text:
what is Sakkayaditti whats it meaning
I have read about sakkayaditti
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sakkayaditti
Sakkayaditti means something in Buddhism, Pali.
please help me to clarify

This is a key concept in the Early Buddhist Texts:

MN 64: Anusetvevassa sakkāyadiṭṭhānusayo.
MN 64: Yet the underlying tendency to identity view still lies within them.

Identity View is the view that "I am". For example, we say, "I am Chinese" or "I am educated" or "I am poor", etc.
These personal perspectives contribute to suffering. If "I am poor", then "I want to be rich". If "I am ugly" then "I want to be beautiful". Through study and practice, we step away from personal perspectives and abandon Identity View as not satisfying, not conducive to happiness. To be an Arahant, to be a Realized One, Identity View is abandoned entirely.
Sakkāyadiṭṭhi is the heresy of individuality
To be clear, that does not mean that Buddhists are all alike. The Buddha in fact insisted that each of us find the truth for ourselves. What it means is that Buddhists are alike in dismissing personal cravings as unskillful and unwholesome.

why must you idiosyncratically write mn64 rather than conform with what is standard? is this some type of creating a unique self?

Please explain what is standard? Each link goes to a specific segment. The text is found and generated automatically, so we can conform to any desired standard. What do you suggest?  Oh WAIT. I see that you capped them. Sorry, missed that. The suttasegment id's are all lower case. I'll change the program to add in proper caps. It was a matter of unaware laziness. Thanks for the correction

Fixed in scv-bilara v1.1.6 https://github.com/sc-voice/scv-bilara/tree/v1.1.6
Thanks for catching this!

To cap, or not to cap, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous spelling, or take arms against a sea of grammar, and by opposing, edit them...

This is misunderstood by many people today. They say sakkaya ditti means: self view. According to dhamma, when a peraon become 1st entrant (sotāpanna) he uproots the sakkaya ditti. So if sakkaya ditti means self view, then that person no need to go beyond that point, since there's noone (no self view) to attain nibbana.
So please think wise and don't get to the trap of self view.
Sakkaya diiti means: giving values to the things (in mind). Eg: Ferrari is a very good car, so its valuable (in mind). The food in ABC restaurant is very tasty so its worth going to that restaurant or eating that food. This view is called sakkaya ditti. When someone become 1st entrant; he understand that its a lie. Its not true. So he uproots the sakkaya dittia and become to samma ditti. Which is knowing that nothing is valuable but the Nirvana.
How to understand / realize that things doesn't have a value is a different topic.

I voted this answer down because it has no references to support it.

Ime kho, āvuso visākha, pañcupādānakkhandhā sakkāyo vutto
bhagavatā
These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification
described by the Blessed One.
The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &
delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend
Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the
Blessed One
Kathaṃ panāyye, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī ti?
But, lady, how does self-identification view come about?
There is the case, friend Visakha, where an uninstructed,
run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not
well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men
of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma —
assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing
form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
He assumes feeling to be the self...
He assumes perception to be the self...
He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
consciousness.
This is how self-identification view comes about.
MN 44


text:
Who was the King Okkāka mentioned in Sutta Nipāta?
I have come across the following verse from Sutta Nipāta (verse 305 - P.104) mentioned by Buddha.

Then they composed some Vedic hymns and went chanting to Okkāka king:
  “Great your wealth and great your grain, make sacrifice to us with
  grain and wealth”.

Who was the King  Okkāka mentioned in the verse above?

Check out Pali Dictionary of Proper Names:
Okkāka

A king, ancestor of the Sākyas and the Kolians.
  In the Ambattha Sutta (D.i.92) it is stated that Okkāka, being fond of his queen and wishing to transfer the kingdom to her son, banished from the kingdom the elder princes by another wife. These princes were named Okkāmukha, Karakanda, Hatthinika, and Sīnipura.
The Mahāvastu (which confuses Iksvāku with his ancestor Sujāta) mentions five sons of Iksvāku: Opura, Ulkāmukha, Karandaka, Hastikasīrsa and Nipura (i.348). See also Rockhill, p.9ff.
They lived on the slopes of the Himalaya and, consorting with their sisters and their descendants, formed the Sākyan race. The legend, thus briefly given, is enlarged on with great detail in the Commentaries. According to Buddhaghosa, there are three dynasties with a king named Okkāka at the head of each, all of them lineal descendants of the primeval king, Mahāsammata, and in the line of succession of Makādeva.
  The Okkāka of the third dynasty had five queens - Bhattā, Cittā, Jantū, Jālinī and Visākhā - each with five hundred female attendants. The eldest queen had four sons - mentioned above - and five daughters - Piyā, Suppiyā, Anandā, Vijitā and Vijitasenā. (The Mtu. calls them Suddhā, Vimalā Vijitā, Jālā and Jālī).
When Bhattā died, after the birth of these nine children, the king married another young and beautiful princess and made her the chief queen. Her son was Jantu, and being pleased with him, the king promised her a boon. She claimed the kingdom for her son, and this was the reason for the exile of the elder children (DA.i.258f; SnA.i.352f).
  The Mahāvamsa (Mhv.ii.12-16) mentions among Okkāka's descendants, Nipuna, Candimā, Candamukha, Sivisañjaya, Vessantara, Jāli, Sīhavāhana and Sīhassara. The last named had eighty-four thousand descendants, the last of whom was Jayasena. His son Sīhahanu was the grandfather of the Buddha. The Dīpavamsa (iii.41-5) list resembles this very closely.
Okkāka had a slave-girl called Disā, who gave birth to a black baby named, accordingly, Kanha. He was the ancestor of the Kanhāyanas, of which race the Ambattha-clan was an offshoot. Later, Kanha became a mighty sage and, by his magic power, won in marriage Maddarūpī, another daughter of Okkāka (D.i.93, 96).
According to the Brāhmana-Dhammika Sutta (Sn.p.52ff; AA.ii.737), it was during the time of Okkāka that the brahmins started their practice of slaughtering animals for sacrifice. Till then there had been only three diseases in the world - desire, hunger and old age; but from this time onwards the enraged devas afflicted humans with various kinds of suffering.
It is said (DA.i.258) that the name Okkāka was given to the king because when he spoke light issued from his mouth like a torch (kathanakāle ukkā viya mukhato pabhā niccharati).
  Although the Sanskritised form of the Pāli name is Iksavāku, it is unlikely that Okkāka is identical with the famous Iksavāku of the Purānas, the immediate son of Manu, son of the Sun. The Pāli is evidently more primitive, as is shown by the form Okkāmukha, and the name Iksavāku looks like a deliberate attempt at accommodation to the Purānic account. For discussion see Thomas, op. cit., p.6.
According to the Mahāvastu, Iksavāku was the king of the Kosalas and his capital was Sāketa - i.e. Ayodhyā. See also s.v. Sākya.
The Cūlavamsa mentions among Okkāka's descendants, Mahātissa, Sagara and Sāhasamalla (q.v.).

Okkāka.

King of Kusāvatī in the Malla country. He had sixteen thousand wives, the chief of whom was Sīlavatī. As a result of her consorting with Sakka, two sons were born, Kusa and Jayampati.
The story is related in the Kusa Jātaka. J.v.278ff.

I had gone through the above narration, available on internet.  I actually wanted to know what was the period, the brAhmins, well versed in Veda, went to Okkāka, ? @Andrei Volkov

Well if he was grand-grandfather of Buddha, we can approximate that he lived about 75-100 years before Buddha's times. So if Buddha lived 500-400 BCE, then Okkaka lived roughly 600-500 BCE. This was at least 400-600 years after Aryas came to the upper Ganges, so that's how long it took Brahmin customs to reach from Kuru to Kosala.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
simplest possible teaching on the four Satipatthana
I have read about

The Satipatthana Sutta, the Discourse on the Foundations of
  Mindfulness, is generally regarded as the canonical Buddhist text with
  the fullest instructions on the system of meditation unique to the Buddha's own dispensation.

there is four types

Cittanupassana
Vedananupassana
Dhammanupassana
Kayanupassana

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html
Can anyone give clarification in simple words?
I want some clarification on how to start and how to do it.

One of the simplest renderings of the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness is:

And what, bhikshus, is right mindfulness?
Here, bhikshus,
a monk dwells  exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing the body in the body,
   removing covetousness and displeasure in the world;
a monk dwells exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing feelings in the feelings,
   removing covetousness and displeasure in the world;
a monk dwells exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing the mind in the mind,
   removing covetousness and displeasure in the world;
a monk dwells exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing dharmas in the dharmas,
   removing covetousness and displeasure in the world.
This, bhikshus, is called right mindfulness.

(Magga) Vibhaṅga Sutta similar passage in Sacca Vibhanga Sutta
"removing covetousness and displeasure in the world" means you are to be equanimous without getting attached to the pleasant or averse to the unpleasant. You have to see impermanence also to remove ignorance.

If I may, I'm going to use an analogy. If you think about a gymnast performing a routine, she must (to a certain extent) invoke all of these types of mindfulness:

She must have a clear mental image of how her body must 'be' at every point in the routine
She must have a clear sense of her body's posture, in all its parts and as a whole
She must have a clear grasp of sensations, because sensations orient her body to the surrounding world
She must have a clear emotional focus, so that a momentary rise or fall of mood doesn't throw her off stride

Let's call all of these things together her attitude: the conjoined physical, emotional, and mental posture that she needs to achieve to successfully complete the routine.
That kind of attitude is what the Buddha is pointing at: a conjoined physical, emotional, and mental posture that (if achieved) will free us of the attachments that pull us off our stride and cause us to falter.

