text:
If Buddha had unconditional love, why did he "kill" some of his monks?
I recall there is a sutta where the Buddha said he "kills" some monks, that is, completely ignores them or something similar.
Is this contrary to metta (unconditonal love)?

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.111.than.html

Also https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html#fn-57

@ChrisW Would you consider making the content of your links a full answer? That way the content would be more visible.

The "killing" reference would be this one probably -- Kesi Sutta (AN 4.111)
Perhaps that's analogous to a doctor's not giving medicine to a patient who won't benefit from it.
And perhaps the Buddha had the welfare of others -- the whole Sangha -- to consider too.
Another instance is Channa in DN 16.
And there are a few other examples on pages 89-90 of Piya Tan's analysis of the Kesi Sutta:

The untamable
Those who cannot be tamed. While most of the suttas record how the Buddha’s
  teachings convert many and inspire others, there is a handful of important discourses where,
  apparently, the protagonists lack the capacity for spiritual change. Interestingly, in all such cases, the
  Buddha does indeed teach them the Dharma. However, for some reason, the protagonists remain
  unmoved despite being admonished by the Buddha himself.
Such discourses are very few, that is, where the protagonists (one may even call them “antagonists”) are “dead” to the Dharma-Vinaya.
  The best known of these are:

the Mahā Taṇhā,saṅkhaya Sutta (M 38), where the monk Sāti holds on to the wrong view that our
  consciousness passes on unchanged in rebirth;34
the Alagaddûpama Sutta (M 22), where the monk Ariṭṭha wrongly views that sensual pleasures
  (including sex) are not “stumbling blocks” to the celibate holy life;35
the Udumbarikā Sīha,nāda Sutta (D 25), where, despite listening and accepting a long inspiring
  discourse from the Buddha, the wanderer Nigrodha and his followers still neither renounce nor go for
  refuge.

The most notorious case of one who is “dead” to the Dharma-Vinaya is clearly the monk
  Deva,datta. Despite being the Buddha’s cousin and listening to numerous Dharma teachings, he still
  shows antagonism against the Buddha, desiring to take over the leadership of the monastic sangha from
  the aging Buddha. The Devadatta narrative where he is depicted as the Buddha’s antagonist is, however,
  not without problems, and should be carefully studied to understand its significance.
The most famous case of a person who seems to be intractable is the elder Channa, the erstwhile charioteer of the Bodhisattva himself.38 On account of Channa’s closeness to the Bodhisattva and
  then the Buddha, he became arrogant, thinking “Our Buddha, our Dharma,” besides his inherited conceit
  of being a kshatriya (khattiya,māna). Channa’s “butler” narcissism and arrogance were, in the end, selfdefeating. He failed in his tasks as a monk even while the Buddha lived. While dwelling in Kosambī, he was
  unwilling to acknowledge an offence he committed that the Buddha decreed a formal act of suspension
  (ukkhepaniya,kamma), forbidding him commensality (eating together) and dwelling with the monks.
He continued to commit other offences, especially disrespecting and reviling senior monks. One of
  the Buddha’s last acts was to instruct Ānanda to impose the “supreme penalty” (brahma,daṇḍa), that is, a
  total boycott of Channa by the sangha.41 After the Buddha’s death, Ānanda executed the order.
The closing of Culla,vagga 11 of the Vinaya records how when Ānanda conveys the supreme penalty to
  Channa at Ghosit’ārāma, in Kosamb, he faints at the thought of being boycotted by the order. Almost
  immediately Channa diligently works to correct himself—as movingly reported in the (Lakkhaṇa) Channa
  Sutta (S 22.90; V 2:292).
The (Lakkhaṇa) Channa Sutta (S 22.90) records in an almost humorous tone, how he
  attempts to seek Dharma instruction from other monks. Apparently, no monk actually boycotts him,
  since they try to answer his questions, albeit careful to not offend him. Finally, Ānanda teaches him the
  Kaccāna,gotta Sutta (S 12.15) on how dependent arising counters the two extreme views of eternalism
  and annihilationism, and how self-view is replaced by the realization that it is only dukkha that arises and
  ceases—and he breaks through to the Dharma. The supreme penalty is automatically lifted at the
  moment of Channa’s final attainment.
This is perhaps the only account we have of any monastic close to the Buddha who is apparently
  declared “dead” to the sangha. However, by his own efforts, Channa returns alive and well to be with the
  sangha, in due course, as an arhat.

The Kesi sutta is about tameable and untameable. I think you've quoted "little dust in their eyes" yourself. Maybe it's not appropriate to question how the Buddha handles the supposedly "untameable".

Whether the Buddha behaves morally and maintains a mind of good-will is presumably unconditional, unaffected by the behaviour or temporary misbehaviour of others.
You might read Positive Response -- How to Meet Evil With Good for example if you can.
It suggests that "tit for tat" is a common strategy in the world but, it says, never works in the realm of spirituality. It references the (famous) Parable of the Saw, for example.
One other thing I'd note about the Buddha is his ability to enter the minds of others and to know when they are ready or not ready -- I think you see that in suttas like AN 8.30.
It might be a mistake for you to imagine that you can do the same -- to enter the minds of others.
It might also be a mistake to assume that they can behave unconditionally -- and unaffected by real or imaginary misbehaviour of yours, by their own projections, etc.
But by definition it means to try to behave well and with good will even if someone else doesn't.

I'm not entirely sure about the Buddha's "behaving well" -- i.e. about where I'd find that stated in the doctrine -- though "excellent" and so on, yes. Perhaps some concerns like this suggest that conventional morality might be a duality or selfishness which it's inappropriate to project onto a fully enlightened one. But morality ("virtues that are dear to the Noble Ones") is canonically a characteristic of a semi-enlightened person -- and I'm pretty sure that the "mind of good will" is limitless (perhaps aka bodhicitta in mahayana doctrine).

I edited my answer, it is being peer-reviewed. Lost access to that account, so recreated it.
I am an elder brother(through body) of someone whom I care-for, and a good monk too. I need to maintain my behaviour in such a way that, "both my brother and those aspiring to become like me can follow me, can make me as their role-model, can have faith on me... " Similar to this. It doesn't mean that I am too attached to them or I want to neglect them, it's just the way as how they would understand me.
Being a very serious-Freak meditator, I also know that sometimes when I have to teach some of the images within my brain, and if the real-ones(of the corresponding images) don't obey me, then I have to stop em-powering thoughts/intentions regarding teaching those wrong-audience/s... a type of killing.
It doesn't mean that, "I have no metta for them or I ignore them", rather being a freakish-meditator, I give them my compassion to such extent that, on later stage of life when they come to right-senses, they don't remorse for their ignorance.
It also doesn't mean that, "I am OK for their moral, spiritual declination or increment in their cravings for wealth", if such would have been the case, I would've never taught them as I have enough funding already.
Compassion: An act of response for all of them whom you want to be in peace. You may need to use some harsh words or neglecting-type behaviour.

Thank you sir. To me, what you said accurately was: "it doesn't mean that I am too attached to them". Unconditional love is easy when you are not attached to them; to the degree you can watch their lives decline without it affecting your freakish meditation. Lets face the facts. The non-attachment of Dhamma is not love. We all have family members we cannot help. We do not really "love" them, despite our superficial good hopes for them

When you love your childen, do you love them when they are Good but not when they are Bad? No, you love them always,  despite their shortcomings, but you still punish them for their own sake, exactly because you love them.

Aren't you punishing them to modify their behaviour? Sorry. This does not sound like unconditional love to me. Your punishing them appears to be a form of Pavlovian conditioning to me. Its conditional love, namely, if you are good, you won't get punished, Santa Claus will give you gifts at Xmas.

@Dhammadhatu Theoretically some toys or other privileges might be made or given conditional on their good behaviour. But your love and other necessities are unconditional, i.e. always available to them. I say "theoretically" because I know that's the doctrine of professional preschool teachers e.g. in Canada. Of course a teacher tries to guide a children's behaviour: but they don't (or aren't supposed to) do it by witholding love. This definition of "unconditional love" may be outside your experience, but I think it is how e.g. a professional preschool teacher will understand the term.

Sounds like you never had children, @Dhammadhatu . The love that you have for them is unconditional. You punishing and gifting them is not wavering of your love. Don't mix your perspective and their perspective.


text:
Is Buddhism a kind of truth seeking mental device?
It has been my experience that Buddhism has set me from blind obedience when it comes to religious rules. I was free to think what was good spiritually and no one can tell me otherwise.
Is this what sages go through?

