text:
Keeping in mind impermanence, suffering and non-self
If one doesn't know the notion of "impermanence, suffering and non-self", can one see it by one's self?
I know that I don't need to "force" myself to see impermanence: but do I need to keep in mind "impermanence, suffering and non-self" when practising?
EDIT: How much do i need to keep in mind "impermance..", because if it is to low, one can see it but not realise it, if it is to high, one can intellectualize it.

The 3 universal characteristics is such a great teaching, it is liberating, profound and freeing! Once realized, it becomes obvious why clinging is the root to all suffering. You will instantly realize ignorance and wisdom. You will instantly see all the problems of the world, and you will also see how difficult it is to free an ignorant mind. Good luck my friend! Metta

According to my present (non-sectarian) teacher, the way the Three Marks are to be used is not simply as dogma to be mindful of, but rather as a tool for enquiry into our psyche -- our attachments, or preconceptions.
The way to use Three Marks for enquiry into preconceptions is to try accepting one Mark at a time and see what resistance it causes.
For example, you may spend a week trying to accept the truth of impermanence with all its implications. Does it highlight the cases of you trying to solve any problem "once, completely, and forever"? Knowing that a stable state can't be realized -- does it make all your efforts seem futile? Can you get at peace with doing your best despite this futility? Keep saying "everything is temporary" and keep watching yourself in real situations. All kinds of preconceptions, imprints and deep-lying assumptions will come up.
Similarly, spend a week applying the truth of suffering to your situations at hand. Can you see micro-suffering hiding in millisecond-level activities? Frustration of having to apply effort. Unmet expectations. Do you secretly crave for perfect ease, with reality always matching your wishes? Do you secretly hope existence can ever be effortless? Same thing here, keep telling yourself "life is suffering" with regards to real life situations and see what reaction it causes in you. Is there an area that rebels against the inescapable universal suffering? If so, that's the preconception you need to go through.
The same way, spend another week contemplating the truth of corelessness or no-I amidst real situations. If there is no "I", where do my choices are coming from now? What is the source of my thoughts now? Are my convictions and my values really mine or could this thing called "I" be an accumulations of formulas picked up over time? Am I really as all-important as I have always assumed to be? Do people really care what I do, how I do it and even whether I exist? What if free will is illusion and all my actions are predetermined? What if life is completely pointless and has no purpose and no meaning? Watch yourself as you try these thoughts on. In your mind, is accepting pointlessness of life connected with fear of ambiguity, essentially fear of taking responsibility? Is there deep-lying conviction that something you deem of value is trully of absolute importance? If so, that's your preconception, a piece of your ego, look at it carefully.
So, try each of these on for a week: "everything is temporary", "life is suffering" and "in the grand scheme of things I don't really exist, what I think is my life is just a ripple on the surface of reality" and see what comes up. When Buddhism talks about "attachments" that's what these are, now perhaps for the first time you can meet them face to face.
Eventually, the Three Marks should be fully accepted, with all their implications. Interestingly, accepting each Mark has a surprising effect, almost the opposite of what you'd expect:

Accepting Impermanence awakens you to the eternal Now.
Accepting Suffering makes suffering disappear and turns all existence into bliss.
Accepting Pointlessness aka losing self-importance gets us in touch with unconstricted creativity and the endless energy of the absolute.

Altogether, accepting Three Marks of Existence liberates us from Samsara and connects with Spontaneous Perfection of Unconditioned Nirvana.

Wonderful Answer. But I have certain doubts about the opposite effects you talk about. Have you really accepted suffering and really experienced bliss? Have you really accepted impermanence and living in the now always? Are these real truths or are we just passing down untested ancient wisdom? You may say "Go find it yourself" But my mind suspects "What if its a wild goose chase and its possible to accept things as they are?"
PS: 'You' doesn't necessarily mean 'you'. So pls don be offended at the direct questions. By 'you', I mean people who've really "experienced" things

Yes, I'm speaking from experience. However, I'm still a student albeit an advanced one. Accepting Three Marks is not a boolean value, True or False. To the degree that I accept them, I experience the fruit. Learning Nirvana is like learning to ride a bike: these days I can keep balance most the time, but when I start doing tricks I still fall.

This is something you cannot force. Any form of force is based on craving or aversion hence you loose the balance of your mind.
Through meditation you can realize "impermanence, suffering and non-self" at an experiential level. This is not a concept of thought or notion of it.

Depends on the person's potential and faculties. For some who's already practiced the Path for many lives, s/he'd naturally understand the 3 characteristics. But for some who never had previous exposure, it's important to learn about the 3 characteristics from an experienced teacher or from the sutras/suttas just so that one won't mis-understand these concepts.
The problem with us worldlings is that while we might gain a conceptual understanding of the teaching, we rarely apply them in our daily life. We think about these things when we're at the temple or when we study Dhamma books, but when seeing a woman with a young voluptous body walking by, all we have in mind at that moment is the smell of her perfume and her sexy curves. We'd tend to forget that that beauty is also subjected to impermanence, suffering, and non-self. She will gets old, sick, and eventually die.

I would say it is essential to always keep in mind the 3 universal characteristics.
When meditating, you instantly realize that the breath moving in and out of the body, constantly changing/fleeting, you realize that the nature of everything is impermanent, just like the breath.
Again in meditation when you want the mind to calm down and relax, but it doesn't, this causes suffering....but it's not the mind that is the problem which leads to suffering, it's simply that you wish the mind to calm down and be "different" to what it actually is in that moment, again this shows you the nature of suffering, we all want things to be perfect, but that simply isn't the nature of life or existence. ( The moment is  what it is, nothing more, nothing less)
And finally, non-self. Because everything changes, because everything is impermanent, nothing remains the same. We are not the same as we were when we were children and we aren't the same now as we will be in old age, nothing can be said to be or have "self"
I hope this has helped.
Metta"

Traditionally, I read that both eternalism and nihilism are false concepts.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm


text:
Buddha's tooth, ashes, footprints and other marks
There are many places that claim to have a part of the Buddha, a tooth, ashes, a footprint (sri pada) etc.
I would like to know, according to Theravada tradition (but I accept answers from other traditions), what is recognizable as being true? What is left on earth from the Buddha?

The dharma is left on earth from the Buddha. When I look at my hand, I can see the Buddha.

I see your point and of course Dhamma is our teacher now. The question is because there are too many claims out there and I would like to know which one has credibility in the tradition (if any).

I found this information on Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piprahwa

In January 1898, W.C. Peppe led a team of men to unearth a large mound on his land. Having cleared away scrub and jungle they set to work building a deep trench through the mound. Eventually they came to a large stone coffer which, on opening, contained five small vases containing ashes and jewels .[6]
On one of the vases was an inscription which was translated at the time to mean "This relic deposit of the Lord Buddha is the share of this renowned Sakya brethren, his own sister’s children and his own son;" meaning that this reliquary contained the ashes of the Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama[note 1], a member of the Sakyas [4] (however, there is no mention in the Buddhist scriptures of the Buddha having a sister). And in the 1970s the original interment site of the Buddha's ashes at Piprahwa was claimed to have been discovered by the Indian archaeologist S.M. Srivastava several feet deeper than the coffer containing the relics that W.C. Peppe had excavated.[5] This find was dated by Srivastava to the period in which Buddha lived.

I practice Mahayana tradition so I hope you do not mind my comments from my perspective.
In my practice, I try not to have too much attachment with Buddha's relics (Chinese: 舍利, Sanskrit: śarīra). As long as I have Buddha's teachings in my heart and actions, that's the most important thing.
That being said, I have seen Buddha's relics a few times and they are truly fascinating. More crystal-like matter organically grow from the original relic, and they can vary in different form, colour and size. The Tibetan establishment across the street from where I live has relics from Buddha and his foremost students. I was very fascinated by Moggallana's relics as they were very dark, which was caused his unwholesome actions in the past and led to his tragic death being clubbed to death.
In Chinese Buddhism records diligent individuals (monks and lays) also leave behind relics. As they have completed the training in this life they leave their body behind, the relics withstand cremation and are collected by fellow Buddhists and honored for their accomplishment.
Relics are not exclusive to Buddhists. Before Buddha's time many Hindu sages also leave behind relics. Any beings who successfully transcends to the Realm of Form and beyond may leave behind relics. Therefore, relics may not be reliable evidence that one has liberated from Samsara.
Hope this is helpful. If there is anything I can improve with this reply, please kindly let me know :)

The Lotus Sutra says that the whole body of the Buddha is contained in the text of the Sutra.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How can I be sure if the Buddha actually woke up?
waking up to the ultimate truth of reality and that anyone can do like him. I feel like I'm living in the matrix. but i'm not so sure if waking up is possible.