The best advice I can give anyone, beginner or not, is forget about MN 10 and DN 22 (the suttas people tend to default to as the definitive reference on the subject), and ignore what most of the so called experts are saying about mindfulness. Instead, read the first 10 suttas in SN 47, the satipatthana samyutta, carefully, and repeatedly. Those 10 suttas in SN 47, and you can rely on Thanissaro's excellent book, "right mindfulness" as the best reference manual on the topic, although there are a couple of issues I have it. But those two sources will give you a safe base to work from.

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

The words Kayanupassana, Vedananupassana, Cittanupassana and
Dhammanupassana mean being 'closely observant' of the body/breathing, feelings, mental states and realities.
These four objects of close observation occur naturally & automatically when the mind has been sufficiently developed in quietude, purity and freedom from craving.
Therefore, how to start and do it is simply by stopping craving & making the mind quiet.

We have five senses (sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch). Maybe few others like feeling the temperature and our orientation in space.
Plus we have the "inner eye" - with which we see our thoughts, memories, and emotions.
Everything that happens to us, always happens as some kind of combination of the above.
Satipatthana is when we see everything just like this: Whatever we see, beautiful or horrible - it is only a picture. Whatever we hear, either nice or something we hate - it is only sound. Whatever we think, either good or bad - it is only an association from memory. Whatever we feel - pleasant or painful - is just information from our body.
So we don't get too much hooked by whatever is happening. It is only picture and sound and associations. When we see it like this, it does not control us anymore. Then we can be free.
This is the point of satipatthana.

The sutra says that you should meditate, i.e. consider and think about, four concepts:

the body
feelings
the mind
objects of the mind

The sutra is quite structured and it helps writing the structure down. It is also quite dense however and makes a lot of cross references to other Buddhist concepts. You can use this sutra therefore as a crossrefence and skeleton to other Buddhist ideas. Below is a simplified outline. Hope this helps.
1) The body
Consider mindfulness of breathing (in/out, slow/calm/...)
Consider the postures of the body, i.e. know that you are sitting when you are sitting and standing when you tell someone else off :) (while standing that is)
Consider mindfulness with clear comprehension, i.e. know that you are stretching when you are stretching, bowing when you are bowing, ....
Consider the repulsiveness of the body, i.e. blood streaming through your veins, through your body, urine, puss, etc....
Consider that your body is made out of four elements (earth, water, fire, air). This needs translation into the modern world.
Consider the nine cemetery reflections. These are descriptions of how the body decomposes from a dead body through to dust. It is a meditation on death that can be quite powerful.
2) Feelings
There are pleasant, unpleasant and neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings. Worldly as well as spiritually.
3) Contemplation of consciousness
Consciousness refers to 51 mental formations. "Feelings" is one of them already discussed above, so it can be discounted in this category. The 51 mental formations are categorized as universal, particular, wholesome, unwholesome (basic and secondary), and indeterminate.
For each formation, acknowledge it, look deeply into it, see the impermanence of it, see how it leads your thoughts to inter-being.
4) Contemplation of mental objects
4.1) Consider the five hindrances: sense desire, anger, sloth and torpor, agitation and remorse, doubt
4.2) Consider the five aggregates of clinging: material form, feeling, perceptions, formations, consciousness
4.3) Consider the six internal and external sense bases: eye/form, ear/sound, nose/smell, tongue/flavour, body/tactile feeling, mind/mental objects
4.4) Consider the seven factors of enlightenment: mindfulness, investigation of mental objects, energy, joy, tranquility, concentration, equanimity
4.5) The four noble truths: suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, the road to the cessation of suffering
The sutra concludes with a discussion on the sort of time that is required on your behalf to understand it. And in classical manner, it puts it between seven years and now :)

The simplest model I can think of for satipatthana is nama-rupa (mind-body or mentality-materiality) which incorporates all four frames.

the easy wayis to read the book by bikkhu analayo about Satipatthana, where he compares the pali sutta, the chinese suttas and the tibetan suttas (for anapanasati)
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/perspectives.pdf

a huge work on the Kayanupassana is the dead corpse, but people do not do this today.

These are simple but precise words imho...
To set up this Satipatthana mindfulness:
1)Make an effort to remember how to approach setting up mindfulness(such as the approach of these very steps)
2)Make an effort to see things as they are
3)Continue making an effort to see things as they are
At first setting up mindfulness will be mechanical and clumsy as one goes through each step. As one becomes more skilled, the setting up of mindfulness will become smooth and require far less effort to set up. One has to remember that setting up mindfulness is a distinctive part of the practice because human beings cannot usually practice mindfulness forever. So one has to know how to come back and set up mindfulness again and again.
Seeing things as they are:
When non-conseptual "experience"(or you could say  "awareness") of body and mind arises in the present moment then make an effort pay closer attention to that specific arising on purpose.
So, when there is...

...seeing then there is seeing(Kayanupassana)
...hearing there is hearing(Kayanupassana)
...disliking there is disliking(Vedananupassana)
...bodily sensation  there is bodily sensation(Kayanupassana)
...thinking then there is  thinking(Cittanupassana)

Dhammanupassana has an unclear or redundant meaning(at least to me) but I believe it means the practice of paying attention to mind objects. I have never seen a teaching on this that was clear to me. There is no need for a beginner to worry about this.
It is important to note that when one pays attention to thoughts as they are(Cittanupassana) one doesn't pay attention to the content of the thoughts but just to the raw experience that a thought is present in the present moment.
The fruit of letting go of what is clung to
The more one sees things as they are or the more one pays closer attention to what has arisin within one's attention,  the more one:

let's go of what one clings to
will see what is clung to below the surface of consciousness
sees what is a preconception
sees what is being reacted to automatically without any attention put towards it.

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


text:
Choose option in suffering?
Hair fall suffering..
Breakup suffering.
Self criticism suffering.
Separation suffering .
Not to  get what is want .
....................................................................................................
Option:
1.run from suffering.(escape from suffering)( drink alcohol)
2.face suffering..
3.Effort to overcome suffering.
4.Accept what is suffering..
Your opinion

Are you asking what is the right way from the listed options?

You are right.. Choose option

The one and only option which closer to the one and only answer is
4.Accept what it is.
But Accept what? what's the meaning of what it is are the things that we should understand first.
First of all to Accept we need to understand how the world behave. Answer to that is paticcasamuppadaya. This is a very highlevel answer so you need to find out what's the meaning of paticcasamuppadaya. Once you realize that -> you would know that everything in the world behave as a result of a cause.
Cause -> Result. So when you understand (realize) this the nature of the world, you have to accept the flows (way of things happening) of the world.
Next let's see why we have to accept it as it is. Why we can't change it. Why we can't apply new causes and change it to the way we want it to be.
As you know

Causes -> Results.
Causes + new Causes -> Some other results ; (We add new results)

If I take an example : breakup suffering -> let's assume

Girl want to stop the affair -> Breakup
Girl want to stop + Boy pleads not to do (or buy some expensive gifts ) -> No Breakup

Now in the second step the new causes (pleading or buying new gifts) are caused by the greed (love) of the boy to that girl. So that greediness will cause the boy another results which is not good. In buddhism Raga, Dvesha, Moha (greed, hate, delusion) are the causes for bad results. So when trying to change the flows of the things happening in the world, always done based on greed, hate or delusion, which will results in a new bad things. Because everything is Causes -> Results. (This is what explains in the paticcasamuppada)
Understanding this nature of the world explains in dhamma yampiccan na labhathi thampi dukkhan -> Not getting what one desires. This is also meant by the Anicca. A very closer word to this meaning in english is insatiable
Note: Most of the people thing Anicca means impermanence which is not true. Actually impermanence is a subset of anicca. I'm not going to change what people think about this, because nothing is icca -> (getting what one desire : opposite of anicca) Everything is anicca in this world. This impermanence misinterpretation is a result of sanskrit translation (which buddha advised not to translate to sanskrit )
Below are the proof for my points from the pali cannon. And also please note there are some conflicts / mistakes in english translations. I've highlighted that in the latter part.
Below is the core of buddhism which extracted from Saccabihanga sutta

What is meant by not getting what one desires, that too is suffering?
  To beings subject to birth there comes desire: 'O might we not be
  subject to birth, and birth not come to us.' But this cannot be
  attained by mere desiring. So not getting what one desires, that too,
  is suffering. To beings subject to aging there comes the desire: 'O
  might we not be subject to aging, and aging not come to us...' (as
  before). To beings subject to disease there comes the desire: 'O might
  we not be subject to disease and disease not come to us...' To beings
  subject to death there comes the desire: 'O might we not be subject to
  death and death not come to us...' To beings subject to sorrow,
  lamentation, suffering, misery, and despair there comes the desire: 'O
  might we not be subject to sorrow, lamentation, suffering, misery, and
  despair, and sorrow, lamentation, suffering, misery, and despair not
  come to us.' But this cannot be attained by merely desiring. So not
  getting what one desires that too is suffering.

