, people do not like being deceived, even for their own good. So if you are motivated to deceive for their own good, then this is still lying.
If you make a promise you do not intent to keep this also is lying. If you make a promise which you know will never happen then this is not lying (e.g. I will give you an angle to marry if the sun rises in the North.) The latter type of tact was used on Nanda, in which case the promise was if you meditate.
Also I do not think a monk can resort to violence.
Also need not always tell what you know. You can simply refuse to answer, but if you answer it should be the truth.

How is this an answer to the question?  It doesn't appear to me that you were very thorough when you read this question. Although, I have done this many times myself too -metta

I would consider the fourth precept on musavada (lying) in Buddha Dhamma to include all abuses done by speech. That would also include harsh speech, slander, and gossip which will harm oneself and others.  When one truly understands Buddha Dhamma, i.e., the nature of this world as embodied in anicca, dukkha, anatta, one sees that these precepts come out naturally. At that stage, one’s mind automatically rejects all ten immoral actions (dasa akusala) and thus the five precepts are automatically obeyed.
Of these 10 immoral actions, the four vaci sankhara (immoral acts done with speech) include, musavada (Lying), pisunavaca (slandering), parusavaca (harsh speech), and sampappalapa (frivolous talk). When it come to a lay person these are not promises but one’s intention is to do the utmost (otherwise the act will itself be a musavada or a lie). There comes a time in one’s personal practice when one realizes that there is no other moral way to live.
Precepts are about purifying one’s mind. A pure mind gains wisdom, and will not allow any harmful action by speech or by deed. Such a mind is not burdened, but has “cooled down”. People could blindly follow precepts, but are of greed, hate, or ignorance. Then depending on the state of their minds, they may get reborn in a lesser world.
If keeping the precepts alone will take one to a higher plane of existence, then a cow or a horse living in isolation will be certain to be born a Deva.. They do not kill, steal, lie, or get intoxicated, and if their owners do not have any other animal of that kind, then there is no chance of sexually misbehaving either.

The equation seems to have a failure. Atma (my person) tries to focus mainly on the sample at first hand.
In one case, one hurts the truth (by lying) and in the other a person.
Another misunderstandig might be that Vinaya reflects automatical wholesome and unwholesome. Self defense is always unwholesome, since it requires Delusion (believe that a Self could be damaged, touching form,  feeling, perception, formations, recognition).
And one more, a lie does not necessary hurt a listener directly, he could be pleased as well (even mostly)
Generally again, Vinaya does not go deep into Abhidhamma but stays for the most at bodily and verbal deeds. It works with very gross defilements. So it's not good to assume to much in regard of karmic effects. Vinaya is made for wordlings, yet not able to understand mind and intention fully and meant as protection in defiled states.

Apart from the intention to deceive, as Suminda states, there is also not 'treating this as this', but rather 'treating this as that and that as this', which is creating/forcing delusion onto the person you lie to.
To give an example - say your friend currently feels negatively about you for some reason (and you are not fully aware of their state of mind). If you proceed to ask another friend, who then tells you, using whatever reasoning, that that first friend in fact feels positively about you, whilst knowing that not to be the case, if you take that statement on board, you now have information that is not accurate. You believe your friend feels positively about you, whilst in fact, they feel negatively about you. The situation and your perception of the situation are in disagreement (a neat delusion), and the only condition for that disagreement is the lie you were told.
It is hard to see an instance for which, given the availability of accurate information, inaccurate information will lead to a simpler resolution of an issue.. the issue can be avoided with a lie, brushed under the carpet, but that is ignorance.

Could you explain "this and that" teaching in other terms?

If what you say is true (that "physical self-defence" is permitted), perhaps one  consideration might be that that is to do with the order's good reputation versus bringing the order into disrepute?
For example if you're a member of the lay community, which do you think is better: monks who defend themselves physically when attacked; or, monks who tell lies whenever they think that's necessary?
I suppose self-defense might be seen as blameless, and lying as blame-worthy.
I realize that this answer begs the question, though.
Still, many of the Vinaya rules (e.g. forbidding alms-rounds at night) are motivated by considering how that behaviour will affect the Sangha's reputation.

I think I also read that lying is something that a Bodhisattva will never do.
The Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta is graphic about not telling a deliberate lie.

hello ChrisW, Shouldn't your above "for example" be a little different? For example if you're a member of the lay community, which do you think is better: monks who defend themselves if necessary, or, monks who defend themselves with a lie when necessary?   I am talking about lying only as self defence. if the lie will bring less suffering than physical self defence.  I ask why can't a monk lie in this situation? Loopholes happen in any rule of any system.

Is the edited version better? And what is "physical self defense": do you mean like, evasion, i.e. physically avoiding or escaping the situation?

They're supposed to be as evasive as possible but if they are cornered they can attack back in self defence. At least that's my understanding.

Per this comment, According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who, trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow “desiring freedom.”

Why is a lie for the purposes of self defence necessarily unwholesome?

It is not unwholesome. Kamma is intention.

'There is the case where a certain person engages in false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a
  gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty [i.e., a
  royal court proceeding], if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell,
  good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I know.' If he
  does know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I
  have seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' Thus he
  consciously tells lies for his own sake, for the sake of another or
  for the sake of a certain reward. AN 10.176

Why is using a lie as defence for another from attack considered parajeeka for a monk

It is not a parajika:

The four transgressions which incur a Parajika, the penalty of automatic disrobal, are as follows:
1. Engaging in sexual intercourse with another being of either sex.
2. Stealing something of value (which includes smuggling, cheating or deliberately avoiding payment of a tax).
3. Purposely killing a human being or encouraging him or her to commit suicide (this includes inciting another to murder somebody and it also
  includes convincing a woman to have an abortion.
4. Boasting that one has realised a high spiritual attainment, knowing that one is lying. For example, claiming to be enlightened, to be
  Maitreya Buddha, to have entered Jhana (deep meditation-ecstasy) or
  that one can read minds when one knows that one hasn't reached any of
  these states.

Why can't a monk misrepresent reality(lie) for self defense instead of resorting to physical violence?

Why would a monk be engaging in "self-defence"? This is very unlikely.

I was thinking that our intentions aren't unwholesome because we lie but a lie is unwholesome because of our unwholesome intentions.

Correct. A lie is unwholesome because of our unwholesome intentions.
For example, if a monk hides an innocent person from a would-be-murderer and the murderer asks the monk has the monk seen the innocent person, it is not unwholesome if the monk lies to the murderer. Why should a monk be honest to a murderer if the murderer will murderer as a result of the monk's honesty?


text:
Is the term "Everything happens for a reason" appropriate?
In terms of  Buddhist thought Is this accurate? It doesn't seem to jive with cause and effect which is more often referenced.

Could you elaborate more, please?

I guess I was trying to conceive of a better answer against agency, in what happens, especially with regard  to explaining to non Buddhist.

Yes, In fact there is a reason due to which everything happens.

The issue concerns the way you understand the statement "Everything happens for a reason", since 'reason' has various meanings.
'Reason' could mean motivation or intent. For instance, "Someone has his reasons to behave the way he does." If you have that meaning in mind when you read "Everything happens for a reason", you will think it means "Everything that happens was intended by someone, like a creator God." Of course, this would not be Buddhist.
'Reason' could also refer to a cause, as in "The reason for his absence is sickness." Then, "Everything happens for a reason" means "Everything that happens has causes and conditions." This is a correct statement, from a Buddhist viewpoint.
I would not be surprised if 'reason' could also mean 'purpose, aim, goal' but I can not find an example.
We do not hear "Everything happens for a reason" often in Buddhism. I myself would never even think of saying it, because it is vague. In addition, I feel that most people would misunderstand and think that it means "things were intended this way" or "things will eventually fit in a big meaningful picture."
A more common way of stating things is: "You created the causes of your suffering." This is more personal and it is aimed at taking one's responsibility.

Nothing happens for a reason. There's no inherent meaning to any of it unless we superimpose one. But everything except Nibbana is born and born of causes.

Everything (except Nirvana) has a cause hence causality arisen. When the reason arises so does the effect / fruit. When the reason ceases, so does the effect / fruit. In this case what I mean by the reason is the 24 paccaya of Pattana or 12 in Dependent Arising.
See: Dependent Arising by Piya Tan

I can't stand when people use that term. It's a new age cliche.  No everything does not happen for a reason at all. Everything is mostly random however we can find something positive in even the most difficult or adverse conditions.

I know that this will sound exaggerated, but where is your evidence for "everything is mostly random"? I would rather argue that we live in a probabilistc world, where there are higher changes of sth. to happen than in other instances. "Random" is often used because we do not fully understand the mechanisms.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Monkey Year Teaching (Drikung-Kagyu)
My questions concern Monkey Year Teaching held by Kagyu lineage (Great Phowa of Chagtsugma).
Is this type of Phowa similar for all Monkey Year Teachings held through the Kagyu lineage?
What is the destination land and deity of this Phowa?
Are there specific samayas and life-long obligations related to this teaching?

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


text:
Journaling for Buddhist laypeople
I've been working on creating a (digital) diary application for Buddhist laypeople and would like to ask this community for ideas about what can be written about in a journal like this which would be valuable for improving well-being and spiritual growth
Here some ideas that I've gathered so far (not written in stone, including here just to show the general idea that i have):

Meditation journal --- type of meditation (metta, anapanasati, etc), hindrances during meditation
Daily practice journal (mindful walking to and from the parking lot, etc)
Gratitude journal
Successes --- maybe in the areas of faith, virtue (five precepts), generosity, wisdom

I've done some research by reading books about early Buddhism and practices for laypeople (for example "The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity" and "The Buddha's Teachings on Social and Communal Harmony") but am having a hard time "translating" the information that I've gathered into something that would fit well inside a diary application
Grateful for help with this!
Kind Regards, Tord

What is some difference between this journal application and any general purpose journal?