When you meet the person with the red pill, take it! You will find out.

I feel the reason why people struggle to see that becoming " Awakened" is impossible or very difficult is because of ignorance. How can anyone possibly see something that they can't comprehend, it's a paradox!
But......this is why we know the Buddha was "enlightened" and "awakened" to the truth of suffering because He created the Dhamma, the Noble Eightfold  path, the way out of suffering.( It would be impossible for someone to show others the way out if they themselves were not free!)
The matrix you speak of is the delusion, it is the ignorance which blinds us of the truth, but once you come to realize the truth, you will see that in fact it takes more energy and creation to live in a world of fantasy, a world of fantasy that will bring pain and suffering to all!!
I hope i have helped you in someway!
Metta

Why care if anybody woke up?
What use is it to you?
I'll answer that for you: the only use you have of getting qualified answers from qualified people (like the Buddha, Jesus, etc.) is that they have a case history of their answers working for many people (who actually did what they said not just learned about it).
So what do you do? Is believing anything gonna do you any good?
No! Develop your own curiousity for it.
If you don't like it then go somewhere else, find something you like, find something that clicks with you and go for it!
Back to Buddhism, you are living in the matrix and the Buddha outlined a method to escape social conditioning (including media brainwash) and:

achieve permanent happiness no matter the situation
escape the matrix of your body and mind and be able to reincarnate where you want
attain super-powers which have certain signs

That's my perspective and it's based on the various Buddhist teachers I've had, Taoist, Tantric, Zen, Esoteric, and Consciousness-Only, all of which I reccommend you study.
But you can't just believe all that amazing stuff about the Buddha and other superheroes by reading and thinking alone--which can be convincing alone if you read enough material and study enough bioenergetics--you've got to achieve it!
After you learn enough about it and gain the confidence about the overall path.
My personal reccommendation on where to start? Pick up a book by Master Nan (he passed away a few years ago but the human journey remains the same). Or if you're poor, start here and read the articles you like.
Learn about the 5 overall stages of the path and the different things that happen to your body when you meditate and do yoga correctly.
But whatever you do, don't answer to anyone by blind faith. And always be open to reading and learning for yourself independently going as far as you can with that amazing mind of yours!
Don't believe me or anybody as originally said by the Buddha:
“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

Normally, those who are sure that the Buddha is enlightened are those who experience a "retrograde realization" (to quote Andrei Volkov) upon hearing and understanding the teachings of the Buddha. Upon reading some explanation by the Buddha, you might think, "oh! that's right! It matches my observation of how my mind works. But I never explicitly thought of it that way before, till I read this". This means that you have definitely observed how your mind works throughout your life, but it never became obvious to you, till you heard Buddha's explanation. As you experience more such aha moments, you realize that the Buddha really knows.

My 2 cents: Before you can judge whether another person is accomplished, at anything, or not, you have to be accomplished yourself. You have to develop your sensitivity such that you know true from false even in very subtle cases. I'd say that as long as the Buddha inspires you, pushes you to do things which deep down you know are right, you stick with it to the best of your ability. Ultimately it is said we should know for ourselves. There is no clear-cut proof for a claim for which its axioms have not been laid down and understood. And by what teachers tell us, nibbana is not a logical conclusion based on our pervasive daily axioms, it's an axiom to be verified for oneself. Until we realize the truth of this axiom, our job is to stick with it and see what it leads to, where it leads us. And we just keep pushing forward, chipping away at our mental defilements, each one at their own pace. But any steady pace is better than staying in place, to say nothing of regressing.
As for living inside the matrix, you should realize that this perception is a modern one, and brings with it quite a load of baggage from science fiction, so you should be very careful with it. To the extent of my readings, the Buddha never spoke about delusion in terms of the existence of objects (in fact he did not approve of such discussions), but rather in terms of the benefits we perceive in our conventions, which simply keep us in the cycle, because the nature of our objects is to appear, cease, and reappear, over and over again. Each time they near perishing, we should be very careful about our suppositions. We should realize their nature, that our control over their ways is limited, so as to not crash down with them.

Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One said to the monks: "In one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena, craving develops. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering & stress. -- SN 12.52

I don't know what "living in the Matrix" means (although I've seen the movie).
I'm not a psychologist -- is it Dissociation, Depersonalization, Derealization, or something like that, that you think you're feeling?

Anyway, back to the topic of the Buddha: you're asking whether he awoke to the ultimate truth of reality.
Well, the main truths, the first truths, that he taught were that unhappiness comes from:

Wanting things you that don't have (e.g. because we are not infinitely rich/wealthy)
Wanting to keep things you can't keep (e.g. because people get sick and die, things get old and worn out)
Wanting to be someone who you're not
Wanting to be not yourself

He also taught that it's possible to let go of that unhappiness, by letting go of all that wanting.
If you stop wanting the wrong things (see above) then that removes the cause of your unhappiness.
I don't know about you but this seems like a sensible teaching:

It's helpful (how to stop being unhappy)
It's practicable
It's testable (you can try it for yourself, perhaps even easily try it)

He then goes on to give a lot of other good advice: for example about how to prevent anger from arising. It's difficult to summarize what he taught because there's so much of it; but when he summarized it, he summarized it as "the truth of suffering, and the truth of cessation of suffering" ... i.e. he taught about what causes unhappiness, and taught a way which if you follow it will lead to the cessation of suffering.
That 'way' includes many components: e.g. you have to 'understand' what the way is, you need 'will' or intention to follow the way, you need some mental 'concentration', etc. etc.

There's a sutta called Buddha Sutta: Awakened which starts with,

At Savatthi... "Monks, the Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released — is termed 'rightly self-awakened.' And a discernment-released monk — who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released — is termed 'discernment-released.'

... and ends with,

The Blessed One said, "The Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one — is the one who gives rise to the path (previously) unarisen, who engenders the path (previously) unengendered, who points out the path (previously) not pointed out. He knows the path, is expert in the path, is adept at the path. And his disciples now keep following the path and afterwards become endowed with the path.
"This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released."

In summary the Buddha is called "self-awakened" because he himself figured out what he taught; monks can now follow the path which he discovered and taught.
I guess that "being enchanted with form", having "passion" for forms, and "clinging" to forms is being described by analogy as a kind of being asleep, being unskillful, being unaware.

In "The Matrix", The Matrix is a false reality conjured by machines for people to live in; a reality which most assume is the real world. This is often taken to be a metaphor for samsara.

I think, the best answer here is "you cannot be sure". It's a tradition from which you heard it.
However, you can try to get familiar with that what has also been transmitted about the practize and the teaching of the Buddha. If you find out that -by following the proposed path- you get a little bit nearer to understanding, freedom-in-thought, awareness, mindfulness, compassion ... then you might become more convinced . Such thing is even a many-times reported experience, which can be found many times in the suttas but also in the whole evolution of the buddhist practice and experience up to today.
But when you'll become sure - that shall be a very individual, personal moment which cannot, in my opininion, ever be formalized as a general rule (perhaps even in some  bureaucratic/scientific or the-like account). (a nice composition about this is in @ruben2020 's answer)

Because this question came up on the mainpage again, just another thought.
You can't know it, you only can believe it. I think similar situations in the samana discourse have been the reason for the convention of the "Lion's roar" . That seems to be one possibility to announce such a thing like "awakening" that was not on the disposal of the outer world. The outer world could only believe/or not or try to disprove by showing that the content of the "Lion's roar" of someone could be disproved factual and/or by outcome in that real practice.
So there is one sutra, I think it is the MN12 showing the "Lion's roar" of the Buddha, but there is also another sutra (don't have the source at the moment)  where this is only a part and only expressed shorter; but there is also one sutra about Sariputta's "Lions-roar" which the Buddha probed when asked him "by what do you know that your master is enlightened/behaving enlightened?"
I think that term occurs somewhere else casually in the PK and I'm sure some discussion of it should be in contemporary literature, and possibly wikipedia, because of it being a feature of the widespread samana's culture.

In a sense, it's not relevant.
The Buddha found his enlightenment or awoke from the understanding of life which caused him a great deal of emotional suffering because he searched (which is an understatement) and one day uncovered his great gift of love and compassion. For life, humanity, and himself.
This was taken from the Wikiquote page listing quotes from Gautama Buddha (I almost typed in 'The Buddha's WikiQuote page'... makes me wonder if The Buddha would edit his own page... for accuracy's sake, of course. ;)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

Do not go by revelation;

  Do not go by tradition;

  Do not go by hearsay;

  Do not go on the authority of sacred texts;

  Do not go on the grounds of pure logic;

  Do not go by a view that seems rational;

  Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances;

  Do not go along with a considered view

  Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent;

  Do not go along because "the recluse is our teacher."

