text:
Did Buddha explain Dependent Origination as an upaya or skillful means? If so, why?
Inspired by this answer...
Is the specific formulation of Dependent Origination in the early buddhist texts an upaya and/or skillful means?
If so, how approximate is it? Are there other conceptual elaborations that improve upon it?
If it is an upaya, what is the purpose or motivation of teaching it originally thousands of years ago?
Is it different today?
Has our modern conception of physics and psychology led to the development of other upayas that may or may not share some of the motivation or benefits of the original?
There are parts of the early buddhist texts that include teachings on the Four Primary Elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Wind. Was this an upaya? Has modern physics provided an update to this upaya that has the same benefits as a better conceptual elaboration of the underlying truth? If not, in what way is the original better?
If you think the teaching on Four Primary Elements was an upaya or skillful means, but one that has been succeeded by a better modern version in physics and chemistry... do you think Dependent Origination is also something that could or should be updated... or one that even has been already been updated/replaced?
To be clear I am not indicating that skillful means involve intended deception.
Thanks!

Thanks for the reference. I provided another answer to that question. It may apply.

It's taught in Tibetan Buddhism too, or isn't it? Tibetan illustrations of the Bhavacakra include the 12 Nidanas.

Yes, for sure it is. But usually it is taught as the law of cause and effect and not so much the specific formula at least in my tradition/experience.

Let's put it this way. Dependent origination is the noble Right View.
The noble Right View of dependent origination leads to liberation.
The wrong views of eternalism and annihilationism lead to suffering.
The Buddha was only concerned with soteriology and he did not teach metaphysics or ontology. Physics is not his concern.

“Sir, they speak of this thing called ‘right view’. How is right view
defined?”
“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence
and non-existence.
But when you truly see the origin of the world with right
understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding
the world. And when you truly see the cessation of the world with
right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding
the world.
The world is for the most part shackled by attraction, grasping, and
insisting.
But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation,
insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp,
and commit to the notion ‘my self’, you’ll have no doubt or
uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what
ceases is just suffering ceasing. Your knowledge about this is
independent of others.
This is how right view is defined.
‘All exists’: this is one extreme.
‘All doesn’t exist’: this is the second extreme.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle
way:
‘Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for
consciousness. … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices
cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. … That is how this
entire mass of suffering ceases.’”
SN 12.15

Thoughts about whether "I existed in the past" or "will I exist in the future" will lead to suffering. Dependent origination, when realized by the noble disciple, will lead to liberation.

When a noble disciple has clearly seen with right wisdom this
dependent origination and these dependently originated phenomena as
they are, it’s impossible for them to turn back to the past, thinking:
‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in
the past? How was I in the past? After being what, what did I become
in the past?’ Or to turn forward to the future, thinking: ‘Will I
exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in
the future? How will I be in the future? After being what, what will I
become in the future?’ Or to be undecided about the present, thinking:
‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? This sentient being—where did it
come from? And where will it go?’ Why is that? Because that noble
disciple has clearly seen with right wisdom this dependent origination
and these dependently originated phenomena as they are.”
SN 12.20

Also, as seen in SN 12.4-10, past Buddhas all rediscovered the same dependent origination on their own. So it's not skillful means (upaya) but it is a law of nature.

Amazing answer. Thanks!

MN 28 says:

Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent
  origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent
  origination.”

Obviously dependent origination is not skilful means.
SN 12.20 says dependent origination is the sabhava or sadhatu law of nature about how suffering arises, as follows:

Uppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā  tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā. Taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti
  vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti.
Whether there is an arising of Tathagatas or no arising of Tathagatas,
  that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed
  course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality. A Tathagata awakens to
  this and breaks through to it. Having done so, he explains it, teaches
  it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it,
  elucidates it.

Thank you. This is an honest answer... do you have another answer on this forum that you think best explains how you understand D.O.?

If so, how approximate is it?
If by "DO" you mean "the 12 nidanas", I found the exposition of that in the suttas barely intelligible -- little more than a dry list of the 12 items, saying that each depends on the previous.
So for that and other reasons I think of those as like chapter titles (without the text), or items on a powerpoint -- i.e. I expect they're the topic or outline of (innumerable) more-or-less detailed dhamma talks.
This site (for one) has many questions about what each nidana is and how it relates to others.
And doctrine about specific nidanas and their near neighbours, is of course important (e.g. the four noble truths).
I think though that the basic principle of DO is central and crucial -- i.e. that conditioned things arise, perpetuate, and cease depending on conditions.
If not, in what way is the original better?
I think of "earth" for example as representing "solidity".
Physics analyses that in more detail -- "why and when and how and to what extent is a substance solid?"
IIRC the context in which it's taught in Buddhism is to have some understanding of what form is -- just enough of an understanding to not get enchanted by it.

“ I think though that the basic principle of DO is central and crucial -- i.e. that conditioned things arise, perpetuate, and cease depending on conditions.” - I think this is more or less how I see it and think this is what Nagarjuna suggests as well. But it appears to me others disagree hence my question. Interestingly, I see a pair of Theravada and a Mahayana practitioner who see D.O. as more than this and not necessarily an upaya and I also see a different pair who more or less think it is upaya and that the point of it is the law of cause and effect.

In other words, it would seem that the answers to this question do not break down neatly among various traditions including both the Theravada and Mahayana.

conditioned things arise, perpetuate, and cease One of the "formulae" (i.e. stock phrases) in the suttas is, the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye arose within him, "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." So I take it that, that is not a bad summary. I think  SN 5.10 is a good summary too. practitioner who see D.O. as more than this  I suppose people concentrate[d] sometimes, to see (have in mind, study) a more complicated/detailed doctrine: even the whole Bhavacakra. various traditions My answer might not be orthodox.

Perhaps the "more than this" is to identify what a thing originates from, how it arises.

The question wrongly states that skillful means is not true.

There are three vehicles, but there is also just one.
Similarly, dependent origination inevitably leads to rebirth, but no-one is reborn.

The former is more Mahayanist, the latter more Theravadin.
How that the true is different from the false will differ among people. Some can claim that there's no fact of the matter, others that the truth can be unpacked via language, others that any expression is deficient to reality, others that the apparent contradiction  is reality itself. And so on!

I don't think I have stated this.

In my opinion, it is Niyama Dhamma.
I think it is the explanation of Citta Niyama.

Dhamma Niyama is not Citta Niyama. Dependent Origination is not Citta Niyama. To think Dependent Origination is Citta Niyama leads to rebirth in hell because the arising of dukkha and how to end dukkha is never understood. Regards


text:
How to proceed if I get current/vibration after meditation?
After exercise, when I concentrated on my heart I used to feel my hands becoming warm, but that was the only response I ever got from meditation and it did not last long. But I recently tried kapalbhati and felt a sort of very light current in head. I tried focusing on that and increased in many sessions of kapalbhati. Now current has spread around my both hands, chest and head, and it lingers for hours, I know kapalbhati is hatha yoga, but is this some sort of explaination for this current? and advice me any buddhist practice to proceed from here
P.s. I also feel my face, hands and chest lightly vibrating. This finger and phone shaking even as I type right now.

I’d vote to close this as it is unrelated to Buddhist practice.

Why not just answer that it's not Buddhist practice? Then we could filter the questions that aren't relative enough and people would have examples of what not to ask.

Kapalabhati is a practice from hatha yoga.  I don’t having closing rights on this account.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because Kapalbhati is not Buddhist

kapalbhati and hatha yoga have nothing to do with buddhism so ask the same question here https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/ or on reddit
People who talk about vibrations are people who do ''insight practice'' and they say their unpleasant vibrations disappear once they stop their ''insight practice'', so stop practicing whatever you have been doing.

electrical feeling current, hydraulic sensations,  vibration, are a universal part of meditation phenomena whether you're practicing buddhist, hindu, christian mystic meditation.
In the suttas, for example, the Buddha talks about it here in SN 54.7:
http://lucid24.org/sn/sn54/index.html
and here in MN 62
http://lucid24.org/mn/mn062/index.html
(in more abstract terms of fire and wind element)
All of these phenomena are a natural part of relaxation, pacification (passaddhi) awakening factor. It's described in hundreds of suttas as part of the 7 awakening factors:
http://lucid24.org/sted/7sb/allref/index.html
If your energy channels are blocked, then you get vibrations that hurt, are un comfortable, make your body shake as described in SN 54.7. But if you persist in your meditation assiduously every day, then the energy channels will open up and the currents of energy that loop around the body will smooth out, and you'll experience piti and sukha (rapture and pleasure).
Here's the big secret about the underlying principle of how this all works that the suttas don't explain. If you want to advance beyond first jhana, you'll need to maintain celibacy purely (no sex, no masturbation, no lustful thoughts period), and charge up your jhana battery through noble silence (second jhana quality of samadhi, stopping the thinking mind).
Just like if you want to get rich, you have to make money and not spend more money than you make. If you talk and think a lot, you'll be draining your jhana battery, it will never charge up. If you're having sexual activity, it drains the jhana battery much faster and harder. So lay people who have lots of sexual activity, will never realistically get better than low quality first jhana. If they meditate a lot and have a lot of sex, what is the most likely result is the meditation will have lots of shaking, vibration, pain, and disturbing emotions, psychosis.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can you explain "Wishlessness" (one of the Three Doors of Liberation)?
I am particularly interested in the relation between Wishlessness and Love. As far as I understand Wishlessness means that there is no suffering or ignorance as such. I'm mainly guiding myself by this quote https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/6rrbl8/any_commentaries_on_the_three_doors_of_liberation/dl7h0e1/
I feel like I get it, like there are no individuals existing as such, there is no suffering as such, but there is still (metta/compassion) the inclination to reducing suffering. But I feel like my words are not very precise. Even contradictory.