Thank you for the comment, I've updated the question to make it more clear what I'm looking for

With the intention of increasing Sati some monks advise to recall daily events. Maintaining a Journal or Diary will help towards this. The number, clarity and detail of what you recall is not so perfect proxy to your Sathi practice. Also it increases memory to study and remember the Dhamma.
Also there is a concept of Pin Potha, which is a journal of all good deeds done. This can include all the categories which you mention and more. Also maybe elements of study.

I'm feeling grateful and inspired by your answer, thank you for sharing your knowledge! About Pin Potha: This is very interesting to me, can you give a link or book reference? (i have a hard time finding something when searching online)

It is just a blank diary like book. E.g. http://www.lakehousebookshop.com/pdesc.php?id=1415, http://www.online.buddhistcc.com/books/pin-potha-detail.html. It is an age old custom of the Sri Lankan Buddhists to maintain a record of One's meritorious activities. This record is named PIN POTHA or Merit Book.

Just by any well bound book with fine paper and solid binding. Since modern times you can compliment this with and album where you can print and put in pictures of the activities.

That being a great and benifical practice. My person wonders whether the costom is still alive.

A related question: PIN POTHA (puñña potha) or Merit Book, costom still alive? How to keep it up?

Other ideas:

Mistakes made
Lessons learned (from practice and/or from study)
Upcoming meetings (scheduled in the future)
Questions to be asked or topics to discuss (scheduled in the future)

I've read books about early Buddhism and practices for laypeople
I'm not certain that any writing existed in India at the time of early Buddhism.

Thank you for the answer, this is very useful. About the writing: Afaik there was no writing in those times, the research I've done has been for trying to understand Buddhist practices for laypeople better. "Mapping"/"translating" these practices to something that can be written in a diary to improve our well-being and spiritual practice is difficult for me though so I'm grateful for your help

I'm also grateful for the ideas about scheduling things in the future because this is something I've been thinking about too, there are advantages to using digital technologies which expands the possibilities over a paper-based journal

On the topic of early practices there's a story at time 47:33 of this video which describes a form of journaling or record-keeping (i.e. using pebbles) ... it's in the context of right effort requiring persistence.

Good idea to start with.
Sati Patthana is the journal of all Buddhists.


text:
Places offering samatha retreats / training
I'm looking for a place to train in samatha. I want to master jhana and time is not an issue. I can also do volunteer work in exchange for training. Any recommendations?

Where are you located and how far are you willing to travel?

There is Pa-auk Forest Monastery in Myanmar (Burma). A good friend just spent a year there. He did a fair amount of research before settling for Myanmar and he also spent months in a temple in Thailand beforehand. According to him, various monks from Korea as well as Sri Lanka, etc. go to Myanmar thinking that qualified Dharma teachers are difficult to come by in their countries. It seems likes "The place to be." He also said that "Most practitioners require between three and eight years of dedicated effort to obtain the full set of jhanas."
I do not know much about Pa-Auk though. For instance, I do not know whether they train lay people as well.

If you are interested in coming to Ontario, Canada, this place - Tisarana Buddhist Monastery in Perth, Ontario, is the place for you. You can stay up to 3 months. You do not have to pay anything, but may have to do some volunteer work every other day. If you call them, it will be a person like you who will answer and give you all necessary details.  It is near Ottawa – the Capital City of Canada. I was there just two months ago. They have a very good library. Any bhikku will be of help to you while there. You can take a look into their FB Page too, if you like - as it will give you a better idea.
The monastery is a residence for Buddhist monks and those who wish to train as Buddhist monks. Presently there are 20 monks, and 4 'anagaarika's (trainee monks). It is a retreat for those  interested who may visit for varying periods of time.


text:
Spiritual friendship with the Buddha
I'm wondering what the Buddha said about spiritual friendship with the Buddha himself. From SN 45.2:

By the following method too, Ānanda, it may be understood how the
  entire holy life is good friendship, good companionship, good
  comradeship: by relying upon me as a good friend, Ānanda, beings
  subject to birth are freed from birth; beings subject to aging are
  freed from aging; beings subject to death are freed from death; beings
  subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair are
  freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. By
  this method, Ānanda, it may be understood how the entire holy life is
  good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship.

Are there any other texts that bring up this subject? What have later Buddhist teachers said about this?
References (from Sutras or otherwise) are welcome!
Grateful for help and with kind regards,
Tord

UPDATE to make the question more clear: The question is specifically about friendship with the Buddha himself (not general friendship on the path). I have chosen to call this friendship "spiritual" but maybe "virtual" or another word would be better, or another word that describes that the friendship is different from a person alive in the typical sense

Kalyana means good, not spiritual. This should not be confused.

Yes, @Akila.. 'Good' is a far better word than 'Spiritual' - I shouldn't have used the word ''spiritual' - it is a 'loaded' word.

@RavindranathAkila Thank you for the comment, this helps me clarify the question. The question is specifically about friendship with the Buddha himself (not general friendship on the path). I have updated the question to make this more clear

This might be a related topic: How does one get closer to Buddha?

Kalyana-Mitta, ‘Noble or Good Friend’, is called a person who is fully established in this Dhamma Path, and who walks the Noble Eightfold Path, and who is the mentor and friend of his friend, or associate, or fellow traveler in this Path, ‘wishing for her/his welfare and concerned with her/his progress.
Ananda, one of many principal disciples of the Buddha, once asked the Buddha if half of the reason for the spiritual life was friendship with others. The Buddha turned to Ananda, rebuking him mildly with the words, “Don’t say that, Ananda. The whole of the spiritual life is THIS.” From this, it shows that the association with a Kalyana Mitta is the WHOLE of the Holy Life. As for you and I, being a ‘Kalyana-mitta’  (noble friend) to others is the one way that we could show our gratitude for what we have gained.
This is especially important as our minds are very deceptive. We are all hard-wired to never be able to get out of this never ending ‘samsara’. So for example if your mind says one thing and for instance a noble friend says another, you’ll have to do weigh very carefully what the noble friend advices you before going forth with what your own mind tells you.
Majjhima Nikaya Suttas 84  Madhurā Sutta - At Madhurā and 94 Gotamukha Sutta -To the Brahmin Gotamukha show how a Kalyana Mitta would act. These two suttas describe how a person approached an arahant who was renowned for the strength and clarity of his teachings. This person requested that he be allowed to take refuge in the arahant, but the arahant replied that refuge could not be taken in him but only in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha.
The Noble One (Ariya) in this sutta(s) was an arahant. Still he made it clear that the Buddha-Dhamma must be our guide, and that the Sangha can only assist us to do this for ourselves. Such is the advice of a Kalyana Mitta.  In the Buddha’s words, as recorded in the Anguttara Nikaya Sutta 5.88, it is possible that even a world renowned monk, who has a large following of lay and monastic disciples and who is very learned in the scriptures, can have wrong views.
In the Anguttara Nikaya (Sutta 4.180), the Buddha told us that when any bhikku told us that such and such were the teachings of the Buddha, we should, without scorning or welcoming his words, compare the words of the monk with the Suttas and the Vinaya (the texts containing the code of monastic discipline). If they are not in accordance with the Sutta-Vinaya, we should reject them. It is only in this way that we will be able to distinguish between a teacher who teaches the true Dhamma and another who has wrong views.

I believe "spiritual friendship" is a translation from Pali "Kalyāṇa-mittatā".   Kalyāṇa could also mean beautiful, graceful.  ( Lady Visaka was said to possess pañca-kalyani (five physical beauties, beautiful hair, teeth , etc.).  Most obvious text I can think of is from number 1 and 2 from 38 blessings.  Good friends will have good influence on your way of life.

One would find the answer in the quoted sutta SN 45.2 it self, in the case it was not seen:

"And through this line of reasoning one may know how admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life: It is in dependence on me (the Buddha) as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. It is through this line of reasoning that one may know how admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life."

Note: this is a gift of Dhamma and not thought for any commercial purpose or other worldy gains.

The important sentence in SN 45.2 is:

When a bhikkhu has a good friend, a good companion, a good comrade, it is to be expected that he will develop and cultivate the Noble
  Eightfold Path.

rather than:

It is in dependence on me (the Buddha) as an admirable friend that beings

which, without reference to the Noble Eightfold Path, sounds like Christianity, which believes:

Never been a sinner I never sinned
I got a friend in Jesus
So you know that when I die
He's gonna set me up with
The spirit in the sky
Oh set me up with the spirit in the sky
That's where I'm gonna go when I die
When I die and they lay me to rest
I'm gonna go to the place that's the best


text:
What is the etymology of "byāpāda"
The standard description of Wrong Thought (micchāsaṅkappo) in Pali is

Katamo ca, bhikkhave, micchāsaṅkappo? Kāmasaṅkappo, byāpādasaṅkappo, vihiṃsāsaṅkappo—ayaṃ, bhikkhave, micchāsaṅkappo. (from MN 117)

The translation says:

“And what, bhikkhus, is wrong intention? The intention of sensual desire, the intention of ill will, and the intention of cruelty: this is wrong intention.