  Kalamas, when you yourselves know:
  These things are unwholesome, these things are blameworthy;
  these things are censured by the wise;
  and when undertaken and observed, these things lead to
  harm and ill, abandon them...

  Kalamas, when you know for yourselves:
  These are wholesome; these things are not blameworthy; these things
  are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to
  benefit and happiness, having undertaken them, abide in them.

The part that is important is that the Buddha asked 'Don't take him at his word. Find out for yourself.'
If you don't think the Buddha awoke... Good. That personal truth that you don't believe or don't 'know' the Buddha awoke is alot more valuable than having faith in someone's actions or realization despite the respect and praise of the wisdom of his teachings.
Whether you know it or not, your pose of the question makes you 'Buddhist' in essence even if you don't meditate or chant or believe in the enlightenment of the Buddha.
The only difference between you and the Buddha is that you feel that the 'Matrix' is blocking your freedom and love and compassion for your whole, fully realized potential as a human being and the potential of others.
Continually testing the 'Matrix' and also testing your own intents and motivations for 'seeking' enlightenment and noticing the results of your questions will help you cultivate the 'awakening mind' that is the heart of living a full and rich and loving life.
Blessings

If you're not sure that waking up is possible, then you don't know how this matrix works yet.
You have to find out how this matrix works.
How beings come into this matrix?
Why do they come into this matrix? What's the reason? The cause?
Answers to these questions can only be found through own experience in meditation. Anything else is "religion" or "belief", which is better than "doubt".

The truth is you cant be sure if the Buddha woke up. I would imagine it would be like trying to tell someone who is blind from birth, what light is.
No words could ever do it justice. Therefore the only course of action is to find out for yourself what you can. Dont rely on any scripture for truth. Because even if the words are true, you still wont know what it is.

The Gods had the same question about Lord Buddha & Lord Buddha answered the question by performing "Ruwan Sakmana". Also when the Paswaga Thawusan had the doubt Lord Buddha simply answered it by asking "Have I ever said a lie to you?".

You can't be sure.
What you can do is: (1) give his doctrine a sincere try for some time (2) see if it works... If it doesn't work, then leave it. If it does, there's your surety.

You can be sure that Buddha woke up( got enlightenment) because after he attained nirvana he thought to himself that "I have attained Buddhaship. I am the teacher of three worlds. "

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


text:
Dharmaskandha and Śāripūtrābhidharma Satipatthana contains a section of shortcomings. What are the shortcomings?
According to Satipatthana Mula (By Sujato Bhikkhu edited by Piya Tan) Dharmaskandha and Śāripūtrābhidharma versions of the Satipatthana contains a section of shortcomings. What are the shortcomings mentioned in these versions?

To put it in another way Sujato Bhikkhu postulates a root text which he calls Satipatthana Mula which other later Satipatthana suttas and sutras "added" their own stuff. He derived a postulated root text not just by elision and finding common contents but other textual analysis.
The results he obtained happened to be similar to those found in the Theravada Abidhamma Vibhanga.
My quick and brief comparison from his table shows that the current pali version contains the following practices which according to Sujato Bhikkhu are not present in his postulated Satipatthana Mula:
Theravada Satipatthna Sutta adds:
Four postures;
Clear comprehension;
Anapanasati;
4 elements;
Food;
Space (5 element);
Oozing orifices;
Charnel ground;
6 sense media;
4 noble truths;
Rise/fall;
Knowledge;
Independence
Ekayana Sutra added: Arahantship


text:
Does any Theravada Suttas / sources refer to Oozing orifices? What are the Suttas?
According to Satipatthana Mula (By Sujato Bhikkhu edited by Piya Tan) Śāripūtrābhidharma Satipatthana contains a section on oozing orifices. What exactly does Śāripūtrābhidharma sources say about oozing orifices in English? Are there are parallels in Theravada literature especially the Tripitaka which compair with what Śāripūtrābhidharma sources say?

I think that's found in the commentaries to the Chinese Agamas.  I believe Ven. Analayo mentions it in his treatise on Satipatthana.  I have a copy at home.  I'll check when I get a moment.

Perhaps you can add an answer using this information?

Sadly I can't seem to find the source.  I know I have heard that before, however.  From what I recall, somewhere in the Chinese Agamas there is a truncated version of the 32 parts of the body contemplation.  The "oozing orifices" was one of the parts they used.  I believe Bhikkhu Bodhi also mentions this truncated contemplation in one of his Majjihima Nikaya lectures.  Again, a source eludes me right now.

@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena: have you emailed Mr. Piya Tan for an answer? He is most helpful (and so are you).

I think this is found in Ganda Sutta: A Boil as per answer by @santa100

From AN 9.15:

"A boil,' monks, is another word for this body composed of the four properties, born of mother & father, fed on rice & porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing & massaging, breaking-up & disintegrating. It has nine openings, nine un-lanced heads. Whatever would ooze out from it would be an uncleanliness oozing out, a stench oozing out, a disgust oozing out. Whatever would be discharged from it would be an uncleanliness discharging, a stench discharging, a disgust discharging. For that reason, you should become disenchanted with this body."

Thanks for the effort but this seams a bit tangential to what I was looking for. I modified the question for more clarity.

Unfortunately I don't have the Sariputrabhidharma source and so won't be of much help there. Anyway, the oozing orifices description should be pretty consistent across schools. Personally, I'd go to the sutta discourses first and then use the abhidhamma if needed for any further analysis..

+1 for the answer but this is not exactly what I was looking for. I think orifice they mean body orifices

The Theravada satipatthana sutta contains the same reference:

“Again, bhikkhus, as though he were to see a corpse thrown aside in a charnel ground, one, two, or three days dead, bloated, livid, and oozing matter, a bhikkhu compares this same body with it thus: ‘This body too is of the same nature, it will be like that, it is not exempt from that fate.’

(MN 10 - Bodhi, Trans)
The Visuddhimagga explains the phrase (festering = oozing):

The festering: what is trickling with pus in broken places is festering (vipubba).
  What is festering is the same as “the festering” (vipubbaka). Or alternatively,
  what is festering (vipubba) is vile (kucchita) because of repulsiveness, thus it is
  “the festering” (vipubbaka). This is a term for a corpse in that particular state.
-- Vism. VI.3 (Nyanamoli, trans)

I think orifice they mean body orifices

+1 for the answer but this is not what I was looking for.


text:
What does Śāripūtrābhidharma Satipatthana sources mention about food? Does other Theravada source have such references?
According to Satipatthana Mula (By Sujato Bhikkhu edited by Piya Tan) Śāripūtrābhidharma versions of the Satipatthana contains a reference to food. What exactly does it say about food and does Theravada sources have similar references else where? Is food referenced as one of the elements (Mahābhūta)?

Basically it cautioned the practitioner not to crave and endulge the 6 sense objects (form, sound, smell, etc.), clothing, food, drink, medicine, etc. for craving of those leads to suffering.
The Pali source mentioned the Four Nutriments which includes food as the physical nutriment, contact, mental volition, and consciousness. Analysis and various suttas are available here


text:
Does Paritta/Sutta really have magical power?
Many people believed certain Paritta/Sutta have certain magical power, for example Bojjhanga Sutta for curing illness and Om Mani Padme Hum having a great (even greatest) magical power among other Mantra (i refer Mantra to Mahayana tradition and Paritta to Theravada tradition).
What do you think about this?
Does the Buddha has spoken by Himself - that His follower can re-chant his words (Sutta/Mantra) to gain specific magical power? If He has, please kindly tell me what Sutta is it,
Note : Please dont be offensed, i love listening to Sutta, but im curious about this one.

Can you share with us which sutta is this ?

In AN 4.67, the Buddha allowed the monks to use the paritta to protect themselves from harm. Notice Ven. Thanissaro's note:

"This is one of the few protective charms mentioned in the Pali canon and specifically allowed by the Buddha for monks to use (another charm, also allowed to the monks, is contained in DN 32). Note that the power of the charm is said to come, not from the words, but from the mind of good will with which they are said. It thus differs from charms taught in later forms of Buddhism, where the words themselves are said to contain power."

The "mind of good will" also affects how you behave: you won't angrily attack a snake, if you walk away you'll do that quietly, etc.