The words of the Buddha are precise. Yet to connect Love and Wishlessness, we'll need to look at multiple suttas, since your questions span much of the Noble Eightfold Path.
Early on the path, one practices Love, which is one of the four brahmaviharas: love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity.

AN8.63:2.2: ‘I will develop the heart’s release by love. I’ll cultivate it, make it my vehicle and my basis, keep it up, consolidate it, and properly implement it.’

Once established in the four brahmaviharas, one proceeds to the four kinds of mindfulness meditation, which focus on body, feelings, mind and principles:

AN8.63:6.1: When this immersion is well developed and cultivated in this way, you should train like this: ‘I’ll meditate observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.’

Once established in the four kinds of mindfulness meditation, one experiences the three doors to liberation:

MN44:12.3: The four kinds of mindfulness meditation are the foundations of immersion...
  “They experience three kinds of contact: emptiness, signless, and undirected contacts.”

Passing through the three doors to liberation, one comes to the end of wishes:

AN3.183-352:1.1: “For insight into greed, three things should be developed.  What three?  Emptiness immersion; signless immersion; and undirected immersion. For insight into greed, these three things should be developed. For the complete understanding of greed …  complete ending …

Therefore, Love is a vital condition for Wishlessness. Note that there are other conditions as well. Study the suttas, talk to your teacher and Sangha and see for yourself!

MN60:56.2: They live without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.”

The three doors of liberation -- by Vietnamese / French zen master Thich Nhat Hanh
I'm sure he says it a lot better than we could.
If we look at the three as identical and mutually supportive, we may see that with no self, and no form, the aspirants wishlessness is not for others.
What zen master has nothing to teach their students?
Put another way, your nirvana is not my liberation -- so keep on practicing!

sorry for the opaque but emphatic answer -- i won\t say it better than a zen master!

Your comment got a bit cryptic by the end. Haha... but I'm used to it.
I skipped the article several times, but now that you mention it, it's actually useful.
No self, no form and wishlessness (for me and others) are identical and mutually supportive. That's nice. I wasn't seeing the big picture here.
Thank you.

ok. well if you want a more "fun" answer: not caring is non dual with caring. @ExequielEspósito

It sounds to me as though that you cant understand yet because you have not wanted badly enough yet. Have you never had a wish? A wish that was almost a need? A wish that you pray for every day that you meditate on that beg for that you hurt for that you would do anything for? Eventually wanting so badly will lead to destruction. You lose yourself in the wish. You lose sight of whats important around you. And the horrible thing about wishes is that to be guaranteed of the fulfilment of a wish is rare. EVEN RARER is to be guaranteed that you will still be alive by the time the wish fulfillment comes to fruition.
so by the time your wish comes true you may have changed so much while waiting that you learned more thru wishing than thru getting the benefits of your wish.
Eventually u see the futility in wanting anything. Manifesting things depletes your power. And you cant control time so maybe better not to involve yourself with wishing in the first place.
Wishlessness yes i think non-craving is a good synonym. How can you crave for the specifics of a wish when you know that a better more complete and final solution to all problems come later with nibanna....so rather than actively wishing you go to passively wishing and eventually that turns to compassion for all who wish.

As far as I understand Wishlessness means that there is no suffering or ignorance as such.
If I were to try to relate that to the language of the suttas, I'd equate "wishlessness" with "non-craving".
And non-craving might exist might exist in two forms -- i.e. with, and without, the conditions for future craving to arise -- the former being intermittent (although also timeless or ever-available) and "a small taste of Nibbana", and the latter being final.
I feel like I get it, like there are no individuals existing as such
I think the Mahayana doctrine, at least as it's explained to beginners by e.g. Thay Thich Nhat Hanh and/or HH the Dalai Lama, is that there are "no individuals existing as separate" (or perhaps, "as individual") -- furthermore than a view of individuals as separate would be a cause for suffering.
there is no suffering as such
By analogy perhaps that means "no suffering as separate" -- i.e. that suffering is conditioned.
there is still (metta/compassion) the inclination to reducing suffering
That's right?
I am particularly interested in the relation between Wishlessness and Love
What can I say. The sutta which narrates the Buddha's becoming liberated says that it was because of compassion that he then decided to teach.
So "the relation between Wishlessness and Love" in a Buddhist context might be that, that's the characteristic of the (perfectly enlightened) Buddha.
You could read a lot of what the suttas say about it, and essays, e.g. by searching https://accesstoinsight.org/ for the word "metta" -- and also more generally "brahmavihara".
The suttas sometimes describe metta is being like a mother's love, who would give her own life for child. I don't know that that's a good analogy -- easily understood by everyone --- because some people's relationship with their mother becomes complicated.
I don't know if you can understand something by understanding its opposite. A hypothetical example of "wishfulness" when parenting could be something like, a mother saying to their child, "The neighbour's child takes ballet lessons, and they're good at it, which makes their proud parents look good, which I envy. So I want you to take ballet lessons too." Whereas instead "wishlessness" might be more like, "may you be well", still providing all the "requisites" that a child can use to develop -- physical requisites like food and shelter, clothing and medicine -- also being a "good friend", age-appropriate lessons, maybe a moral environment.

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


text:
Most frequent realms for post-human rebirth
I read the following extract from the book "The Workings
of Kamma", produced by the Theravada monastery "Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw"

Rebirth in the human world is always because of wholesome kamma. None-
  theless, among the great majority, the uneducated ordinary people, conscious-
  ness is rooted predominantly in greed, hatred, and delusion. Only occasionally do
  wholesome consciousnesses arise. And among the uneducated ordinary people,
  delusion is very deep. That is why, when human beings pass away, they are al-
  most always reborn either in hell, the ghost world, or the animal world.

I have several problem accepting these views. Of course, what i am about to say is very subjective and i certainly do not claim to be an enlightened being and know everything.
The first is that i believe that there is a powerful continuity between rebirths. So my personnal and subjective understanding is that when we look at a person, we can easily guess what type of person he was in a previous birth. Most importantly, the level of virtue, intelligence, strong tendencies, evolve very little from life to life for most people as they don't engage in serious self-study or self -improvement and indulge in their pre-existing tendencies. So the current level of consciousness exhibited by ordinary people should reflect their previous level of consciousness in their previous existences. Which means that human birth doesn't require more positive kamma than what most people exhibit. Some of them might have produced better karmas in the past. Some of them might have produced worst karma in the past. But overall, we should grossly be able to determine the level of virtue necessary for human rebirth by observing humans.
Otherwise, this makes no sense, at least to me.
Also, animals are described as experiencing mostly greed, hatred, delusion. I think this is seriously off.
Animals are instinct driven and regularly obey their instincts, but many of them are often peaceful and detached. Would you say a wild horse experiment greed, hatred, fear on a constant basis? Yes they sometimes do and act like animals are supposed to. But this is a minor part of their lives. Many animals are peaceful and worry-free, even though their lives are harsh and short. Turtles are another exemple of a peaceful animal which can live longer than humans.
Would experienced buddhists agree with the passage quoted, and if yes, what arguments would they provide to change my analysis?

Then the Exalted One,
taking up a little dust
on the tip of his finger-nail,
said to the monks:

"Now what think ye, monks?

Which is the greater,
this little dust I have taken up
on the tip of my finger-nail,
or this mighty earth?"

"Greater, lord, is this mighty earth.

Exceeding small
is this little dust taken up
on the tip of the Exalted One's fingernail:
it cannot be reckoned,
it cannot be compared therewith.

It does not come to the merest fraction
of a part of it
when set beside the mighty earth, -
this little dust taken up
on the tip of the Exalted One's finger-nail."
"Just so, monks,
few are those beings that are reborn among men:
more numerous are these beings
that are reborn other than men.

What is the cause of that?

It is through not seeing four Ariyan truths.

What four?

The Ariyan truth of Ill,
the Ariyan truth of the arising of Ill,
the Ariyan truth of the ceasing of Ill,
the Ariyan truth of the practice that leads to the ceasing of Ill.

Wherefore, monks, an effort must be made to realize:

'This is Ill'.

'This is the arising of Ill.'

'This is the ceasing of Ill.'

This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of Ill.'"
—http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.56.061-070.wood.pts.htm
and the suttas that follow.

Relevant quote (which i have also included in my answer) but in itself does not appear to address the question. In fact, the question is about the meaning of this quote therefore your answer to the question merely appears to be a repetition of the question itself rather than an actual answer. Regards

The sutta answers two of the questions asked: Where do most humans go after death and is there sutta support for the quote. It also gives the reason that most humans do not return to human life after death.

Going by the above sutta, I don't even want to fathom the number of beings transmigrating in samsara.

In the Pali suttas, non-Dhamma speech is called "animal talk" ("tiracchāna kathaṃ") as follows:

At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Now at that time, after the meal, on return from alms-round, several mendicants sat together in the meeting hall. They engaged in all kinds of unworthy [animal] talk (tiracchānakathaṃ), such as talk about kings, bandits, and ministers; talk about armies, threats, and wars; talk about food, drink, clothes, and beds; talk about garlands and fragrances; talk about family, vehicles, villages, towns, cities, and countries; talk about women and heroes; street talk and well talk; talk about the departed; motley talk; tales of land and sea; and talk about being reborn in this or that state of existence.
https://suttacentral.net/an10.69/en/sujato

tiracchāna: going crosswise or obliquely or horizontally; an animal; a (non-human)
kathā: talking, talk, conversation; discussion; a talk, discourse; an account, a story.