I have problems understanding the difference between byāpāda (~ ill will) and vihiṃsā (~ cruelty). I know that vihiṃsā means something like "wishing someone harm". But I didn't find where the word byāpāda comes from and in what quality the meaning of it is different from vihiṃsā. Can someone please help me out?

To help understand the differences between the two words, let’s try to understand the meaning of the words independently.  Vyäpäda is ill will. It is a stronger word than patigha. Because of kamachanda, “dosa” or long-lasting hateful situations arise. In the present day Sinhala language, we say ‘dvesa’ for the term ‘dosa’. This long-lasting hateful situation, at its extreme brings out the second of the five hindrances, ‘Vyäpäda’. We can break this word into “vaya”+”pada”. “Vaya” means decline even in native Sinhala. and “Pada” means walk towards.  Thus ‘Vyäpäda’ means one is on a path of (moral) decline. kamachanda and Vyäpäda are the main reasons that we suffer. By disciplining ourselves through speech and bodily actions we can remove any thoughts of extreme greed and hate as they come to the mind.
Vihimsa can be said as cruelty and harmfulness. Its opposite is harmlessness (avihimsa). The following Pali phrase in short means MOLEST NONE…. It’s full meaning is… “He who seeks his own happiness by harming others who also desire to have happiness will not find happiness hereafter.

”Sukha kamani bhutani yo dandena VIHIMSATI
  Attano sukham esano pecca so na labhate sukham.

If we take ‘Sankappo’ to mean thoughts, then…     Nekkhamma-sankappo  is  ‘thoughts of renunciation’, i.e., thoughts to cultivate when being at ease in quiet, solitary places.
Avyäpäda -sankappo  is ‘thoughts of non-anger, non-hatred’: We don’t have to keep
thinking about our own bad points or the bad points of others and let these thoughts of ill-will fester.
Avihinsa-saakappo is ‘thoughts of not doing harm’, not creating trouble or doing harm to ourselves and others. i.e., This also entails not thinking about our own shortcomings, which would depress us; if we think about our own shortcomings, it’ll spread to that of others shortcomings too. For this reason, the wise would lift their thoughts to the level of goodness so that they project love and good will for themselves, and in turn feel love and good will for others too.

my understanding of Pali is that byāpāda  means anger, where vihiṃsā means wishing for someone's destruction.  Such as, you feel angry (byāpāda) when you are insulted by a customer service person at a business you are visiting.  And wishing for that customer service person to be fired for it, is vihiṃsā.
This further beg some questions, can one have vihiṃsā without byāpāda?  and why Buddha did not explicitly include vihiṃsā in the hindrances?  What about slaughtering animals for food, that might be a case of vihiṃsā without byāpāda?

'Byāpāda' might mean: 'to walk against'

Byāpāda [fr. vy+ā+pad]
vy/anti
Vy˚ is the semi -- vowel (i. e. half -- consonantic) form of vi˚ before following a & ā (vya˚, vyā), very rarely ū & o. The prefix vi˚ is very unstable, and a variety of forms are also attached to vy˚, which, after the manner of all consonant -- combns in Pāḷi, may apart from its regular form vy˚ appear either as contracted to vv˚ (written v˚), like vagga (for vyagga), vaya (for vyaya), vosita (=vyosita), *vvūha (=vyūha, appearing as ˚bhūha), or diaeretic as viy˚ (in poetry) or veyy˚ (popular), e. g. viyañjana, viyārambha, viyāyata; or veyvañjanika, veyyākaraṇa, veyyāyika. It further appears as by˚ (like byaggha, byañjana, byappatha, byamha, byāpanna, byābādha etc.). In a few cases vya˚ represents (a diaeretic) vi˚, as in vyamhita & vyasanna; and vyā˚=vi˚ in vyārosa.
(c) vi˚ occurs also as distributive (repetitional) prefix in reduplication compounds (here closely resembling paṭi˚ and the negative a˚), like cuṇṇa -- vicuṇṇa piecemeal, chidda -- vicchidda holes upon holes, vaṭṭa -- vivaṭṭa, etc. -- Contracted forms are vy˚ (=viy˚ before vowels) and vo˚ (=vi+ ava); the guṇa & vriddhi form is ve˚.

denoting the reverse of the simple verb, or loss, difference, opposite, reverse, as expressed by un -- or dis -- , e. g. ˚asana mis -- fortune, ˚kaṭika unclean, ˚kappa change round, ˚kāra per -- turbation, dis -- tortion, ˚kāla wrong time, ˚tatha un -- truth, ˚dhūma smoke -- less, ˚patti corruption, ˚parīta dubious, ˚ppaṭipanna on the wrong track, ˚bhava non -- existence (or as 4 "more" bhava, i. e. wealth), ˚mati doubt, ˚mānana dis -- respect, ˚yoga separation, ˚raja fault -- less, ˚rata abs -- taining, ˚rūpa un -- sightly, ˚vaṭa unveiled, ˚vaṇṇeti defame, ˚vāda dis -- pute, ˚sama uneven, ˚ssandati overflow, ˚ssarita for -- gotten, ˚siṭṭha distinguished, ˚sesa difference, distinction. --

Pada (nt.) [Ved. pad, pād (m.) foot, and also pāda; pada (nt.) step.

Often, examining the dictionary meaning of words is not clear. Instead, it is most useful to examine how words are used in context. There is an excellent website called 'Sutta Central' where a word can be placed in the search function and all of the suttas appear where in which that word is used. Then click on 'languages' & find the english translation (but only when the english translation appears at the top of the list).
vihiṃsā

Then at that time many young boys who were between Sāvatthī and Jeta’s
  Wood were attacking a snake with a stick. Then the Gracious One,
  having dressed in the morning time, after picking up his bowl and
  robe, was entering Sāvatthī for alms. The Gracious One saw those many
  young boys between Sāvatthī and Jeta’s Wood attacking a snake with a
  stick. Then the Gracious One, having understood the significance of
  it, on that occasion uttered this exalted utterance:
“He who, while seeking happiness for himself, harms with a stick (yo
  daṇḍena vihiṃsati) Other beings who desire happiness, will not find
  happiness after passing away.
“He who, while seeking happiness for himself, does not harm with a
  stick Other beings who desire happiness, will find happiness after
  passing away.”

Therefore, vihiṃsā appears to be about inflicting harm & injury upon another person while byāpāda appears to refer to mental thoughts of ill-will (but not necessarily the additional step of inflicting harm upon the object of ill-will).

That is a neat etymological explanation; but I'm uncertain how the "ā" fits in the middle between "vi" and "pad".

Thanks Chris. I don't know either. I just did my best to research. Regards

Try this link: https://suttacentral.net/define/%C4%81

Thank you, yes. The PTS dictionary defines the prefix "a" but I didn't see there a separate definition for "ā".

First, byāpāda is one of the five hindrances while vihiṃsā is one of the twenty secondary afflictions exposed in the Abhidharma. Byāpāda is also one of the three mental non-virtuous actions, along with covetousness (abhijjha), etc. Studying the Abhidharma gives you an idea of what vihiṃsā is but says nothing of byāpāda. To grasp at the meaning of byāpāda, one must study other texts such as those explaining samatha, the access levels, the actual jhanas, etc.
On the glossary of Pali terms, it says that byāpāda is:

One of the ten fetters. One of the five orambhāgiya. It is connected to what is lower, and it is totally abandoned by a non-returner (anāgāmī).
One of the three mental non-virtuous actions.
Synonymous with aversion (dosa), as stated in AN 3.67.

It is also:

One of the five hindrances [to cultivating concentration]

Tsongkhapa's Vision of Reality says:

The achievement of quiesence also entails the subsiding of the five
  hindrances of (1) sensual desire, (2) malice (vyapada), etc. [And]
  malice entails hatred toward sentient beings.

And:

The factor of pleasure counters the hindrance of malice (vyapada).

Aversion is wanting things to not be the way they are and pushing them away.
Vyapada (Tib. gnod sems) is an escalation of that into wishing harm to someone  or something that is in the way of us getting what we want. It hinders concentration. Because ill-will is to be understood in this context of cultivating samatha, etc. one has to remember how to oppose it in this context.

Regarding harmfulness (vihiṃsā, Tib. rnam par 'tshe ba), the Compendium of Knowledge says:

QUESTION: What is harmfulness?

  RESPONSE: It is involved with anger. It
  is non-benevolence, non-compassion and non-mercy. It has the function
  of harming others.

And:

An unmerciful wish to harm other sentient beings. Involving anger, it is a lack of compassion as in wanting to harm or to cause others to harm, or in taking delight when seeing or hearing of harm to sentient beings. It has the function of harming others.

Geshe Tenzin Tenphel says:

Harmfulness is the opposite to the non-harmfulness (Tib. rnam par mi
  ‘tshe ba) that is included in the eleven virtuous mental factors. The
  Compendium of Knowledge says that it is “non-benevolence,”
  “noncompassion,” and “non-mercy.” This particular state of mind is the
  opposite to non-harmfulness which thinks “If I do such-and-such to him
  it will hurt him just as if it were done to me it would hurt me.
  Therefore, I will not do it.” Harmfulness, on the other hand,
  understands that something will harm the other person and deliberately
  wishes him harm.

