text:
Why Salayatana is ommitted in this mode of Dependent Origination?
Why Salayatana is ommitted in this mode of Dependent Origination?
"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for contact?' one should answer, 'There is.'
"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does contact come?' one should say, 'Contact comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html

I'm not sure it is omitted: it's listed there as "consciousness":

From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form

I think that the ṣaḍāyatana are sometimes translated or understood as consciousness (which is listed in DN 15):

More specifically, according to this analysis, the six types of consciousness are eye-consciousness (that is, consciousness based on the eye), ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness and mind-consciousness

The word used in DN 15 is viññāṇa (the following quote is also from Wikipedia's Vijñāna article):

Hence, in this context, viññāṇa includes the following characteristics:

viññāṇa arises as a result of the material sense bases (āyatana)
there are six types of consciousness, each unique to one of the internal sense organs
consciousness (viññāṇa) is separate (and arises) from mind (mano)
here, consciousness cognizes or is aware of its specific sense base (including the mind and mind objects)
viññāṇa is a prerequisite for the arising of craving (taṇhā)
hence, for the vanquishing of suffering (dukkha), one should neither identify with nor attach to viññāṇa

I think that glossaries (e.g. here and here and here), and the so-called Viññana Sutta, say that although viññāṇa is a broad term it may include the six kinds of consciousness.
Or see this answer, which I think is saying that viññāṇa is used in two ways: technically as a specific aspect of mind, and colloquially to refer to several aggregates.

In case you want to read more (I'm sorry to post links instead of answering the question here, but they're long), Piya Tan of dharmafarer.org (for example) has written about this at some length.
Here is his analysis and translation of DN 15. The introduction starts with,

Moreover, its series of conditions omits three factors of the standard version: ignorance,
  volitional activities [saṅkhāra], and the 6 sense-bases. These omissions have led some
  scholars to suggest that the twelvefold formulation may be later augmentation of a shorter original;
  but such suggestions remain purely conjectural, misleading, and objectionable on doctrinal
  and textual grounds. All in all, omissions of the Mahānidāna Sutta are more than compensated
  for by its detailed explanations, interesting digressions, and supplementary sections.

And on page 156 (page 12 of the PDF):

In the next section of the sutta, instead of going on to the 6 senses
  and their respective contacts, as in the standard formula, the Buddha reverses his last statement and
  says: “With name-and-form, there is consciousness”. To prevent any misunderstanding, the
  Buddha then, introduces a remarkable passage unique to this Sutta: etc.

It doesn't seem to bother him that this sutta uses an other or a non-standard description. I don't know "why" it is slightly different but I find that unremarkable. It seems to me like asking, "Why is the house described as 'brown' here, whereas there it's described as 'made of stone'? Are they two different houses?" They're two descriptions of the same house.
Furthermore, here is Piya Tan's essay on the meaning and usage of vinnana (which I won't quote).
I'm not sure that it's necessary to put "6 sense bases" as a distinct layer between form and contact -- for example I think it makes as much sense to say that there are 6 types of contact.
For what it's worth, the 6 sense-spheres are omitted from the description of the five aggregates too.

the sense spheres are generally never considered to  be consciousness.

How is it used in the Viññana Sutta?

This sutta refers to the six types of consciousness omitted from DN 15, namely: "Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness". The Buddha taught 18 dhammas, namely, six sense organs, six sense objects, six sense consciousness. Refer to MN 148 & AN 3.61. The term consciousness is never implicitly inclued in the sense spheres because consciousness arises only in dependence on the sense spheres & this cause & effect is important in dhamma. Regards

I guess I didn't understand your first comment: did I write something you disagree with? Are you suggesting I add, delete, or edit something in 'my' answer?

I just think it cannot be taken for granted that "the ṣaḍāyatana are sometimes translated or understood as consciousness" & I think the quote you made about "omissions" does not provide an explanation.