Thanks. "Note that the power of the charm is said to come, not from the words, but from the mind of good", so the Sutta doesnt have their certain power, the mind does?

depends on how you'd define "power". We can say the suttas certainly have the educational power for without it, the mind wouldn't be able to develop its own power.

If it works for you, it works for you. The siddhis and mantras, sutra recitations as magic are outside of science (or more to the point, there is no support for magic from science-- and if there was, then it wouldn't be magic anymore, it would be a new branch of science).
All that said, the siddhis are most convincing when the effect of the "magic" is something that happens in the confines of your own head. If you say a mantra to magically make yourself brave, and it works for you, that actually sounds quite plausible.

Thanks. "If you say a mantra to magically make yourself brave" I think theres a distinct difference between mental attitudes like "bravery, compassion" with the "real" magical power, like healing someone illness (not a mental illness)

@Blaze: Placebos are often helpful in healing physical illness. Is that magic? Where does the power come from? (My opinion would be that the healing power of placebos is mental.)

@TomBarron Sorry English is not my native language, do you mean sometimes physical illness can be cured by certain mental attitudes?

If it is explicable it is not magic anymore. This is a characteristic of English and the definition of magic. Now the cultural phenomena of the goals, practices of Buddhist attempting to develop the siddhis, thats explicable. The goals are magic. If it works, it must be explicable, and uh-oh, it's not magic. So it appears that the word magic has a connotation of fraud. Back the the siddhis, the interesting stuff is the magic that happens in your head. The rest is fraud. If you don't like calling siddhis magic, then call them siddhis.

@BlazeTama Tom was asking you about "the placebo effect", which means that for example, "Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect". He was asking that because you were suggesting that healing someone's physical illness would be "real" magical power.

According to What the Bleep Do We Know!?, when you chant on water and look at it under an electronic microscope, there are visible structural patterns which emerge in the water atoms. This does not go to the extent of trying to deduce if this is beneficial but positive vibes created in chanting may have beneficial effects. This is mentioned in the canonical texts also.
Having said that, the greatest benefit is when you understand, memorize and put what is said into practice. This is by far greater.

Thanks. "Having said that, the greatest benefit is when you understand, memorize and put what is said into practice. This is by far greater." Yes i agree with you. I also heard about this water research. What make me curious is, is it the mind or the Sutta that effect water's atom? For example, if we chant 2 different Sutta, will the pattern of atoms be different?

This needs further investigation. I am not sure.

Further investigators said that the experiment with the water wasn't done well: perhaps they took 100 photos of each water sample and published one non-random photo from each sample (so there was "observer bias" and the experiment wasn't blinded). It's not reproducible under controlled conditions. See for example this and this and this and this.

Many people believed certain Paritta/Sutta have certain magical power, for example Bojjhanga Sutta for curing illness
I think that if you tell a sutta like the Gilana Sutta to someone whose body is very ill, that can help them, especially when ('right speech') they want to, when they are ready to hear the dhamma from you (which we can assume Kassapa wanted to, was ready to hear from the Buddha):

"Well Kassapa, how is it with you? Are you bearing up, are you
enduring (your suffering)? Do your pains decrease or increase? Are
there signs of your pains decreasing and not of increasing?"
"No, Ven. Sir, I am not bearing up, I am not enduring, the pain is
very great. There is a sign not of pains decreasing but of their
increasing."
"Kassapa, these seven factors of enlightenment are well expounded by
me and are cultivated and fully developed by me. They conduce to
perfect understanding, to full realization (of the four Noble Truths)
and to Nibbana.  What are the seven?
i. "Mindfulness, the factor of enlightenment, Kassapa, is well expounded by me, and is cultivated and fully developed by me. It conduces to perfect understanding, to full realization and to Nibbana.
ii. "Investigation of the Dhamma, the factor of enlightenment, Kassapa, is (etc.)

Perhaps this can help them to feel better, to "bear up", to endure.
It might even (temporarily) help to cure their illness. Or it might not. I don't think we should expect it to cure their physical illness for ever: because, "all compound things are subject to decay."
The purpose of Buddhism is to help people even though, even when there is illness, there is death.
What do you think about this?
I this that it is possible for a person who is living and who is dying to understand, to realize, to cultivate the seven factors of enlightenment: to be mindful, to investigate the Dhamma, to persevere, etc.
I even think that can have a 'magical' effect on people: i.e. when they live and when they die they might feel equanimity and kindness and so on, instead of feeling anger and suffering and ignorance and so on.
But the reason why it happens isn't 'magic' it happens for a reason: the reason why it happens is right view, right intention, etc.

Unfortunately, the belief that a ritual has a magical power might be a "fetter", if I've understood that right. See for example Three fetters; or this description of Five lower fetters which includes,

Sīlabbata-parāmāsa: attachment to moral precepts and religious practices. Attachment to form and ceremony. The mistaken understanding that one will be purified and liberated merely by the act of keeping moral precepts, rules, traditions, and practices. The belief that these rules and practices are sacred in themselves. One follows them with the desire for reward or acquisition. Missing the true purpose of moral precepts and religious observances, one ends up astray or in an extreme form of practice (say of practising extreme asceticism—tapa), not on the Noble Path.

Fortunately however; although death is real and suffering exists; even so the dhamma, hearing the dhamma and reciting the dhamma can be helpful, can help to liberate people from suffering.

Mantrayoga follows logically from the general doctrine of karma and the inclusion of mind as a "sixth sense," both of which are fundamental to the Pali Canon and all Buddhist schools except perhaps for ultra-neo-Theravadin rationalists who want to expunge everything Indian from the Pali Canon, although the Buddha was an Indian.
The latter is generally associated with Sri Lanka.  Every cause has an effect, every effect is the result of a cause, mind is real. The theory of mantra (or mantrayoga, a synonym for Tantra) is universal and is even found in the "barbarian dharma." All ancient peoples attributed a powerful significance to speech, since it is through speech that the world of differentiated objects is articulated. Curiously, one finds this doctrine also in quantum physics ("the act of observation").
It is simply stupid to demand that Buddhism or any other theosophy conform to the modern secular religion of scientism, and it is naive to believe that we know everything about the world simply because we have created powerful mathematical models of the parts of the world that we want to control. In fact, there are many aspects of life and consciousness that we simply don't understand in those terms.
It is perhaps significant that science itself is moving away from the mechanist, materialist paradigm. In any case, it is best to keep an open mind. Mantrayoga involves many different aspects - the sounds themselves, the meaning of the words, the effect of the words on the mind and the brain, the conviction of that mind in the significance of the sounds and meanings, and the intention of the mind. Whether you choose to call this "magical" or not is really a matter of semantics.

Hi Alexander Duncan and welcome to Buddhism SE. Could you add some sections to your answer making it more easy to read for other user and add some references to e.g. the texts or other sources. Thank you .

Lord Buddha has advised his follower to use suttas.Because suttas are nothing but the word of lord Buddha.
But there are some suttas that has more uses for someone who chants them.
For example suttas like

Karaniya meththa sutta
Atanataya sutta*

Karaniya meththa sutta
This sutta contains teachings and advises that are completely equal to what Buddhists practice in "Meththa meditation" so when chanting it essentially becomes the meththa meditation.So this is the power of it that brings security to the practitioner.This was a sutta adviced by Lord Buddha to be practiced by all beings.
Buddhism does not believe in magic.We only believe in completely logical things.
Atanataya sutta
This sutta on the other hand had a different beginning,
One day the 4 God kings visited lord Buddha with their armies and said this.
"We see  that good ones who practice Great Lord Buddha's teachings have no protection from evil beings so we thought we should provide them with some protection.Great Lord Buddha please accept this and teach your good followers"
So they said the Atanataya sutta for the first time and Lord Buddha listened to it and accepted it.It was then taught to monks for protection.
This sutta contains two parts.

Prasing the Lord Buddhas who were present in this era
Mentioning the punishments for evil beings if they do any harm to a
Buddhist.*

First part
These are genuine praisings for the Great Lord Buddhas who existed in this era (Kalpa) and advises for intelligent beings to become followers of Buddhism.
Second part
As all these evil beings are under the command of the 4 god kings these are actually orders from their kings to not to harm Buddhists,and the warnings of possible punishments if they go against the orders.

I can give you many examples and they all end with a perfectly logical meaning.So the truth is chanting does not bring magic.
Learn suttas with meanings - Click and learn
Try learning about the meaning of suttas then you will see that they are not magic.And it is the right way to use suttas, because reciting with meaning can bring you to better understanding and it gains you very good and powerful karma.