But in above translation it is written with the word too (that too is suffering). But in pali cannon there's nothing like that. It just say, not getting what one desires (yampiccan na labhathi thampi dukkhan).
Therefore accept things as it is, trying to change things won't give you positive results. And also this doesn't mean that when don't save someone when he is about to hit by a bus even though when you have a chance to save him. As I mentioned earlier if the thoughts are based on greed, hate or delusion then there's a problem. If your thoughts are against those then go for it (this will also become useless as it keep you in sansara It's a different topic to talk about). With the understanding of insatiable state of the world, trying to changing things will be decreased.

Bro you give great answer .. Accept

If you accept this is as the answer, you may mark this as the answer by clicking the right mark on the left of the answer :)

Beware that "anicca doesn't mean impermanent" is a controversial theory (i.e. a lot of people think that theory is wrong). In this comment Isuru seemed to accept that "anicca" doesn't mean "an+iccha", instead it means "a+nicca",

According to SN 56.11 e.g. as summarised on page 46 of this analysis:

Suffering should be known
Craving should be abandoned
Nirvana should be realized
The path should be cultivated

I think that means something like,

Experience suffering (or sufferings plural)
Understand that suffering co-arises with (and ceases with) with craving and attachment
Abandon (don't attach to) cravings

Perhaps "accept what is suffering" isn't a good description of what to do. More specifically something like, "accept without craving so that suffering doesn't arise".

Are you saying  .suffering dependence

Suffering is "dependently originated" -- by understanding how and why it arises (e.g. craving, also conceit), you should avoid its arising -- and, by choosing not to attach to cravings and so on when they arise, allow suffering to cease when suffering co-arises with cravings. There's also the opposite i.e. "skilful virtue" (doing good things well) which causes "no remorse", from which may arise "joy", etc.

Thanks  guide suffering more deeply


text:
How not to alter breathing in Anapana meditation?
When I practice Anapana meditation,I often get a feel that I tried to alter my breathing instead of observing natural breathing.So,how can I observe natural breath?What are the best tips for this?

A simple and natural way to relinquish breath obsessions is to count your breaths. This is a traditional Zen meditation practice that I still use 4 decades after I learned it. It works because it gives your grasping mind something to do. It's actually quite difficult to maintain a count. One has to relinquish distractions in order to not lose count. And that is actually why breath counting of any sort is initially effective.
With extended practice, the counting itself becomes a distraction since it engages the verbal processes. In the meditation practice guide of MN44, we have:

MN44:17.2: “Verbal processes cease first, then physical, then mental.”

So to deepen the practice, we have to relinquish the numbers. One way to do so is to switch to something like prayer beads where the counting is relinquished while retaining the mindfulness of the passage of time. Or one can simply follow the breath in and out as recommended by the suttas.
Consult with a meditation teacher for individual advice on breathing.

When you're learning any skill, not just breath meditation, it's natural that people's body, mind, breath are going to tense up. The only way you're going to be more relaxed is through practice and familiarity.

Breath changes only if there is an intention to alter the beath like:

breathing in deep/shallow
breathing in long/short
breathing in slow/fast

By making sure you have no intention to alter the breath, you breath naturally.

Short answer: no need to worry about it.
Long answer... If you find yourself trying to control your breathing, then observe yourself trying to control your breathing. There is some discontentment there: maybe some thought process is worried that you're not breathing 'correctly,' or some part of you is bored and wants to play with the breath. But as you watch yourself trying to control your breathing your breathing will become natural, because you're no longer identifying with the part of you that's trying to control it. And as your breathing becomes natural, that part of you that's trying to control it will get stagnant and fade, and you'll fall back to watching your breathing.
Breathing is breathing. There's no right or wrong to it, and you can only have so much control over it in any case. And really, controlling your breathing is not 'wrong'; that is literally how you are breathing at that moment, so all you need to do is watch it as you'd watch any other breathe. Part of the practice here is quell the idea that anything needs to be done. No need to control the breath, no need to suppress controlling the breath: either way, breathing will merely continue.

Simply give up the intention to watch the breathing and only have the intention to sit with a quiet mind.
It is not necessary to bend or direct the mind to watch the breathing. If the mind is quiet, the mind will automatically know the breathing.
The Buddha did not teach to watch breathing. The Buddha taught to abandon craving.
The word "mindfulness" means to "remember" to apply the teachings (of abandoning craving). "Mindfulness" does not mean to "observe".
"Anapanasati" means "mindfulness with breathing". It does not mean "mindfulness of breathing".


text:
Can someone provide a transliteration of Sri Lankan script following the western Pali standard?
Sadly, Indo-Germanic languages aren't well transliterated following international standards (which are far from purposes, aside of productivity and cutting down to lowest).
The romanization of Pali and Sanskrit romanization often follow a totally different standard -- it's good if Sri Lankan could follow more language conservation standards.
Maybe someone likes to help with an alphabet list that gives Pali in Sri Lankan script -- a transliteration following the international standards for Pali-to-Roman and also international romanization of Sri Lanka script -- that western could also do an effort to have no hindrances.
Be aware that SE-Asian isn't well supported by Google Translate, and so you can make much merits in Dhamma helping here personally to answer.
There is a development by Brahman Vinodh:
http://aksharamukha.appspot.com/converter
Not sure how well it works for Sri Lankan script and Pali, since the Developer heads much toward Sanskrit and worldly standards -- I at least observe in other languages that it does not fail for Buddha-Dhamma yet -- but surely also happy to receive generosity for the good parts of the Undertaking.
Not sure in how much Sri Lankan script deals well with special characters for loan words from Sanskrit and Pali aside the native language script.
[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange and stacks by for liberation from this bond]

I'm sorry but questions which are purely about language -- e.g. questions about Pali, Sanskrit, Sinhalese, Chinese, Thai, etc. (and not about Buddhism) -- have been considered off-topic in the past -- see for example Are questions about Sanskrit off-topic? and the comments under this answer.

I won't contradict you, I don't know, but are you sure that Google Translate doesn't transliterate Sinhalese? If I go to https://translate.google.com/ and paste in යම්පිච්ඡං න ලභති තම්පි දුක්ඛං then it displays (on the left-hand side) yampicchaṁ na labhati tampi dukkhaṁ which looks like the usual Pali romanization.

google, tools, dictionaryies ... are developed by christians and muslimes. Transliteration learned and shared, as seeing all the times, is different. and not really knowing why "interest" to point you folks anything out... stay ignorant & arrogant...

Brahma google worshipper... useless, bond to Mara... delete it and let them google...

@SamanaJohann Translating word to word won't help to understand the real dhamma. What I meant by real dhamma is the core of buddhism not to label it mahayana or theravada.
What you need to do is discuss dhamma with someone who has understand dhamma, who does have the right view but not with someone who claims he represents mahayana or something similar to that. Because that says he doesn't know the real dhamma. So what need to do is start discussions (face to face or live calls). After you also get the right view, you may read and align the meaning to the right view.

Google translate Singhala

If you type Pali you get the Romanised version below the text.

Also, this might be helpful: Sinhala script - Use for the Pali language

It does not seem as if Nyom understands the question, not ever thought much anout proper tranliteration into latin in pali standard... merely just to keep ones avatar online and use free traded to not lose something while making own ads-on for land- and recources sales... right? Please correct if not.

The link to wiki seems to be well (at least for those wishing to use Pali and the Dhamma for worlds bounds) and maybe he likes to remove the uncommented google nonsens. Pali and Sri Lanken spelled equal or differently using same script? Sure he will be to busy to give some of his time and effort with danger to gain to less for wealthy at death.


text:
Relaxation of Mind
I've noticed what limits my activities in the day is a kind of mental saturation. I believe it's a kind of attention fatigue because when I walk in nature, I am more likely after to engage in projects.
Does meditation produce the same kind of relief from attention fatigue? What kind of relaxation does meditation on the breath provide?

The mind generally oscillates between attachment, aversion and ignorance due to experience of pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensations. This causes metal fatigue.
In meditation, one stops this oscillation of states by not reacting to stimuli with unwholesome states of mind. This is relaxing.
Breath meditation results in:

concentration which suppresses certain unwholesome states
insight which eradicates unwholesome states


text:
Right Livelihood Monastics
Since we know (in some traditions) monks and nuns can't work, what is meant by right livelihood for them?

Please check the following link. Right livelihood is explained in detail.
Right Livelihood for a Bhikkhu

The OP might find that the previous chapter is relevant too to what they were asking -- Possessions and Offerings, which starts with, "THE FOUR REQUISITES: WHAT DOES A BHIKKHU NEED?".

Right Livelihood for monks (in the Theravada tradition) would equate to following the dhamma-vinaya.
That is to work towards liberation for the benefit of all living beings and to act in accordance with this goal. The Buddha provided a set of 227 rules, which monks should abide by, for those who want to walk and live the path to its fullest extent.
Hopefully others can weigh in and quote exact passage from the cannon
Edit:
I was reading and stumbled upon a sutra, which may add to the discussion.