I believe this is something that all truth-seekers go through. Relating to Buddhism, this is succintly answered by Ven. Henepola Gunaratana

Buddhism as a whole is quite different from the theological religions with which Westerners are most familiar. It is a direct entrance to a spiritual or divine realm without addressing deities or other 'agents'. Its flavor is intensely clinical, much more akin to what we would call psychology than to what we would usually call religion. It is an ever-ongoing investigation of reality, a microscopic examination of the very process of perception. Its intention is to pick apart the screen of lies and delusions through which we normally view the world, and thus to reveal the face of ultimate reality. Vipassana meditation is an ancient and elegant technique for doing just that.
Ven. Henepola Gunaratana, Mindfulness in Plain English

Is Buddhism a kind of truth seeking mental device?
I think it's like a Theory or a Body of knowledge -- but, not "just a theory" (i.e. not "just a hypothesis") -- and it's a practice.
Or several (theories and pratices).
And if you were to ask, "is a theory a kind of truth-seeking mental device" then I think I'd agree that the answer to that is more "yes" than "no".
I was free to think what was good spiritually and no one can tell me otherwise.
I guess that Buddhist doctrine on that subject is the Kalama sutta (or "Kesamutti Sutta") -- here translated and/or here summarized on Wikipedia.
In it the Buddha advises them to "know for themselves" whether and which qualities are skilful -- and, are blameless and "praised by the wise".

I think it's similar to what children go through when at first parents lay down the rule of not putting things into the electric socket and later learning why one ought not do it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Mental Fabrication and Empathy
Is there a difference, in terms of mental fabrication, between creativity and imagination (which seem to rely on imagining what's not there) and empathy and mentalizing (which understand how someone's mind/mental affinities are)? Are empathy and mentalizing more 'mindful' and produce less mental fabrication?

As your question implies, creativity, imagination, empathy and mentalizing all have their root in our ability to think abstractly (among other things).
However, I’m not sure that the psychological constructs of empathy and mentalizing corresponds directly to buddhist theoretical concepts, but they can surely be interpreted as components of the brahmaviharas virtues. They are wholesome, since they ameliorate aversion/dosa.
I don’t know, but I suspect that one can’t consider brahmaviharas an actual decrease in mental formations (if one could ever count/measure formations at all), as much as a replacement of unwholesome formations into wholesome ones (according to the principle of  right effort).

Am I right in thinking emptiness and wisdom diminish becoming, just as -- as you mentioned -- brahmaviharas are still karmically (and wholesomely) potent? I recall this from one of the Dalai Lama's books.

@Eggman if by emptiness and wisdom you refer to anatta and panna, they’re wholesome according to dhamma, yes.

There is a difference between perceiving and directly knowing. MN1 discusses this at length.

MN1:7.1: They perceive creatures as creatures. But then they identify with creatures … Why is that?Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

Perceiving an unopened bottle, one imagines a bottle opener and looks for that.
Directly knowing an unopened bottle, one creatively uses what is available to open the bottle, even if it just the edge of a table.
Perceiving a hungry, homeless person, one mentalizes them as outside society and ignores them. Directly knowing a hungry, homeless person, one with empathy shares food.
The difference between perceiving and directly knowing is identity view. Perception is skewed by identity view, tangled in craving, aversion and delusion. Direct knowledge is unembellished, without defilements of craving, aversion and delusion.
With mindfulness, one practices relinquishing identity view. One relinquishes the desire in that. One opens up to direct knowledge.

SN35.95:10.1: “In that case, when it comes to things that are to be seen, heard, thought, and known: in the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.

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


text:
Is the sexual act contrary to achieving enlightenment?
I remember reading in a sutta that the Buddha said not engaging in the sexual act is considered right action. Does anybody know the place where that is written? I don’t remember where I read it.

See Is the Noble Eightfold Path a path of celibacy? and Is celibacy intrinsic to Buddhism?

I added the reference-request tag because I think that's what you were asking -- i.e. simply asking for a reference to the sutta where "not engaging in the sexual act" is "right action".

That was referenced in this answer.
The word used there is abrahmacariyā and associated with celibacy.
That word used that way (celibacy) in the 3rd of the eight precepts -- see the references at the start of this answer -- a different word is used in the 3rd of the five precepts.
I think it has a broader meaning than celibacy though, e.g. it's used in SN 54.2 -- so instead of or as well as "celibate" it's translated "the holy life" or "the spiritual life" -- I think it refers to a monk's life, including keeping the rules of the vinaya and the company of other monks.
Where it's used in SN 45.8, I note that the three types of wrong action which are listed there -- i.e. killing, stealing, and sexual intercourse -- correspond to parajika offenses which result in someone's automatically losing their status as a monk or nun.

Thanks, the answer is satisfying.

this answer sounds wrong, which is why i original marked it down. there appears nothing in SN 45.2 that refers to a kalyāṇamittatā as exclusively a monk


text:
why i have to resist itching/tingling sensations
what to do with these sensations,these happens all day,why i have to resist to itch   i am wondering when i can simply itch that move on.

The point is not to resist the urge. The meditation is in observing the effect the itch has on the mind. Satipatthana meditation is defined with three qualities: Ardency, Alertness, and Mindfulness. Let us focus on the first quality here. Though note that all three apply.

"Ardency means being intent on what you're doing, trying your best to do it skillfully. This doesn't mean that you have to keep straining and sweating all the time, just that you're continuous in developing skillful habits and abandoning unskillful ones." - Thanissaro Bhikku

So in this context, we would want to itch in a skillfull way.
How does "Simply itching and moving on" effect us? How does giving into our urges when they come about serve us?
Does giving into the minds urges immediately lead you towards the goal or away from it? Each moment you are conditioning your mind (your kamma). Conditioning your mind to reactivity can lead to unskillful qualities if not done with headfulness.
I encourage you to scratch the itch and observe how your mind reacts. Then don't scratch it and observe it. Does there need to be discomfort because of the itch.
Recall the Five Subjects of Frequent Recollection:

Kammassakomhi kamma-dāyādo kamma-yoni kamma-bandhu kamma-paṭisaraṇo.

I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and live dependent on my actions.

Yaṁ kammaṁ karissāmi kalyāṇaṁ vā pāpakaṁ vā tassa dāyādo bhavissāmi.

Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.

Evaṁ amhehi abhiṇhaṁ paccavekkhitabbaṁ.

We should often reflect on this.

scratching feels good while resisting it creates confusion in my mind that why i am not allowed to scratch,that persistent confusion drives me to scratching again ):

Scratching does feel good. How does your mind feel with relation to that pleasure?
Resisiting also feels pointless and causes confusion. How does tension build from resisting scratching? Does your breathing quicken? Does your chest tighten? Does your face tighten?
An itch is a microcosm for how the mind causes itself suffering. Don't think "I'm not allowed to scratch". Vipassana is not dogmatic. Oberserve how your mind acts when you believe you must do something. The easiest way to start this is to observe how the body reacts. If it's tight, relax it. Try to breathe in a way that calms

@SurajPandey Also please upvote an answer, after you ask a question, if you feel it helped you. This helps others see something that may help them.

It's not normal to itch all day and it is a skin issue, possibly an allergy or an intolerance of some sort but can also be a liver or a kidney problem and whatnot.
If scratching an itch gives you relief from the uncomfort then you can make yourself comfortable. The Buddha adjusted the posture when his back hurt and took a nap in daytime when he saw it fit.
Medical procedures are of course allowed and the relief from physical illness is in a qualified sense a stilling of suffering.
I guess you got the idea of not scratching an itch from some 'vipassana meditation' teaching of just observing feelings and perceptions.
However if we just passively observe everything without acting on our knowledge for the purpose of stilling that which is suffering and avoiding states connected with aversion, greed and delusion then we wouldn't be going to an empty building or the root of a tree to meditate nor would we be guarding our senses.
Physical discomfort is a cause for aversion and it is difficult to think clearly when one is upset. Some defilements are to be abandoned by forbearance and some defilements are to be abandoned by avoidance, forbearance isn't always the way to deal with discomfort; if forbearance was always the answer would we eat to keep hunger away?
One doesn't have to choose between being mindful and scratching an itch because the two aren't antagonistic to one another.

"One doesn't have to choose between being mindful and scratching an itch because the two aren't antagonistic to one another."
I feel that this is true, but there are nuances. "Scratching the itch and moving on" implies to me that we will just fill the urge and then move on. Mindfulness would imply that we are aware of why we want to itch and how it affects the mind. While your statement is true, I would be cautious to advise people in this way. It leads to headlessness. If they ignorantly follow the advice, they will simply itch or move everytime they want in meditation

I thought he was talking about itching in general and not particularly whilst trying to "meditate" as he wrote; 'what to do with these sensations, these happen all day..'. Either way whether or not one should be scratching an itch during meditation is not a categorical question.