Thank you. What about "... as types of consciousness": would that be better? Or, "as types of contact"?

The standard Dhamma about the constituents of contact is in MN 148, MN 18, MN 38. The point is DN 15 refers to a consciousness descending into a mother's womb, which is completely alien to the six types of consciousness. This is the main reason why DN 15 is loved by the devotees because it is the corrupted sutta that creates a theory of reincarnation that is alien to the other teachings about DO & consciousness. DN 15 introduces a psuedo-atman into the suttas and calls it 'consciousness'. It is impossible the Buddha spoke DN 15 because the Buddha fiercely protected his dhamma such as in MN 38

The quote from page 156 (page 12 of the PDF) does not justify the position of Piya Tan because SN 12.67 also mentions the mutual conditioning of nama-rupa & vinnana but also includes the sense spheres. All of these reincarnation cravers are supporting an alien sutta since consciousness is never something that descends into a mother's womb in the suttas, i.e., unless it is the woman's own sense consciousness discerning she is pregnant with child. My answers were the logical answers yet you did not support them & now the true answer is fading from the world. The world will be lost!

Anicca vata sankhara -- I follow this policy for voting, so I voted your answers neither up nor down. If your answer is true just don't delete it (I won't), and ignore the votes. Even ignoring votes, if you wanted to put more work into them you might tidy them up a bit, e.g. combine into one answer, make the answer longer, add references, make their logic easier to follow (which could include phrasing it more tactfully, e.g. "This is difficult to reconcile with" or "This was intended for Brahmins" instead of "This is not Buddhavacana").

The most detail version of Dependent Origination (DO) contains 24 points and extremely complicated like a web, which is called  Conditional Relations or Patthana. The 12 link version is a simplification. Also there other simplified versions of which can can read more in Dependent Arising by Piya Tan.
If you take DO the most important part is ignorance -> ... contact -> sensations -> craving -> ... as this is the place you can break the cycle. If you look at Nutriment (ahara) this teachers this subset. If you look Suttas like Pahāna Sutta which essentially teachers a more simplified version of this: ignorance -> ... -> sensations -> craving -> ... or more inline with how it i presented: ... -> sensations -> craving | aversion | ignorance -> .... Also note when it says craving this includes aversion as aversion is a craving to part with.
Based on the audience and their inclination to understand, the Buddha is presenting accordingly.

The doctrine of Paticcasamuppāda (Pāli) states that phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect. What the Buddha awakened to (Bodhi = ‘to awaken’) was the truth of dependent origination. This is the understanding that any phenomenon ‘exists’ only because of the ‘existence’ of other phenomena in an incredibly complex web of cause and effect. Buddha’s explanation of this in DN 15: The Great Discourse on Causation (Mahānidāna Sutta) - Dīgha Nikāya is exceptional compared to that of other suttas.  What we are generally made to understand is that.. with Nāma-rūpa as condition, Salāyatana arises…   with Salāyatana as condition, Sparśa/passa arises.
In DN15 Buddha says… With Nāma-rūpa as condition, Sparśa/passa arises. To understand this we have to read DN15 to the very end, and understand the explanation given in it about Nāma-rūpa. In DN15 we get to know two very special words:

Nama Kaaye patigha samphassa
  Rupa Kaaye adhivacana-samphassa

“Nama” is the faculty through which the external world is understood. This makes discernment or our ability grasp and understand and naming of sense objects possible. For example we say that an Elephant is ‘Huge’; that an Ant is ‘Tiny’.  This is Nama Kaaye patigha samphassa.
“Nama Kaaye patigha samphassa” is possible only if there is a “Rupa Kaaya”. Only if there is a species called “Ants” that we can name it as “Ant” and say that it is ‘tiny’. Only if there is a species called “Elephants” that we can name it as “Elephant” and say that it is ‘Huge/large’. This is “Nama Kaaye patigha samphassa”.
Then Buddha explains as to what “Rupa Kaaye adhivacana-samphassa“ is. When we converse that an Elephant is ‘Huge’, it is a perception (samjna/sanna) that we come to. Once we get to see an Elephant for real, we equate that given name & explanation to this Rupa-Kaya (Elephant). This is Rupa Kaaye adhivacana-samphassa. So whenever someone speaks of an Elephant, what comes to mind is this huge creature, and not an Ant.  This is the ‘Passa’. For this to be, Vijñāna as condition, Nāmarūpa has to arise. But if Nama Kaaye patigha samphassa and Rupa Kaaye adhivacana-samphassa is not there, there cannot be any mode of communication, or any form of recognition.
Thus, there has to be some object in sight, for us to give it a name. If we have not developed a language to name things, there is no way that one can communicate what is in one’s mind, to another. In other words, this is With Nāma-rūpa as condition, Sparśa/passa arises. For this Sparśa/passa to arise, there were only two elements. One is the object in space (elephant/ant). The other is the perception (samjna/sanna) that came to mind. Remember that there was no ‘Salāyatana’ here. Only an agreed upon language of communication. Now in this present time and age we have added a whole heap of computer terms like ‘the mouse’, ‘ipad’, ‘facebook’ etc. These are Nama Kaaye patigha samphassa &  Rupa Kaaye adhivacana-samphassa. There was no ‘Salāyatana’ here.

Your answer is essentially the same as my answer however what you are discussing is not Buddhism. It is Brahminism. Buddhism does not concern itself with naming objects, such as elephants, because this is unrelated to suffering. The Buddha taught craving is the cause of suffering rather than naming. The Buddha spent his life naming things but was free from suffering because he was without craving.

It was the other answer that I posted with you in mind. But it looks like nothing would make you see things otherwise. So DN15 is Brahminism for you. Maybe @SarathW too see it your way, and may be there are many more who would agree with you. But I'm of the mindset that "I do not know", "only Buddha knows". The whole of the Sutta & Vinaya Pitaka is my Teacher. If any part of it does not make sense, it is only my lack of, my in-ability to see things otherwise.

Naming things in unrelated to suffering & Buddhism, as i explained.

In DN 15, nama-rupa seems to be "qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description". If this is true, how do 'qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description' arise before contact? Surely, there must be contact with the mental body & material body before qualities, traits, signs, indicators & description can occur. DN 15 is non-sense; obviously written by career monks who were serving King Ashoka's ambitions to convert India to Buddhism rather than the Lord Buddha.

It looks like I am the only one who has given a clear direct answer to the OP. So I guess that I have earned the right to post another 'a bit' off topic answer, as it may shed some light to another fellow traveler of this road less traveled.
Why is there no ascension among Buddhist of the world? - Diliup Gabadamudalige / May 16, 2016

Why is there no ascension among Buddhists, the people following Buddha Dhamma all over the world except (maybe) among a few? The reason is that the pali thripitaka has been wrongly translated to English and then to Sinhala. Maghadi is language of sound. It is meant only to be SPOKEN. To write Maghadi, pali was invented. The people who translated the Dhamma did a WORD to WORD translation which cause the path to nibbana to be closed.
Simple example. Anichcha – has been wrongly translated to Anithya. Anithya is impermanence. Anichcha means a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING. It means that which cannot be maintained to ones liking. It is a THING OF THE MIND. Anithya on the other hand is a state of the Universe. Anithya does NOT always bring Dukkha or Duka or unhapiness or sadness ( or similar states).The death of someone in the next town does not make one unhappy. The death was cause by anithya but as one had no bond to that person no emotion,there is no sadness. BUT if one had a bond to that person in the next town, then that persons death will cause sadness becuase the bond is now broken. The bond – ichcha. You want that person to go on. Anichcha ALWAYS brings Dukha or Dukkha as one cannot control anything and keep them in the same state. Anichca is totally a state of the mind where as Anithya is a state of entropy. The way ichcha occurs are:
ichcha
  patichcha
  abhichcha
  Nichcha
  athta
  uddachca or kukuchcha
  patichcha
  mahechca
  laabichca
  marichca
  aththichch
  vichikichca
The Maghadhi words of the Buddha, written correctly but wrongly translated, wrongly understood which led ALL except a few, astray. This itself is SANGHA BEDA.( This too is misunderstood as causing dissention or disharmony among two monks/priests etc.) But that is another discussion.