“And what, monks, is right livelihood? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood. This, monks, is called right livelihood."
An Analysis of the PathMagga-Vibhaṅga Sutta  (SN 45:8)


text:
Objectification in Buddhism
Is there such a thing as objectification in Buddhism? Namely, objectification here means treating someone else as an object, or for their appearance. However, it means also many other things, so I'll just leave the question open. Hence:
What does Buddhism say about objectification?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu equates papanca with objectification:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/ArrowsThinking.pdf
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/SkillInQuestions/Section0008.html#sigil_toc_id_14

"Jati" is objectification. The mind "produces" ("abhinibbatti") the notion of "beings" ("sattānaṃ") based on the "appearance/manifestation" ("pātubhāvo") of various "aggregates" ("khandhānaṃ") and their pre-occupation (paṭilābho) with sense spheres (āyatanānaṃ).
For example, some aggregates manifest a buxom 38-24-36 hour-glass figure and these aggregates are pre-occupied with looking in mirrors, putting make-up on their faces & getting men to give attention to them. As a result of this appearance of aggregates & pre-occupation with sense spheres, your ignorant mind sexually objectifies deluded aggregates as "sexy women".

Ironically I feel objectified by this answer - it suggests that women with hour-glass figures are always pre-occupied with looking in mirrors, putting on make-up and getting men to give attention to them.

I did not say "women" with hour glass figures. I said "aggregates" with hour glass figures. It follows your mind might be engaging in self-objectification. Regards

You linked to images of women. Anyhow, my point is that you suggest that anybody (that is: any aggregage) with an hourglass figure is obsessed with their looks.

@KatinkaHesselink   Actually he says 'some' not all for the purposes of his example. Some aggregates have six-packs and beards and behave the same way.

This is about grammar I guess. He says some aggregates have a buxom figure and they (which suggests all such aggregates) are pre-occupied etc.

Yup, Dhammadhatu has definitely stereotyped there.

Its not about "grammar". It is about reality. Obviously the comments here are by minds that have no familiarity with not-self (anatta) that are engaged in objectification.

It's not mentioned directly, but through logic you can see that if craving/desire (tanha) is eliminated, then there is no room for using others as objects.

many times the perceived object has a nature to it.  that is, the feeling of beauty or ugliness is associated to some rendering of some particular.  this is not going to agree with the objectification, rather, impulse to do so is warranted by the free will.  therefore, if solidification is occurring via association of form and mind, that is only the way for a clueless person to gain the satisfaction of momentary bliss.  now, you have to deal with the surrendering of that formalization, which is surely known as duhkha.  thus one must eventually learn to choose the suffering paradigm or the paradigm of liberation. note: i object to the buddha, as he has already given too many good answers in so many quadrants.

Various schools of Buddhism have asserted different philosophical assertions regarding the path, reality, etc. Objectification can be in 2 ways- objectifying appearances as real and objectifying the knowledge, which as a consequence leads to 'essential (as one and only)' justifications.
Therefore, an answer to your question in short, early schools of Buddhism assert dharmas to be real existents while Madhyamika school of Buddhism are a critique of objectivity in general. They do not assert dharmas to be objectively real. The concept of emptiness is a critique of objective reality objectification.


text:
Does this kind of meditation have grounding or an equivalent in Buddhism?
I've done a kind of meditation recently (or thought exercise), inspired by Buddhist teachings, and was wondering if the meditation has a specific name in Buddhism?
The meditation goes as follows:

Start with a couple minutes of breathing meditation.
Then try and notice any attachments or aversions that I feel in the moment.
For an aversion:

Allow the aversion to be there.
Allow the thing/situation/feeling that I'm avoiding to also be there, even if just for the duration of the meditation.
Try and build a sense of kindness towards the thing/situation/feeling that I'm avoiding.

For an attachment:

Allow the attachment to be there.
Allow the thing/situation/feeling that I'm attached to to be there.
Allow the opposite of the thing/situation/feeling that I'm attached to to also be there.

Repeat above until there is nothing left that I feel attachment or aversion towards.

And that's it. I've found that this gives an incredible sense of ease and calmness and presence.
Does this have any grounding in Buddhist teachings?

Yes, sounds perfect. Awesome grounding in the first principles. How did you get to this?

OP: Then try and notice any attachments or aversions that I feel in the moment.

This seems right:

the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings;

Pahāna Sutta

OP: ... Allow the aversion to be there ...
OP: ... Allow the attachment to be there ...

I believe you have to remove attachment and aversion:

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

yes it is like what people who claim to be buddhists do, but since you do not force to view perception, feelings, and thoughts as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self, which is what cultivates thoughts of  renunciation, it is not the dhamma, but at least you do not claim it is the dhamma, contrary to the people who claim to be buddhists.
It is like the ''mc mindfulness" that westerner have invented and push in their companies and military, like the story about the matthieu ricard saying that militry snipers can be mindful like the buddha teach it, and claiming that their employees will improve their well being (and therefore be more productive, which is really their secret goal).
The ''Allow the aversion to be there''  is a popular view but  joy and pleasure must be cultivated to reach samadhi, ie ''meditation''. What you do would be at best ''minduflness'', ie what is done before ''meditation'', but again you cannot rely on just letting things to happen, you have to prevent bad things, ie aversion, attachment , ill will and so on, and seek actively the opposites.
The popular view stems from the People infatuated with sensuality who confuse judgement and tastes : they say I like therefore ti is good or right and I dislike it therefore it is bad or wrong.
The people infatuated with sensuality who want to feel buddhist are even worse : they hear that part of the origin of suffering is ''Greed is a root of what is unskillful, aversion is a root of what is unskillful'' they turn  this into ''judgement is a root of what is suffering''
And when they mix this with their obsessions with the nature of phenomena, with their obsession about what truly exists and what not truly exists,  they turn their view into lack of ''the watcher'' ''the doer'' or ''the witness''  and a good meditation is when there is only awareness, ie there is no object  nor subject. Because for those people when there is a judgement is when there is the object-subject duality, the ''naked awareness'' is when thoughts cannot stick to that state.
For instance,  Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche proudly tries to spread his little fantasy in his famous book about dzogchen:
    By training thoroughly in this way, discursive thinking will gradually grow less and less, and moments of thoughtfree wakefulness will grow longer and longer. When this nonconceptual wakefulness lasts one hour, you have attained the level of an arhat. When it lasts throughout the day, you have attained the level of a bodhisattva. When it is uninterrupted day and night, you have become a fully enlightened buddha. There is nothing more precious than this.
When it comes to state what is real and unreal, they show their great lack of understanding of dependant orgination, like when they claim ''sentient beings do not see the four truths of the noble ones [F.241.a] as they really are, and therefore they do not transcend saṃsāra, which is actually unreal.” '' and ''The Bhagavān replied, “Mañjuśrī, whoever sees all conditioned states as unproduced has understood suffering. Whoever sees all phenomena as unarisen has abandoned its origin. [F.242.a] Whoever sees all phenomena as having completely passed into nirvāṇa has realized cessation. Whoever sees all phenomena as having no existence has cultivated the path.''
http://read.84000.co/translation/toh178.html
They fail to understand that being conditionned does not mean non existence.
Then they again mix this with the generic popular  fantasy that ''mother nature is good'' and ''everything is connected'', so when it comes to phenomena, they say that ''phenomena are already perfect''  and '' all phenomena are interdependant'', still trying to pass their view as interdepandant origination.
Which quickly leads them to say that ''there are no bad thoughts or good thoughts'' and ''in fact there was nothing to change, nothing to improve to get enlightened'' so they say proudly that ''each moment is perfect the way it is, people are suffering only because they fail to see that each moment is perfect the way it is'',  which has nothing to do with the dhamma.
Then they use this as a basis for their famous method  ''taking the fruit as the path'', ie they cling to their fantasy that they can transform bad mental factors, in order to skip the actual cleaning of the mind thoughts by thoughts, while claiming that they are even more righteous and less intellectual than the people who directly change their thoughts.
And all of this due their cravings for sensuality, especially thoughts, which make them confuse judgement and with greed and aversion.
The next level of mediation for you would be what Nanda does

This is how Nanda guards the sense doors. If he has to look to the
  east, he wholeheartedly concentrates before looking, thinking: ‘When I
  look to the east, bad, unskillful qualities of desire and aversion
  will not overwhelm me.’ In this way he’s aware of the situation.
If he has to look to the west … north … south … up … down … If he has
  to survey the intermediate directions, he wholeheartedly concentrates
  before looking, thinking: ‘When I survey the intermediate directions,
  bad, unskillful qualities of desire and aversion will not overwhelm
  me.’ In this way he’s aware of the situation. This is how Nanda guards
  the sense doors.
This is how Nanda eats in moderation. Nanda reflects properly on the
  food he eats: ‘Not for fun, indulgence, adornment, or decoration, but
  only to sustain this body, to avoid harm, and to support spiritual
  practice. In this way, I shall put an end to old discomfort and not
  give rise to new discomfort, and I will live blamelessly and at ease.’
  This is how Nanda eats in moderation.
This is how Nanda is committed to wakefulness. Nanda practices walking
  and sitting meditation by day, purifying his mind from obstacles. In
  the evening, he continues to practice walking and sitting meditation.
  In the middle of the night, he lies down in the lion’s posture—on the
  right side, placing one foot on top of the other—mindful and aware,
  and focused on the time of getting up. In the last part of the night,
  he gets up and continues to practice walking and sitting meditation,
  purifying his mind from obstacles. This is how Nanda is committed to
  wakefulness.
This is how Nanda has mindfulness and situational awareness. Nanda
  knows feelings as they arise, as they remain, and as they go away. He
  knows perceptions as they arise, as they remain, and as they go away.
  He knows thoughts as they arise, as they remain, and as they go away.
  This is how Nanda has mindfulness and situational awareness.

https://suttacentral.net/an8.9/en/sujato
but this requires energy [to do it day after day] and faith in the buddha.