Relating to the categorical part, I did some reading and found something that could be of interest to you. Please see AN 2:18, AN 10:165, and MN 78. Here the Buddha gives a categorical answer to skillful vs unskillful bodily, verbal, and mental actions (In AN 2:18 and AN 10:165). He then discusses unskillful and skillful habits in the same manner presented in MN78. Metta

I don't see how this is relevant lest you can categorize all scratching of an itch as unskillful action

Either way my general sentiment was that one ought to address the illness of itching so that one can minimize it and if one is going to scratch an itch it isn't a big deal. Forbearance does come into play but it is complicated topic connected with knowledge and perception development, not an easy subject to analyze but in general one would use insight to cut the root cause for aversion connected to the painful feeling, developing perception of not self ie is conducive to it.

yes i feels confused about to scratch or not

i also feels tingling when i cross leged what to do for that ? i also have to see that tingling and not change my position to get rid from that tingling sensation ?

There is no trick to make it go away. The Buddha allowed special medicine for itchy skin. If there is no treatment or a cure for the painful bodily feelings then one should ask 'how to train with a chronic itch/pain?'.

Clay is what the Buddha allowed for itchy skin. After researching it my inclination is to think that it is ingesting clay that is referred to but it could be application to the skin as well or rather. As i said earlier id look into food and histamine intolerances as well allergies and mast cell disorders, lest you already know what the problem is. Hope you get well.


text:
Moving During Meditation
When I feel dullness in meditation, I tend to move about on the chair, e.g. tilt forwards or backwards, change position to prod myself to wakefulness.
Would such a method be detrimental? Should one aspire to remain completely still during meditation?

If you experience dullness, it's because your thinking mind (little mind) has gotten bored and is trying to put itself to sleep. You can alleviate the dulness by movement, sure — there's nothing wrong with that, exactly — but it's a sideways transition. The more productive approach is to recognize that your thinking mind wants to go to sleep, and that you can detach from it and let it sleep while you remain alert and awake. The thinking mind is just confused: it thinks it's you, and that if it goes to sleep you should go to sleep with it. All you need to do is break that association.

I don't think it matters and you should even get up to do walking meditation if you notice the hindrance of drowsiness, it s not the go-to adjustment but it's definitely one of the things one can do to wake oneself up. See Capala Sutta
The question i would ask is whether adjusting posture is solving your issue because it's probably better to attend to a different theme.
In general i think one of the biggest mistakes is to sit observing the hindrances.
It's not an easy subject to advice on because what one at that time should do depends on what one can do and in that we are all limited by our general knowledge.
I generally counter hindrances by picking themes and making adjustments. Commentary even lists 'tiresome work' as a remedy for drowsiness, not something id recommend but i favor it over nodding aimlessly for half an hour.
If one just has one theme be it development of samadhi which leads to mindfulness & alertness, metta, maranasati, the practise of stilling the breath or the development of other perceptions; if one just does one thing then it is going to be a hit or miss most days and maybe by virtue of general development one might overcome the hindrances at some point but afaik it's not what the Buddha recommends as he taught directed and undirected development.

The mind and body are not different.  When your body moves, your mind moves.  Just as thinking prevents consciousness from settling, when you move your body you are creating just as much disruption.  There's a reason why we sitting is the optimal way to meditate.  We ground our minds in the stability of the body.  An upright body is likewise an upright mind.
I'd also ask you to explore this notion of dullness.  Is this the actual hindrance or are you mistaking dullness for an aversion to stillness?  As our we settle into quiet, our small minds desperately try to regain control and will throw up all sorts of road blocks like boredom, restlessness, and doubt.  Also remember, when we meditate, our minds can become dark and murky.  A lack of crispness and clarity isn't dullness but rather a sign that we are entering a deeper level of awareness.  It's not dullness; instead, it's the first indication that we are moving into something more profound.


text:
How to think deeply and penetrate into its core?
I want to quote my experience as - "True Understanding brings effortless transformation". In my experience I have found that whenever I understand something deeply (ohhh! Moment) it transforms that part of my behavior and thinking completely. If I don't understand something I am in a constant state of confusion and suffering. So my question is how I can penetrate deep into any topic to understand it profoundly? Does Buddha share any such techniques to sharpen my thinking abilities?

How to think deeply and penetrate its core? How to think critically? Or how to gain insight?
Regardless a good place to start is to attempt to know something by understanding its binary opposite. You think you know what something is? Every detail of what it is? U memorized it? Backwards and forwards? Now do the same for understanding what it is not. Every detail of what it is not. Or what is there in its absence. Or what is absent in its presence and absence. And what about a non-binary opposite?? Write it all down. Memorize it. until you can repeat it backwards.
Take this example:
You are a man and you want to be popular with women so you learn as much as you can. You worship them you pray fr them you protect them you do everything you can but still they dont notice you.
But you only started learning about women with learning about women. Did you learn about men too? Should you? Are they the same? What are the differences anyways? Genetics?
Ok so youre a man and you know eveyrthing about men.
Do you know about trans women? Trans men? Nonbinary afabs? Binary amab transsexuals?
Maybe youll never know about women. So do give up or do you continue to train in true understanding? Better to be a monk then?

So my question is how I can penetrate deep into any topic to understand it profoundly? Does Buddha share any such techniques to sharpen my thinking abilities?

Yes, anapanasati is suitable for this. It’s detailed in the satipatthana sutta:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html
Comments to the sutta can be read here:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html

Well for the '''higher knowledges'' the buddha says that the concentrated must be turned to them, like here
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/03/an03-102.html
currently nobody knows how to turn the concentrated  mind to the higher knowledge.  And Just having a concentrated mind seems very hard....

I’m starting to see crosses in most of the default SE avatars, maybe I’m getting started.
I think there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Ask yourself if you think so and you will have an answer.


text:
How to tackle cold?
Simple question -- how to tackle cold feeling during winter through meditation other than clothes or anything?
Asking for specific meditation details with insight for tackling cold without any tantra or mantra or yantra.

What will be sensations in various parts of body?
What will be various body-parts movement during meditation(other than shaking)?
What will be the thoughts?
Will one have to maintain some pressure within body?
What will be the side effects or hindrances, if any?

All the minute details which can be generalized to everyone.
Don't write answers with advice like, "think to be born in cold countries..."... Here coldness/enviornment refers to the point where meditator will have the need to wear woolen clothes...!
If you have any authoritative (gautama the buddha's only) source for meditation on such, can give that -- but otherwise looking for specific practical experience.
Theorist may consider it a challenge, if they haven't experienced
Be Happy,
Metta

How cold are you asking about -- what temperature, how much wind, wearing what clothing, and for how long?

@chrisw already edited, read question properly, again.

When I asked, "how cold?", I meant, "what temperature?" The other questions -- like "how much wind", and, "for how long", are relevant too, I think. Your edit i.e., "cold enough to need to wear woollen clothes", didn't mean much to me. You don't have to answer but I thought it relevant to ask.

Last comment for @ChrisW on this particulat Q&A thread:: Nope! Thinking in wrong direction. These 2 questions are a challenge and greatest contribution to buddhists/truth-seekers, till now on internet. Good luck(if luck exists)!.

@Ego Breaker.Such a very ego-full comment...

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is "too open-ended" (as described in the Moderation policies for Questions).

Buddhists usually put on warm clothes if they’re feeling cold. If the feeling persists, consider talking to a physician.

I'm inclined to agree with Erik.
Here's Ven Yuttadhammo, who is Canadian and in Canada -- Ask A Monk: Avoiding Cold -- saying that you might wear a hat "as a matter of course".
I think it's a matter of learning (or being taught) what the body can tolerate -- physical problems include (depending on how cold it is), hypothermia, chilblains, eventually frostbite.
I used to bicycle to and from work, just over an hour each way, in Toronto, year-round. And they were some of my favourite hours of every day, but a slightly extreme/unusual practice in winter and doing it (subzero and wind and sometimes wet for an hour twice a day every day) did depend on wearing winter gloves and boots.
Can I say, "don't be stupid"?
Every Canadian must learn to live with cold (and to dress appropriately). Winter there even in the south might have a daytime high of -10°C for months on end -- but life goes on, for everyone, you go out to go to school or work or exercise.
One danger is that stupidity (or "confusion") is caused by hypothermia -- i.e. if you do become hypothermic you might be too stupid to realise that and do something about it. Once I spent a week mountain-hiking with a school group in spring, and then we were told to watch out for our "buddies" -- we were told that if they stop being able to talk sense, that if they get angry, then perhaps they're hypothermic and we should act on that.
Another thing to know, I guess, is that "feeling cold" is a kind of a good thing -- where it becomes dangerous is if you lose sensation in a body-part -- usually extremities like the ears or toes.
Ditto if you feel overheated when you're not (not that I have experienced that extreme personally).
If you're interested the first place I feel cold is my ribs -- on either side, left and right, and level with my heart. There's no fat there, under the skin. A typical meditation posture might have your elbows down and upper arms against your sides protecting that area.
I reckon you ought to regulate your core temperature -- for health reasons, that's only sensible and a "middle way" practice -- and that skin temperature (and/or skin being wet) doesn't matter as long as you avoid chilblains and frostbite.