The above shows the word "tiracchāna" does not refer to literal biological animals but refers to people who think, speak & behave like animals.
Similarly, the word "human" ("manussa") does not refer to all people but only refers to people with a "humane" (moral/ethical) mind. The suttas say:

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident.
AN 6.39

Thus the suttas say:

the beings who fall away/shift/move (cutā) from humans and re-appear again as humans or gods are few, while those who fall away as humans and re-appear in hell, or the animal realm, or the ghost realm are many... It’s because they haven’t seen the four noble truths.
DD translation above from the links below:
https://suttacentral.net/sn56.102/en/sujato
to
https://suttacentral.net/sn56.131/en/sujato

The above appears to mean while people can be human (moral; ethical) during this lifetime, because they have not realised the Four Noble Truths, they can fall into the lower realms when alteration, loss, aging, death, etc, occur.
For example, I knew a devout Christian lady who was the most kind, moral & pure-hearted lady/mother one is ever likely to meet. She was an angel. But when her soulmate husband died, she mostly lost her mind and became often irrational. She fell away from angels & humans and re-appeared in the animal world. Even her own son, who is very highly spiritually developed (a 'god'), often cannot talk sense to her.
It follows there is no evidence for biological "rebirth". The writings of Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw appear to be illogical tiracchāna katha.

The first is that i believe that there is a powerful continuity between rebirths. So my personnal and subjective understanding is that when we look at a person, we can easily guess what type of person he was in a previous birth.

While there is no evidence for life-to-life rebirth, yes, your theory above is logical.

Animals are described as experiencing mostly greed, hatred, delusion.

Yes. Correct.

I think this is seriously off.

The Buddha exhorted his followers to reflect deeply about the teachings to the point of visible here-&-now realisation (rather than merely accept on blind faith).

Animals are instinct driven and regularly obey their instincts

Correct. This is why they are classed as "animals" and why people who are similar are classed as "animals".

but many of them are often peaceful and detached.

The above is irrelevant. The peaceful detached animals are still controlled by instinct rather than by objective human reason, wisdom & intelligence.

Many animals are peaceful and worry-free, even though their lives are
  harsh and short. Turtles are another example of a peaceful animal
  which can live longer than humans.

As already suggested, the above irrelevant. Docile animals still lack objective human consciousness that can observe the mind's own drives, instincts & motivations without acting upon them. Unlike humans, an animal cannot rationalize an ethical framework towards its potential range of behaviors and their consequences.

Would experienced buddhists agree with the passage quoted, and if yes,
  what arguments would they provide to change my analysis?

I already posted I do not agree with the superstition of Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw. The various realms in Buddhism represent the behaviour of people. People can behave, either occasionally or habitually, in a human, benevolent godly, demonic godly, animal, ghostly or hellish manner.
The majority of moral people (humans) will be 'reborn' in hell when death occurs to their loved ones or approaches themselves.

"I already posted I do not agree with the superstition of Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw. The various realms in Buddhism represent the behaviour of people. People can behave, either occasionally or habitually, in a human, benevolent godly, demonic godly, animal, ghostly or hellish manner. "
I think this is your interpretation as buddhism is pretty clear on the transmigration from one realm to another, including animal realm. This is a fundamental buddhist belief

Transmigration is another mistranslation. Refer to the sutta SN 22.99

The condition for birth is bhava and the condition for bhava is craving for sensual pleasure, for existence and for non-existence. Puthujjanas and animals have all 3. Plus it would be weird that animals do not have sensual pleasure but humans do. And since nobody has ''only craving for sensual pleasure'', the other 3 cravings must  be there as well for animals.
The only people who do not have craving for sensual pleasure are some enlightened devas and the human anagamins and Arhats.
Unenlightened devas have the 3 cravings.
For the humans and their traits (physical or not ) from past karma, the most famous sutta is https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html


text:
How can you know that meditating isn't selfish?
Perhaps 'selfish' isn't the right word for it as the 'self' is not the goal. But if you define the 'self' as your inner core/soul is it still possible to meditate selfish? If so how to know this and how to prevent this? How to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' ('achieved') enlightement?

There is a difference between selfishness & enlightened (not in the Buddhist sense) self-interest. In the latter you recognize that by helping yourself, you are mentally more capable in helping others.

Keep at it.  Eventually you’ll hit a stage in your meditation where the self cannot exist.  In fact, you have to essentially kill yourself [metaphorically speaking] to reach that place.  When you do, any talk of selfishness becomes moot.

The goal of meditation is certainly 'selfish', i.e., to improve & liberate oneself.
However, the effect of meditation is unselfishness, i.e., the capacity to greatly give to others.
What actually hinders the capacity to give of an attained meditator is the incapacity of others to receive.
Often it is pointless to attempt to give Dhamma because others are too ignorant to receive it.

But if you define the 'self' as your inner core/soul is it still possible to meditate selfish?

One purpose of meditation is to deepen your understanding for anatta, non-self. Meditating as intended, one develops a different view on the self than the definition above, for instance.

If so how to know this and how to prevent this?

On one hand - among other things - one needs to familiarize oneself with the theoretical concepts of:

the twelve nidanas, for general understanding on how wrong view leads to suffering
bhava tanha, for specific understanding of wrong striving for defining a self
the five skandhas, for right understanding of a wholesome alternative to defining a self

On the other hand, to prevent that our insights stays a mere theoretical product, we must also examine how these phenomena plays out in real life, with the aid of:

right mindfulness, in order to recognize when we falsely identify with a certain concept of self
right effort, to explore new habits allowing us to break the patterns creating more suffering, and to develop habits conducive to the cessation of suffering

I have always considered "my" limited view on meditation as the loss of self and a reconnection to the soul that connects us all. As such it isn't selfish, but a "coming home" into the spiritual haven that connects all things and can only be reached by achieving meditation and leaving the self - and its selfish amibitions - behind. And that is what gives us strength, it reconnects us, it replenishes us.
Of course, one might argue, that the result of a successful meditation is selfish as it helps the individual. But the connection to the "over soul" makes us feel more connected to all the other things in the world and that makes us a part of a larger community. Being refreshed in such a community is helpful for the entire community and thus not selfish.


text:
How anger is developed?
Most of the time I experience the situations that provoke  my anger.
I hate people. How  to overcome  this?how  to let go anger?

Generally speaking anger can be the result of any/all of the three root kleshas. They are:

not knowing the full reason for our anger (moha)
holding on too hard to something (raga)
lacking compassion for others (dvesha)

Mindfulness can help easing the first two kleshas, by investigating the cause for your anger, and to examine whether your anger is caused because someone/something is getting in the way of your attachment.
Mindfulness can also help you identify any hindrances to develop understanding or non-attachment.
Lastly, metta bhavana meditation can also help in easing your anger, by developing warmth towards others (the opposite of anger, essentially), and by  seeing the others side of things. It may be helpful to both you and your surrounding, and can contribute to a more objective or balanced outlook on things.

Good answer. dvesha arises as a result of someone/something is getting in the way of your attachment. Anger is a subset of dvesha.

Don't hate people because everything happen to you happened because of your actions in Sansara.
So whenever you get angry because of people just think that I have done a similar action in Sansara and this is why I am being treated like this and determine to not to do that similar thing again in Sansara.
Always be mindful of anger. whenever anger is starting to build up think about the above fact.
To improve mindfulness practice Anapansathi meditation regularly. To control anger practice Mythri meditation regularly.
For more teachings check this playlist

I understand your pain and I can feel it. You are suffering because things aren't going the way you know them to be right. Everybody has that feeling sometime. It's common and at times I feel just like you. You don't mean to hurt - neither yourself nor the other, but you are feeling hurt and I am sorry for that. It will get better. Let the anger go.
Let anger get through you, like a wind that passes through your being. If you offer resistance, it will be the cause of more anger.
Anger is a way of saying that you have certain idea how you expect other people to behave. And if they don't, anger wells up, because your own ideas are violated.
There is a limit as to how much you can control other people, but you can always control yourself and how you react to other people.
Leave them the benefit of the doubt. We're all human, we're all trying to survive and maybe the other person's way isn't your way, there is nothing you can do against it and anger will only hurt you, but refusing to accept that there are limits to your own control.
In other words: Forgive them, nothing annoys them so much. Be kind to them, they are hurting too.

By not fighting anger ,and if you accept that anger is a possibility ,there is every possibility you will witness it when it arises.


text:
Has anyone ever in the history of Buddhism claimed that the phenomenal aspect of the storehouse consciousness is also permanent?
Has anyone ever in the history of Buddhism claimed that the phenomenal aspect of the storehouse consciousness is also permanent?
I'm not asking if it's impermanent, but if it is also permanent. Usually the absolute aspect of the storehouse consciousness is said to be permanent

The revelation of the true meaning of the principle of Mahayana can be achieved by unfolding the doctrine that the principle of One Mind has two aspects. One is the aspect of Mind in terms of the Absolute (tathata; Suchness), and the other is the aspect of Mind in terms of phenomena (samsara; birth and death). Each of these two aspects embraces all states of existence. Why? Because these two aspects are mutually inclusive... Since it has been made clear that the essence of all things is empty, i.e., devoid of illusions, the true Mind is eternal, permanent, immutable, pure, and self-sufficient; therefore, it is called "nonempty"

I hope so, and the storehouse consciousness of ordinary people also -- because I cannot see a reasonable way to believe it is just impermanent.

It's impermanent.  That's kind of the point.  You're supposed to empty your store house consciousness or, practically speaking, at least try to stop perfuming the seeds.