Vyāpāda: 'ill-will', is a synonym of  dosa see: mūla it is one of the 5 hindrances nīvarana and one of the 10 mental chains samyojana.
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_v.htm#vyāpāda


text:
why can't the spirtual experience explained from logic
I have heard that when a meditators do a very deep meditation and experiences supernatural phonomenon that experience can't be expressed with words and logic. What does that mean. I remember Albert Einstin said: if a person can't explain something he hasn't understood it, doesn't this thing also apply to the spirtual experience. If the yogi or person who has experience rebirth and multiverse can't explain it properly, and is saying just based on his vision acquired though deep meditation like seeing past lives, future, past, travelling to other infinite universe. Than although they are all actually happening and real wouldn't their be void or incompletness in his/her knowledge of such things? How can we consider them as perfect truth?
And also, if past, future and present are just illusion than why do we feel it? And why can't people expalain scientifically all the supernatural experiece they gain from deep meditation. Are other multiverse made of possible past and possible future? What are similaritys between Schrodingers cat theory and multiverse accordig to spirtual path? Although i know little bit i want to understand more form here. I have heard that conciousness pops up like an electron i.e conciousness is not a continious phenomenon from a buddhist monk(i forgot his name and video), like a subatomic partical which dissaperas and appera in another place, what does this mean?

why can't the spirtual experience explained from logic
I'll try to guess three analogies.
One is that experience can be explained, but that hearing an explanation isn't the same as experiencing. For example if I go outside then I see (and thus I experience) a lot of things there. I could describe those to you but that's not the same as your seeing (experiencing) them yourself.
Secondly, experience has a partly-emotional component or basis. For example, take a baby and separate it from its mother and father, and it starts to cry. You might "explain" to the baby that there's no need to cry and that the world is benevolent, but the baby cannot learn from your explanation, and can only learn from its own experience. Something similar (i.e. you'll find that your explanation is not effective) might happen if you try to explain something to a dumb animal, to somebody with a psychiatric disability, to somebody who is too busy or has too many preconceptions to listen to you.
Thirdly the mind is a sense-organ for perceiving ideas, in the same way that the eye is a sense-organ for perceiving sights. If the eye is cloudy or troubled then you cannot see properly (or cannot see as clearly as somebody else can). Similarly if the mind is cloudy or troubled then you cannot understand as clearly.
And also, if past, future and present are just illusion than why do we feel it?
I think that when non-Buddhists read about Buddhism they may get the impression that Buddhism teaches that "the world is an illusion" or something like that.
Actually I don't see the word "illusion" used much when I read about Buddhism. Instead I read the word "delusion", which means something which I think is related to "ignorance".
So, if it's true that "past, future and present are just illusion", I'm tempted to assume that's an inaccurate translation of a statement such as "we have ignorant, unwise, unskillful knowledge about and attitudes towards past, future and present".
One of Buddhism's attempts to explain "why do we feel" is the theory of the Twelve Nidānas.
What are similaritys between Schrodingers cat theory and multiverse accordig to spirtual path?
In my own mind I would categorize such thinking as papañca -- i.e. trying to think or talk about a "multiverse" reduces one's ability to see reality-as-it-is.
More specifically "Schrodinger's cat" may have some limited applicability as a theory when talking about quantum mechanics, but it's not appropriate when talking about macroscopic objects. Maybe it's like saying "people are conscious, therefore stars and atoms are conscious too", i.e. untrue/useless.
My impression is that the theories of physics says nothing about morality (good and not-good), about subjective experience (suffering and not-suffering), about recommended behaviour (wise and unwise).
I have heard that conciousness pops up like an electron
I think that consciousness is conditioned by sense-impressions. For example if you see a bull charging at you then you're conscious of that; if you hear music then you're conscious of that; if you step on something sharp then you're conscious of that; but these are all moments of consciousness.

(See this answer and this answer for explanation some of the terminology of the non english terms below)
The vocabulary and language is conditioned by common experiences of people. When suddenly a new experience comes about there will be no words or terms (nama pannatti) to describe it or language or medium to explain it (nirutti). You cannot create a vocabulary to communicate this experience to someone who has not experienced it, i.e., it is hard to express its meaning (abhilapa). Hence meditative experiences cannot be put into words, or make know (pannapiyatta or atthapannatti).
Some of the meditative states part of the mind's operations stop. Hence logic breaks down. In the 1st Jhana Thinking and Pondering (vitakka & vicara) stops. When you attain Nirvana so does Perception (sañña). At this stage all metal operations stop. This again is another reason it cannot be described. Since at these levels, conventional logic also breaks down you cannot use this to deduce of infer anything about it.
Also logic and reasoning is concepts (pannatti) or metal models of what we think is out there. This does not represent reality. Since concept and reality do not mix you cannot use concepts to describe accurately what reality is. Since only a few has experienced reality as it is there no vocabulary or language that describes the concepts.
Generally our current model of the universe is based on:

concept of time: (kala pannatti)
spatial dimensions concept: (disa pannatti), sapce: (akasa pannatti)
and generally a lot of theorising, maths and logic which are concepts

These are not ultimate realities themselves, hence cannot not related to meditative experiences, which deal with ultimate realities. They generally do not mix well like oil and water. This does not mean concepts do not exist, but they are not ultimate realities which are free from delusion. Conceptual realities are always with delusion or tainted by ignorance of the 3 characteristics. So a concept which is seam solid is not necessarily with no reality in it, but it does not reality well, which in turn leads to attachment or aversion which being about misery. Dealing with realities which are ultimate, misery does not arise as there is no disparity between reality and what is known or experienced hence will not develop false expectations, when you reach the level you can experience the relevant ultimate realities.
In Buddhism atomic units are explained as Kalapas which can be experienced through meditation. The experience realities might differ from what modern science says.

I think you're misunderstanding 'illusion' with respect to past and future. The only thing which really exists is the here and now (think about it). Past and future don't exist in this way, although it seems to us sometimes that they do, especially when the mind is telling itself stories. Past and future only exist intellectually, not really like the present does.
This doesn't mean that past and future are delusions, just that they're not real like the present. And it's important sometimes for us to be able to think about the past and future in order to live our lives. If you couldn't imagine the future you wouldn't think to put on coat when you left home on a rainy day :)
But Buddhism stresses that they're not real in order to encourage us to live in and relate to what is, here and now, not what was or what might be.

I think of it like a 'spot the difference'. The present is things as you experience them now (first picture). The future (second picture) is not a thing which actually exists, it is an extrapolation (or multiple extrapolations) of what you think will happen, could happen or should happen based on remembered things and the very recent past i.e. what your brain processes as the present. It is a triangulation. It doesn't exist. It is the world (that which is) to come i.e. that which will be. There is no future. It's only your imagination. The delta between the two is for your work to fill in.

...can't be expressed with words and logic

Because words and logic are the "formats" used by the mind, i.e., Name-Form conditioned. (Name-Form {名色} is the 4th in the 12-Nidāna), it cannot express the Ultimate Truth, that rid of Ignorance {無明} - the 1st of the 12-Nidana. Likewise a daughter cannot give birth to her father (in the same life-time).
Albert E is talking about "understood" in the scope of intellectual mind, but the Ultimate is beyond intellect.

...if past, future and present are just illusion than why do we feel it?...

About Illusion
Why a sad novel will make you cry? Even though what you are in contact with merely paper and ink (if you are reading a book). Why you see the wave coming and going, even though the water particles are merely moving up and down, not forth and back; (number of persons holding hands get them up and down will create the same "wave" illusion). Illusion can have real effect, if the mind believes in it. We are seeing many illusions, e.g. our vision is not perfect constructed partly by illusion/imagination, we have blind spot in our vision scientist said that the brain "filled in" the blank, read this in the medical magazine.
You assumed but didn't directly ask if past future present are illusions Yes, time is illusion, so is space. Past and Future definitely can't exist independently on their own, it depends on the Present - when the mind recalled or projected them; the Present doesn't exist as well (!!). I credit Rinpoche Khenpo Tsultrim (慈誠羅珠堪布), he explaint that how a smallest unit of time can never be found, therefore the moment of Present can never be established. What is the smallest unit of time the Present? A second, but it can be divided into half a second, a half second can further be divided half... so on and so forth - infinite. However, if a unit of time can be infinitely divided, then that moment can never be passed thus the next moment can never be born. Infinitely dividable is a mathematically dividable but it is not for our phenomenal world's time. We are tricked by the mind and logic. In our phenomenal world we experience the previous moment and the next moment continuum. However as it can continuously be dividing the smallest unit of the present moment, the present moment cannot be established. If the present moment cannot be established then all the phenomenal world "matters" cannot be established. But we do experience the phenomenal world - Ultimate Truth is beyond the dialect logic and also the Indian Classical four-truth logic.
So, Albert E., no matter how high his IQ scored, can't work on this bit of anomaly :D. So does a yogi or meditator there able to tell you what's going on with him (provided he is authentic and genuine).

What are similaritys between Schrodingers cat theory and multiverse accordig to spirtual path?...

I've not invested much on S.'s Cat and Multiverse and so on I left the rest for those wise-well-learnt.

(P. S. self gibberish: I cannot understand why so many Buddhist students talking so happily about Anatta the so called not-Self/non-Self, as if Columbus discovering the new continent. It's really a horrible truth to learnt when one realizes that a present moment indeed doesn't exist at all so does a Self doesn't have an abode to take shelter... it simply can't be established! :"'C)


text:
Can we rely on Buddha's quotes found on internet?
I found many quotes on internet but if we'd think we do not find any reference in any scripture so do we need to ignore them as they are possibly fake quotes?
I found such:

"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth."