This answer is also spam, not from a meditator. Just trying to show ego&stupidity by saying OP to be stupid. Householders are not invited.

I'm not calling you stupid. I'm warning that becoming genuinely cold is a cause of stupidity -- Wikipedia -- "This typically occurs during moderate and severe hypothermia, as the person becomes disoriented, confused, and combative" -- and causes impairments to the body's feeling the cold.

I find this type of unsubstantiated 'stupidity, not a meditator and ego' allegations very rude. Especially from a new account... Looks like a troll/puppet account really. In general i don't see why such patronizing statements are tolerated.

The mods do so much work here and definitely shouldn't have to deal with this crap. It's just abuse and harrasment. Id even bet on whose account it is if id get 2:1

@sigh... I don't really feel abused, I don't think, so don't worry? though I would have deleted the comment if it were addressed to another user. I guess I might recognise which other user account this one is like, though it might not be the one you're thinking of (try not to hold a grudge, eh). I can see my answer's saying, "don't be stupid", might look insulting to the OP (sorry). Perhaps it's a fair comment then and gave me a chance to clarify what I meant to say -- that even a small drop in core body temperature is dangerous, stupefying, and a matter of physics and physiology.

Also that "shaking" (aka shivering) generates heat (from the muscles). So I imagined (at the risk of exaggerating) that if a meditator tried to pacify that shiver reflex or refuses to do something to stay warm then a body might only get colder and more quickly (perhaps even at not-especially cold air temperatures). It might be an altered state but IMO not a sane one, ditto if you're solitary and without a buddy.


text:
What is the meaning of "Nothing new will be said here, nor have I any skill in composition. Therefore I do not imagine that I can benefit others."
To my knowledge, Bodhicaryāvatāra expressed the Nothing new will be said here, nor have I any skill in composition. Therefore I do not imagine that I can benefit others. I have done this to perfume my own mind..
In my limited understanding, it refers to the negative thoughts although I do not have complete comprehension of it.
What does it refer to, what is the intention and what is to be practiced?

Shantideva’s work is among the most beautiful and profound pieces of writing ever composed on earth in any language. It is jaw dropping in its profound beauty and the author must have been an extraordinary Bodhisattva if not a fully accomplished enlightened being. Personally, I prefer to see it as the work of a fully and completely enlightened being. To me this verse was written out of compassion by this perfect being  to show others how to accomplish the same by overcoming the foes of conceit and self-importance.
The purpose of this verse is a thought training by the author intended to show others how to subdue conceit and lust for reputation. It is a verse which is full of humility and self-deprication designed to counteract conceited and prideful thoughts.
Shantideva's text is a master class in training the mind to be a Bodhisattva. All the verses are examples illustrating how a Bodhisattva practices and thinks.

Possibly related topics but from the Theravada tradition:

What is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity'?
What is right gifting?
How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

I'm not sure what "negative thoughts" are -- though I know the term is used in pop psychology -- which teaches or uses "negative" as a synonym of "defeatist" ...

a person who expects or is excessively ready to accept failure

... and perhaps also as a symptom of stress and depression and conflict (and maybe loss of focus or "unwise attention").
The phrase is, literally or grammatically, negative ("nothing" ... "nor" ... "no") -- so it is "negative", but beneficially so, in the sense that it negates the arising of unskilful mental states like "conceit" etc.

A fool with a sense of his foolishness
  is — at least to that extent — wise.[the "teacher"]
  But a fool who thinks himself wise
  really deserves to be called
      a fool. [most of his follower] dhp


text:
What does Buddhism say about events that cannot be explained through rational thought?
What does Buddhism say about events that cannot be explained through rational thought (also known as Glitch-in-the-Matrix events)?
For example, if I dropped a key in a closed room with nothing else there, what is the explanation for why it disappeared if I go to pick it up and it is not there?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it has nothing to do with Buddhism

Are there any examples of such events?

A feature of Buddhism is Noble Silence -- i.e. not getting drawn into speculation (or "unwise attention").
I don't want to complain about the question, but the first paragraph is fiction (referencing the Matrix) and the second is like a "thought experiment" but I don't know what you're saying with it or if it's a metaphor for something -- it appears to invite speculation (maybe someone took it? maybe you misremembered?) -- or it's perhaps a paradox.
There are Kōans, used in some traditions of Buddhism, I don't know that's related to this question though.
One or two suttas mention the four great references -- and according to that I'd say that your question is not the kind of thing that the Buddha talked about -- to that extent "Buddhism" doesn't say anything about that topic.
At the risk of sounding too new-Age I might add that buddhism points out that put-together things are impermanent -- and so are thoughts, that there are different thought-moments. Given that your second paragraph is no more than a thought-experiment, there's nothing very remarkable about a thought (like "a key") existing in one moment and not existing in another.

There are no such events; all experienced reality is mindmade and is therefore completely reasonable
That which is called mind, consciousness or intellect preceds all phenomena, mind is their ruler mind-made are they.
Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness; perception, feeling and synthesis. Form is not conjoined with consciousness. Form is synthesized by synthesis as form.
Contact at any sense base is associated with contact at mind base.
Thus it is not surprising that one can use mathematics to understand perceived reality and it appears as if it is based on these same philosophical principles, because it is. Therefore reality is inherently reasonable.

Please elaborate/improve this answer.

I don't post on this site because mod is stupid and deletes answers but i'll make an exception.

So nice of you.

Buddha called them views.
These are discussed in "Net of all views" sutta.
https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato


text:
Intensifying sensations in Vipassana
When I sit for Vipassana and observe the sensations, they intensify. The sensations get stronger and stronger the more I observe them. After a limit these sensations break my will power to sit and force me to stop. What is happening here, can anyone explain?

Are you talking about painful bodily sensations? It's probably helpful if you explain what the sensations are and how you 'observe' them

Normally our attention is diffuse and weak. When you focus on anything it becomes clearer. That's a part of it for sure. The same will happen to sounds, etc. if you focus on them. Of course, pain will increase itself if you don't take steps to alleviate it, so that's often also a part.
Important is that the pain is not a problem, and if you can see it just as pain, it doesn't matter how intense it becomes. The Buddha said we should bear with pain even if it feels like it will kill us. When you are averse or afraid of the pain, you should take that aversion or fear as an object of mindfulness. This will help you see clearly (vipassana) that the pain is just pain:

dukkhaṃ vā vedanaṃ vedayamāno ‘dukkhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmī’ti pajānāti.
When feeling a painful feeling, one knows fully, "I am feeling a painful feeling."

The idea is that that should be all you know about it, not that it's bad or a problem or getting worse, etc. All of those things are reactions and should be taken as objects of mindfulness as well.

Generally, one gets attached to pleasant sensations and averse to unpleasant sensations. When on feels some unpleasantness one changes focus.
Initially, when one tries to stay with unpleasant sensations without turning away from this it can be irritating. One has to gradually develop equanimity.


text:
What are the soteriological aims of different traditions?
From this answer ...

I would suggest dropping this line of inquiry or at least treading very carefully as you seem quite confused about what is being taught by the differing traditions and their soteriological aims.

... which I read as saying that differing traditions have differing soterioloical aims.
All I've seen of that before was:

The list in item 2 of this answer (which seemed to me a good answer, though what do I know?).
Also Wikipedia's Soteriology (Buddhism) which is fair enough but not detailed.
And occasionally a post about a specific tradition (for example Shin).

What are the aims (plural)? And can you summarise what the the doctrine or practice or discipline is, towards achieving those aims?
If it helps you answer, please assume I'm more familiar with the Pali suttas than other traditions -- so I might be principally asking about other traditions, perhaps you needn't quote the suttas.

I did not mean to imply that different traditions have different soteriological aims in that comment, but in fact I do believe they do so I’ll let others answer first as I am curious if others agree. No, what I was after in that post was it did not seem to me that the poster was at all interested in the soteriological aims of any tradition, but was treating it more like an academic study.

I suspect it is so, and I quoted out of context to make the question. And I don't want to say that they are different i.e. that they don't have something in common, but even so it might help as a way to better understand each (or all). I find it difficult to even ask introductory questions about other traditions -- here was one earlier attempt.

I feel the question is very deep since only an enlightened mind could know what 'salvation' really means. I'm not surprised there's no rush of answers. As for me, I expect a supply of virgins and a luthier-built harp.

@PeterJ It might be too broad (asking about several traditions) and shallow (asking for a summary or overview).

@ChrisW - To me the questions seem to go straight to the heart of the disagreement between schools, in particular that between Mahayana and Theravada. It's a fascinating one. I don't think it's too broad or shallow but is perhaps too deep and dangerous.