First please don't use the word magic, magic is a word associated with fiction or not real, the word is already programed in your mind as a impossible act that humans do not posses.
The flesh and this dimension have rules and boundaries.The mind that sees its true self as only the spirit can manifest the powers of the spirit into this realm.These forces are only to be used for good and to help others and not to benefit the self.
If a collective conscious of enlightened minds all are sharing the same thought and intention at once these powers are manifested rapidly into this realm.
So to make sure everyone is sharing the same intension,chanting in sequence is a way of focusing energy but not necessary to manifest our true unlimited powers.
We all are one but must come back together and reunite, love one another because you love yourself.


text:
Why is the Yogācāra school called 'mind only'?
I've heard the Yogācāra school of Buddhism called 'mind only'. What does that refer to? Does this school believe that the mind has a real inherent existence but nothing else does? Alternatively is it a more metaphorical designation or perhaps a provisional description of a deeper notion or maybe a name given to it by other schools (in the same way as Hinayana was used by Mahayanan schools)?

This may answer your question: http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhismglossaryy/g/yogacaradef.htm

To be kept in mind that 'mind only' doesn't mean 'only mind'.

To fill out R Barzell's comment more and to venture my own answer in the hope of being corrected. It seems like the most satisfying explanation of this is from this source

the reality we think we perceive does not exist except as as a process
  of knowing. Phenomena, anything that can be experienced, have no
  reality in themselves. At the same time, there is no "experiencer" who
  experiences except as a process of mind.

My further understanding of this though is that the Yogācāra school was a very practically based school and any philosophical discussions would have been secondary to meditation and personal enquiry so this kind of statement would have been provisional on this. This would contrast with the rival Madhyamika school which had a greater emphasis on philosophical discourse. Peter Harvey in an Introduction to Buddhism (pp129 2nd Edition) says of this

Madhyamika has an analytical, dialectical approach [...] emphasizing
  wisdom; the Yogacara's emphasized samadhi (meditative concentration)


text:
How does Buddhism reconcile evolution with reincarnation?
If everyone in Tibet or Earth even for instance quit reproducing then how could a Lama reincarnate when his reincarnation depends on the freewill of the people who are reproducing?

Not to nitpick, but this question does not really have anything to do with evolution. Also freewill is not really the issue here. The same scenario could be asked if all of humanity became infertile or extinct. The question is still valid of course.

Yeah, I'm kind of confused with what evolution is meant here. Is this an attempt to find a zinger to refute evolution or reincarnation or free will?

I'm having a hard time explaining what I'm talking about. When we look at evolution we see that everything is a continuance of previous ancestors and there is no proof that this continuation involves a transfer of a mind that is independent of the body. In religions that believe in reincarnation the beginning of consciousness for a being is when a mind/soul enters into a body instead of the mind evolving with the body.

I rolled back (reversed) your most recent edit: because that edit would have invalidated the existing answers to this question. After a question has been answered, if you want to ask a different question, please post it as a new question.

I'm putting this on hold as unclear, since neither the body nor the text really explains what exactly you are looking to find out and there's no clear line drawn between evolution and reincarnation for them to be discussed together. If you can come up with a clearer phrasing that keeps with existing answers then editing would work, otherwise I'd suggest a new question.

It's important to keep in mind the true pupose of a reincarnated Teacher: "As long as sentient being remain, may I too remain and dispel the miseries of the world". If there was no one left, then the teacher's job would've been completed and there would be no further need to come back to this world. From a bigger cosmos perspective, there're uncountable other places for sentient existence, so if our planet will no longer be habitable to sentient beings in the future, a great teacher will just simply move on to other places to dispel the miseries of those "other worlds".

These are really heterogeneous questions.
The answer to the body of the question:
Bardo is the intermediate step between one life and the next. I don't know of any particular reason why we couldn't image Bardo to last longer if need be.
Also, in the cosmology, it the universe is mind boggling huge and there are multiple "universes", so if you can't be reborn on Earth, you'll be reborn in another universe.
As for what would happen if everyone died in all universes, then I guess that would be the same as the universe ending. The cosmologies say that a new universe will come along, pop back into existence and replace the old one.
The answer to the title, read up on Lopez's The Scientific Buddha.  In short, Lopez doesn't think Buddhism has a lot of support for evolution (or vica versa)-- he thinks one is a science, one is a religion (magic, afterlife, abstruse philosophy) and mixing them is bad scholarship.
In Buddhist Biology Barash finds numerous parallels between ideas in Biology and Buddhism, entirely from a secular viewpoint (i.e. Buddhism without reincarnation)


text:
How to prevent the development of insight to become ignorance anew?
It is necessary to develop insight in the way ignorance lies at the basis for the conditioning of suffering. See 12 links of dependent co-origination. Insight in the conditioning of suffering is developed by seeing the four noble truths at work at every aspect of the dependent co-origination. Ie: fabrications are suffering because these will "colour" experience, therefore ending the fabrications (unskilful actions, complex emotions, fixed ideas,etc...) is to be achieved by developing wisdom instead of ignorance, and finally this transforming of ignorance into wisdom becomes the path of transformation. When then does the newly acquired skill itself become redundant and a hindrance to liberation?
------------- EDIT--------------
Somehow the thinking part, the studying element of the development of wisdom creates a structure essential to gain insight into suffering. This knowledge may then become a kind of established truth, again giving rise to clinging to it, craving for it, ... and ultimately the birth of "the truth". This doctrine now needs to be defended, is liable to decay and misinterpretation, ... in short suffering. As it is impossible to use the insight to overcome itself (this is like a vicious circle), the only option left is to know when to abandon the knowledge (like in the raft simile) lest it becomes anew a cause for suffering. I hope this does clarify the issue somewhat.

I do not think wisdom becomes a hindrance to liberation, but is in itself a necessary component of liberation. Perhaps I am not understanding your question. It seems a little wordy and hard to follow.

Well, Buddhism is not simply a doctrine or belief system that needs to be defended through clinging to its knowledge or the view. The wisdom mentioned here that is acquired through reading, thinking or studying has to be experienced through Vipassana meditation. Unless it is experienced through this way, this knowledge will become just another view among many other views in this world subject to decay and misinterpretations.
There's a seven step purification process in Vipassana where you begin simply from practicing virtue, give up all the wrong views midway and finally end in wisdom.
You go through the entire process similar to using seven relay chariots until you arrive at the destination where each chariot is used only to achieve its designated purpose and then you abandon it without clinging to it; this is explained nicely in Ratha-vinitha sutta.

"... purity in terms of virtue is simply for
the sake of purity in terms of mind. Purity in terms of mind is simply
for the sake of purity in terms of view. Purity in terms of view is
simply for the sake of purity in terms of the overcoming of
perplexity. Purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity is simply
for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is
not the path. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is
not the path is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge &
vision of the way. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way is
simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision. Purity
in terms of knowledge & vision is simply for the sake of total
Unbinding through lack of clinging. And it's for the sake of total
Unbinding through lack of clinging that the holy life is lived under
the Blessed One."
Ratha-vinita Sutta [Thanissaro Bhikkhu]

If the steps are followed properly, then it doesn't become a vicious cycle.


text:
Vibrating Sensation in Middle of forehead during meditation?
Recently during my meditation sessions I have been getting a vibrating sensation between the eyebrows sometimes it can be quite intense.
I have looked online and from what I can find it suggests this sensation refers to the "third eye". Just wondering if this is mentioned in any buddhists texts and is sensation normal?

I have pressure on my upper nose while doing vipassana meditation, why it is happening?

@dineshsj This does not really answer the question. If you have a different question, you can ask it by clicking Ask Question. You can also add a bounty to draw more attention to this question once you have enough reputation.

@dineshsj Welcome to Buddhism.SE! As ChrisW indicates: you have a question, you can ask it separately using the "Ask Question" button in the upper right hand corner.

See also: “Electric Feel” body sensation during meditation.

Yes the sensation is a normal condition.
It is just muscle/nerve spasms. They may be happening throughout the day but go largely unnoticed. They are also at level of neuron firings so you typically will not be able to see them physically. During meditation you are probably more aware of the tiny changes in your body. One thing I notice during meditation is how loud my stomach has been this last week. The more you become aware of them the more intense they will probably appear to manifest. Unless it is a medical condition such as a hemifacial spasm they will typically go away on their own.

This is your 1st glimpse of arising and passing away. When you practice more you will see there is no solidity any where and your body is completely a mass of arraigning and passing sensations which manifests them self are vibrations. If you not be attached or averse to them as this creates negativity.

Never think 3rd eye activation or Kundolini bla bla. If you think so, your ego is growing up with meditation.
Before everything, you kill ego first then try to become no mind state.
Then ----

This is not answering the OP questions.The Op is asking if the "third eye is mentioned in the Buddhist texts? and if the sensation is normal?