4
The store consciousness is clear and undefinable.
  Like a great river, it is always changing.
  Neither pleasant nor unpleasant, when one becomes fully realized, it ceases to exist.
...
29
That is the supreme, world-transcending knowledge
  Where one has no mind that knows
  And no object that is known
  Abandoning twofold grasping
  The storehouse consciousness is emptied
30
That alone is the pure, primordial reality
  Beyond thought, auspicious, unchanging
  It is the blissful body of liberation
  The dharmakaya nature of the enlightened ones
From Vasubandhu's Thirty Verses

What's "left" when you've abandoned the karmic conditions of the store-house consciousness and the two fold grasping (i.e. grāha-dvaya - the grasping of the grasped and the grasper himself) is ultimately all that is truly unchanging or supramundane.  That said, I think it makes more sense to call what's left simply "unconditioned".  It isn't subject to the negative influence of ordinary defilements.  When you call it "permanent", I think it's too easy to fall into the trap of seeing it as a "thing" or a "self".

good answer, thanks

The Buddha Dharma is based on the Three Universal Characteristics
Anicca,  Dukkha,  Anatta
Anicca -Change or impermanence is the essential characteristic of all phenomenal existence. We cannot say of anything, animate or inanimate, organic or inorganic, “this is lasting”; for even while we are saying this, it would be undergoing change.
“Impermanent, subject to change, are component things. Strive on with heedfulness!” This was the final admonition of the Buddha Gotama to his disciples.

thanks! it's a fair answer


text:
How do I practice Zen all alone?
I live in a small town in India where there are no Zen or any other Buddhist temples. I don't have the money to travel to Japan or China. All I know about Zen is from google and youtube videos. I want to practice Zen not just know it intellectually.
What routine should I follow? How should I bring the teachings into practice? What are the sutras to chant?  How many times should I do Zazen?
Please help me learn the practice.

Zen is part of Buddhism. Both share an understanding of the Noble Eightfold Path, which starts with Right View:

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view.  What two? The words of another and proper attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of right view.”

Teachers give us "the words of another". Without a teacher nearby, you can study the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) that inform all of Buddhism, including Zen. The EBTs are "words of another", in other words, they are the words of the Buddha and his immediate disciples. The EBTs also provide practice instructions that apply to zazen:

SN47.40:1.1: “Mendicants, I will teach you mindfulness meditation, the development of mindfulness meditation, and the practice that leads to the development of mindfulness meditation. Listen …

Zazen and Satipaṭṭhāna start with mindfulness of the body. When we sit, we observe our breath, not controlling it, simply observing it. A simple count suffices. I've been doing that for decades, and it still matters.
Zazen is traditionally done while sitting. However, one can meditate sitting, standing, walking or lying down, etc:

AN11.12:5.16: When they’re joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, they feel bliss. And when they’re blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi.  You should develop this recollection of the deities while walking, standing, sitting, lying down, while working, and while at home with your children.”

As you study and practice, you will want to discuss with others. If a Sangha is not readily available, you can reach out to others online just as you have done. It is not ideal, but it is available. As our practice deepens, spiritual companions invariably cross paths with us. Talk with them. Befriend them.
Zen is known for its koans. Although effective, they are of most value with greater context. Without such context, koans can inaccessibly perplexing.  Many Zen texts provide great context, but I personally value the EBTs themselves as the authoritative context. In the light of the EBTs, one can really dig into the koans and understand the wonder of the Zen canon.
Zen and the EBTs have become the heart of my practice. May your own journey bring happiness to yourself and others.

Do people who study Zen typically study EBTs? And/or do their teachers? If not then how (from what other source) would they know or have heard of, share an understanding of, the noble eightfold path?

It would be odd to only study the Zen Patriarchs and ignore the Buddha's own words, don't you think?

We use the Majjhima Nikaya all the time in our zendo.  We wrap it in a towel and sit on it whenever we forget our zafu!

You can't study Zen, or really any form of Buddhism, without a teacher.  Let's say you were deaf and interested in playing the piano.  Not only do have no context for what proper playing is, how you should practice, etc. you also have no context for what music even sounds like.  Having a go at Zen without a teacher puts you in basically the same position.  Not only do we not know how to sit, how to use emptiness to blast through our obstacles, etc. we also have no first hand knowledge of what any of that even means!
The best thing you can do is learn how to work with your breath.  Forget the chanting, forget bringing anything of what you learned "into practice".  Zen starts with sitting.  Everything else will naturally evolve from that place.  The great thing about working with your breath is that you can learn that from anyone.  You can participate in non sectarian sitting groups.  You can even crash an ashram if you are feeling up to it.  Whatever you do, try to couch your breath work in a group setting.  Sitting with other people will help keep you motivated and help inspire your solo practice as well.
Try that.  Maybe by approaching things in this way, Zen will begin to lose its novelty and attraction for you.  Right now, it sounds like you you have some idea of what Zen practice should look like.  This approach will help rid you of some of that.  Who knows!  Maybe the group you find will really resonate with you in ways you never even conceived of!  Zen is about embracing the unexpected.  This seems like as good a way as any to begin you wandering steps down an unchartable path.


text:
Without reproducing, how is buddhism a proper belief in a world where resources are limited?
Say foreign people would come in a ideal buddhist country where everyone is an aharant. They would take the monks into slavery by force to have them work in a field and they would also steal their resources. The buddhists are physically weak, they're outnumbered because they don't reproduce.
How is buddhism a proper belief?

What does "a proper belief" mean?

I don't think this question is unworthy but it is poorly said.
Buddhists prone non-violence but it seems in some situations violence is the only option, unless you believe or understand karma enough.

Sadly, we don’t live in a world of ideals.  Buddhism properly exists in the real world.  In a real world, it makes proper sense.

Well ian3111, Buddha is against reproducing, how do you avoid getting enslaved by other people if you are outnumbered and physically weak because you don't eat a lot? Isn't that a failed ideology? I know buddhism is more for personal development but as soon as you try to apply it in the real world it simply doesn't seem to work.

Apparently the Buddha's former nation (i.e. those who didn't leave home to be Buddhist) was destroyed by war -- https://www.ancient.eu/Kapilavastu/ -- "The Shakya capital was destroyed, its inhabitants slaughtered and the Shakya state became absorbed by Kosala". Conversely the Buddhist doctrine-and-discipline survived for millennia and in many countries. Does that affect or inform your theory, your question? I still don't understand what you're asking about "a proper belief". Are you saying than someone like Genghis Khan had a proper belief, because his empire was undefeated and still thrives?

Chris, how can you pretend to be viable ideology when you rely on lay people to feed you and breed so they can protect you?

I think Asoka did pretty well.

This seems to be intended as an argument, or perhaps a discussion -- or is intended to state a point of view, e.g. "Buddhism is not a proper belief and is not viable", or something about "ideology" (politics) of monks depending on lay people -- I don't think this is a question, it doesn't seem to be asking anything specific except perhaps a "rhetorical question".

A nation of aharants probably wouldn't mind working in the fields, and would see this nonsense as a wonderful opportunity to spread the teachings of Buddhism to their conquerors, who would seem to be desperately in need of it. At any rate, I've voted to close this question, since it seems argumentative at best.

Very naive but not an invalid question IMO

It also seems a fair question to me. Such misunderstandings are bound to arise.. .

Have you considered the theory of karma which states that your present situation is the result of past actions. Therefore present threat and invaders should be the result of bad karma. Good buddhists will create positive karma which will lead them to easy futures without wars or threat of invasions.
At least that's the theory ! Might not convince you but that's just my two cents

You are basically saying, buddhists are less competitive and therefore have weaker survival abilities. This is based on the theory that survival in the world of limited resources requires competition for resources.
Then you're saying, how is Buddhism a "proper belief" if it makes buddhists less fit for survival. This assumes that survival is like winning the game and death is like losing.
However, from Buddhist perspective, surviving in samsara is not better than dying. When you survive you're still caught up in samsara, which means sooner or later you will die.
Instead, Buddhists focus on finding the deathless peace called nirvana. When you have found the Deathless, surviving vs dying does not matter, it's not applicable. This is the real victory, not the fake victory inside samsara.

Your rebirth will happen no matter what. I do not believe attaining nirvana in this life cut you from the circle of rebirth. There is no proof for that and it belongs to a religious and dogmatic point of view which has no place in a rational individual.

Attaining the Deathless means dropping identification with individual organism. Identifying with something limited and mortal is irrational and creates fighting and suffering. When there's no identification with single organism, death and rebirth does not apply. It's simple logic.

Define deathless. What do you mean by identification? A living being is forced to feed himself or die, even if it manages to get rid of most of his unecessary desires.

Identification is when you think you are this one living organism. Here are your limits. Here's where you start, here's where you end. This is mortal. Deathless is when there's no "I"-thinking. No limits in space, no limits in time. No competition, no death.

How does that prove anything about leaving the eternal cyrcle of rebirth? And there will always be competition for vital resources such as food and then cultivable areas. delegating that to lay people is just proof of failure of buddhism as an ideology for a community.

You just said Buddhists delegate fighting for resources to non-Buddhists, which is nonsense. Non-Buddhists fight because they are programmed to protect "ours" against "theirs", not because of the Buddhists. If there's not enough resources for everyone, birth control is the non-violent option and is what Buddhists do,  as you yourself said.

An ideology is only good if applicable to real life. If everyone was a buddhist, nobody would work the fields and defend the borders. thus its a failed ideology.

You just said Buddhists delegate fighting for resources to non-Buddhists: yes, that is exactly what happened historically

In real life there are no borders, those borders are only in your mind. What you call "real life" (with borders) is what Buddhism calls "samsara". Why would Buddhism promote ideology of competition which serves to support samsara by defending the imaginary borders?