@PeterJ We decided (early, before I was asked to moderate, Andrei decided and I accepted) that this specific question -- Which type of Buddhism is for me? -- wasn't askable and for the  reasons Andrei gave at the time. But this one appears to be permissible even if not easily answerable (or is it, not worth answering). A good answer to this question (about a tradition) could be based on personal experience (within that tradition) and/or one or more references -- I think this question is theoretically answerable and a moderator could...

... discern off-topic answer (e.g. an answer which does little but criticise other traditions). I do find it hard to ask introductory questions (perhaps comparable to the introductory questions I asked about the Pali canon), if you might have any suggestions?

I feel the answerer would have to describe two or more different goals, and yet the idea there could be two different soteriological goals makies no sense. In this case all but one goal would have to rejected as a misunderstanding. Arguments might ensue about which it should be. I don't mind arguments, they're the meat and drink of philosophy, so while I really like the question I'm not surprised at the lack of response. It's a can of worms. This is why it's such a good question.  .

If you are interested in comparative religion, it is worthwhile to ask American or other Westernized Buddhists, precisely because they are probably converts who were raised with another religion.  It is easier for us to compare Buddhism (rationally) to other faiths.
In Protestant Christianity (of the evangelical variety) there is deep emphasis on "salvation by grace, not works".  You go to heaven because Jesus allows you to go to heaven, in spite of you not deserving it.  "Lest any man should boast."  There are, of course, other takes on soteriology within Christendom, and there are faith-based doctrines as well as works-based doctrines enshrined in Christian scriptures.
What I find appealing about Buddhism is that it is entirely works-based; there is nothing un-earned about progress, transformation, and enlightenment in the Buddha Way.  In Buddhism, there is no shortcut around the law of Karma.  Everybody who deserves to go to hell, will go to hell, and will stay there until they learn the appropriate lessons.
But the doctrine of hell (in Buddhism) is different than the doctrine of hell in Christianity (or Islam for that matter).  In Christian teachings, hell is a place where souls are tortured and tormented after having received a well-deserved prison sentence from a judgmental Higher Power.  In Buddhism, you are not going to be sent to burn in hell; you are "in hell" already.  "Hell" is temporary happiness.  "Hell" is a mental state of anguish, ignorance, hatred, confusion, regret, loneliness.  "Hell" is your future lives, your past lives, and your present life where you believe that happiness comes from sensory pleasure, flattery and praise, the absence of difficulty, accumulation of more for oneself at others' expense -- when that is absolutely not the case.  Happiness cannot come  from any of those things.  This is the meaning of hell.  This is the cause of suffering.
And, whether you believe it or not, you are going to continue to relive the same pointless struggles over and over again until you learn what happiness actually is.
While enlightenment is entirely based upon our own merit, the Way to enlightenment was offered as a free gift, from the Buddha... lest any man should boast.  For the Buddha to teach us the dharma, it was necessary that he be born into this world, full of suffering and death and decay, with a human body that would necessarily get old and die like ours.  He had sufficient merit to be born in a much better world, but he endured the suffering of this life for our benefit.  In that way, the Christian can readily see how the Buddha's birth and death was like a crucifixion, but at the same time he did not "pay the price" for us to actually attain enlightenment.  We must pay that price ourselves.

Pardon me, I think I mistakenly believed that the original question came from the "I have to interview a Buddhist for my college class" guy.  I don't know if he's still around.
Not sure that my answer is actually appropriate for this question....

I meant "... of different Buddhist traditions" -- I wasn't asking for a comparison with Christianity, but thank you.

I can't give a very informed answer but fwiw as it seems

It appears the doctrine of Mahayana and Vajrayana is such that Buddha in a disagreeable to Theravada (i guess also to Suttavadins, Sarvastivadins and Sautrantika schools, although i don't know for sure) way can be said to live in Nibbana, thus their goal i assume is a sort of becoming in some sort of eternal heavenly realm. They undertake what they think is the practice of a Bodhisatta to get there.

I think a lot of other traditions have similar doctrines of essentially a soul or a self. Even among the modern Theravadins one can easily find whole sects who believe that maybe Buddha lives in Nibbana.
I am not sure what the goal of the latter group is but i have to assume a lot of yogis are just practicing meditation and vinaya to get some good results.
Either way it is not surprising that eternal existence of a self remains the most popular delusion and that it would affect the various schools, that apologetic texts would be produced and some would have it in their canon.

That reminds me of this answer (which says among other things that even within one school there are different views of it).

I guess many people analyze their school's texts and make up their own mind, like vibhajavadins. Afaik tibetan school preserved more of the abhidhamma than the sri lankans.

They have differing aims in that one is unaware the other even has aims! LOL
Here’s how i “became a buddhist”
My guru saw me suffering greatly. Threw me a bone, woke me up. Only because it was easy and convenient and we were neighbors. In the process of him doing his charitable dharma we had consensual sex. I am not saying it was not consensual but it is funny how so many powerful, faithful male teachers use generosity as the claim for them to “spread the dharma” and the accidental surprise side effect is that they get laid in the process....I digress.We slept together. Then he ghosted me which is how he taught me the 8 worldly winds which MIND YOU ISNT REALLY NICE/CHIVALROUS but i learned. Eventually i became very angry with him. This anger burned until the flames consumed me and taught me extinction. When i learned extinction i heard his voice in my ear. “Now u see i gave you what you wanted. Now u know how to put out ur own flames. Go now you can be a theravedan”
The idea is that they are the same. But one group uses the collective tools for specific purposes that may or not be secretive or may need to be kept hidden for protection, safety, fear of harm or persecution etc.

As nobody else has chipped in I'll have a go.
I'd say the soteriological goal is Union with Reality. More properly, it would be the realisation of this unchanging Union. Thus the goal would not be Union but realisation.
This would be a philsophical way of thinking about it. In more immediately accessible terms it would be the end of suffering and the extinction of this annoying and troublesome 'self'. For some Buddhists the goal is simply a better life next time around, and HHDL tells us this was enough for many lay Tibetans back in the day.
The issue is tricky because it would not be possible to imagine the goal. Thus nobody knows the goal until they achieve it. The rest of us are exploring and hoping we're heading in the right direction.
It may be said that there is no goal but this is a sophisticated view that can only really make sense to practitioners. It seems best to speak conventionally and acknowledge that in a sense there is definitely a goal. This would be an example of Nagarjuna's 'two truths'.
This may be a Mahayana answer, but it seems comprehensive to me.

Sorry I don't know what "real" or "reality" mean except they're a dual of "ideal". The term "union with reality" could mean anything from the "soul joining with god" to the scientist's "theoretical predictions matching experimental observation". Also I guess I was asking what the differences or peculiarities are of different traditions, perhaps this answer is trying to summarise what they have in common.

@ChrisW - Yoga is often described as the 'art of union with reality' and I don't think the language is obscure. Your first interpretation would be close, but the idea of souls would be a no-no. I have no idea of the differences between traditions but would be surprised if they did not have this much in common.

Yoga is often described as the 'art of union with reality' and I don't think the language is obscure. I can kind of understand it, as a Hindu theme. I have no idea of the differences between traditions Yes and the first paragraph of the answer didn't leave me any wiser on that subject i.e. about the different traditions. Still the rest of it gave me some insight, thank you -- i.e. perhaps it's differing interpretations of "non-self" and of "non-craving".

@ChrisW - Perhaps the issue is whether non-self and non-craving depend on the realisation of union. I would say they do.  I can see no other soteriological goal than this. Hence the Buddha's enlightenment is described as a Cosmic event. I cannot get my head around the idea that Buddhism has a different goal from all the other Wisdom traditions. It would make a mockery of mysticism.   .

I guess my prejudice is that specific traditions are unlikely to have a monopoly on what's true and good, and that different traditions express and/or may approach it differently -- iow the different traditions may describe different routes or views or relationships or emphases, even if the several "buddhist" traditions also have something[s] in common.

@ChrisW - This would be my view also. Many paths, one destination.

This answer sounds like the soteriological aim of Advaita Vedanta (Hinduism), and not of any Buddhist school. It seems to be completely off-topic (i.e. nothing to do with any Buddhist school).


text:
Was Buddhism during the life of the Buddha unique in the history of religion per Huston Smith?
In chapter 3 of Buddhism, A Concise Introduction, Huston Smith and Philip Novak give a list of characteristics present in Hinduism at the time of the Buddha:

Authority: "talent and sustained attention will lift some people above others in matters of spirit"
Ritual
Speculation: "Whence do we come, whither do we go, why are we here? People want answers to these questions."
Tradition
Grace: "In the last resort the universe is friendly; we can feel at home in it."
Mystery: "Being finite, the human mind cannot begin to fathom the Infinite, which it is drawn to."