What kind of meditation are you practicing right now? I believe you are practicing Anapana and have not yet ventured into Vipassana. When you will start doing Vipassana, you will realise that there are vibrations constantly happening all over the body. We use these vibrations, this arising and falling of sensations to ascertain the reality of impermanence and anatta. So basically your mindfulness has increased making you aware of these sensations. A word of caution will be not to get attached to these sensations...sometimes you may not feel them and sometimes these sensations may be painful...remaining equanimous all the time is the key.

Yes I am practicing anapana meditation for 12 months have noticed in my longer session (45 mins +) that this vibration sensation occurs. Usually I bring my attention back to the breath and it seems to disappear but just wanted to know if this was something others experience and it seems like it is normal.

yes its very normal...these sensations were happening even before just that now you have heightened your awareness

This sensation is normal during meditation and the place is called Ajna (or third-eye chakra - the mind's eye). In statues of buddhas it's placed on the forehead as a most previous jewel.
In Tibetan buddhism, this chakra is at the end of the central channel, which runs up the body to the top of the head, and then over and down, terminating at the forehead. The two side channels continue onwards towards the two nostrils and end there. [Source: wiki]
From a spiritual point of view, we could compare the third eye to the temple's portal to the sacred places or the bridge allowing mind communication.
The purpose of meditation is to reveal this natural subtle perception (vibrating sensation). The best results are achieved when you don't use your imagination/visualisation, so things will come to you naturally (just flow with what comes). So if you feel vibration (or pressure, density) between the eyebrows, don't pay attention to it, just focus on the vibration and try to connect this energy with your throat chakra (Vishuddha) in order to create the circulation of the life force (Lung/Qi/Vijñāna), so you can sense your light/astral/etheric body.
See also:

“Electric Feel” body sensation during meditation at Buddhism SE
(book) Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Tantric Grounds and Paths
(book) Awakening the Third Eye by Samuel Segan (PDF)


text:
How to deal with loved ones who don't support you?
I am very close to someone in my family. I have supported her through rough times and offered my advice. However, she does not support me for the one thing I want in life. I am working hard to achieve my goal (career related), but she is completely against it. I have to live with her, and interact with her everyday and I feel her negative vibes around me. It really hurts my feelings. How can I deal with this issue and maintain peace in my mind?
Thank you, I appreciate it.

Welcome to Buddhism.SE! This is a good question, but I'm not sure if it's on topic for this site in particular. It seems more general if I'm understanding it correctly. If not, perhaps add in how it relates to your practice of Buddhism?

Try to understand her perspective. Why does she not support your choices? What is her intentions? Perhaps she just loves and cares for you and her thinking/rational is how she is trying to care for you. If you can better understand her it will help her to better understand you.
Practice metta (loving kindness) meditation with her as your focus. Perhaps even practice loving-kindness meditation together.

I've tried understanding her intentions. She thinks I'm not smart enough, and doubts I'll succeed. Thanks for the advice. I'll continue meditation/loving kindness. I

Now try to understand the causes & conditions of her intentions. This is at the heart of the Buddha's teachings. Right Understanding will cultivate compassion and happiness.

This universe is kind of a continuous message thrown to every and each of us. Maybe you could try to understand the message the reality is trying to send you by this relationship, and with more emphasis when she is so near to you. What you understand must be separated from judge, even separated a bit of "love", maybe, in order to " clean" or maybe to get nearer of the neighbours perspective. With a better understanding of this message, only you can choose what to do about it. I am talking, but I have the same problem almost every day. Every mind is a little universe, and time and experience make them the way they are now.

I never expected this kind of a question in here! :D
But let's see if we can help out a bit.
The peace you lack is because you can't accept that she disagrees. You are struggling to be right, and so is she. Perhaps some clarity would help: she's the only one who can clearly tell you her feelings on this, so she's the one you have to talk to in order to resolve this.
The pain is because you are trying to have control over the situation (based on your explanation of things). And so I would recommend meditation on why you feel the need to control and dominate this decision. It's not hers; it's yours. You are the one who has to live with the consequences of making it in either case. Except that she believes it also impacts her (and she wouldn't oppose it if she thought it would turn out well).
Consider her input, find out if she's willing to help you understand, and by all means listen! But if she isn't convincing to you, consider what it is that she's seeing, and try to come up with a way that it won't be an issue for her.
Generally, there is no way to avoid conflict, but if you take it from a position of having her explain her reasons to you so that you can understand why she's so opposed to it, you may find a solution you're looking for and avoid further issue.

In the end, you can't control someone's feelings, but you can control your reaction. Perhaps, you are expecting her to approve. Our expectations can cause suffering.
Metta  and loving kindness meditation I suspect would be helpful. When you sit down to meditate, imagine three people: Someone you care a great deal about and reciprocates, someone who is neutral, and someone who feels animosity towards you and/or vice versa. You wish each of them less suffering and that they will be happy. I can't remember what order you go in though.
The idea is be positive even towards those who may not approve.

The above answer is partly right. Going into someone else's limited perspective and feeling compassion for them is good but how often can you do this?
There are negative people abound.
A shortcut:
Don't try to understand the other person's perspective too much. The more you try to understand their perspective the more you will believe it!
Stay away from such people or at least when they become like that.
Stay in your mind.
Find reasons for why you WILL succeed. ACT.
See yourself succeeding (in your mind and especially in reality).
IMAGINE IT. ACTUALLY DO IT. ACTUALLY SUCCEED, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
Don't care what others think.
Doubt your doubts.
You do not know what they are truly thinking. You never can! Even if you ask them, they may say one thing but in their hearts believe another thing. For example, the person who is jealous of you will tell you that you will fail but is in fact strongly believes in you but cannot ever admit it verbally.
Another example: teenage life these days where a person will make fun of you to try to "make you stronger" or "get you to prove them wrong". They actually love you and want to help but have too much ego. They want to save face so they give you negative attention instead.
The silliness is endless!
STAY IN YOUR OWN HEAD.
Empathize and move on. You are your first friend so own up to your thinking.
Give yourself metta, mudita, karuna, upekkha.
Give the same to others.
But DO NOT LET OTHERS STEP ON YOU psychicly or emotionally otherwise you will never be able to help many people but will be trapped in a cycle of hate and resentment!
Basic tips? (I face the same thing you are facing x3)

keep positive coversation. LEAD the interaction. Call out the person and END the interaction if goes down a negative route. don't fight fire with fire
If after calling them out, they still berate you negatively, then look them right in the eye and tell them that you'd rather only talk to them if necessary until they learn to be more accepting and positive, not break people down etc.
overall, be self-reliant on your own thoughts. You be your own judge. Learn to develop this.

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


text:
Difference between Equanimity which is diversified and Equanimity which is unified
In the Potaliya Sutta, Buddha says,

So too, householder, a noble disciple considers thus: ‘Sensual pleasures have been compared to fruits on a tree by the Blessed One; they provide much suffering and much despair, while the danger in them is great.’ Having seen this thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, he avoids the equanimity that is diversified, based on diversity, and develops the equanimity that is unified, based on unity, where clinging to the material things of the world utterly ceases without remainder.

What is the difference in Equanimity that is diversified and Equanimity which is unified?
The complete sutta can be found here...http://suttacentral.net/en/mn54

The Pali version of this expression identifies equanimity that is diversified as upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā and equanimity which is unified as upekkhā ekattā
ekattasitā.

Evameva kho, gahapati, ariyasāvako iti paṭisañcikkhati:
  ‘rukkhaphalūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo
  ettha bhiyyo’ti. Evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya disvā yāyaṃ
  upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā taṃ abhinivajjetvā yāyaṃ upekkhā ekattā
  ekattasitā yattha sabbaso lokāmisūpādānā aparisesā nirujjhanti
  tamevūpekkhaṃ bhāveti
Potaliyasutta [Pali]

Following excerpt from Excursions Into the Thought-World of the Pali Discourses by Bhikkhu Analayo explains them in detail.

The unified equanimity of deeper Jhāna experience is considerably more
  refined than worldly types of equanimity that are based on diversity,
  upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā
Excursions Into the Thought-World of the Pali Discourses
   By Bhikkhu Analayo

So in summary,
equanimity that is diversified = undeveloped mind
equanimity which is unified = a mind at Jhāna level


text:
On Suffering and Happiness
Is happiness something we should seek? I feel discontent seeking the state of happiness or creating this state of mind when I know that other beings are suffering. For example, if one knows that animals are being slaughtered inhumanely to satisfy the desire of greed and glutony, then how can one conciously feel happy with this in one's mind? I cannot simply ignore this. There are many examples of these bad acts in many forms.
What is the right mindfullness and how should I perceive these bad acts as a buddhist?