If everyone was a buddhist, nobody would work the fields
And yet they do.
According to the original form of Buddhism, monks don't "work the fields" and are sustained by alms-food.
I think that the existence of people who renounced worldly ambitions was a feature of Indian society in general -- see Ashrama -- not only Buddhism. You might see something like that in the West still too, i.e. a class of people who have "retired".
In later Chinese and Zen Buddhism I think there was some point in history where the State (e.g. the Emperor) decided there was too much of that -- it's difficult to tax monks, not to mention it being difficult to conscript them into your army. I think at that point the monasteries were expected to become more self-sustaining -- which lead to societies, stories, and attitudes like,

No Work, No Food
Hyakujo, the Chinese Zen master, used to labor with his pupils even at the age of eighty, trimming the gardens, cleaning the grounds, and pruning the trees.
The pupils felt sorry to see the old teacher working so hard, but they knew he would not listen to their advice to stop, so they hid away his tools.
That day the master did not eat. The next day he did not eat, nor the next. "He may be angry because we have hidden his tools," the pupils surmised. "We had better put them back."
The day they did, the teacher worked and ate the same as before. In the evening he instructed them: "No work, no food."

Your argument reminds me of what happened in Tibet last century -- i.e. the Chinese accusing the Tibetan monks (which was like a "theocracy") of being land-owners exploiting peasants, and invading.
I suspect your argument could be applied to any class of person ...

The army expects lay people to feed them
The politicians expect people to feed them
The teachers expect people to feed them

... as well as to almost any "religion". So I don't see the point of your question.
At any moment I expect there are more Buddhist laypeople than there are monks, too. Your idea of Buddhists "not working" might imply that only monks are Buddhist -- you might want to read something like The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity, which is addressed to laypeople, for some idea of how traditional Buddhist doctrine might inform laypeople's work and relationships etc.
Conversely I think there are (Buddhist) countries where most people (at least, most men) have been a monk, but only temporarily -- as part of like their training or education (e.g. "Temporary ordination is the norm among Thai Buddhists"). Which I find analogous to Western countries -- where a lot of people or even the majority might have gone to school or university, but only a few stay on permanently.

What is your idea of a "proper" and "viable" ideology? Do you take as exemplary  a stereotypical communist doctrine -- i.e. that everybody should be peasants (working in the fields), and, in the army?

If arahants are so weak, they will be awful slaves.
Plus arahants are not supposed to be afraid by some vague threat of torture or death by some puthujjanas.
With your idea of ''viable ideology'' You seem to cling to the popular fantasy that the goal is to make all living humans happy.
Since there will always be some puthujjanas around the arahants, the arahants have to live with them and the buddha never said the goal of the puthujjanas is to protect the arahants.

Let's start arguments for householders's sake::
1.)foreign people: who are they? outside nation! Then it's better you start explaining the boundaries in which an Arhant is bounded by.
2.)ideal buddhist country: yeh! There is a ideal buddhist country in my dreams whose aura is so perfect that even i-> the dreamer, remains calm. Getting back to reality, even lion wouldn't kill, drunken becomes calm, even devdutta(father of modern hinduism and aghori) learnt meditation to some extent and received compassion from buddha-- whereas he also couldn't bring  any harm to any arhant.
3.)•••monks into slavery by force: Have you ever tried to know an arhant, the qualities of arhant, the respect of an arhant by consciousness.....? when an arhant says NO, no power of this universe can oppose, forget mere already-dead invader.
4.)steal their resources: Since when did arhant require any resource to depend upon?
5.)physically weak: One who is a conquerer of whole space, universe, sankharas, un-awareness, ya calling him physically weak!!!!
6.)outnumbered: Since when did arhants are less in number? Infinite amount of non-materialistic (citta-body) devas, brahm, yaksh etc. protect them.... go back to point 3 also for this.
7.) without reproducing: ya know reproduction only through a** and d***. What about reproduction through knowledge? It's amazing to know that sexual reproduction only produces those who can either survive or die, once out..... whereas knowledge-reproduction, once intiated, even if results in non-arhant, non-stream-enterer-- it continues for next birth also.
How is buddhism a proper belief?
Amazing, first know about an arhant.
when you rely on lay people to feed you and breed so they can protect you
Arhant never relies on anyone, it's for the sake of lay-people that they go for alms round, i.e. to spread dhamma, to give dhamma and to do that they require a medium, which is body. Lay ones, after receiving dhamma, helps them in their spreading of dhamma by giving them something to keep the medium(body) safe.
It's never meant to protect them, cause they are not this impermanent-medium.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I would suggest you to stand up against a wall and smash your head to force this MARA(over-possessing ignorance & defilements) get out.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
FIRST KNOW ABOUT ARHANT
(Arguments become necessary, when invader points a nude-sword at neck)

Arhant never relies on anyone  : Yes they do, they rely on lay people to feed them and protect them physically. If everyone was a buddhist monk, no one would reproduce and they would get replaced by your so called puthujjanas, thus ending buddhism as a whole.

I think that according to the theory of kamma, what happens to you is the result of your karma.
So taking arms and engaging in warfare or conquest is only a very short-sighted approach that might or might not protect you or give you survivals advantages. Acting on the causal level is the only way to reach true peace and safety (according to theory at least). Every person that engages in war and killing is always deeply affected, so even though they might win, there will still be a price to pay after it.
Also, every country that has been through war seems to be much weaker, poor and unstable than a country living under peace for a long time.
Reproduction is biologically necessary and only monks do not reproduce, so 99% of the population still has offspring. This would be a problem only if many peope took vows.

I’m having trouble understanding your question, I think there is some fallacious reasoning in it. In fact, if we try to follow your reasoning:

They would take the monks into slavery by force to have them work in a field and they would also steal their resources. The Buddhists are physically weak, they're outnumbered because they don't reproduce.

Then... How would have Buddhism resisted for 2500 years until today?
Or also Tibet, if we refer more to a "Buddhist country"?


text:
Can one reach enlightenment if they need to care about the wellbeing of another?
If one need to care about the well-being of another (physical health, mental health), one needs to constantly check their status to update information and act fastly. That makes one constantly worry. Therefore they cannot reach enlightenment. They can't even start meditation, even though one can temporary leave them a couple hours or even days to take care of yourself.
Is that correct?

I get the point about the lack of time for sitting meditation, but I would think caring for the sick is one of the best ways of disempowering the self. Certainly this is the view of the Christian Desert Fathers. .

A long time ago, before Gautama Buddha, in the time of Kassapa Buddha, there was a potter named Ghaṭīkāra. He was not a monk, but he was Kassapa Buddha's chief attendant. Puzzled about this, his student Jotipāla asked Ghaṭīkāra why he had not gone forth and become a monk given that Kassapa Buddha was so close by.

MN81:11.2: ‘Dear Ghaṭīkāra, you have heard this teaching, so why don’t you go forth from the lay life to homelessness?’

Ghaṭīkāra answered quite simply.

MN81:11.3: ‘Don’t you know, dear Jotipāla, that I look after my blind old parents?’

Not everybody gets to be a Buddha's chief attendant. Ghaṭīkāra was special. And what Kassapa Buddha said about Ghaṭīkāra was also quite special. Kassapa Buddha said:

MN81:18.15: He looks after his blind old parents.  And since he has ended the five lower fetters, Ghaṭīkāra will be reborn spontaneously and will become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.

If you are a caregiver, you understand impermanence, love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity. Take heart from Ghaṭīkāra's example and practice as you can, the Noble Eightfold Path lays open before you. Ghaṭīkāra was a lay non-returner. Perhaps you can be one too.
Who was Jotipāla?
Jotipāla was Gautama Buddha in a previous life...that, too, is in the sutta.

It's the over-concern that one is not able to focus on meditation. Even while sitting in a peaceful environment, do you think a person with agitating train of thoughts would be able to meditate peacefully?.
Meditation can be started in different ways, no need to sit quietly only. One walks, talks, eat, does typing,.... still that one is able to meditate.
To start meditation under extreme pressures, I would suggest you to practice first at home while eating food, while walking, while having casual talks, etc. type non-stressed and pleasing activities.
After getting used to meditate under such easy acts, you will surely start enjoying meditation during pressurized-work.
Work will become Work merely. No tension, no worries.
Remember this, "one who has taken birth, would have to go through illness and death" and "you are not responsible for this".
(Start with simple acts, then go for complex ones, then for pressurized ones, then for extreme ones).


text:
Which Pau Auk branch to stay at?
I am writing to you today for your advice.  I have been considering ordination in the Pau Auk tradition. I am planning a trip to stay for a month in May to see what the life is like.  I am undecided whether to go to the main monastery in Mawlamyine or pyin oo lwin branch.  I was hoping you could provide any information to help this decision.  I am a Westerner from the USA if that has any influential factor.  Thank you very much!  With metta,

With due respect, I'd recommend against Myanmar for the foreseeable future. Whatever the attraction of the Pau Auk tradition, Myanmar is in the midst of an intense Buddhist/Muslim conflict  (you may have heard it called the Rohingya genocide). I'm not so much concerned by the risk involved (though that is considerable) as much as I am about how much that violent turn has corrupted the teaching there. It would be a shame to dedicate yourself to a sect only to find yourself led in the wrong direction.

Why burn so much fuel and Co2 for a month? The buddhist thing to do would be to look for a close monastery in your area

From my experience in the monastery located at Mawlamyine is that they are able to greet, accomodate with all that they might need and guide foreigners (that are quite numerous at times) with proper care. I have met a lot of very inspiring foreign/local lay followers and monks there.
The ordination process is fairly simple and straightforward (I would advice, if you were to go there, to ask for a "kuti" which is a hut, after ordination as you're more likely to have a suitable one that hasn't a leaky roof or that is being destroyed by termites), you usually have a short daily interview with a teacher for questions in regards to your practice (have you already been acquainted with the Pa-auk method of practicing ?). And if ever you wished I'm reasonably sure that you could also visit the one in Pyin oo lwin (and perhaps beyond ? There are a lot of different places foreigners can go to).
With regards to the comments to your initial post, I would nevertheless suggest reflecting on the decision as there might also be a lot of different opportunities to stay in monasteries in the United states and cannot foresee what may happen with the local conflicts there, I reckon uncertainty is an underlying reality wherever we are. But please do be careful ! (you can check restricted areas to avoid at all times). I still do know numerous foreign monks there who engage with great dedication to the path without meeting substantial obstacles related to these conflicts up until now.
Also, please do consider that May is a very hot season in Myanmar.
With mettā.