The authors described Buddhism as "(at the start) a religion almost entirely devoid of each of the above mentioned ingredients without which we would suppose that religion could not take root."
In particular, "Buddha preached a religion that skirted speculation." The authors quote from Sutta 63 of the Majjhima Nikāya, wherein one of the Buddha's disciples says,

Whether the world is eternal or not eternal, whether the world is finite or not, whether the soul is the same as the body or whether the soul is one thing and the body another, whether a Buddha exists after death or does not exist after death—these things the Lord does not explain to me.

Near the end of the chapter Smith and Novak write,

After his death all the accoutrements the Buddha labored to protect his religion from came tumbling into it, but as long as he lived, he kept them at bay. As a consequence, original Buddhism presents us with a version of religion that is unique and therefore historically invaluable

This is how Buddhism is often presented in the west, but my impression was that there were no extant texts to support it. For example, via Wikipedia, here is a seemingly contradictory claim from Andrew Skilton's A Concise History of Buddhism.

It is important to stress that, despite modern Theravada teachings to the contrary (often a sop to skeptical Western pupils), [the Buddha] was never seen as being merely human. For instance, he is often described as having the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks or signs of a mahāpuruṣa, "superman"; the Buddha himself denied that he was either a man or a god; and in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta he states that he could live for an aeon were he asked to do so.

The Mahāparinibbāna Sutta is part of the Pāli Canon so AFAIK is as old as any record we have. Is Huston and Novak's view at odds with Skilton's? Or am I missing something? And if they are at odds, can Huston and Novak's view be supported?

I'm not sure how to answer. Would it be useful to quote some doctrine[s] from the suttas, which are antithetical to (i.e. which contradict) each of the 6 points of doctrine listed at the top of the question? In order to try to demonstrate that, indeed, Buddhism wasn't as described by those 6 items?

i wonder how that compares with the chinese patriarchs of zen

The question seems muddled. I do not see why the Buddha having the thirty-two marks and his denial that he is God or Man makes him other than 'merely human'. He taught that all of us 'merely humans' are in the same boat (as did Jesus). I see no  disagreement between Smith/Novak and Skilton. The numbered list you quote  does not even mention the Buddha. . .

Sure right if thinking that it's not easy to understand the question if looking further then the title. But if asked just "Was Buddhism during the life of the Buddha unique in the history of religion"?, then it could be answered. Maybe throwing away all the additions?

To remedy this apparent discontinuity, I think it is wise to look at how the Buddha taught and what methods we proposed to attaining peace. If he were to propose a viewpoint that focused on the pragmatic path and not the esoteric, that would leave one to believe that there is no points at odds. That is not to say that there is not a Buddhist phenomenology or ontology, but that the Buddha did not propose the investigation as a proper means of attainment.

Regarding the Sutta mentioned by Andrew Skilton:

Kappam va tittheyya kappavasesam va. Comy. takes kappa not as "world-period" or "aeon," but as ayu-kappa, "life span," and explains avasesa (usually "remainder") by "in excess."
Comy.: "He may stay alive completing the life span pertaining to men at the given time. (Sub. Comy.: the maximum life span.) Kappavasesa: 'in excess' (atireka), i.e., more or less above the hundred years said to be the normally highest life expectation."
Among the numerous meanings of the word kappa, there is, in fact, that of time in general (kala) and not only the duration of an aeon; but the meaning "life span" seems to have been ascribed to it only in this passage. Also, the meaning "in excess" for avasesa (usually "remainder") is unusual.
The four constituents of psychic power (iddhipada) are concentration due to zeal, energy, purity of mind, and investigation.

Access to Insight note on Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Now, let us look at how the Buddha taught and the overall focus of the teachings.
In the Alagaddūpama Sutta  (MN 22) the Buddha discusses views and will help in the search for your answer. It is much too long to summarize in the post, but it provides an underpinnings of the pragmatic aspects
The Dīghanakha Sutta is another sutta we can look at to see how the Buddha viewed esoteric fixed views:

“There are these three kinds of feeling: a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling, and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. On the occasion when one feels a pleasant feeling, one does not feel either a painful feeling or a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. One feels only a pleasant feeling on that occasion. On the occasion when one feels a painful feeling, one does not feel either a pleasant feeling or a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. One feels only a painful feeling on that occasion. On the occasion when one feels a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling, one does not feel either a pleasant feeling or a painful feeling. One feels only a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling on that occasion.
“A pleasant feeling is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to vanishing, fading, ceasing. A painful feeling is also inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to vanishing, fading, ceasing. A neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is also inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to vanishing, fading, ceasing.

Here we see that the Buddha, focused on what we perceive rather than views about what we perceive. Earlier in the sutta, he discusses some Brahmans view with respect to please: All is pleasing to me, All is not pleasing to me, and 'A part of me is pleasing; a part of me is not pleasing'. The focus here is not a categorical answer of what is and is not pleasure, but how we relate to the pleasure and the nature of the pleasure.

“Kassapa, the statement, ‘With the one who acts being the same as the one who experiences, existing from the beginning, pleasure & pain are self-made’: This circles around eternalism [see Appendix Two]. And the statement, ‘With the one who acts being one thing, and the one who experiences being another, existing as the one struck by the feeling’: This circles around annihilationism. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathāgata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications…. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

Acela Sutta

The point I'm trying to make is that the Buddha was very thoughtful in how and why he answered questions. He focused on what led to the end of suffering, which was not focusing on the esoteric teachings (in most cases). We see time and time again that he speaks in terms of suffering and the cessation of suffering. Thus I conclude, that there is no disconnect between the two.
This is not a direct answer persay, but I hope this can spur further discussion
References:
Skill in Question: How the Buddha Taught by Thanissaro Bhikku
Buddhist Romanticism by Thanissaro Bhikku

The alternative translation of the quotation from the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta certainly changes the implications of that bit of text.

Skilton is deeming as valid to the very accoutrements Smith & Novac have suggested are invalid. On the subject of Skilton's opinion, the monk Bhikkhu Sujato provides his own opinion, as follows:

DN 30 Lakkhaṇa (“The Marks of a Great Man”): The early texts refer
  several times to a mysterious set of bodily characteristics known as
  the “marks of a great man”. These are said to fulfill a brahmanical
  prophecy that one who possesses such marks will either become a
  universal emperor or a fully awakened Buddha. Normally when the suttas
  present something as a brahmanical teaching, it is in fact found in
  brahmanical texts. But in this case no trace of such a doctrine has
  been found, so the origins of this mythological idea are obscure. The
  story of the two paths is a classic mythological theme, found in the
  oldest known myth, the story of Gilgamesh. The marks of a great man
  exist as a curious counterpoint to the rational teachings found in
  most of the suttas. In this particular sutta, the Buddha is said to
  have explained each mark as a consequence of a specific kind of kammic
  deed. The literary and verse styles betray this as a late composition,
  and it has no real parallel in other collections. Nevertheless, it
  remains as a testament to the evolution of the idea of the Buddha,
  relating his spiritual qualities to his physical presence.
The Long Discourses: Dhamma as literature and compilation

In short, the Dhamma refuge is defined as follows therefore anything outside of this definition cannot be deemed as True Dhamma:

Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko
  paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhīti
The Dhamma is well expounded by the Blessed One, directly visible,
  immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally
  experienced by the wise.

Since Buddhism contains the Tripiṭaka, which officially or undisputedly includes many later compositions, such as Abhidhamma Pitaka, parts of the Vinaya Piṭaka (with new doctrines) and parts of the Khuddaka Nikāya; it is plainly clear there was a Buddhist clergy with the institutional power to add teachings into what became the Tripiṭaka. In other words, the power to add to the Sutta Pitaka and to attribute such additions to the Buddha himself.

@Dhammadhatu, would it be fair to say that there are things in the earliest available Buddhist texts that do not fit the pattern claimed by Huston and Novak, but we cannot be sure they are the teachings of the Buddha, and in some cases there is good evidence that these things are later additions?