I can see search generate result by this site 'fakebuddhaquotes.com'

“Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace.”

So are we supposed to ignore if they are fake and if not, what is second quote's meaning?

As the Buddha once said, "In the entire history of humanity, by far the worst source of reliable quotations from me or anyone else for that matter, is the bloomin' Internet". :-)  Actually, there are perhaps two exceptions. Fake Buddha Quotes as you suggest, at least for finding out when something is bogus, is one. The other, not specific to Buddhism, is Quote Investigator and it's superb. And then there are always Google searches starting with "site:accesstoinsight.org"

On the same site -- http://fakebuddhaquotes.com/better-than-a-thousand-hollow-words-is-one-word-that-brings-peace/ -- the author identifies the second quote as a slightly inaccurate or poetic translation of the 100th verse of the Dhammapada:

Sahassamapi ce vaca
  anatthapadasamhita
  ekam atthapadam seyyo
  yam sutva upasammati.

Better than a thousand words that are senseless and unconnected with the realization of Nibbana, is a single word of sense, if on hearing it one is calmed.

That too is not a literal translation into English -- http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/index.php says they refer to the commentary if the literal meaning is vague or unintelligible or perplexing -- they added to the translation the phrase "unconnected with the realization of Nibbana" to clarify the difference between what they called senseless and sensible, i.e. between anatthapadasaṃhitā and atthapadam.
Here is maybe a more literal translation:

Better than a thousand useless words is one useful word, hearing which one attains peace.

Note that's close to the version you quoted in the OP (it's so close that I don't see why what you quoted is listed as a "fake" quote, instead of being listed among the "real" quotes).
If you still don't understand it, I recommend the commentary/story which accompanies each verse (see here), and/or reading the whole chapter of the Dhammapada (see here).

I also supposed thousand words as praying or recite something.

In addition to http://fakebuddhaquotes.com/ there is also http://www.realbuddhaquotes.com/ which claim the quotes are verified. You can get inspired by the real thing.

Does it really even matter who wrote them? If it works for you great, if not then ignore it. As far as I know The Buddha never meant for his teachings to turn into a religion which people blindly follow. The same can be said about Jesus. Take what resonates as truth for you and avoid becoming a sheeple.

Avoid invalidating the question, with answers of the form "That's the wrong question..."

Nicely expressing two important teachings a) the three/four dharma seals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharma_Seals) (any teaching, regardless of the teacher, is Buddha Dharma if it has these marks), and b) tactfulness (taught in the Lotus Sutra and the Sutra of Inumerable Meanings - some teachings may work for you, some may not).


text:
Observing fever and Not taking medicine?
I have been trying to tie mind with breathe lately and successful several times through the day.
But today I have fever, and I am finding it very difficult to observe, I just want to this feeling of weakness to be over, I know it is not permanent, But yes one more thing i realized today, the importance of healthy body, My friend suggested me not to take medicine as it is also my Sankara (to me its very stupid.)
He also explained that human body raises it temperature to kill some bacteria and by taking medicine you will stop its process.
Should I not take medicine in fever and just observe what is happening inside.
I want to keep following the Shila's and not also get rid of fever.

What is "the Shila's"? I am just curious what kind of practice that is. You know, it's wise to pace yourself and not overwhelm yourself by trying to be perfect. If we started out perfect what would we be practicing for?

@Uuu
5 shilas are as following 1. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life;
2.    to abstain from taking what is not given;
3.  to abstain from sensual misconduct;
4.  to abstain from false speech;
5.  to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness.

Oh, I just didn't realize you were using the Sanskrit form of the Pali term "sila".  It doesn't violate the precept if you really need the medicine. Ok then, What is the"tie the mind with the breath practice"? Is it Anapana?

@Uuu Yes sir in hindi, Mr. Goenka explains to stop the karmic chain by keeping the mind on breath, Which in pali is Anapana.

Sometimes this, sometimes that... Did you know, that in the basic sangha was a lay disciple, a doctor with name Anathapindika - well known and highly estimated by the Buddha! And one of his dana to the sangha was to treat sick bhikkhus - and this was surely not only singing mantras but doing all treatize to sicknesses which were known to that old society. He must have been a good doctor, because he has become really rich in the time before he met the community of the Buddha's monks. So sometimes it is surely good only to observe - and sometimes instead to help the body fighting sickness.

Kucchivikara-vatthu includes,

A sick person endowed with five qualities is hard to tend to: he does what is not amenable to his cure; he does not know the proper amount in things amenable to his cure; he does not take his medicine; he does not tell his symptoms, as they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and he is not the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A sick person endowed with these five qualities is hard to tend to.
A sick person endowed with five qualities is easy to tend to: he does what is amenable to his cure; he knows the proper amount in things amenable to his cure; he takes his medicine; he tells his symptoms, as they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and he is the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A sick person endowed with these five qualities is easy to tend to.
A nurse endowed with five qualities is not fit to tend to the sick: He is not competent at mixing medicine; he does not know what is amenable or unamenable to the patient's cure, bringing to the patient things that are unamenable and taking away things that are amenable; etc.

I just want this feeling of weakness to be over
I would focus my awareness of desires like "wanting feelings to be over", when they happen as they happen, moment by moment. You could be aware of the weakness as it occurs in your experience too.
But yes one more thing i realized today, the importance of healthy body
It's nowhere near as important as having a healthy mind. The only reason to have a healthy body is so one can have more time to cultivate the mind(at least this is the ideal aim in Buddhism)
Should I not take medicine in fever and just observe what is happening inside.
If the medicine is only to stop the pain then you should not take it, if you can. If you can't that's ok too but if you can't accept it then remember to accept that you can't accept it.
If it is a medicine that is an actual remedy for the disease instead of aversion to the truth of suffering then the medicine is more appropriate to take but you don't have to. We can learn a lot while we are sick but mindful.

Okay the way you explained is good, what you said is also fine. But when we need good health to cultivate mind, so why not go for medicine?

Good health supports the teaching because of it's stability. Bad health supports the teaching like a stern teacher.

@Rishi We need impartiality above good health. If we take medicine, do we have impartiality? Even monks can fight bad health with medicine but The Buddha's teaching encourages us to not take pills and remedies if we can.

is there any reference for the above comment (Buddha's teaching encourages us to not take pills)

Consult a doctor regarding your sickness as soon as possible. As for Buddhism and sickness, you can follow a suitable meditation for that. This however had nothing to do with medicine.
I haven't seen any references in Buddhism saying not to have medicine.

What is "this",that has nothing to do with meditation? Everything has something to do with meditation, everything has something to do with the Dhamma.

Are you ok? I'm a bit concerned...

If you have fever please consult a doctor and take medicine.
I do not take a pain killer when I have pain. But I keep pain as my meditation object. I have taken painkillers less than twice in last three years. My experience without painkillers is shared in the following link.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=16532&hilit=

That link produces the message "The board requires you to be registered and logged in to view this forum", I don't know why. Another topic like this one can be viewed without being logged in.

I posted that as personal experience. Personal experience can be viewed only by the registered users.

Only one part in five (taking to account there 5 Niyama) is due to Karma / Sankhara. Even if its, there is nothing preventing medicine from working, i.e., sickness was brought upon by a previous karmic reaction and the medicine also reacts and cures. This is Kamma niyama and Dhamma niyama fully or partially cancelling out the net result.
Also our bodies are prone to sickness for other reasons like say genetic reasons. So not every ailment is not Sankhara.
Sickness, what ever source, can be remedied by Payoga Sampatti1, i.e., having sound knowledge, good reasoning and having good tactics, plans and methods to overcome the predicament. The final result may very well be decided by this than the source which triggered it.
As any sickness, when you get it, it is unsatisfactory. Just observe the sensations this brings, while taking medicines and treatment!
Also make it a point to educate your friend in this also!