Thanks for your feedback.  The Pau Auk teaching method and schedule is what interests me.  I find this is why it is worth going to this monastery in Burma verse one in the United States.  Would an American find trouble practicing and ordaining due to the language gap?

Not at all, I do also share the american nationality as well and felt no issue or obstacle whatsoever to ordain (most burmese people speak very good english, if not there is usually a translator at Pa-auk, and even having been in remote areas and monasteries you generally always are amidst english speaking and very friendly people). Amusingly enough the process was so accessible at Pa-auk that just by merely asking on a theoritical level to a senior monk if it was possible for a foreigner to ordain he answered "next Tuesday", and that was it.

@BradTurner Could you send me your email brother ?


text:
How to decrease crave in daily-life?
In theory, many ways of meditation have been given to stop cravings and aversion.
What about practical life?
During day to day life, it has often been seen and experienced as well that, "we tend to lean towards comfortablity", whether it be of body or brain.
Let's take a basic example: one living in a rented house tend to go for a own-home(whenever possible).... even monks of modern era tend to go for own-kuti/monastery. For this one needs money. Reason being given is, "i feel more freedom inside my own-home instead of rented one".
Another eg. : Using technologies, more resources for making life easy-going. Resaon being given as: we have less headaches, more respect, easy-flow of society.
Even if i properly give time to analyze, realize, etc. bhlabhla, stay disconnected to this modernized life, there is definitely no need for me to ask this question!
If one doesn't go for maintaining status, using hi-fi techs, spending money(either for dana purpose or for anything else..), ........ It's more likely to be 99.99% that such person would be physically and mentally behind from others.
One simple solution came is:: live like a bpl(below poverty line) person but this will definitely decrease morale and enthusiasm of nearby-ones, decreasing their chances of learning dhamma.
(If possible, kindly don't include advice for meditation to a freak and too-ignorants)
i am more concerned into balancing the life(middle path for householders) such that both nearby ones and me can have less possible crave, more possible dhamma!
Edit::
Maybe, this answer is somewhat talking about balance in last 3 paragraphs. But it is also saying to re-engage in earning money to get approval of others.....getting approval is ok but how would money change someone's behaviour, confusing to me?

In Canada the "poverty line" is defined as "almost all income is spent on necessities -- e.g. shelter, food, clothing, daily travel, plus e.g. telephone and toilet paper, and school supplies" -- which (i.e. being able to buy necessities) I find is comfortable. When you write, this will definitely decrease morale and enthusiasm of nearby-ones, I guess you're probably referring to family -- e.g. your wife or husband and children.

A "good answer" is said to be based on something: a reference to scripture or personal experience. If I tried to answer this only based on personal experience then I worry that the answer wouldn't be Buddhist enough. What is it about this question that makes it Buddhist -- what about its answers which only a Buddhist could answer? Because a lot of non-Buddhist families too have arguments or different goals, different attitudes to money and spending -- why couldn't you equally ask this question on a non-Buddhist site for relationship advice?

I don't want to be unwelcoming of the question -- I'm trying to figure out what you're asking or how to answer -- but from an explicitly Buddhist perspective? And some standard answer from scripture like "choose a partner with goals and attitudes to money which are like yours" -- e.g. here -- might be Buddhist but not especially helpful to your situation.

You mentioned "nearby ones" twice in the question and again in your comment to OyaMist's answer. From that I get the impression that their feelings -- and your relationship[s] with them -- is central or important to the question, and/or to whatever personal problem or uncertainty you might be asking about. If it's "not about anyone's partner or relationship" then I'm not sure what it is about -- if it is "family" but is not "partner", is it a question about your relationship with your parents then, and their morale?

Question has been edited in such a way that it is off topic

From Mahayana perspective, your problem is self-centered (egotistic). Either when participating in society or when being BPL, in both cases your target is yourself, your concern is about yourself.
If you don't think about your own benefit, but focus on the benefit you can bring to any situation you are in, to anyone who surrounds you - then this problem does not exist. When your goal is to help others, you can either make millions / use technology, or be poor - it does not matter, what matters is that everything you do is altruistic as opposed to egoistic.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Dhammadinna once approached the Buddha asking about life balance and progress on the Noble Eightfold Path.

SN55.53:2.4: “Sir, we live at home with our children, using sandalwood imported from Kāsi, wearing garlands, perfumes, and makeup, and accepting gold and money. It’s not easy for us to undertake and dwell from time to time upon the discourses spoken by the Realized One that are deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness. Since we are established in the five training rules, please teach us further.”

And the Buddha answered:

SN55.53:3.1: “So, Dhammadinna, you should train like this:  ‘We will have experiential confidence in the Buddha … the teaching … the Saṅgha …  And we will have the ethical conduct loved by the noble ones … leading to immersion.’  That’s how you should train yourselves.”

Following the five training rules (i.e., refraining from killing living creatures, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drinking alcohol, which is a basis for negligence) is an important step in dealing with craving and aversion. It is important because it involves restraint. We don't steal what we want and we don't kill what we don't like. We restrain ourselves.
With restraint, craving and aversion diminish but we still suffer. So we study ethics to understand and deal with our cravings and aversions. MN8 has a long list of things to consider. For example:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

Yet as our body, speech and mind abide in ethical behavior, we still suffer from craving and aversion. So we study further to understand how craving and suffering arise. We might, for example, learn about dependent origination, which helps focus our restraint where it most matters.

SN12.23:4.3: I say that suffering has a vital condition. And what is it? ...

The Noble Eightfold Path ends with Right Immersion. Before that are seven other steps: Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort and Right Mindfulness.
Note that Right Livelihood does not require us to be impoverished.

DN33:2.1.48: Firstly, an ethical person gains substantial wealth on account of diligence.

Right Livelihood requires that we give up Wrong Livelihood:

MN117:29.1: And what is wrong livelihood? Deceit, flattery, hinting, and belittling, and using material possessions to pursue other material possessions.

Living ethically is quite important. It is also not easy. Living ethically we learn and practice restraint. Practicing restraint, craving and aversion decrease along with our suffering.
Established in Right Livelihood, we can then face the rest of the Noble Eightfold Path: Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Immersion.  At that point we are back at meditation, which you asked to not discuss.
Regarding money and material goods, although monastics do not deal with money, householders do. So what is a householder to do with the madness of craving for more money?
Long ago, a king sent Ghaṭīkāra the potter five hundred cartloads of rice and other wonders. And what Ghaṭīkāra said is simply this.

MN81:22.6: I have enough.

Ghaṭīkāra sent the carts back to the king telling the messengers that the king worked very hard and was very busy and therefore it made more sense for the king himself to have such wealth. Ghaṭīkāra was Kassapa Buddha's chief attendant and was a non-returner.
Let others grasp at money and material wealth. Here let us have enough.

Ah thank you. I had misread your question. I think perhaps Ghaṭīkāra's story may be closer to what you asked. He was quite a remarkable householder.


text:
How does rebirth fit with the fact that everything is impermanent?
One of the lessons Buddhism teaches is that everything is impermanent. Our thoughts, our feelings, our emotions, our bodies, our life. Everything. We are surrounded by death. We are mortals. There is an end to this.
However, Buddhism also has the concept of rebirth. Karma follows you not just in this life but in your next. It's also said that the Buddha gained the ability to recall his previous lives. This to me implies some sort of a soul (for lack of a better word), condition, or consciousness that is not impermanent. After you die you get reborn. There is an "you" that transcends the current (impermanent) existence.
I guess, my question is, is there some sort of a soul, consciousness, or a condition, that is not impermanent? When one reaches enlightenment (nirvana) and stops the cycle of rebirths, what happens to them?

One of the lessons Buddhism teaches is that everything is impermanent. Our thoughts, our feelings, our emotions, our bodies, our life. Everything. We are surrounded by death. We are mortals. There is an end to this.
However, Buddhism also has the concept of rebirth.

Actually think about it, rebirth is there due to impermanence. For if one dies and there's no rebirth, then death itself is permanent, which breaks impermanence! Now the point about kamma, sure it follows you from this life to the next, but it constantly changes depending on one's volitional actions. So a crude analogy is your physical self. Is Pips the 3 year-old boy the same exact Mr. Pips the 93 year-old man? Not really. Although there seems to be a "permanent-something" Pips from 3 to 93, that's only an illusion for everything change (impermanence): every single physical cell on Pips body grows, age, and got replaced. Every feeling, perception, volition, cognition change and get replaced from moment to moment. The perception of "permanence" is an illusion just like one sees a movie in the cinema with all its seemingly alive people and animals while in fact they're just a bunch of still frames appearing sequentially one after another.

"Rebirth" is a moral teaching in Buddhism; about destiny due to action (karma).
"Impermanence" is a transcendent teaching in Buddhism.
"Rebirth" and "impermanence" are not intended to "fit" together.

Would it be possible to elaborate a bit on you answer?