I doubt there is any evidence for anything the Buddha tauight. The only evidence is the realisations that end suffering. regards

The following quote comes from the chapter on Supernormal Elements from the book "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" by Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali.
From their analysis, we find that:

The supernormal elements only form a very small part of the Pali Canon
The supernormal elements are only peripheral to the main message and does not affect the core message of the Buddha's teachings
The supernormal elements are very obviously an addition by later editors of the Pali Canon
The supernormal elements that were later additions are easily identifiable and distinguishable
The supernormal elements did not make the Pali Canon an unreliable transmission
The supernormal elements were added because they were part of the worldview of the society in and after the time of the Buddha
The supernormal elements were added also because they added prestige to the Pali Canon

EBT = Early Buddhist Texts

Apart from the significant evidence from the Dīgha and Majjhima
  Nikāyas, an analysis of one of the main sections of the Canon that
  deals with supernormal beings, the Sagāthā Vagga of the Saṁyutta
  Nikāya, shows that they are almost exclusively confined to
  circumstantial material found in the narrative sections. The Sagāthā
  Vagga contains over 200 Suttas in which the Buddha is seen in
  conversation with divine beings. However, in only 21 of these does the
  actual conversation, as opposed to the surrounding material, suggest
  that one of the parties is non-human. Further, 15 of these 21 are
  conversations with Māra. But since Māra in the EBTs is often a name
  for a psychological state,it is likely that this is so in the
  majority (perhaps all) of these cases too. This leaves us with only
  six Suttas out of more than 200. But even this number does not give a
  fair representation of the state of affairs. All of these six Suttas
  consist of no more than the exchange of a few inspirational verses.
  They either lack doctrinal content completely or it is very limited.
  That is, we are probably not dealing with the sort of core doctrinal
  material that might be considered untouchable.
The notion that discussions between the Buddha and supernormal beings
  are rare or absent is also implied by a passage in the
  MahāparinibbānaSutta (DN 16.2.17). The Buddha is approached by the
  brightly dressed and flamboyant Licchavi princes, and, apparently
  amused, he says to the monks that for those who have never seen the
  gods of the Tāvatiṁsa realm, now is their chance, since they look just
  like these Licchavis! If the gods were visiting the Buddha regularly,
  filling the entire monastery with radiance,as the stock passage
  describes it, the monks could hardly have avoided noticing this.
This quick survey does not cover all the Suttas in the Pali Canon in
  which the Buddha is seen conversing with supernormal beings, but it
  probably comprises the vast majority of them. What we find, then, is
  that supernormal beings are no more than peripheral and mostly
  mentioned either in stories or in the narrative material that
  surrounds the core doctrinal content. In other words, whatever
  enhancement the EBTs underwent at the hands of redactors was limited
  to the circumstantial material and did not affect the core message of
  the Buddha’s teaching.
We do not mean to deny that the EBTs express a world-view in which
  supernormal phenomena are a part. Indeed, it is likely that this very
  world-view was partly responsible for the inclusion of such material
  in the narrative sections. That, and the prestige that this may have
  given the Suttas in the eyes of the intended audience, is sufficient
  to explain why it is there. There is no good reason for thinking that
  the existence of these elements shows that the transmission of the
  core doctrinal content has been unreliable.
Regardless of the actual status of supernormal beings, powers, or
  events in the life of the Buddha, the argument by Collins is of a
  peculiar sort.He moves from saying that later generations “could have”
  invented the Buddha’s statements—a straw man argument, since no-one
  disputes something so obviously true — to the general assertion that we
  have “no way”to distinguish transmission from invention. As we have
  shown through-out this essay, there are in fact many ways of
  distinguishing invention from transmission. Moreover, these are little
  different from the kinds of ordinary distinctions that we make in all
  forms of discourse. For example,consider the frequent evocations of
  “God” by American politicians. Do we assume that, if we are
  professionally agnostic towards the existence of a creator deity, we
  have no grounds for knowing whether any statements by that politician
  are true? Of course not. We take their religious beliefs as religious
  beliefs, and do not expect to find hard evidence for them. And we
  evaluate their factual claims by reference to knowable facts, just as
  we would do for anyone else.

Having read the question, what I can say is that Buddha Dharma is not a religion. It is a living system.
I can also say that Buddha Dharma can be practiced by anyone but to understand the teaching of Buddha you have to be an intellect.


text:
Do "and further", "again", in MahaSatipatthanasutta definitely mean "next step (aparam)"?
In oral study system (reciting and memorizing)...
I definitely sure according to Mahasatipatthanasutta's structure "aparam" means "next step". For an example, after the practitioner meditated the previous body (breath) in (entire) body (in sitting posture), next step when the practitioner is going, he is clearly understanding "I am walking (with clearly understanding in breath, 32 organs, 4 elements, etc.)"  In the blanket is omitted as understood from the previous Pabba in oral study tradition.
Niddharana (list) is the meaning of the sattamii vibhatti of kaaye (entire body), kaayaanupassi and  kaayasmim (body's part), vedanaasu, citte, cittasmim, dhammesu.
"Puna ca" means another Pabba.
Vasi (practice to be professional) is objective of internal, external, internal&external, iriyaapathapabba, and sampajaanapabba which next step from sitting-iriyaapatha in aanapanapabba (and other Pabba).
So, I am not sure of "and further", "again" meaning in all translations. According to each Sutta's context and history, MahasatipatthanaSutta is for no-unawesome-mind-practitioner or attained jhana practitioner (vipassanayaanika), and KaayagatasatiSutta is for newbie jhana practitioner (samathayaanika) and Anapanassati is samatha, so I quoted from KaayagatasatiSutta...

[294] Kathaṃ bhāvitā ca bhikkhave kāyagatā sati kathaṃ bahulīkatā mahapphalā hoti mahānisaṃsā . idha bhikkhave bhikkhu araññagato vā rukkhamūlagato vā suññāgāragato vā nisīdati pallaṅkaṃ ābhujitvā ujuṃ kāyaṃ paṇidhāya parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā . so satova assasati sato passasati . dīghaṃ vā assasanto dīghaṃ assasāmīti pajānāti dīghaṃ vā passasanto dīghaṃ passasāmīti pajānāti . Rassaṃ vā assasanto rassaṃ assasāmīti pajānāti rassaṃ vā passasanto rassaṃ passasāmīti pajānāti . sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī assasissāmīti sikkhati sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī passasissāmīti sikkhati . Passambhayaṃ kāyasaṅkhāraṃ assasissāmīti sikkhati passambhayaṃ kāyasaṅkhāraṃ passasissāmīti sikkhati . tassa evaṃ appamattassa ātāpino pahitattassa viharato ye gehasitā sarasaṅkappā te pahīyanti . Tesaṃ pahānā ajjhattameva cittaṃ santiṭṭhati sannisīdati ekodibhoti 1- samādhiyati evampi bhikkhave bhikkhu kāyagataṃ satiṃ bhāveti.
[295] Puna caparaṃ bhikkhave bhikkhu gacchanto vā gacchāmīti pajānāti ṭhito vā ṭhitomhīti pajānāti nisinno vā nisinnomhīti pajānāti sayāno vā sayānomhīti pajānāti . yathā yathā vā panassa kāyo paṇihito hoti tathā tathā naṃ pajānāti . Tassa evaṃ appamattassa ātāpino pahitattassa viharato ye gehasitā sarasaṅkappā te pahīyanti . tesaṃ pahānā ajjhattameva Cittaṃ santiṭṭhati sannisīdati ekodibhoti samādhiyati evampi bhikkhave bhikkhu kāyagataṃ satiṃ bhāveti.
@Footnote: 1 Ma. Yu. ekodi hoti.

Thaanissaro translation...

"There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.
"Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.
"''Furthermore'', when walking, the monk discerns, 'I am walking.' When standing, he discerns, 'I am standing.' When sitting, he discerns, 'I am sitting.' When lying down, he discerns, 'I am lying down.' Or however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.

Do "and further", "again", surely mean "next step"?

More like 'and deeper than that'. You will find that the majority, perhaps all, lists in the Dhamma are progressions. Each further step if followed opens up the Dhamma further and is closer to the goal:

going from minding the body, to minding the sensations, to minding mental states to minding the Dhamma
minding the fundamental aspects of the body (earth, water, firelight, wind), then postures, then movements, then destiny as a corps
ditto the internals of minding sensations (worldly unpleasant to unworldly neither unpleasant nor unpleasant), mental states (from thoroughly bound up to freed or not), and the Dhamma (from noting involvement to understanding through the Four truths)

Is "and deeper than that"  common known as "furthermore" ? (My English is not good)

"Furthermore" might imply a mere sequence like 1-2-3 i.e. the links of a chain (though it's also used by people who trying to mention every aspect of a topic). "Deeper than" implies a step-by-step teaching, for example walking into an ocean. A synonym for "deep" is "profound" (having or showing great knowledge or insight), an antonym is "superficial" (existing or occurring at or on the surface), it also implies "immersion" (deep mental involvement in something).

Both of you give me great answers. It's not only the answer, but I can feel of the real effort in studies in your mind. Thank you so very much. Bhavanaaya paccayo hotu, Nibbanassa paccayo hotu.

@Mike Some of the features of this site -- e.g. ability to edit your own posts, comment on other people's posts, and use the separate "chat" feature -- depend on your using a "registered" user account (and/or you continue to be welcome to posts an answer without registering).

The sequence will appear clearer if you combine KaayagatasatiSutta (Samatha for beginner) with MahaasatiipatthaanaSutta (Vipassana for enlightenment). The context is very strict, but it's hard to understand by reading. I recite (after memorized) it for 8 years before getting it.