1

Condition 4 - Payoga Sampatti And Payoga Vipatti
Payoga Sampatti
Payoga sampatti means the combined effect of sati (mindfulness) viriya (vigilance) and nana (knowledge). Here knowledge means harmless knowledge as well as vitakka (good reasoning). Vigilance, effort, alertness, insight, wisdom, intelligence and mindfulness - all amount to payoga sampatti. In the realm of Devas and Brahmas, payoga sampatti is not so prominent. But in this human world it is of paramount importance.
Human beings have no akusala kamma so powerful as to bring immediate effect. The power of past deeds depend on whether there is payoga sampatti or not to produce results and on the degree of payoga sampatti.
In a nutshell, people should not rely only on past kusala kamma for their well-being. They must also rely on the efforts exerted in this life. This payoga sampatti channels past kusala kamma to flow in the right direction. Of course some wholesome deeds done in the past produce good results at present, such as winning lottery or unearthing a pot of gold. But such events are very rare. In trade and commerce the effect of the past kusala kamma accounts for only one fourth of the prosperity achieved; the remaining three-fourth is due to payoga sampatti in this life.
Payoga Sampatti Can Stop Akusala Kamma
Akusala kamma can be divided into two grades: (a) Powerful or major kamma, (b) Feeble or minor kamma. Payoga sampatti cannot stop the bad effects of akusala kamma of the first grade. It can only soften the blow to some extent. For example King Ajatashatru killed his father. For this serious crime of patricide he was bound to suffer in Avici Hell. His payoga sampatti, however vigorous, cannot save his fate. Yet, due to his repentance and devotion to the Buddha, he was penalized in Udassa Niraya (a lesser hell) and suffered less than his due. This even Garu akusala (the greatest evil) can be mitigated by sufficient payoga sampatti.
Therefore if your evil deeds are not so bad as Ajasattu, you can lessen or stop the coming bad results. If you have done evil deeds such as abusing your teachers, showing disrespect to parents and elders, slandering virtuous persons, you can stop the coming evil consequences by mindfulness and sincere repentance.
You can nullify the evil consequences by prostrating in apology before them or, if they are dead, by doing the same at their graves. If you repentance and apologies are sincere, your payoga sampatti will ward off the impending evil results.
Similarly, feeble or minor bad kamma can be abrogated by greater good kamma here and now. Monks who have transgressed Vinaya rules of the lesser kind can rectify their misdeeds by following repentance procedures outlined by the Buddha. Thus even the effects of some moderately evil kamma can be stopped by the payoga sampatti.
Payoga Sampatti Brings Prosperity
People who have no faith in the Ti Ratana (Three Jewels) also have accumulated merits because they surely had done good in their past existences. This know-how, their perseverance and their diligence are praiseworthy. In addition to the welfare of the individual, they exert great effort to defend their country through science and high technology. (although some Buddhists severely criticize their endeavors as being akusala), no one can deny that these efforts bring about economic prosperity social development.
Such aliens who come to our country to seeks wealth and prosperity are found to be very vigilant, hard-working, skilful, intelligent and clever. Their know-how is far superior to ours. With foresight they select appropriate sites and places (pati rupa desa) for their enterprises because they have wide knowledge and experience. With so much payoga sampatti, their past kusala kamma has very good opportunity to produce effects and accordingly they become rich in leaps and bounds. If we, Buddhist citizens of Myanmar, should follow the path of diligence (sampatti) effort, we would also achieve prosperity and progress as they do. We all should seek knowledge and experience together with payoga sampatti for our national development.
Health Through Payoga Sampatti
Human beings born to this world are accompanied by kusala kamma which brings good health as well as by akusala kamma which brings ill-health. Conforming to health disciplines, personal hygiene, regular exercise and sufficient rest and sleep, adequate medical care, all amounts to payoga sampatti which leads to good health. For those with such payoga sampatti, their past kusala kamma will also take effect and enhance their physical well-being.
Hence payoga sampatti is the prime factor for kusala kamma to bear good fruits. Due to payoga sampatti one can gain knowledge, marry a worthy partner, get good friends and teachers and acquire wealth and status. It can also assist in the fulfilling of perfections which pave the way to Nibbána. In the constituents of payoga sampatti, knowledge is the first requirement. Second comes mindfulness and third vigilance, in whatever we do.
Payoga Vipatti
Torpor, laziness, lack of knowledge, forgetfulness, envy jealousy, anger, hatred and vain pride are all payoga vipatti. They stand in the way of success and prosperity; payoga vipatti opens the door for very powerful akusala kamma to take effect immediately.
Such powerful evils are present only in the mind-continuum of only a very few people. But smaller evils are always present in everyone, waiting to produce effects with the occurrence of payoga vipatti.
For example, children of good families lead good lives by seeking education, right livelihood, observing the Five Precepts; these wholesome acts, will prevent the evil results of the past to produce effects. If children are lazy, undisciplined, follow wrong livelihood, and breach Five Precepts; they are developing payoga vipatti. This in turn invites the past akusala kamma to take immediate effect.
To sum up, apart from very powerful kusala and akusala kamma, other ordinary kamma whatsoever may or may not produce results, good or bad depending on payoga sampatti or payoga vipatti. For people with payoga sampatti, only kusala kamma will prevail and akusala kamma will have no chance to produce effects. On the other hand, for those with payoga vipatti, good kamma results have no place; only the evil akusala kamma will take result. People whose lives are ruined by their akusala kamma due to the prevalence of payoga vipatti are not uncommon. They can be found in almost every community.

Source: Abhidhamma In Daily Life by Ashin Janakabhivamsa

You're sick. Give yourself a break. Rest, take meds if you need to and go to see a doctor. You shouldnt even meditate if you don't feel like it. Its not a competition. Be gentle to yourself. Would you withhold medicine from a sick child?  If not then you don't withhold it from yourself. There's nothing wise or spiritual about such thoughts or actions.

Where are you getting this from? I never feel like meditating. If I listened to you I would never meditate. It's not as if it takes physical effort to lay there and focus awareness. What does this have to do with Buddhism?

I think you need to remind yourself that you don't have to meditate and the world is not going to fall apart because of it. You sound like you take it all way too seriously

It certainly does take physical effort to meditate with a fever of 103.  When your body is involuntarily spasming and focusing on your breath just results in a greater awareness of how much you need to release another wracking cough then, for some, the degree of stress may increase with attempts to meditate.  Dealing with stress has a physical component.  Perhaps this is not so difficult for an accomplished practitioner but everyone begins as a beginner. Doing something that may result in an aversion to meditation may be reason to wait until one is feeling better.


text:
What are the similarities between quantum physics and buddism?
What are the similarities between modern physics/quantum physics and Buddism?
Although i know little about this, like Budha said that conciousness creates everything, emptyness and dependent origination kind of things. What are other things that matches with what modern science is saying?

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://philpapers.org/archive/CAPIOQ-2.PDF&ved=0ahUKEwj51PCXiY_TAhWWF8AKHW6nBcMQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNHCwMPZagzcHJxaJMnTe3u9czKmtQ&sig2=DvgBTQikkTmSZ6SDBVX5Jw is an interesting short philosophy paper to read.

This a quite a nice and free lecture on the subject https://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/audio/details?num=OM729

Maybe related: Is it true that Physics confirms some of the Buddha's teachings?

This is the transcript of the lecture recommended by Crab Bucket, above. In summary: 1) things aren't what they seem; 2) the Copenhagen interpretation may be correct or might be proven wrong; 3) everything is inter-connected -- but, quantum physics says nothing about ethics; nor about values (e.g. "why a human being is more valuable than a bacterium"); and views (from quantum physics) risk being reductionist, materialist, nihilist.

quantum woo.

As far as I know quantum physics does not teach four noble truths, dependent origination and consciousness. So there are no similarities.However quantum physics can be used as examples to explain Buddha's teaching.

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002 , the relational interpretation is effectively in line with dependent origination and anatta.. sadly, like all QM interpretations, they are just that! Although it deals with the EPR paradox without any issues like Copenhagen or others, so people should come around to it, due to it being the most parsimonious one out there. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics)

what do you mean by "does not teach ... consciousness?"

The Buddha, in aiming to comprehend suffering, from a psychological point of view, sought to understand experience as it actually is. The scientific method, aims to limit itself to the understanding of experience as it actually is, whilst not focusing solely on the psychological. Whilst the Buddha approached experience (mostly) from a generally more internal frame of reference, the scientific method approaches experience through examining the external frame of reference.
If the concept of 'Truth is one, the wise know it by different names' is accepted (one truth, rather than duality etc), then, subject to the validity of the Buddha's insight, the scientific method (an examination of experience, as it actually is), should agree.
Here the issue becomes the question of - which of the two methods has the more accurate insight? The Buddha taught anicca and anatta. The scientific method, has shown itself susceptible to anatta (anicca follows naturally from anatta) through the relativisation of physical concepts, as theories that embrace relativism tend to explain perceived experience better (statistically, mathematically), than ones with essential, absolutely and externally fixed constants.
Interpretations of quantum mechanics, gives many options for how to interpret experience as it is.
Relational quantum mechanics agrees with the Buddha's insight into anatta.
Relational EPR is a scholarly discussion on how RQM deals with the EPR paradox (is quite insightful and not much maths in it at all for the most part!)

Quantum physics deals with things that are a subset of

Rupa
Vedanä
Saññä
Sankhara
Viññana

And it tries to understand what happens to these in a subatomic level.
Buddhism deals with the understanding of Four Noble Truths of which the First Noble Truth is,

Rupa
Vedanä
Saññä
Sankhara
Viññana

And it tries to warn you that the assumption these things as "me", "mine" or "my soul" leads to suffering rebirth (hence Aging, Sickness, Death)
While both seem to look at the same things, Quantum mechanics has a different objective from that of Buddhism. Thus, Quantum mechanics does not address the three questions clearly where as Buddhism does

What is the pleasure of Pancha Upädänakkhanda ?
What is the danger of Pancha Upädänakkhanda?
What is the refuge from Pancha Upädänakkhanda?

"Pancha Upädänakkhanda" means "the five clinging-aggregates". See also How does the first noble truth associate dukkha with each of the five skandhas?

In quantum physics states every atom is impermanent. Same is taught by Buddha.
Apart from that there is quantum entanglement which means if two atom or particles are entangled than it doesn't matter how far they are if you make any changes to one another changes automatically, Buddhism teaches this in Mettā Meditation.
Buddha was able to see every atom of his body was continuously coming to existence and dying at the same time, giving you the illusion that we are alive.
He told (10 to the power 21) times an atom is coming to existence every second, which is very similar to quantum physics.
The actual question should be about the difference, Which we need to understand is Panya (Pragya in Hindi, Maybe experiential knowledge in English) When one find's the Quantum truth by Physics one would still remain as same person, but if one reaches to same truth by Mind, one become Buddha.(Buddha is a person who has his Bodhi(Realization), Which means you will become self realized).

May I know any reference to what you have stated as "Buddha was able to see every atom of his body was continuously coming to existence and dying at the same time, giving you the illusion that we are alive.
He told (10 to the power 21) times an atom is coming to existence every second, which is very similar to quantum physics", please?