The purpose on kamma teaching is to guide your moral behaviour. Whether things are impermanent or permanent doesn't change this. Kind regards

There is no difference in manner or extent between how rebirth happens in this very life from moment to moment and what happens from life to life. So ask yourself, how does rebirth in this very life that happens from moment to moment fit with the fact that everything is impermanent?
It is precisely because we are impermanent beings that we are reborn from moment to moment. Like you say we are surrounded by death! Indeed! We die and are reborn in every moment of this very life! How could something be any more impermanent!
So how does rebirth from life to life change the picture?? It doesn’t. In exactly the same way that we are impermanent and thus reborn from moment to moment... in just that way and for just the same reasons... we are reborn from life to life.
In summary, if you have no problem with understanding how impermanence fits with the true rebirth of beings from moment to moment you should have no problem with the true rebirth of beings from life to life. If it does perplex you, then you have most likely fallen to the extremes of eternalism or annihilationism. The Buddha did not teach these extremes, but rather taught the truth of the Middle Way.
Hope this helps!

Could you elaborate on the "If it does perplex you, then you have most likely fallen to the extremes of eternalism or annihilationism" phrase? It might help me understand the meaning of the rebirth moment to moment and life to life which I kind of understand as "our current form is impermanent" but we get reborn in a new form. How are "our" and "we" impermanent?

Hi Pips, I have been pondering how to elaborate that might be helpful, but the best I have come up with since I do not know your mind is to suggest you test my assertion yourself. Do you think you have a handle on how we are reborn every moment in this very life? How we are utterly impermanent beings? If so and you think you have a handle on it... does it perplex you that the same thing happens from life to life in the exact same way and to the exact same extent?

Dīgha Nikāya 1, the Brahmajālasutta, discusses theories of a self in great detail. Studying DN1, we realize that there are indeed very many theories of a self. For example:

DN1:1.30.1: There are some ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists, who assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal on four grounds. (etc.)

Regarding these theories, the Buddha indicates that all such the theories arise out of repeated contact with sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches or thoughts. Such theories are traps for those who crave the continued existence of these contacts.
The escape is to relinquish the craving, allowing the impermanence, letting go of continued existence and rebirth.
Regarding the Realized One after death, the Buddha said quite simply:

DN1:3.73.7: But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more.”

jīvitapariyādānā does not mean "death". Buddhas do not "die".

Rebirth doesn't fit impermanence and anatta. It is the accepting of a psychological 'I', and the consequences of such a view of self.


text:
What is mind contain of?
What are the contain of the mind?Are emotions being mind contain or they are from of mind energy?how does mind differ from each other?how  person being act differently.?

Here's the standard answer of what the mind is according to Buddhism. 4 aggregates.

Feelings. (Pleasant, unpleasant, neither pleasant nor unpleasant.)
Perception. (Spontaneous recognition)
Volitional formations.
Consciousness. (6 consciousnesses, 5 physical sense base consciousness and 1 mind consciousness.)

We all have the same structure of the mind. The difference from person to person is merely that different feelings at different time for different people, (only 3 possibilities)
We can possibly speak different languages, so our perception of sounds is different, I perceive Russian language sound as noise, those who knows the language perceives their meaning spontaneously.
We choose to react differently to different things, but we all have the same basic template to choose from. Metta, or anger, or generosity, or greed. Emotions fall under the category of volitional formations.
We can be conscious of different things at different times. Like he's sleeping, I am awake etc.
The mind object can be anything, including the 4 aggregates of the mind itself, it's perceived via the mind base, and when mind consciousness arise to come together, we have contact of mind object. When contact happens, feelings arises and is dependent on what contact it is, what perception we have of the contact etc.

A bit more esoteric response would be as follows:
“The Mind” that we think we have doesn’t exist.
The true mind, or Buddha Mind, is one that is shared between all sentient beings and is pure, clear, true and excludes nothing. It does not require zazen to be still, it does not lack enlightenment. It is this mind that we experience in deep samadhi.

I think this is an interesting video about: His Holiness the Dalai Lama talks on the "Nature of the Mind"
I find it a very interesting point of view, also because is very similar to the most advanced knowledge that we have in neurosciences.
Hope it helps!

It is the combination of Thoughts and Mental factors that creates the mind, however, the brain and consciousness also a requirement for the sense sphere to function which finally gives rise to experience the awareness of the five aggregates of existence.


text:
What does buddhism say about mind and heart?
Some gurus like osho says that the heart should dominate mind but reverse is happening in real world.
Some like sadhguru from isha foundation says that heart is just a pumping device. It is driven by our mind.
What point of view does buddhism have on heart and mind. I mean in terms of differences, dominance, reality, etc.

In spiritual traditions, the heart is not the physical heart, but the intuition, the non-discursive or non-conceptual mind.
The conceptual mind gradually auto-emerges thanks to the mechanism known as Dependent Origination. As conceptual mind develops, it constructs an experience of a world, Samsara. Or we could say, the conceptual mind and Samsara are one and the same. All our griefs and worries exist inside the framework of conceptual mind. For example the concept of Death is like that, it's an abstract concept, in reality there is no death but endless transformation.
The non-conceptual mind aka heart does not operate in such terms, so it does not have the same issues. The Buddhism I was taught is pretty much in favor of re-discovering and utilizing one's "heart". In Early Buddhist texts the process of letting go of the concepts until only the non-conceptual remains is described as "animitta" or The Signless.
You can read more about it in this nice article:  http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Articles/Signless%20Meditations%20in%20Pali%20Buddhism_JIABS_Harvey_1986.pdf

Venerable Ānanda approached the Buddha and asked about the five lower fetters. After learning about the practice for giving up the five lower fetters, Venerable Ānanda had one more question:

MN64:16.1: “Sir, if this is the path and the practice for giving up the five lower fetters, how come some mendicants here are released in heart while others are released by wisdom?”

The Buddha answered simply:

MN64:16.2: “In that case, I say it is the diversity of their faculties.”

And Venerable Ānanda was happy with that...
In other words, we're all different. Another sutta explains further. For example, those with serenity of heart should seek those with discernment:

AN4.94:2.1: As for the person who has serenity but not discernment: they should approach someone who has discernment ...

And those with discernment should seek those with serenity of heart:

AN4.94:3.1: As for the person who has discernment but not serenity: they should approach someone who has serenity ...

We're all different. And we can all help each other because of those differences.

What point of view does buddhism have on heart and mind. I mean in terms of differences, dominance, reality, etc.

The meaning of "heart" and "mind", their differences, and their tendency to dominate a personality can be understood in several ways, according to buddhist dhamma.
One possible interpretation within buddhist doctrine is the concept of the five spiritual faculties (indriyas) which aids on the path to enlightenment. Here, heart or mind can be considered corresponding to the factors listed below. They are:

Faith (saddha), to overcome doubt in buddhist teachings.
Persistence (viriya), to overcome tiredness/laziness and to achieve right effort.
Mindfulness (sati), to overcome thoughtlessness.
Concentration (samadhi), to overcome distraction and deepen your focus.
Wisdom (panna), to overcome lack of understanding of the four noble truths.

According to the Sona sutta in Anguttara Nikaya, these factors needs to be balanced in order to work in favor of attaining further cultivation.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.055.than.html
Another interpretation of the aspects of heart and mind that comes to mind is the idea of general personality traits with regards to meditation. Each type is described with a particular temperament, and is therefore recommended a specific meditation practice (kammatthana). From this perspective, someone may be inclined to being faithful (heart), or to a more intellectual proclivity (mind), among others:

Six main character types are recognized — the greedy, the hating, the deluded, the faithful, the intelligent and the speculative — this oversimplified typology being taken only as a pragmatic guideline which in practice admits various shades and combinations.
The ten kind of foulness and mindfulness of the body, clearly intended to attenuate sensual desire, are suitable for those of greedy temperament.
Eight subjects — the four divine abidings and four color kasinas — are appropriate for the hating temperament.
Mindfulness of breathing is suitable for those of the deluded and the speculative temperament.
The first six recollections are appropriate for the faithful temperament.
Four subjects — mindfulness of death, the recollection of peace, the defining of the four elements, and the perception of the repulsiveness in nutriment — are especially effective for those of intelligent temperament.
The remaining six kasinas and the immaterial states are suitable for all kinds of temperaments. But the kasinas should be limited in size for one of speculative temperament and large in size for one of deluded temperament.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html


text:
Concept of Panchang Pranam in Buddhist culture
What is Panchang Pranam in Buddhism and what is the correct way of doing it and its significance? Is it some sort of chanting?

I found the term "panchanga pranama" on the wikipedia page for Praṇāma. In Indian culture and Hinduism, this simply means prostration with five parts of the body touching the ground.

In the image above, the left person is doing ashtanga pranama (eight parts touching the ground - also known as full prostration) and the right person is doing panchanga pranama (five parts touching the ground - also known as half prostration).
This is common in Buddhism and is known to be practised since the time of the Buddha, for e.g. from SN 22.1:

Then the householder Nakulapita went to the Blessed One and on
arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting
there he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, I am a feeble old man, aged,
advanced in years, having come to the last stage of life. I am
afflicted in body & ailing with every moment. And it is only rarely
that I get to see the Blessed One & the monks who nourish the heart.
May the Blessed One teach me, may the Blessed One instruct me, for my
long-term benefit & happiness."