I just read this short article and it might have something helpful for you in it on this topic. http://buddhismnow.com/2012/08/17/compassion-without-drowning/

I would tend to think that a good first step is to redefine the way you indulge judgment. For example, you are classifying these as "bad" acts, when they are simply acts. Yes, they violate a rule, but they ultimately have a purpose: they are extensions of our survival mechanisms. But outside of a context of survival, they're not very useful. So we should overcome them so that we don't waste so much energy on them. Thus, while less beneficial, none of these is inherently "bad".

As a Buddhist you should seek your happiness while working towards the happiness of others.  Feeling bad is a self-indulgent activity done to justify inaction.
There is nothing selfish about being happy in the face of suffering, provided you are doing something to help address this suffering. For instance, you mention the suffering of animals.  Very well, what are you doing about it?  Are you a Vegan?  Are you encouraging Veganism?  Do you contribute or volunteer at any related causes?
If you aren't doing something to address the issue, then ask why.  Why do nothing to materially fix the world (which benefits the suffering), yet go to such great lengths to make yourself unhappy (which benefits no one and adds to the suffering of the world -- you).  Could it be that this "feeling bad" is a way of feeling better about not helping?
The mind often throws barriers to the path, and sometimes the best thing you can do is see through these barriers by asking what is REALLY going on.
So the Buddhist path is to seek your happiness while working towards the benefit of others.  The right mindfulness component of this is to scrutinize your thoughts in this regard, in particular the thoughts propping up this "guilt".

You have to train your mind to to be immune to external stimuli through Vipassana. This means that what every decision you take is not clouded by emotions. Keeping you mind in balance and judgement un clouded you can take action about things you can influence. E.g. if you see an injustice which you can correct you can take a action. This is not based on anger towards the party doing the injustice which would be the normal case.
Also happiness is something you should actively seek, but this you cannot do unless in a very high stage of meditation. You should look an any unconformable sensations in body and mind and dissolve them a way by bringing strong attention to these sensations. That is you should calm your metal and bodily fabrications. The natural outcome of this is you become happy. Also see: Matt Killingsworth: Want to be happier? Stay in the moment

If it's any consolation to you, I imagine that other animals eat each alive without any help from humans.
"Slaughtered (1) inhumanely (2) in third world countries (3) to satisfy the desire of greed and glutony (4) by humans (5)" is a specific example of a more general situation.
I'm not sure that you can control the world, to make it to your liking. You can perhaps control yourself: you yourself can abstain from killing, for example.
While you do what you can, perhaps the Middle Way suggests that you extend to yourself the same compassion which you would extend to others: if you want others to be happy, if you think "may they be happy" then perhaps you should be willing to extend that same compassion to yourself: "may I be happy".

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
(Dhp 5)

I think that Buddhist are supposed to be "motivated" by compassion ... but may also feel equanimity.
Some Buddhists work with (or found) an animal shelter.


text:
What is Sat-Dharma?
In this answer Sat-Dharma is referred to. I can kind of get the meaning from the context but what exactly is Sat-Dharma? What is the 'Sat' part. Why not just refer to the Dharma? Does it have additional significance or slightly different meaning? Does it come from a particular tradition?

Don't really know whether this is what you search: http://dictionary.buddhistdoor.com/en/word/271454/sat-dharma - just found it googling around

OK thanks. I didn't Google it to be honest. I should have. But why use this term in preference to dharma. What is the difference between the two

Frankly, I've never seen this word before...(perhaps somehow related to "sat-sang"?)

In my usage, Sat-Dharma or Saddharma means Invariant System or Universally Valid Way.
Sat means "eternal" or "true" in the sense of staying always relevant/applicable, over time and across "the parallel worlds" (alternative ways of seeing life) -  therefore a reliable beacon for decision-making.
Dharma means way, tradition, system -- a way of seeing life and acting accordingly.
The way I use the term is to emphasize the invariant aspect, irrespective of a specific form -- Buddhism or what have you. I believe this is the way Gautama Buddha used the term as well.
Sat-Dharma is what's behind the rational ("scientific") method, the common sense, the teaching of Buddha, the sanity of successful people, the wisdom of the elders, and the holiness of the saints. The reason these are as relevant/successful/respected as they are is because they are grounded in Reality to a lesser or larger degree, while Sat-Dharma is that ideal, archetypal teaching that is by definition 100% grounded in Reality.
You could ask, but is there really anything that stays valid across all contexts?
This is like playing chess: there is no one move that is right in all situations but you can learn to play the game. In chess, there is no single pre-defined winning strategy. In one sense, we always improvise, every decision is made ad-hoc based on whatever makes sense given the circumstances and available information. On the other hand, there are principles that can be taught and mastered. Because the principles have their roots down in the fundamental rules of the game (dharmakaya), many of them will inevitably be rediscovered by many different people and passed on in various shapes and forms.
In this sense Satdharma is more fundamental than historical Buddhism. You could say Satdharma is that salt that makes Buddhism relevant.

'Sat' is derived from Satya which means truth...The word Sat-Dhamma means true Dhamma

Andrei uses it frequently.
The first time I noticed it was in this comment.
In that context my guess was that "true" dharma implies that, "if law that's being taught (i.e. dhamma) is wrong, then what's being taught must change (to be true)."

Another possibility could be that 'dhamma' has a lesser, mundane meaning.
For example, this version of the Samudda Sutta says,

There are, bhikkhus, mental phenomena cognizable by the mind, which are agreeable, pleasant, pleasing, enticing, connected with sensuality, delightful. There the world with the devas, Māras, Brahmās, with recluses and brahmans, this generation with devas and humans, is in majority submerged, having become entangled like a thread, having become like a knot of string, become like [mixed] grass and reeds, unable to go beyond states of woe, painful conditions, downfalls, transmigration.

There, "mental phenomena" is a translation of "dhamma",

dhamma: several aspects of the word may be distinguished:

in its most general sense, it designates all the phenomena of the universe, including Nibbāna. It could be in this context be translated as 'thing' or 'phenomenon'.
mental phenomenon, mental state, mental content.
teaching - whether of the Buddha or of some other teacher.
nature or quality or property or characteristic of a phenomenon. In compounds, it may mean: 'having the nature of--' or 'being by nature subject to--', ex: vipariṇāma·dhamma
the law of Nature, the liberating law taught by the Buddha.
  It is also the second of the tiratana and the tisaraṇa.

... and the Samudda Sutta warns that you can get lost in, entangled in "mental phenomena".
I assume that this kind of "mental phenomena" are not the "true" dhamma.
Finally, meaning #4 of the dictionary definition above suggests it means "having the nature of truth" or "being true". Andrei mentions the word sanity too, occasionally, which might be related: being true, being sane, understanding the world and acting appropriately.

From the website satdharma.org:

satdharma
The word means "the genuine teachings of things as they are" and refers to the stream of wisdom teachings that stems from the Buddha Shakyamuni. These teachings have been handed from master to student over centuries and are now established in the West through various lineages.

The Satdharma organization is a non profit religious organization headed by Patrick Sweeney. Patrick Sweeney was chosen as lineage holder and successor of Ösel Tendzin. Ösel Tendzin was chosen as lineage holder and successor of Chögyam Trungpa.
The Satdharma organization runs the Pullahari retreat center. Here is some information on their curriculum:

The Satdharma curriculum provides a contemporary framework that ensures a student's understanding does not stop at the cognitive level, and that relates to their physical, emotional and mental states as the working basis of transformation. Gentle yoga and energetic bodywork are an important part of the curriculum. Small groups meet regularly to study and practice, to refresh personal intention, and to receive mentorship when needed.

The Pullahari retreat center "serves the Satdharma community as a retreat space for group and solitary retreats throughout the year".
So in addition to the excellent answer chosen; satdharma is also an organization and community run by Patrick Sweeney and founded by Ösel Tendzin both of whom are in the Chögyam Trungpa lineage as shown very concisely here on this page.

What is Sat-Dharma?
Sat-Dharma is most probably a Sanskrit word. I am not sure what it means because I use the Theravada canon.
In the Theravada canon there is a word saddhamma. Most probably that is what the question refers to. The meaning of Saddhamma is: Dhamma of Sappurisa. A Sappurisa is a person who has two qualities called Hiri and Ottappa. There are no English equivalents for these two words. Rough equivalents are: (1) Hiri: shame shyness. Hiri prevents one from transgressing social norms, family traditions etc: (2) Ottappa is fear of wrong-doing.
An Asappurisa is a person who has no Hiri and Ottappa.
Above explanations are based on the sayings attributed to the Lord Buddha (Bhagava Buddho) in the Theravada canon.