@AkilaHettiarachchi Yes Sir I attended 10 Days vipassana course in which we were told by Mr Goenka that Buddha was able to see how the mind is entangled with each atom(4 basic elements), the space with each atom is the 5th basic element and 5th element he said is mind which is entangled throughout the physical body.

@Rishi start reading the Tipitaka.

@RavindranathAkila Sir, I would request you to explain what is "Tipitaka" and Why one should read it?, What is its essence?, What kind of knowledge it has?, is it very interesting? or can I get its smaller version, Which just tells the truth in simple words.

@Rishi The Tipitaka is the Pali canon; but the most important of these "three baskets" (for a lay person) are the suttas. For further details see this answer and the several answers to this question.

@Rishi Tipitaka is essentially the whole of Buddhism, and was written down in Sinhalese (Pali sutta etc written in Sinhalese) and later on given to all other countries. The original Buddhism (one that has no extra opinion mixed into it) can be read in easily understood inside the Tipitaka, in most cases. You will find clarity there, and can discard any false statements made by modern variants of Buddhism by reading it.


text:
Why Buddhist worship Mount Kailash?
In Hinduism it is said to be the place of Lord Shiva and his wife godess parvati, How is it related to Buddhist?
Did Buddha himself ever said the importance of Mount Kailash? and if it is just a culture Buddhist follows how did it start?
Jain's are also worshipping this sacred mountain.
Buddhist Monk Milarepa have climbed Mount Kailash(is it true?)

It is in the region around Mt. Kailash that Pacceka Buddhas will reside at a time just before a Supreme Buddha is born to this world.  That is when the eminent coming of a Supreme Buddha is talked about amongst the general population of that time.
So Mt. Kailash is a very storied mountain, the equally storied lake and the storied flower in it. Mt. Kailash is the mythical Mt. Meru. Read about it in the "Saptha Suryodgamana Sutta" The Sermon of the Seven Suns (Anguttara Nikaya VII. 62). In it the Buddha explains in detail about the events that would unfold, and in it, this monarch of mountains will get consumed and burnt, that neither ashes not soot will remain.
The Lake Anavatapta is said to be so sheltered and covered that the direct rays from the sun would not fall and the lake would not dry up until the day this world would come to an end, as per the Saptha Suryodgamana Sutta. In this "Sermon of the Seven Suns" the Supreme Buddha, tells us about the end of the earth due to the expansion of the dying sun.
To tell you a bit about the storied flower that is found in its forest…. It is the Kadupul flower - said to be the world’s most expensive flower. It survives around the Lake Anavatapta, because it is sheltered from the sun’s rays. The flower is said to be a midnight miracle, surviving during the night, and fading to nothing at dawn.

informing answer!

In Sthraviravada's lineage, we don't worship any gods or brahmas or even a mountain.
You can't find anything about Mount Kailash in Pali Text. It might be in Mahasanghika's lineage as some of brahmins dhamma were mixed up with buddha's dhamma.

The majority of people who go to Mount Kailash are Buddhists.

True, but they might be the buddhist from Mahasanghika's lineage. The Sthraviravada's lineage only worship buddha dhamma and sangha.


text:
How do we determine when to use logic and reason in Buddhism?
How do we better determine when it is time to use logic and reason and when it is a time to just see things as they are?
Note: We don't have to disclose the specific kind of meditation that we practice but it might make our answers less ambiguous -metta

It depends on what you want to abandon or negate. In general, there are two ways of negating (or abandoning) an object of negation.

We oppose an affliction by way of generating a mind that is its opposite. For instance, a mind of love opposes a mind of anger... the virtuous intention to give (generosity) opposes miserliness... the wisdom of emptiness opposes ignorance (that is the mistaken conception of inherent existence)
We negate a non-existent object of negation by way of logic. For instance, we refute inherent existence  by way of applying logic, such as the reasoning of the diamond sliver, that of dependent-arising, etc.

Things are "organic" however. You can very well analyze death and impermanence so as to generate a consciousness in the entity of non-attachment, or of non-desire, or of renunciation, etc. According to Pabongka Rinpoche, once the mind of non-attachment has arisen (for instance), because it has found its way there through reasoning (and through paying attentions to things we usually overlook), there is no more need to apply logic anymore. We apply logic to find our way there again, and that way becomes easier to find every time we take it. Reasoning is just a means.
The reason we become angry without planning, "In five minutes, I will get angry" is that we are accustomed to it. We got there so many times in the past that our mind "naturally" takes the same course and find its way there again and again. When we are angry, even when we try to think "It's ridiculous and I am just telling myself stories, I am projecting, etc." we tend to think "Yes, but still... I have my reasons to be angry!" And we find ourselves reasons to be unhappy, we just feed it. The way we look at things and what we look at when we are angry are determined by anger. So, there is a need to apply logic to oppose this story telling by telling ourselves a story that is concordant with reality.
We have to do that until, one day, there will be no more need because loving kindness, compassion, generosity, etc. will manifest as naturally and effortlessly as our breathing goes. We will no longer get in our own way by thinking in a manner that lead us towards non-virtue.

I agree. Different traditions aren't so different-Metta

If you are a logic person, learn to feel, if a feeling person, learn to use reason. Become a whole person.

Almost all past publications have translated anicca, dukkha, anatta as impermanence, suffering, and no-self. So for your question… How do we determine when to use logic and reason in Buddhism?..  This is one instance that we’ve got to use our logic and reason as The Buddha has warned strongly against blind faith and encouraged the way of truthful inquiry.
In the Samyutta Nikaya (Anicca Vagga), when one refers to AjjhattaniccaSutta, Bahiranicca Sutta, Yadanicca sutta etc. the Buddha stated that the three characteristics of “this world” (all six  senses) are related to each other - i.e., “if something is anicca, dukkha arises, therefore anatta”. Taking the long held interpretation of anicca to be impermanent and anatta to be “no-soul”, the above would read “if something is not permanent, suffering arises, and as a result one becomes “no-self””.
Permanence/Impermanence are properties of “things” (living beings and physical things) or “events”. On the other hand, nicca/anicca are perception’s in one’s mind about those “things” and “events” in this world of 31 realms. We cannot maintain anything to our satisfaction including “our” own body and that is anicca. Thus we become distraught and that is dukkha. Since we are helpless in preventing this, we are helpless, and nothing is with any real substance in the end; that is anatta.
“Impermanence” is something that is inevitable - a property that cannot be changed in this world. But “anicca” is a perception in someone’s mind and that perception can be changed. That is how one gets rid of suffering.
The Buddha has said,”Sabbe Dhamma anatta“. Could it then be “all dhamma are “no-self”? Dhamma includes everything including the inert. Does it mean to say, “a tree has “no-self”” or “a mountain has “no-self””? The correct interpretation is that nothing in this world is of any real substance in the end. They all come into being and are destroyed in the end, and that is anatta.

This is were I went wrong for so long. See, you don't try to understand The Three Characteristics through Logic, reason or anything intellectual or anything conceptual. You JUST experience anicca, dukkha and anatta as it happens as a moment by moment experience. There is nothing to figure out but your technique. The word "just" is key. You just see the naked experience. We don't add our mental constructions to the experiences because then we can't truly see them as they are. You don't try to figure out the 3 marks, the insights just come to us when we JUST watch.

I don't mean to be a pest but of course we need some logic and reason in the beginning. That "beginning" is over when we finally realize how to see things as they are. This is Vipassina. The beginning is like training wheels.  Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say because it is easy to get the wrong idea-Metta :)

Our cerebral cortex (learning brain; neo-cortex) is the most advanced part of the brain; it can make “rational decisions” by contemplation but it is time delayed. Therefore, it is called the “thinking brain”. The cortex is responsible for language capability, logic, reasoning, learning and critical thinking, the good stuff. The cortex is involved in generating vaci and kaya sankhara that arise with a time delay. By controlling our vaci and kaya sankhara, we have the ability to change our nature. This is the “modern scientific rationale” behind the basis of Buddha Dhamma.

@Uuu your 'just' insight is your way, that it works for you. Everyone is different, and for many, your path would be fruitless. This is why it is recommended: "Seeking the guidance of an eminent Guru" (the biography of Milarepa), because such a person can discern for each student the way that they individually require. There is no shortage of people proclaiming what worked for themselves, but each person walks in only their own footprints. Nothing works for everyone.

@no comprende  You think I don't know this? I'm just sharing my opinion just like you are. I mean take your own advice if that's what you think. When I say 'just' I am talking about EMPTINESS and that is just "MY way" right? and how dare I try to correct anyone(like your doing).

@Uuu I apologize. It must have sounded patronizing. Sorry.

To "see things as they are" in Buddhism, is to see things with the perspective of the Four Noble Truths.
Until you "see things as they are" through full understanding of the Four Noble truths, you have to use logic and reason to reach full understanding of things of the Four Noble Truths.

You realize that one doesn't have to use much logic and reason at all if one has a good teacher and faith in the teacher. In fact "logic and reason" is the very thing that we must transcend in order to see things as they are. If one has a teacher then one's logic and reason often gets in the way of right view or seeing things as they are.

There are countless places Buddha, the original teacher of Dhamma, has stated that "one's own help is oneself, what can another do? ". Buddha on so many thousands of places in his original teachings has told the way to help oneself and rid oneself from suffering is to look at things logically with proper reasoning in the exact way mentioned by dhamma.