Both ashtanga pranama and panchanga pranama appear to be common in Tibetan Buddhism, as seen in this YouTube video, meanwhile panchanga pranama is common in Theravada Buddhism.
Apparently, in Pali, this is called pañcanga-vandana, which I found in the essay by Ven. Khantipalo entitled "Lay Buddhist Practice: The Shrine Room, Uposatha Day, Rains Residence".
An example of reverentially reciting Pali incantations and prostrating respectfully before a Buddha image as described below, can be found in this YouTube video.
Ven. Khantipalo explained here:

Dhamma is the way for training mind, speech and body. But the Buddha
dhamma is sometimes regarded in a way which is too intellectual and
theoretical so that there is a danger that it is not practiced as a
way of training. To help with the training of the body there are
various gestures which are expressions of one's confidence in and
reverence for the three Treasures. These actions when performed with
due mindfulness are wholesome kamma made by way of the body. Repeated
frequently they become habitual bodily kamma and it is good to have
the habit of reverence as part of one's character. The Buddha, soon
after his Enlightenment, thought that to live without reverence was
not suitable, so he looked around with the divine eye to find some
teacher under whom he could live, revering him and his teachings. But
he found no teacher superior to himself, nor any teaching superior to
the Dhamma which he had discovered. But out of reverence for that
Dhamma he decided to make the Dhamma his Teacher and to live revering
Dhamma. We who are his followers should follow in his footsteps and
live with reverence for those three aspects of Enlightenment: Buddha,
Dhamma and Sangha.
The gestures used for this are mainly two: respectful salutation with
the hands (añjalikamma), and the five-limb prostration
(pañc'anga-vandana).
The first of these, which may be remembered as "añjali" as there is
no satisfactory English equivalent, is made by bringing the palms of
the hands together, and raising them to the region of the heart or
higher, according to circumstances. For instance, in the shrine room
after kneeling down in front of the Buddha image, one makes añjali
before offering flowers, lights and incense. And as the Teacher was
the highest in the world and one to go beyond the world, so one
respects him by placing one's hand in añjali to the forehead. But
while chanting, the hands are held in añjali at heart level. This
action and others described here, should be done with mindfulness and
therefore gracefully. And one should be careful to see that
exaggerated and impetuous movements are avoided. As we remarked
before, the Dhamma does not encourage unrestrained expressions of
emotion, rather with its aid one endeavors to calm one's heart.
After all these preliminary remarks, we have just got into our shrine
room, knelt down, made añjali and offered the three offerings. Now
there are flowers placed in their vases or upon some offering tray,
candles or lamps burning brightly and a blue column of incense smoke
rising to the ceiling. It is time to pay one's respects with the whole
body to the Teacher. When afterwards one says "Namo tassa..." that
word "namo" (homage) comes from the root nam meaning "to bend." So
now one bends oneself, one's mind and body, down and acknowledges that
the Buddha was indeed the Perfectly Enlightened One that one's own
understanding of Dhamma is insignificant. In the kneeling position,
one's hand in añjali are raised to the forehead and then lowered to
the floor so that the whole forearm to the elbow is on the ground, the
elbow touching the knee. The hands, palm down, are four to six inches
apart with just enough room for the forehead to be brought to the
ground between them. Feet are still as for the kneeling position and
the knees are about a foot apart. This is called the prostration with
the five limbs, that is the forehead, the forearms, and the knees.
This prostration is made three times, the first time to the Buddha,
the second to the Dhamma, and the third to the Noble Sangha.
An ancient tradition from Thailand makes this more explicit as it adds
a Pali formula to be chanted before each of the prostrations. Before
the first one may chant:
Araham sammasambuddho bhagava
Buddham bhagavantam abhivademi.
The Arahant, the Buddha perfected by himself, the Exalted One
I bow low before the Exalted Buddha.
Before the second prostration:
Svakkhato bhagavata dhammo
Dhammam namassami.
The Dhamma well-expounded by the Exalted One
I bow low before the Dhamma.
And before the last one:
Supatipanno bhagavato savakasangho
sangham namami.
The Sangha of the Exalted One's disciples who have practiced well
I bow low before the Sangha.


text:
How to find an appropriate sex partner for a sakadagami?
Is it true that sakadagami can have sex that is pure so between a wife and husband. how can one gain the attention of a wise man who intends to marry and upholds The Way of Noble Ones.

There is no such as pure sensual pleasure in a context of leading upwardly, pure sensual pleasures always lead downwardly and are hindrance for every kind of spiritual attainment, and very short pleasure and cause of much pain. So no smart and informed ideas, all of that. Better todo all to get such ideas totally ereased in ones mind if not heading after animal existances.

Nonsens... a non-returner has abound the fetter of sensual desire, even a once returner would not go after such low stuff. And a stream enter would do all to avoid it, the dangers in the world (sensuallity). Fell at least more then ashamed even if thoughts arise.

The middle of the middle, aside of defilement following. If a little wisdom, turn away from fools who gave householder such foolish ideas, food for her defilents to grow. How would a once returner desire for becoming in animal like states, in useless low sensual plains and even ask such shameful public?

Read you question again and then tell again if one in search does not desire at all: start with virtue, 8 Silas, to get your self known a little, knowing greed, when greed arises... simply nonsens and mindless all here. A non-returner does not seek for any relations, not to speak of for low purpose, even does no more need a guide. Householder not even has heard the good Dhamma and is far away from even the path.

Householder may, if interested, make use of sangham, if serious.

It is gradual training.
just try to find a partner who observes five precepts.
I think it is a good start.

SarathW claims to reach jhana therefore claims to be a once-returner.

ROFL That's all I can do.

With all due respect, many people overestimate their "achievements". Just because a once-returner has remainders of sensual pleasure & anger, doesn't mean that he/she will act on those. It's of course all really speculation because none of this has been mentioned in the suttas, but I believe a sotapanna and even moreso a sakadagami has such profound level of anatta, that enables them to detach from sensual desire and anger quickly.
A Buddha would have no interest in being in a relationship.
Since you also mentioned that you are a misanthrop, I doubt that you achieved higher states because misanthropy is a generalized hatred towards human beings.
With regards to sex I guess no one can give you a definite answer because humans are way too complex, have different wants & preferences in different life periods, and also their personal attitudes (and former experiences) can influence their relationship life & sexual life.
If you seek for a more loving relationship, make sure to look for a person who has somewhat same interests and goals as you do, and ideally both should practise Buddhism (or some other spiritual endeavor).

If what you want is sex (or a sex partner), you might find it frustrating to be married to "a Buddha".
FYI I take this answer to be advice for choosing a partner, based on the suttas -- although that is arguably not tantra mind you.


text:
What is wisdom? How to contemplate?
There are 4 aspects  of satipatthana meditation. Can anyone explain how  to do the cittanupassana? Is it not merelly noting the hate, greed and delusion? Isn't it?.

You might want to check out Thera Soma's great essay on Satipatthana -- The Way of Mindfulness: The Satipatthana Sutta and Its Commentary

If you are lucky Dhammadhatu might chime in & give you an answer. The tetrads aren't practised isolated but they happen sequentially. After the body-mind has been sufficiently calmed, rapture arises. If not clung to it, it calms to sukkha. This basically describes 'body tetrad' because especially rapture is both body-mind related. The more the object of meditation is let go off, the more refined the mind becomes.

Many people will disagree with my answer because they wish to believe they are practising cittanupassana.
The word "anupassana" means to "watch closely" therefore cittanupassana is not "noting" because noting is thinking rather than watching.
Also, because "anupassana" means to "watch closely", there is no thinking whatsoever in the mind when cittanupassana occurs.
For example, in the practise of Anapanasati, cittanupassana is practised with full concentration, i.e., with knowing each in-breath & each out-breath.
About cittanupassana in Anapanasati, the Buddha commented:

I do not say that there is the development of mindfulness of breathing for one who is forgetful, who is not fully aware.
MN 118

Cittanupassana occurs after the breathing has calmed & after the rapture that arises from calming breathing is also calmed.
Cittanupassana is directly knowing the quality & purity of the mind. Although during cittanupassana the mind can have stains of greed, hatred & delusions, these stains are not thoughts or thinking. They are the energy or mood of the stains/defilements themselves. Therefore, MN 10 says:

And how, monks, does a monk fare along contemplating mind in the mind?
Herein, monks, a monk knows intuitively the mind with attachment as a
mind with attachment;
he knows intuitively the mind without attachment, as a mind without
attachment;
he knows intuitively the mind with hatred, as a mind with hatred;
he knows intuitively the mind without hatred, as a mind without
hatred;
he knows intuitively the mind with confusion, as a mind with
confusion;
he knows intuitively the mind without confusion, as a mind without
confusion;
he knows intuitively the mind that is contracted, as a mind that is
contracted;
he knows intuitively the mind that is distracted, as a mind that is
distracted;
he knows intuitively the mind that has become great, as a mind that
has become great;
he knows intuitively the mind that has not become great, as a mind
that has not become great;
he knows intuitively the mind with (some other mental state) superior
to it, as a mind with (some other mental state) superior to it;
he knows intuitively the mind with no (other mental state) superior to
it, as a mind with no (other mental state) superior to it;
he knows intuitively the mind that is composed, as a mind that is
composed;
he knows intuitively the mind that is not composed, as a mind that is
not composed;
he knows intuitively the mind that is freed, as a mind that is freed;
he knows intuitively the mind that is not freed, as a mind that is not
freed.
MN 10

In practice  of meditation experience the hate comes with memory and  when look into it is as coming  from deluted self hatred goes away. Is it correct  practice?Now experience shallow breathing  during  meditation, so meditative object cease very often the look feeling of body it feels  as rock.

As breathing lengthens, immersion deepens. Whatever phenomena are experienced in that immersion are  impermanent. Instead of classifying contacts as "self-hatred", etc., simply let go before contact, not after:

MN64:10-12.4: They contemplate the phenomena there as impermanent

Oya. your comment contradicts my answer.

when hate comes with memory, this is called a "hindrance" rather than "cittanupassana'. Even when you "when look into it is as coming from deluted self hatred & it goes away", this "wise reflection" is not "cittanupassana". YES, this "wise reflection" is the correct practice to overcome hindrances. But it is not cittanupassana. Kind regards

While  I was meditating deluted self could not being  noticed. I have not meditate for a long time after that happened. Now it just noting  the hatred it disappeared soon I noticed. It is not wise reflection. What  was it ?