I don't think the satipatthana sutta is describing a progression. puna caparaṃ  is used throughout the Buddha's teaching to connect multiple ideas in a list. For example, in the Mahaparinibbāna Sutta:

“pañcime, gahapatayo, ādīnavā dussīlassa sīlavipattiyā. katame pañca? idha, gahapatayo, dussīlo sīlavipanno pamādādhikaraṇaṃ mahatiṃ bhogajāniṃ nigacchati. ayaṃ paṭhamo ādīnavo dussīlassa sīlavipattiyā.
“puna caparaṃ, gahapatayo, dussīlassa sīlavipannassa pāpako kittisaddo abbhuggacchati. ayaṃ dutiyo ādīnavo dussīlassa sīlavipattiyā.

I don't think it is used to mean "next step". In the above example, as with many other examples, it certainly would be strange to think of it as describing a progression.
PED says:

The phrase puna c' aparaŋ "and again something else" stands on the same level as the phrase aparo pi (apare pi), with which one may compare the parallel expressions puna -- divase: aparadivase all of which show the close relation between pi puna, apara

In the satipatthana sutta there are many different practices, some samatha and some vipassana, and it doesn't seem reasonable that one should necessarily practice them consecutively instead of concurrently or alternatively. Notice that puna ca paraṃ is only used for items within kāya and dhammā because there are multiple sections. It's really more a way of listing, I think, rather than connecting sections.
As the satipatthana sutta commentary says:

The Blessed One's exposition of the Arousing of Mindfulness is similar to the action of a worker in mat and basket weaving who wishing to make coarse and fine mats, boxes, cases, and the like, should make those goods after getting a mammoth bamboo, splitting it into four, and reducing each of the parts to strips.
(Soma, trans.)

One would think if it was meant to be a strict linear progression, the commentary would make some mention of that. Instead,  the commentary describes, for example, using mindfulness of postures in between formal meditation, which seems reasonable.

Welcome back. Mike Olds (who uses no-reputation unregistered accounts) wanted to ask you a question -- and posted that as a new answer which Andrei deleted but which you can still see. Andrei reposted it as an edit to Mike's answer (instead of as a comment under your question) -- if you'd like to answer Mike you could comment under Mike's answer.

Thank you, Chris. I don't really have anything to say to that, my answer stands, and I'm not looking to debate.


text:
What is bhramcharya or 3rd percept?
Is it only pertaining to "no adultery" for layman or as "no sex" for monk?
If such is the case, why in ganika sutta it was mentioned as "path middle to celibacy and adultery" for ganika(female dancers)?
Conclusion:: 3rd percept varies from person to person. It is different for one who has the capacity to "no sex", one having capacity to "no adultery", one who has the capacity to "no sensual pleasures", one who has no-capacity or livelihood depends on adultery-- so "middle to adultery and no-sex(celibacy)",.........
It's main purpose is to enforce people of various livelihoods, various traditions, various spiritual-levels, various situations(incidents) to realize the cravings associated with "harmone-loss through privates, mental-exhaustance in sensual-pleasings, breaking-percepts, various-perceptions, sankharas, ignorance".
Is above conclusion true? Yes/No then justify?
(wholesomeness has essence and craving of never-dying.)

I think this question is more about the Ganika Sutta and should be rewritten and reopened.

Hi, please study previous questions before opening new ones. Then, make an effort to formulate a unique question. Avoid providing your own answer. "Am I right or am I right?" types of questions are not encouraged.

Also may I recommend that you use only one user account. I know it's "identity" (and that it's possibly even funny to impersonate others) -- but I think it's useful though. I think that having a reputation -- posting content which is traceable to an author and theoretically even a real-world person -- can be helpful: that it can be an incentive which encourages you to behave as well as possible (a bit similar to the way in which "conceit" can be beneficial on the path).

Abhramcharya means non-celibacy. Avoiding bhramcharya is not the 3rd precept within the Five Prevents. Avoiding abhramcharya is for monks or for strict followers of the Noble Path following Eight or Ten Precepts.
As for Ud 6.8, it does not appear to be about celibacy but about attachments arising in the mind due to celibacy. In Ud 6.8 (Ganika Sutta), there are lay people involved in immoral sex. Then the monks became morally outraged by this and criticized to the Buddha those lay people involved in immoral sex. Thus the Buddha remarked: both the immoral laypeople and the monks disturbing their minds via aversion to immorality are both on the wrong path.

Apparently it is the 3rd of the "8 precepts" -- although, as you said, not the 3rd of the "5 precepts" -- the "8 precepts" are for example here.


text:
Do visual objects have karma?

According to Nagarjuna, the second causal link (sankhara, motivations)
  and the tenth causal link (bhava, gestation) are two karmas through
  which sentient beings trigger seven sufferings identified in the
  Twelve Nidanas, and from this arises the revolving rebirth cycles.

The 7th link is from contact with the world, and is called Vedana:

Feeling or sensations are of six forms: vision, hearing, olfactory
  sensation, gustatory sensation, tactile sensation, and intellectual
  sensation (thought). In general, vedanā refers to the pleasant,
  unpleasant and/or neutral sensations that occur when our internal
  sense organs come into contact with external sense objects and the
  associated consciousness.

So I take it that when the light [or equivalent in Buddhism] from an object makes contact with the eye organ, it generates Vedana.
Is it, then, incorrect to say that the object itself has karma: if the contact and feeling of it is karmically conditioned?

I'm asking because I wondered whether, when the meditator is in the fomrless absorption, or is reborn in a formless realm, she or he still experiences what most people [I know I would] class as the shape of visual consciousness, because this itself is not form, or consciousness, but itself karma.

sorry if my questions come off as very scattered.

your quotes do not have links. where are you getting this from? if you insist on pursuing such questions I would advise that you refer to the root sources (ie, Nagarjuna's own texts/words) rather than scholarly articles.

Phassa is the liknk of the questions arising or non arising. So olso vedana on it.

And what is touched? Avijja. No avijja, no arising of Vedana.

And giving instead of claiming would lead to the possibility  of the path to and ending of avijja.

Vedana and Sañña arise only if three conditions were present in he first place: sense organ/faculty, sense-stimuli and consciousness specific to that organ/faculty. These three conditions are what is known as 'contact'.
Kamma can be understood as intentional deeds and as the continuation of habitual intentions underlying thoughts, words and bodily actions.
As far as we know with our current understanding of physics, biology and psychology, in order for something to have intentions, that something must have the capacity to sense, to interact, to respond, to interpret, to learn, to modify its behavior according stimuli from the surroundings and from its inner world. According to what I've said, "visual objects" (if understood as entities belonging the outside, "objective" world) only would create kamma if they present the capacities above described.
I'm not sure if this answer your questions, but at least it may provide some lines for future thoughts.
Kind regards!

Is it, then, incorrect to say that the object itself has karma: if the
  contact and feeling of it is karmically conditioned?

Or perhaps there is something in the person who perceives that generates vedana.  In yogacara, we'd call that a transformation.  There are three of them that occur.  A sense perception is ultimately warped first by the store house consciousness and latent seeds, next by the manana (or self-conceit), and finally by the thinking consciousness.  The sensate data itself is neutral.  It has no karma or condition other than what the other three consciousness impose on it.  To take a contemporary example, let's say you see a picture of Donald Trump.  First, you see a picture.  Why yes, that is Donald Trump your thinking mind says.  You've identified him.  Next, your manana might contribute something like how seeing him makes you damn proud that you are an American!  #MAGA  Your store house consciousness might then supply something like an inherent respect to persons of authority.  Perhaps you're also intimidated by the gravity of his office and are overcome by the awe-inspiring regal majesty he represents.  (This actually happens in the reverse order from how I've described it, but for the sake of brevity, this will do for now.)  All of this is overlaid on top of that picture of Donald Trump.  How you react to it, what you feel (i.e. good, bad, or neutral), and what mental karma you generate is wholly dependent on your past karma and how you elect to deal with what comes up in that moment of perception.  You aren't seeing the picture as it really is, but rather how your past deeds, memories, prejudices, and personal obstacles distort that picture.

I'm asking because I wondered whether, when the meditator is in the
  fomrless absorption, or is reborn in a formless realm, she or he still
  experiences what most people [I know I would] class as the shape of
  visual consciousness, because this itself is not form, or
  consciousness, but itself karma.

I'm not following.  If it's arupa, then it is, by definition, not dependent on form.  No form, no eyeballs, and no sense objects.

Yes objects that we see have karma.
For example in the story of Arahant Aṅgulimāla, we see that after attaining Arahanthood, Aṅgulimāla got hit by stones and other objects that were thrown at someone/something else. As Aṅgulimāla had to pay off the bad karma he accumulated by killing over 1000 people he got hit by those objects in retaliation. Karma is the reason everything happens.