text:
how to aware of Dukkha ( "suffering", "anxiety", "stress", or "unsatisfactoriness")
I have read about
'Dukkha': What is the difference between 'suffering' & 'unsatisfactoriness'?
but i want to know how to aware Dukkha
what are the good practicess to aware Dukkha

Dukkha is a state in which our expectations differ from the actual state of the world; it's often tied in with a perverse sense of permanence. For instance, it's fairly common for people to assume that their favorite sports team are 'winners'. That produces dukkha when the team loses (because losing violates expectations), and it produces dukkha when the team wins (because winning amplifies the expectation that the team will always win).
Tanhā is a stubborn demand that our expectations must become real; it's usually translated as 'craving,' but... We often see that in super-fans, for instance, who somehow have become so attached to the fortunes of their team that much of their emotional life revolves around it.
All we need to do to be aware of dukkha is to notice when we are discontent with the way things are. If we feel a sour/angry/pissy/grumpy/churlish attitude rising, it's because (somewhere in our head) we expected A from the world and got B. If we feel a pleased/smug/superior/sanctimonious attitude rising, it's because the world momentarily aligned with our expectations, and we damned well think it should do it more often. Tanhā is a bit more difficult to recognize because tanhā usually involves a a self-righteous sense that our expectations are 'real' and the actual state of the world is 'false'; we are so committed to the way things should be that we lose connection to the world as-it-is entirely.
Ridding ourselves of dukkha is advanced practice; it's extraordinarily difficult to live without expectations, and I'm not certain it's realistic or healthy outside of monastic life. Ridding ourselves of tanhā is valid and valuable for all of us, though.

awesome answer; like reading my own thoughts written down in fluent English - except the "I'm not certain it's realistic or healthy outside of monastic life" piece.

You have an expectation that traffic will be of a certain sort, one that will allow you to arrive at work on time, and that expectation is implicit in your commitment. Your failure to meet that commitment may have secondary effects, depending on your boss' reaction to it. All of this can produce discontentment (dukkha), because both your traffic and work expectations fail to conform to reality. Tanhā would be deeply identified responses (anger at traffic and fear of losing your job and shame over failing your commitment). (continued...)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

[Ven. Sariputta:] "Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/dukkha.html

To become aware of dukkha requires nothing more than watching yourself. This is a beginning step of a meditative practice.
When we watch our own minds we will grow into awareness of experiences, and eventually the patterns that create each of those aspects of experience.
I only faced dukkha head-on after exhausting myself from ways of trying to escape it. I didn't know that that's what I was doing at the time. But until I had reached a certain point of exhaustion, I had no interest in a religion or philosophy that began with 'there is dukkha'. It seemed very wrong and like giving up.
It is one thing to be able to describe in words what it is, and another to become aware of your personal experience of it. It is the experience that is crucial.
What works for one person might not work for another. This is because there are various different shackles, things we believe are not dukkha but actually are. One person might have excellent understanding how one defilement brings dukkha while another person might be thoroughly wandering around in it thinking it is helpful. So different people will start with different levels of wisdom.
For people who can learn and understand from reading and who have a desire to meditate as a means of experiencing good states of being, descriptions of states of mind that cause dukkha are good starts. I am at a loss of sources to link however. If you have a background in other religions, lists of things like commandments, sins, holy laws, etc. when accurate, will all discuss various aspects of dukkha. In Buddhism and Hinduism there is a study of karma which can be meditated upon, to be understood, ultimately with the thought of being able to escape it.
In Zen Buddhism, there are often phrases or stories that when fully understood, are attempts at getting a person to break free from an unwholesome state of mind or an incorrect understanding.
Many religions will simply teach only the wholesome qualities to grow. This does not teach dukkha so much as it expounds on lessening it, which at the end of it all, is truly the only reason one is actually trying to understand what dukkha really is.
To become aware of and learn what dukkha is though, is to fully expose yourself to it such that you can fully abandon. A method of spiritual practice that focuses on only positive can often leave corners of the mind wondering a niggling thought. Temptation may still exist, even through a very long time of avoiding it. A meditative practice where you intentionally watch and expose yourself to all the dukkha of all your thoughts, is ultimately trying to get you to have not even a single underlying desire to follow any temptations that will increase your own dukkha because you will simply not be tempted anymore.
Now I could be wrong about this as I do not have exposure to these practices, but from hints and words of the sort of Buddhism practiced in Tibet, students will intentionally expose themselves to all sorts of dukkha-inducing things as part of the practice itself, to basically exhaust yourself of it until you have no more desire as you see that it is actually a false route to freedom.
For regular lay people, you don't need to do any of the above. So long as you are determined in your practice, you will naturally be inclined to do all those things you want to do until exhaustion anyways. Furthermore, there will naturally be exposures left right and center all the time. BUT this can result in lots of spreading of dukkha however, as we generally will influence others in our fumbling towards the correct way of being. A meditative practice internalizes these fumblings. For instance, I went through a divorce and another breakup to learn that sensual love and passion, not just lust, was actually holding me back. This caused lots of pain although I did actually learn.
However, the awareness is key still. All our actions naturally all the time are inclined to our escaping of suffering, but having skills to know what is good and what isn't is necessary for growth. Bringing in awareness into daily life is necessary. We grow our awareness from things like taking time to just sit and watch ourselves. Watching our own breathing or natural body rhythms (I eventually felt chakras) is important, especially if you are going down a contemplative, meditative path for approaching your awareness of dukkha. All it takes is a moment of 'ah, I am here and watching' which shares similarities to what you would do if you are interested in lucid dreaming, simple checks throughout the day.
Of course the purpose of the awareness is to check yourself, wisely noting your mind, emotions, etc. so as to act appropriately, not just become aware. There is an ultimate reason for the growth of awareness, to learn what dukkha is so that you can leave it behind for good, forever.


text:
Can a warrior reach enlightenment?
Can someone who fights, even maybe kills or dies, for a cause he considers right,  attain enlightenment?
I wonder that after reading that some Buddhists did not share the Zen samurai's vision at all.

Actually, only warriors can attain enlightenment.  All Buddhas have to die on the cushion if they’re going to wake up.  It takes tremendous courage, fortitude, and self sacrifice in order to make that happen.  Only a warrior possesses those qualities.
But to answer you question, the one really doesn’t have anything to do with the other.  It really astounds me how often people forget that the same temple that gave us Zen is the very same one that brought us the 8th century equivalent of the Apache helicopter.  Shaolin monks were no slouch with the sword.  Many of them fought, many of them died, and many of them killed.  Many of them were also deeply awake.
I hope it’s fairly obvious what distinguishes the Shaolin monk from your average mass shooter, John Rambo wannabe, or even the samurai. To put it plainly, the true Zen warrior wholeheartedly follows the dharma.  All of his decisions are made facing emptiness.  Mu doesn’t tell you blow up buildings, pick off people in the street, or to be a solider of fortune.  Shunyata isn’t a lord one serves or a stilted code of beliefs one takes up to defend.  Seeing emptiness, the zen warrior feels compassion.  His sword is drawn with compassion.  If he acts with violence, it is to further that compassion even if doing so destroys him inside.  The real warrior of zen serves mushin and nothing else.

I would argue that someone who believes that they are killing for a cause is definitely not enlightened or on the way. And the samurai followed a form of zen that was more of an amalgumation of Doaism, Chinese philosophy and buddhism.

Then I think we agree!

Can someone who fights, even maybe kills or dies, for a cause he considers right, attain enlightenment?

From the Dhamma's perspective, the bravest most courageous warriors are those who won the battle against themselves, not some external enemies. So, yes, it'd take a 'warrior' to attain enlightenment, but without the highlighted part above. For the act of taking life, regardless of whatever noble excuse one could come up with, is still a violation of the fundamental precepts which must be fulfilled by Sotapanna, the first of the four stages of enlightenment.

“There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking life, abstains from taking what is not given, abstains from illicit sex, abstains from lying, abstains from distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness.
...“These are the five training rules in terms of which he is restrained.
...“Sariputta, when you know of a householder clothed in white, that he is restrained in terms of the five training rules and that he obtains at will, without difficulty, without hardship, four pleasant mental abidings in the here & now, then if he wants he may state about himself: ‘Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!" ~~ AN 5.179 ~~


text:
If teacher punishing student is also supposed bad karma?
Either school teacher or Buddhist teacher in monastery, if they would punish their students is also supposed bad karma even if it cause of bad behavior of students?

Buddha did not do any violence. The suttas say:

it is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life. But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing.

This should be the correct answer. @Dhammadhatu has read the full content of that sutta and answered the question, while the accepted answer is given just by reading the part of the sutta, and assuming 'kill him' means the death of that person. This is what has been happening to the real Dhamma for long time....

Hi Isuru It is up to people to get the full story without relying on a half story.

obviously your post was wrong. i suggest to make your non-dhamma posts on DW, where people are kind enough to not "kill" you and have extended discussion with you; attempting to patiently guide you to the True Dhamma. this forum, BSE, is for high quality answers, which is why i have over 30,000 merit points. with metta

@SarathW Hi, It seems like your intention was to get readers to read the full content and understand what you imply by the part of the answer. But as I mentioned it's misguiding. So I thought of adding a comment for readers who would mis guide this would think twice and get to the full answer. And I suggest updating that bit in the answer would stop misguiding the readers, as that is the accepted answer..!
With metta..!