"one's own help is oneself, what can another do". Your taking the Buddha out of context. Obviously, he is talking about something deeper than logic can tell you because the Buddha is "an other". He means a teacher is just a guide but we are the ones that have to teach ourselves as individuals .

A lot of times we have to step back and ponder the situation with logic and reason but the practice is just to focus our awareness on whatever is in in our experiential  awareness on a moment by moment biases and there is no logic and reason to do with it at the time we are being mindful. Are you really saying your against teachers? Sounds like J Krishnamutri talk.

Dhamma is our teacher now. A teacher who doesn't think so isn't my teacher. A teacher who acknowledges it and preaches dhamma as it is, is my teacher too.

@Uuu Think of a balance scale: if you are heavy on the feeling side, balance it by gaining more reasoning skills. If too much bound by logic, gain more feeling skillfulness. That is how to reach our potential and have all abilities available. Schooling should do this, with the help of good parenting, but doesn't always.

@Akila, make your liking to Dhamma far exceed all other likings. Your past merits / paramita plays a role IMHO. My last post on Vibhava – Abhava is correct but nobody liked it. Got -2 rating. A Dhamma word can have more than one meaning depending on the Sutta. People do not see this. That is why Nibbhana & the PATH is hidden from us. It is quite clear that vibhava tanha is associated with ucceda ditthi, the view that one lives just this life & that is the end of it. One may have more than one ditthi. There are so many interpretations of "self view". So I stopped giving answers until now.


text:
Which Living Ajahns are considered to be Arahants today?
After the era of the well known Thai Bhikkhus like Ajahn Mun, Ajahn Tate, Ajahn Maha Boowa, Ajahn Waen and Ajahn Chah; Which Ajahns are considered as Arahants or Highly developed Meditators,in these days? (I'm asking this not to arouse curiosity of others, but to find good monks' Dhamma talks).

I'm asking this not to arouse curiosity of others, but to find good monks' Dhamma talks

An accomplished practitioner may not be a good teacher and a good teacher may not be an accomplished practitioner. In some cases teachers maybe both.
So ideally you should look for teachers who teach well, both theory and mediation.
Also the Buddhist should follow: pariyatti (theory), patipatti (practice), pativedha (experience). Whereas learning / listening to the Dhamma is just the 1st of these 3 parts. So a person should teach the theory he should teach the practice also well. Theory without practice is like an unused boat. You should row (patice) the boat (theory or tool) to get to see the other show (experience).
Also accomplished masters may not say so and also some who are not accomplished may claim to be so. Hence it is best not to look at this aspect in deciding who to listen to. Also see if the teaching sounds right, is logical and put it into practice and see if it is beneficial.
As always go to the source. The Tipitaka a the primary source and commentaries and sub commentaries as secondary and tertiary sources.

Very good answer. The very reason for the Tipitaka to be written was pariyapti.

Only a Buddha can truly identify an Arhat, so beware of people who take up robes declaring they are stream winners and teach their own wisdom instead of the current teacher of Buddha and Buddhism: Dhamma.
Now there are translations of the original Dhamma and they are easy to understand. Using these sources will help you clarify your doubts.
There are priests who preach direct translations of the original Dhamma. Please find one of them for your guidance.

I think your answer should be corrected as 'Only a Buddha can truly identify an Arahant'. There are instances in Tipitaka where even Ven. Sariputta couldn't recognize an arahant.

May I know the place? Actually maybe we have to clarify this..

I cannot remember the instance straight away, however, this answer sheds some light http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/12194/701

Updated the insider answer with "citation needed"

In Udana 7.2, Ven. Sariputta (the Arahant) tried to teach Ven. Bhaddiya without realizing that he too was an Arahant.
The Buddha saw this and remarked, describing Ven. Bhaddiya:

He has cut the cycle, has gone away to freedom from longing. The
  dried-up stream no longer flows. The cycle, cut, no longer turns.
  This, just this, is the end of stress.

This shows that the Buddha could recognize who is an Arahant, but not another Arahant.
So, basically nobody could definitively identify an Arahant today.
The other thing is that monks are not supposed to disclose their spiritual achievements to lay people, according to the Vinaya. Even if they did, you can't verify it.
It's not hard to verify that someone is not an Arahant, but it's impossible to verify that someone is definitely an Arahant.

Ajahn Tong, ajahn Jamien, Ajahn Plien

In reading the Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search – MN 26  one come across the group of five monks (Kondanna, Bhaddiya, Vappa, Mahanama and Assaji) who attended to Buddha when He was resolute in exertion, before Buddhahood. They were far more intelligent than any of us in the present day. Even they could not identify the Buddha as an Arahant. So what would make one think that a present day monk can identify an Arahant? Only after a monk leaves this existence can one identify that he is someone special (an Arahant ) in observing the dead body. Such an incident took place in Sri Lanka, a couple of months ago.

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


text:
Complexities of karma accounting
It is of certain interest to me how does buddhism view the mechanics of karma accounting. By accounting I mean the weighing of intentions and outcomes and adjustment of the karmic ledger of the reincarnated unit - without a "supercomputer" to calculate all the expected probabilities.
Consider this example from the book [https://www.amazon.com/Three-Levels-Spiritual-Perception-Commentary/dp/0861713680] "The three levels of spiritual perception" by Kunga Tenpay Nyima:
"... there is a story in the Jakata Tales of one of the earlier lives of the Buddha as a bodhisattva. In that rebirth he was a sailor. While crossing a river in a ferry, through his bodhisattva's prescience he realized that one of the passengers was planning to kill all five hundred people aboard the ship. Quick as a wink, he killed the person intending the evil act. By doing so, he saved not only the other passengers but also the person who was planning to kill them, preventing him from committing such a terrible sin. Even though he did this at the price of killing a living being himself, because his intention was so good, and was motivated by compassion, both for the other passengers and for the would-be killer, it was, on balance a meritorious action."
Note the complexity of this scenario, and also extend it a bit in your imagination with other people suspecting that the killing could take place, and also the killer himself still debating in his mind as to whether to proceed and sink the ship. The bodhisattva could also not be 100% sure that the deed will eventually take place - as Buddhism rejects complete determinism and fatalism. There were other passenger with their intentions and decisions to act or not to act, passengers whose karma was to be punished on this ship and by not dying on that day the balance could have been changed for the worse. Imagine there were future killers among the passengers, etc etc.
There was a web of intentions, partial knowledge, and unknown outcomes.

How does karma calculation proceed in this case without a supercomputer?
How can we, as individuals, choose the right course of action without knowing the outcome of this complicated karmic accounting?

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.

How does karma calculation proceed in this case without a supercomputer?
The weather is complicated too. People literally use supercomputers to run numerical models/simulations of the atmosphere, to predict the rain and wind. In other words, it requires a super-computer to predict the weather.
On the other hand the weather happened by itself, resolved itself, even before super-computers were invented.
Similarly karma can proceed without a super-computer even though people cannot calculate it exactly.
One of the suttas (Acintita Sutta) says that one should not conjecture "the results of kamma".
How can we, as individuals, choose the right course of action
Karma isn't quite like the weather: unlike karma, the planet's weather is more-or-less unaffected by what one person does, so there's no feedback loop between one person's actions and the fruits of the weather.
I think there are many ways to choose the right course of action:

We get good advice (or teaching) from other people
The Dhamma gives us rules of heuristics about right courses of action (e.g. the precepts and other Buddhist ethics, and, the eightfold path, and so on)
The Dhamma gives us insight into which variables are important to monitor: for example greed and anger (craving and aversion) are important; lay (social) responsibilities and personal (family) responsibilities are important; mindfulness is important; good-will is important, and so is equanimity, generosity, and so on; renunciation is important, dispassion is important; etc.
We experience results of action.
Buddhism sometimes suggests some alternative to conventional thought (for example choosing a "middle way" instead of one extreme or the other; or for example non-action instead of action)

Incidentally I beware of taking the Jataka tales literally, or even as a good example of how to behave; for example it's difficult for me to accept that story as proof that it's sometimes right to kill somebody.
Also, one of the characteristics of an enlightened Buddha is that they are able to know more: including being able to see the workings of karma more clearly than other people can.
There are some Buddhist practices or paths which involve learning how to act is if we were enlightened -- see the answers which describe tantrayana in this topic -- but these may require a teacher.
To repeat, I think we should be reluctant to understand that Jataka story as meaning that it's sometimes alright and even benevolent or beneficial to kill people (which might be a doctrine e.g. of the Hindu Bhagavad Gita). On the other hand that story illustrates a point: that according to Buddhism, your "intention" matters -- karma is described as "intentional action". I suspect that maybe pre-Buddhist doctrine taught that "ritual action" (e.g. Brahmins tending household fires) was important, and the Buddha countered that with a new (Buddhist) doctrine about intention.

This is the problem with Absolute rules. Two more systems.
1) Killing = 100% wrong.
2) No killing > less killing > more killing
The first rule is inefficient, because it imposes its own absolute onto conditioned reality. What if the person who has to kill one individual to save one hundred because he was intentionally put into that situation by another individual? The relational rule is always better. You just have to accept the consequences.

Calculations are done to arrive at a answer that can be supposedly prescribed. Such as, the total of a grocery bill was calculated by the Point of Sales Computer; hence believed to be accurate, can be prescribed as a requisition for payment. That does not mean the value wasn't there before. We just didn't know it until we calculated it. So karma is always there. We just can't calculate it. Only Buddha could.