The Sanskrit is Satya (the Pali is sacca).

PED says, "Sacca (adj) [Cp. Sanskrit Satya]; Sanskrit Satya is not the Pali Sacca. Origin of Satya is the Vedic religion. Origin of Sacca is the Dhamma (pointed out by Bhagava). Dhamma are the laws that govern the behaviour of all beings.


text:
If the law of Karma is a natural law like Newton's law?
Can we write an equation for it? at least in principle because I know that there are lots of variables involved. but if it really is a part of nature then why not?

I've heard terms like winds, tides, currents, etc..

Newton's laws are simple, they model of a simplified universe. They describes the relationship between "force" and the motion of a single object in an otherwise-empty universe.
If you consider two objects in the universe then there are a bunch of other laws: the law of gravity, laws of electrostatics, etc.
If you consider three objects in the universe then it cannot be generally solved by an equation:

In 1887, mathematicians Ernst Bruns [4] and Henri Poincaré showed that there is no general analytical solution for the three-body problem given by algebraic expressions and integrals. The motion of three bodies is generally non-repeating, except in special cases.[5]

... and that's just classical mechanics, ignoring relativistic and quantum mechanics.
Something like the weather (how strong the wind is going to be, whether it will rain, what the temperature will be) is arguably "part of nature". There too there are "lots of variables" involved. In order to predict tomorrow's weather, "an equation" isn't enough: they need to use many, many equations, and a supercomputer on which to run simulations, and even then it's only limited accuracy and range.
Similarly I think it's possible to say that Karma exists and is a "natural law", just as it's possible to say that weather exists.
Perhaps you'd think it might be easy, but in practice it isn't easy, to describe weather even using several equations, let alone just "an equation". You needs laws describing temperature, pressure, density, fluid dynamics, Coriolis because the earth is spinning, differential heating, and then local weather caused by the existence of land and sea and mountains and ocean currents etc. etc. etc.
Again I suggest you stop trying to see a link between Buddhism and Physics. Physics is useful as far as it goes, but it cannot even describe the relationship between a boy and his dog (or perhaps "between a child and a teacher" if you don't have any relationships with dogs).

Most importantly, an equation for karma is an oxymoron, because it would imply there's no free will.

Only if you believe in free will @Sadhana

@Sadhana I've tried to argue "free will" before, in the comments underneath this question.

@CLockeWork I think that Buddhists take a 'middle way' view of that subject: will isn't entirely "free" because it's conditioned, but there is such a thing as "will" (i.e. "intention") and "choice" and decisions that are moral or immoral. They might use an analogy of a raft on a river: the raft is carried by the river (isn't entirely free or independent of the river's motion nor the river's existence) but by an effort (of intention and of action etc.) a person can use the raft to cross the river.

@CLockeWork Well, yes, but of course we're talking about Buddhism and so it's the core principle underlying every discussion, isn't it? :)

Great response @ChrisW, something for me to think on

The core principle of karma relates to causality. Therefore, it's already given as an answer in the question: Newton's laws of motion demonstrate clearly the causal nature of elements without any sort of violation happening if there is a choice involved. This is essentially the mathematical proof of the river raft analogy (also posted as a comment to the original question): http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/8/8/988d445cd72d2a96d7103f7d468868f4.png

@VishwaJay That's an equation for a classical gravitational two-body problem. Equations for fluid dynamics are more complicated.

If 'Kamma' were saying that "everything is subject to the laws of Physics" then "the law of Kamma" would include "every equation known to Physics". But I think that when the Buddha explained 'Kamma' he was not trying to describe what we'd call "the laws of Physics".

How about "physics and Karma are not separate"?

@ChrisW It doesn't matter if the Buddha was trying to describe physics... it does seem to apply. In fact, there are a lot of things in a lot of different branches of Eastern philosophy that seem to correlate directly to classical physics, modern physics, and even quantum physics. The math doesn't aim to prove or disprove any of it; it merely seems to correlate. But the nature of the question was about this very kind of correlation.

@ChrisW My final part of this is that simplicity is considered important. That's why (of all of the equations I could have chosen) I chose that particular one. It shows the basic idea, from which the abstract can proceed.

Bravo! This answer made me happy :)

In this article http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/tp/The-Five-Niyamas.htm
One definitely gets the impression that morality and karma are part of nature and not just some artefact we've created.

You mean that karma is an artifact (a byproduct) of causality?

Karma is dependent on the intensity of volition of the person doing the action and the metal state of the person being the subjected to the volition. These states are not easy to measure empirically to build a equalization / mathematical model. The interactions among karma and the Niyamas are too complected also the theories for normal people other than a fully enlightened Buddha.

In my opinion the answer is "No", the Karma concept is not comparable to any law of nature.
First, I will explicate my understanding of Buddha’s Karma concept:
Buddha did not invent the Karma concept. Instead, at his time it was already established by Brahmins and Jains. Asked for his own opinion concerning the causes of our experience like pleasure or pain Buddha explains (SN 36.21): There are natural causes like the physical conditions of our organism or environmental conditions like the weather. Further experiences are rooted in the behaviour of our fellow companions or are due to injuries. As a final cause Buddha names karma, i.e. what a person has done before, is the cause of certain experiences.
Hence Karma serves as an explanation when all other causes are excluded.  Otherwise we had to say: We do not know. Therefore the Karma concept is an ad hoc hypothesis. 2.500 years of discussion show us that this kind of explanation can neither be confirmed nor refuted.
Secondly, I would like to explain how today’s science understands  what a law of nature is:
A law of nature is a rule which derives from a scientific theory. It can be confirmed or refuted by experience. At best such a rule can be stated as a mathematical formula.
Third, I will argue why the Karma concept is not a law of nature. The reason is: 1. Karma is an ad hoc hypothesis, which does not derive from a theory which explains a lot of other facts. 2. The Karma concept can be neither confirmed nor refuted.
Both properties are opposite to what is required for a law of nature.
Besides: Because the Karma concept burdens in addition all people who suffer from an inexplicable stroke of fate, I would welcome everyone who abandons such a cynical concept.

Dharma is the ever changing law of consciousness, which can only be understood and applied by a conscious being; since consciousness is boundless.


text:
How should I view others sufferings I cannot affect?
Through Vipassan meditation one can learn how to guard ones mind against externalities and not be affected by emotions. I believe that trying to follow this meditation to view the world from an unemotional state with actions not guided by emotion would definitely help me to be more aware and more awake, as well as have a happier and calmer mind. However, my concern is the following:
Does not letting externalities affect you mean ignoring externalities? I know that this meditation will help me feel better, however is it morally right to ignore the suffering of the world so that I could feel better?

This short article may have something helpful for you on this topic. http://buddhismnow.com/2012/08/17/compassion-without-drowning/

Firstly, meditation isn't about becoming an unemotional robot, it is about living a life not being control by your emotions, it's completely different! You can either be the master of your mind or the slave.
There is a big difference in ignoring the worlds suffering, compared to understanding the root cause of all suffering. As for the suffering of the external world, i would recommend studying and contemplating the 4 Noble Truths. Once you realize that ignorance is the root to all suffering, then you will view the world completely different.
Also if you want to help the suffering of the external world, i would suggest not increasing the suffering of others, that would be a good start, and to achieve that, it would be for you to continue your practice into freedom, then you can be an example for others!!
I hope i have been of some help.
Metta.

To compliment @Lee-Hebditch's answer I like to add the following.
When you are emotional you loose the balance of your mind. So nor reacting does not mean shutting off from any contact with the out side world. When you make contact you will experience a sensation which you evaluate and react with craving or aversion. This reaction is what needs to stop.
When this is the case you do not loose the balance of the mind. Then you can choose a better course of action to help your self and others.

Don't ignore it just yet.
First see if there's something you can do, without sacrificing right moral principles, to alleviate another's problems. To do this, you must often be strong enough to endure any internal reactions from within, from hearing things you don't like, an intonation which offends you, seeing another person angry and self-righteous, not attending to your own wishes when you find out it takes up a lot of your time... In order to respond properly, you can't let yourself be swayed by such things. It's quite a difficult task, to be honest. The words don't do justice.
Now, I've found that when you take up such a task, you find yourself in such challenging situations that your natural reaction becomes "I have to think how to get out of this." This is where, for me, the suttas have really started to penetrate and teach something that's beyond mere words.