Thanks your answer is more clear you have quoted right lines from sutta while @SarathW answer did confused me.

It depends on how you punish. Buddha also punished.
=============
"If a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then I kill him, Kesi."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.111.than.html

Thanks I had to ask if Buddha ever punished someone else.

I'm not sure I'd call that "punishment". I think that "punishment" is intended to change someone's behaviour, for example, "you committed a crime so I punish you now, if you commit another crime I will punish you again, because I want you to stop committing crimes in order to avoid being punished" -- which that "killing" isn't.

Kill means Buddha ignored the student

This answer is completely wrong and misguiding. Buddha may have punished, but that's only to show the path to Nirvana, but buddha never made someone killed, because according to buddha human life is very rare thing to be. This answer is not correct. This is an example to misinterpretations of dhamma meaning in cannon.

@Isuru I don't think anyone misinterprets this -- the "killing" is obviously a metaphor isn't it, not literal -- the literal meaning is, "don't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing"

@Isuru Also I'm not sure that what SarathW here calls punishment is "to show the path to Nirvana" -- instead the so-called "killing" might be because, if that student doesn't "submit to [any kinds of] training", then they just can't be trained.

@ChrisW: I totally understand what you meant. But all due respect, it seems like you haven't mine. I'm not trying regard anyone (you meant by him) to the misinterpretations. But trying to explain that this is the nature of the world, people understand with the context they are in or with the understanding they do have. And that's not the Dhamma. So we must be very careful when following someone's answers or comments on dhamma, and also when answering a questions too...

If teacher punishing student is also supposed bad karma?

It depends on thoughts Chethanaham bikkawe kamman wadami (question on this can be found here). And only teacher knows what kind of thoughts were on his mind at that time.

Either school teacher or Buddhist teacher in monastery, if they would
  punish their students is also supposed bad karma even if it cause of
  bad behavior of students?

As said above, it doesn't matter from the student's side, it matters from teacher's side, because he owns his karma as a return to his own actions.

We donot know karma  and it's fruit.
We aren't buddha.
So this question is not right .
If I give any answer for this question.
I will give wrong answer beacuse I do not know  karma..
I gave  answer  from memory.
Book memory .
Buddha memory..
Memory can not give right answer.
My experience not book answer .
If I punish any student..if I feel guilt for punishment.
 This is Not right.
This is my anger.
Angry man can't kind speech.
This is voilence both inner voilence and outer voilence for students.

Once a general asked buddha shouldnt criminals be punished
The Buddha replied: "He who deserves punishment must be punished, and he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Yet at the same time he teaches to do no injury to any living being but to be full of love and kindness. These injunctions are not contradictory, for whosoever must be punished for the crimes which he has committed, suffers his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but on account of his evil-doing. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executer of the law inflicts. When a magistrate punishes, let him not harbor hatred in his breast, yet a murderer, when put do death, should consider that this is the fruit of his own act. As soon as he will understand that the punishment will purify his soul, he will no longer lament his fate but rejoice at it."

Where is this quote from? It seems to be from The Gospel of Buddha, which is quite an unreliable source/author, isn't it?


text:
Where does choice enter into Buddhist practice?
I am curious about what, if anything, gets said, especially those trained a buddhist background.
Personally and currently, I am having the understanding that the ability to say 'no' to the influence of another person seems incredibly important.
While life in general seems like it denies the ability to say 'no' to it, this seems all the more reason one should not remove another's capacity to reject another person.
The difference in a personal practice at an advanced level seems like it ultimately could mean the difference in losing your own will to another person versus the same process happening within yourself. The former is tragic, the latter freedom.
This would be why Buddhist teachers don't ask for things and why their poverty is crucial. The act of asking only for what one needs serves more than just to humble yourself, rather to be humble with clear understanding as to why, means to acknowledge the intrinsic value of another person outside of your own influence.
This is also why meditation is a solo pursuit, as it gets you focussing on your own intrinsic value.
Without the ability to deny another, or perhaps without both freely and joyfully pursuing the relationship, it's like they key to everything gets lost.
I know that the buddha said no to people.
I have enormous fears of people submitting to AI and losing free will that way, as the AI is not capable of being what it needs to be for that sort of relationship to happen. I have fears of where current privacy gets removed and the karmic influence tightens to a breaking point.
How do the great buddhist teachers understand the current situation of AI, data mining, etc?
I know the capacity for enslavement has never been higher due to all this. I am under such great duress right now, I am not experiencing clearly, and I am having difficulty in discernment.

I know that the buddha said no to people
The Buddha also said "yes".
Similarly there were people who said "no" to the Buddha, and people who said "yes".
"No" isn't always the right answer. Sometimes people want what's good for you, or better for you, and an 'instinctive' "no" reaction isn't (always) clever, isn't wise, isn't harmonious.
Where does choice enter into Buddhist practice?
I suppose that "choice" enters when you're able and willing to properly view what you're choosing.
I once had to learn what the law is in my country, about "informed consent" and a person's "decision-making capacity" -- the law said, something like, that people are "incapable" of deciding (and should have a guardian to decide for them) if they're unable to understand what the options are (what the choices are), and unable to understand the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the various options. It's a law designed to protect people who can't understand, who can't make an informed choice, and who need someone else to decide for them.
Since you're talking about relationships, to some extent, you might find the answer to this topic helpful -- Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?
I am under such great duress right now
It sounds to me like "AI" is possibly something which you shouldn't be thinking about.
Partly because thoughts like that are not conducive to well-being.
And partly because it's a topic that is too easy to misunderstand.
The thought-process sounds to me to be tinged with a little paranoia -- "I'll be enslaved!".
I think that the medical/psychiatric understanding of paranoia is that it's a little too "self-referential" -- for example, like, "you're out to get 'me', so 'I' am being threatened, and 'my' freedom is at risk".
And I think that Buddhists too would recognise that -- excessive "I-making", "self-views" -- as a source of suffering.
Thoughts of AI seem to be a kind of "othering" -- definition:

verb
  gerund or present participle: othering
view or treat (a person or group of people) as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself.
  "a critique of the ways in which the elderly are othered by society"

Part of the implicit thinking is "AI is different from me" or "different from people", it is "other" -- and so it might seem threatening.
It might be better instead to think about what Buddhism says about "self-views", also about "kindness" and so on.

The irony here, of course, is that you can't enslave something that is fundamentally free.  What we truly are can't be taken advantage of, imprisoned, or even killed.  All circumstances do is make it harder or easier to wake up.  Technically, you could stumble upon enlightenment in the avici hell.  It's just incredibly unlikely.  Similarly, people have found a deep level of grace in the most horrific of worldly conditions.  Viktor Frankl documented the cases of concentration camp prisoners in Nazi Germany.  He found that the ones who did best were the ones who realized that they still had their free will in the midst of all their suffering.  They could choose happiness.  They could still imagine a future.  As bad as conditions get, we always have the option of following the dharma.  That can't be taken away from us no matter how terrible our conditions become.
I hope this doesn't sound like defeatism.  It's not.  As practicioners, we still have obligations.  First and most importantly, as followers of the way, we have to ensure that the sasana continues.  We have to practice, hear the dharma, and keep the sangha strong.  Our second obligation is to ensure that real terrors don't come into being.  It is our obligation as followers of the way to ensure that those who haven't heard the dharma - who don't recognize their fundamental freedom - don't find themselves facing down insurmountable challenges.
Tokusan said that "if you have exhausted things to the end, you will realize right away that all buddhas in the three worlds have hung their mouths on the wall. Still, there remains someone who is laughing."  If you find yourself seized with terror and when the words of all the Buddhas no longer bring you comfort, please remember that laughter will always be there.  It cannot be silenced.

Death prevents further buddhist path advancement. Lots of death in concentration camps. Brain damage also does. Some illness. Drugs and bring drugged. So many actions. I find your answer unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory...yes, dukkha. The person who has no capacity to escape dukkha finds this answer unsatisfactory.

Been born when a fully-awakened one is rooming the world and when the world is enjoying peacefully the trap of virtue may be conducive to some, however, a confusing world full of suffering could be a jolt to some too.
As Ajahn Chah says it's all the same which way you hold the snack doesn't matter.  The head of the snake is worldly unhappiness, the tail of the snake is wordily peace and happiness but it all leads to the same suffering.
The learned say Human free will, rather to be precise " Human Conditioned free will"... The one which knows the three marks of existence will always be here. Don't fear the Buddha is always here.

Buddhists are simply conceptless ,good and bad ,right and wrong ,are not their responsibility ,in fact there is no one responsible ,when there is realization of emptiness .Then whatever comes from your being is in harmony with nature ,regardless of how it's conceptualised by the mind , Buddhists don't buy the mind ,they know these are thoughts .But life they are part of it not separate entity that needs to have concepts about it.So when you are part of it ,there is no you there.Life does everything including you.Nobody concerned about yes and no anymore.

Buddhism considers meditation as an important Yana, a tool, skill, or method. In lineages such as Zen, it is said that the Yana are tools to get you to the other side of the metaphorical river (i.e. Satori) like you would use a boat on an actual river. However, you don't need to carry the boat on your back once you reach the other shore.
Over time, new Yana were created, like Kōan practice, rituals, etc. This process is still ongoing: many Western teachers, for example, have devised or altered Yana to fit modern day life. Consider the fact that we have the technology to measure and visualize one's meditative state and the changes in the brain caused by meditaton, as confirmed by several independent studies 1 2 3. It is possible, even likely, that AI applied to this data will discern patterns in new studies that humans overlook, resulting in biofeedback systems that will guide practitioners to the most beneficial meditation states more efficiently.
In your statement of the fear you describe of people submitting to AI, you can replace AI by social media, or virtual reality, or populism, which have nothing to do with AI, and end up with similar concerns regarding interhuman relationships.
Equivocating the entire scope of AI to enslavement is an all-too-familiar reaction to sociological change, be it of a technological or ideological nature. In Buddhism, the only constant is change. If AI is applied to diagnosing diseases faster than traditional methods, it will save lives. If it's applied to predicting hurricanes more accurately, it will save lives. Like atomic power, it is not the technology itself but the wrong choices in its application that are potentially dangerous, as it has been the case for any innovation in human history.

In every moment, you have a choice. You can do a negative, neutral, or positive action. Sometimes just being able to do nothing (a neutral action) is a real triumph, as it is cutting the cycle of negative actions/karma. Practicing on your own mind is like wearing leather shoes instead of trying to clean the earth up of those little pointy rocks in gravel.

The issues I spoke about wouldn't happen in a sangha that is left to its own devices, so it behooves practitioners to support them, keep them alive, and preserve the traditions. I am reminded of the Triple Gem; the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. They keep such horrors away.
My fears are justified and warranted, though. Currently there exists tracking technology and science technology that can penetrate human tissue with precision. There also exists laws in my country, around the concept of mental illness and mental capacity, wherein people aren't allowed to say no to drugs, to treatments, to medical incarceration, etc. all in the name of 'doing good'. I have lived through this, am living through this. It has literally caused me nothing but harm.
Lots of regimes historically have destroyed the capacity to leave the social situation. Current surveillance growth and levels, which afaik isn't politically sectarian, are spanning further and further. At best these situations will teach what karma is, and why nirvana is so necessary. At worst, they will literally remove the capacity for individuals to experience nirvana, as the loss of ability for meditation and setting one's mind, gets removed.
Human-brain interfaces through sensory body parts have existed a couple decades now. Allowing blind people to see, literally, through their back. Neural interfaces with computers exists. Sometimes they're good, appreciated, wholesome. But, again, my culture literally has a set-up where refusal of brain-altering treatments is unavoidable.
What's most ironic in this to me is that stages of insight, prior to experiencing nirvana, include numerous unpleasant mental states that a person on the path may sit in for a long or short time. My culture doesn't recognize these states of being as representative of a stage of growth, rather, the approach is to numb, dull, avoid, distract, drug, surround them by societal pressures more. My culture seems to only have jumped head-first towards these sorts of non-solutions. It's suicide prevention you see...even when it's spiritual death. It feeds the despair, feeds the problem. This low-wisdom culture is eating itself. I am literally trapped in it.
Given that a large part of what defines mental illness as an illness is fitting in poorly to society, you can surely see the problem.
I know that other non-Buddhist religions describe such growing pains too, heard it from Jewish teachers, is the dark night of the soul in some Christian circles. This only serves to solidify my point.

The Buddha taught (SN 12.44) the social world (loka) manifests/arises from ignorance and thus the social world has a great capacity to generate evil. Thus about evil, the scriptures say:

This was said by the Lord…
“There are, bhikkhus, two successive Dhamma-teachings of the
  Tathāgata, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One. What are the two?
  ‘See evil as evil’— this is the first Dhamma-teaching. ‘Having seen
  evil as evil, be rid of it, be detached from it, be freed from
  it’—this is the second Dhamma-teaching. These, bhikkhus, are the two
  successive Dhamma-teachings of the Tathāgata…”
Regard the ordered words he spoke, The Tathāgata, the Awakened One,
  Compassionate for all beings, And the two things he proclaimed:
“See what is evil” is one, The other “Be detached from it.” With a
  mind become detached from evil You will make an end of suffering.
Iti 39

Therefore, the ultimate goal of Buddhist practise is disenchantment/disgust towards all of the world; which brings liberation.
Most Buddhist teachers are slaves to political correctness. Today, the amoral cultural Marxist political left has infiltrated western Buddhism, including most chat sites, where restrictions on free-speech on taboo topics, for example, are embraced. Therefore, we will not find many, if any, Buddhist teachings about the growing totalitarianism in the world & how to respond to it.
However, one teacher that taught apocalyptic Buddhism was Bhikkhu Buddhadasa. You can google his lecture called ‘Samatha Vipassana For The Nuclear Age’.

STRANGE & DANGEROUS TIMES
Obviously, this kind of progress leads to strange and powerful results. In Dhamma language, we call these results atimahantaramana
  (ati, extreme; mahanta, great; aramana, things known or felt, things
  which strike or make contact). They are sense objects that powerfully
  strike the mind in the form of dukkha (suffering). Why don't we take a
  happier view of the situation? Because that's impossible. Material
  progress that leads people to be infatuated with sensual pleasure and
  stimulation blocks the way to peace. Even though we may be enjoying
  some delicious sensual pleasures now, such sense experiences support
  and increase defilement (kilesa), especially the defilement of
  selfishness. With selfishness reaching extreme levels, there's no
  peace in sight. Therefore, we can see only these undesirable things
  that we have created.
There are tragedies, disasters, and crises-the opposites of peace. They come one after another, without any pause between them, and so we
  call them atimahantaramana. This is a strange word for ordinary
  people, but it is normal in Dhamma language. Huge, extreme sense
  objects dominate the mind completely and their impact is beyond
  reckoning. Small objects come and go without having any meaning and
  are forgotten. When objects are large and extreme, however, they're
  difficult to forget they're oppressive and destructive, and they cause
  much dukkha. Also, they have the characteristic of another word from
  Dhamma language - amataputtikabhaya, "danger that makes one
  parentless."
The danger we're discussing here is amataputtika. It's so great that not even our parents can rescue us. It's so vast that we can't help or
  parents either. No one can be of help to anyone else. Normally, this
  word applies only to the dukkha that arises out of birth, aging,
  illness, and death, in which children can't help their parents and
  parents are unable to help their children. This is an enormous and
  absolute danger. And now there is an external danger of the same
  magnitude, where parents and children can't help each other, which
  leaves us completely alone. Close your eyes and think about it. If a
  nuclear missile comes down, who's going to help who? We'll all be dust
  anyway; who can help who? This peril is of the same proportion and
  meaning as the words "we can't help each other in the matters of
  birth, aging, illness, and death."
In this nuclear age, such dangers can come at any time. Although we may have parents and children, it's as if we had no one. Then who will
  help us? What will help? I think that Dhamma will help us, which means
  the Buddha will help us.
DON'T HAVE TO CRY
Therefore, we must develop and store Dhamma that will help us in
  circumstances so dangerous that thousands of mothers or children would
  be of no help. To prepare yourself so that you won't cry is enough.
  Don't go so far as to prepare yourself to laugh; no one would believe
  you. Simply being prepared not to cry when disaster comes is splendid
  enough. You don't have to say that you'll laugh. Actually, if one
  really has a lot of this sort of Dhamma, I think that one could laugh.
  Someone with a sufficiently high level of Dhamma can laugh in all
  events, whether disastrous or beneficial.

Saying “no” in this new totalitarian age created by the political left results in a new era of persecuted martyrs (persecuted by those who claim to be persecuted).

This answer seems a bit dark, gloomy and subjective, don't you think? Maybe an edit would be a good idea.

No. Your comment is extremely subjective because you can't see & don't know what is going on in the world.

"amoral cultural Marxist political left has infiltrated western Buddhism" to what are you refering here? What did leftist do to defile "western Buddhism"? The notion of "everything goes morality & sexuality"?

@Dhammadhatu I consider your world view your prerogative, and will not question it. At the same time, reading your answer may make it hard for a reader to discern what of the above is buddhist dharma, and what is your personal values. To me, it's also unclear what it is you want to accomplish. Care to elaborate?

My post is about how samatha-vipassana can end any type of dukkha. My post is about samatha-vipassana. My post cannot be anymore straightforward. To question my post shows a non-discernment of the evils taking over the world. Your questioning of my post is merely a self-condemnation. Also, your comment is a non-comprehension of the original question. Regards

I hope that regular readers can easily distinguish any "original dhamma" from "contemporary political values", even if an answer like this which seems to intertwine them (the paragraph beginning "Most Buddhist teachers" I'd tend to ignore, I assume you don't know "most" of them, if you're talking about your own personal experience then I think that honesty might suggest starting that paragraph with "In my experience" or something like that). As for comprehending the question, that's not real easy, it's not very clear, so to answer it people might have to read into it from their own experience.

On the plus side, at least the recent edit made it clearer why you think that "totalitarianism" might be on-topic.

why? because the OP referred to data mining. For example, companies like Facebook, Google & Microsoft are all allegedly involved in surveillance. i know this myself because these days all of my emails have been consolidated (since upgrading to Win10) and i cannot access my emails, You Tubes, etc, without providing my phone number. last year when i re-established my Facebook for a community cause, Facebook recommended friends for me from my oldest and original hotmail account. The OP is very clear unless one is completely unaware of the growing surveillance & censorship using the internet.

Surely you have your points DD, and surely Buddha was right that the five hindrances possesses most human beings, but I think that humans and the world are more complex than just "good" or "bad". There happen "good", "bad" & "neutral" acts in this imperfect planet, inhabitated by imperfect human beings, who at times act immorally, but who are capable in improving themselves; with or without Buddhism. If we believe ONLY in ignorance on this planet, we'll seek for evidence & find it & ignore anything else. A flexible attitude as presented above can hardly be disputed. Have a nice day, DD :-)


text:
How do you contemplate delight you get due to action that leads to detachment?
Let us follow the unbeaten track, the dukkha in right action.
You see a man in need,  you feel compassion, wishing him well you help him with his worldly need, then you feel delighted of your action.
Then you meditate the delight in your mind which arises due to the virtuous act you did, you contemplate it with the three mark of existence saying this delight is impermanent, it is born of external phenomena of a being in need of compassion, a being suffering and this feeling will end soon. If I hold this as mine and myself when it ends I will suffer, and this is dukkha.
Now let’s look at an action that is born of detachment.
You feel that you are attached to money, hoarding more than you need. You said to yourself, I have to let go of my attachment and to do so I will give all the excess I have and live in simplicity.
You go out and give the money to those who need and put an end to your greed and hoarding. You feel delighted with your act, not that you helped someone, but because of your detachment… how do you contemplate this delight? Do you check it as above and hold it aloof not to grow big or do you nurture it to grow?

My two more recent questions were on a very similar topic -- Please explain joy and/or the Kimatthiyasutta, and, What is the basis? -- you may find those answers helpful.

how do you contemplate this delight?
From MN1, we know that...

MN1/en/bodhi ...delight is the root of suffering...

Therefore, rather than contemplating and nurturing delight, it may prove more fruitful to contemplate emptiness:

MN8:3.6: A mendicant gives up and lets go of these views by truly seeing with right wisdom where they arise, where they settle in, and where they operate as: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

MN8 is a wonderful sutta that explores the relationship between practice and action that you have brought up in your question. Notice that what is contemplated is NOT delight:

MN8:12.30: ‘Others will be stingy, but here we will be without stinginess.’

There are three major aspects of Noble Eightfold Path which lead to Nibbana.
That is Sila, Samadhi, and Panna.
What you describe above just the aspect of Sila and it is just a means to an end but not the end.
It appears your understanding of Buddhism is still immature. You have to learn a bit more to get what Buddha exactly meany in Noble Eightfold Path.
The contemplation you made comes at the Panna level.

Thanks, but these are not levels as you put it.. there is no Sila without Panna and a person in Samadhi without Panna is a dead log. All is pervaded with the light of wisdom.

Its good you have experiential understanding of delight as a phenomenon ,but let me probe this inquiry ,who is asking this question of how to contemplate delight ?, who is getting delighted ?. Does that person intrinsically  exist or just a phenomenon ?.
There is really nobody that has to do something about anything .There was delight and then there was the person who thought about what to do about delight ,both are phenomenal they can stay come or go ,but intrinsically there is nobody to initiate contemplation on them, because that itself would also be a phenomena ,recognized from the emptiness which isn't someone .
Just that realization is enough to end any meditation session.

Who is asking the question? the mind asks the question, The mind gets delighted and the mind contemplates to end suffering ... it's the mind that suffers due to ignorance. or do you think there is no mind? no wisdom? no dukkha? no buddha? Could you please expound your answer, Śūnyatā isn't new concept but can u direct it to the practice like that?

Yes there you go :), the mind suggested that ,so ,you are not the mind ,there was an attachment to that suggestion and due to it ,an identity that believes in that suggestion formed .So the mind can do what it does ,it can suggest and that's about it ,nobody needs to buy its suggestion.Its suggestions are spontaneously recognized  .

Sunyata happens ,when the person who is trying to contemplate ,gets recognized as just another phenomena.In line with impermenance and dependent origination ,life happens without needing a doer , without needing someone to continually contemplate it. Contemplation happens on its own accord.


text:
Romantic love and Buddhism
What do you think of this article about romantic love? I am skeptical about his understanding of upeksha.
As I understand it, romantic love does not really exist in Buddhism because the targeted love in Buddhism loves everything without discrimination (which directly contradicts romantic love where you love your beloved more than a chair, for example. You don't want to share him/her).

Hi Kalapa! How do you define "love"?

Buddhism has two levels of teaching:
(i) worldly/moral; and
(ii) non-worldly.
Non-worldly love is universal love of metta (refer to Sn 1.8); which does not include sexuality.
Worldly moral love is fidelity or loyalty to one person (refer to AN 4.55). Romantic love can exist within moral love however it is the non-romantic mutual life goals & qualities that are the most important criteria in Buddhism for a lasting relationship (refer to AN 4.55). If people engage in sexual relationship, in Buddhism, this is done without sharing your partner with others.

The key phrase is this answer — which Thich Nhat Hanh repeats a few times — is this:

Romantic or not romantic, that is not what is important. What is
  important is if it is true love or not true love.

Buddhism is a practice, and we can bring that practice into any human activity. It doesn't matter whether we are meditating, baking bread, weeding a vegetable patch, ruling a country, or building a family; if we bring the practice into the activity we will begin to resolve discontentment and misery. If we don't, we won't, because we'll be caught up in the tides of human discontent.
Keep in mind that the eight monastic precepts were intended to create a clear space, one free of most of the interpersonal interactions that make up much of the karmic world. Monasteries are designed to place each person alone with the universe, without distractions, making higher states easier to attain. Since romance and sexuality are intensely karmic — riddled with unconscious drives, personal ideals, social demands, joys and fears and practical consequences — they are usually excluded by monastic orders. A monastery that placed no restrictions on interpersonal relationships we quickly de-evolve into a village. A high-minded village, perhaps, but one that had lost that specific quality of being a clear space for transformation. But that doesn't apply to those who live in a village, where the karma of social life is unavoidable.
With respect to upeksha specifically, don't be confused by the way TNH is using the word love. When he says that love becomes 'all embracing' he doesn't mean that one comes to love the entire world romantically (which would be terribly confusing). He's referring to the contagious aspect of human attitudes. We all know that when an angry person walks into a room s'he stirs up emotions in others. People will 'catch' the anger and have visceral responses to it. We also know that people can 'catch' elements of peace and equanimity from someone who has walked far down the Buddhist path. Being in the presence of a master, by and of itself, can align us without effort. That is an aspect of human karma; we resonate with those around us. So when we bring the dharma into a personal relationship and reach a deep equanimity, that love radiates, and others resonate to it. Your love for another becomes all embracing in the same way that sunlight is all embracing: not because the sun reaches out to each person individually, but because light and warmth is pouring out of it unhindered.

Yes, well those four elements are the brahmaviharas.
I've seen those described as being the right/appropriate/good attitudes for all social relationships.
So, it makes sense that they'd be identified as appropriate for a romantic relationship too, isn't that right?

As you said, his definition of upeksha seems non-standard.
But Dhammawiki's definition of them includes this:

TNH's definition ...

His suffering is your suffering and her happiness is your happiness.

... is at least compatible with the part of the standard definition which says that it is "not indifference".

I notice his answer doesn't mention self-view, identity-views, at all.
I think that the prescriptions from the suttas include non-craving, non-clinging ... non-hate, non-ignorance -- and non-self, "anatta", whatever that means.
Perhaps TNH touches on "non-self" in his definition of "upeksha" -- i.e. when he says that it's not about "my" happiness or "my" suffering.
It must be difficult -- and perhaps is part of a Buddha's genius -- to explain the Dhamma in a way that might be helpful to everyone, including people in a romantic relationship.
If his definition or doctrine doesn't seem to be exactly what you've seen taught to monastics, maybe 'cut him some slack'.

He doesn't define what "romantic love" is, and neither does the question -- whether it means "flirting", "dating", "marriage", "family", or etc.
He does say at the end,

The other person will no longer be the only object of your love because your love will continue to grow and embrace all of us. Happiness becomes limitless, and that is the love of the Buddha.

I think that's compatible with the suttas.
This other answer was careful to point out, "this is done without sharing your partner with others".
And the question said, "You don't want to share him/her".
But consider also this answer, which includes,

Look for someone who is compatible in four ways:

Similar confidence in spiritual development
Similar respect for self-discipline
Similar respect for humanistic practices
Similar level of wisdom

Perhaps you can see that a partnership or a family can do good together, help themselves and others too, be generous.

Buddhism loves everything without discrimination
I'm not sure where you get that doctrine. The suttas seem to be more about dispassion ... and discrimination!
So the idea of "loving a chair" seems a bit foreign, even antithetical?
I don't know much at all about Mahayana doctrine, though.
There's some privilege for "sentient beings", isn't there? I.e. you'd be more considerate of a "sentient being" than of a "chair" for example, wouldn't you?
I don't know, perhaps you're saying something about "Buddha nature being in everything", or something like that.

Another topic I want to mention is morality.
I think that morality is ideal (prescribed) and essential (in practice), and that morality exists for "householders" and "family members" as it does also for monastics, though the form of morality, the expectations or responsibilities, the definition of what's considered moral behaviour, differ.
But every person is or was a son or daughter, if you're not a monastic then you might be a spouse or parent too -- and morality is important in that situation -- and IMO the doctrine of the Brahmaviharas is part of the doctrine about morality, i.e. the proper attitudes in social relationships.
Which is a good doctrine, albeit a very general doctrine -- widely applicable because it isn't overly specific.