Could you give the meaning of those words?

The best way to find the TRUE meanings of these words is to listen to the sermons of Bhikkhu Walasmulle Abhaya Himi. . There is no other way, I do not think that I will have the time or the energy to translate these terms. Also I too am a learner like you - no better - no worse. I have only scratched the surface of Dhamma. There is much more to learn. So I am not the best person to give the meaning to these words. (I can to a degree, but it will not be a complete answer.) BTW - these are all ADHI-VACANA of -ICHCHA.

What is Adhi-vacana?

Interesting video. Thanks. He says that the dependent origination is a matrix  of 111121*30=76230. What is the Sutta reference for this?

That is not the video to get to know ichcha. A better one is this series. Your first query - It (Adhi-vacana) means that all these other words have characteristics or an inherent part of this first word (-ichcha).  Ichcha is the bond that gets created because of the desire, wish, inclination, etc. [In ‘patichcha’ = Pati + ichcha + …] I do not know the answer to your last Question.

@Saptha Visuddhi some the best answers are very unclear.

@Uuu do tell me what is unclear. To tell you,  Pali is unlike most current languages. It does not pay much attention to grammar. Even more importantly, a given word can have very different meanings depending on exactly where it is used. Pali does not have its own alphabet. It was a spoken language, and the Pali Canon (Tipitaka) was first written using Sinhala alphabet around 5 BCE. In Suttas, there is no clear grammatical structure. It is the sound that gives the meaning and most verses have “double meanings”: There is an apparently simple meaning, but deeper meanings are hidden most times.

It is omitted because it is obvious the Lord Only Bhante Buddha did not teach DN 15.
DN 15 contradicts the True Dhamma in many ways, namely:

The sense spheres are omitted, which in AN 3.61 are included as a core teaching of the Buddha.
Consciousness is not the six types of consciousness.
Nama-rupa is the Brahmanistic nama-rupa of 'naming-forms' rather than the 'mentality-materiality' of 'feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention, earth, wind, fire & water'.
Birth is not the 'production' (abhinibbatti) of the view of 'beings' ('satta') based on the appearance (pātubhāvo) of the aggregates & seizure (paṭilābho) by the sense spheres.
Aging-&-death is not defined at all, let alone defined as the 'aging-&-death' of the self-identity of a 'being' ('satta').
Ignorance & sankhara are omitted.

How do you interpret viññāṇa? Some glossaries do seem to associate it with the six types of contact, e.g. here ... or is this a mis-reading?

Vinnana is 'cognition', as defined in MN 43 & SN 22.79 and there are six types of consciousness (per SN 12.2) and each arises dependent on sense organs & sense objects (MN 18; MN 148; MN 38; etc).

Or here, " the sensory and perceptive activity commonly expressed by 'mind'" and/or "discriminating (vijānāti) of e.g. tastes" -- a fairly broad range of meanings but including sensory awareness.

vijānāti is in MN 43 (Vijānātivijānāti vijānātī’ti kho, āvuso, tasmā viññāṇanti vuccati) & SN 22.79. (Kiñca, bhikkhave, viññāṇaṃ vadetha? Vijānātīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘viññāṇan’ti vuccati) "'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?"
"'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.'

Last night I was checking to see a song by a keyboard artist I knew over 30 years ago. As he is a Buddhist, in his blog he was questioning this very thing - as to why we do not fully trust and accept what our teacher has said. He says that it is because the pali thripitaka has been wrongly translated to English and then to Sinhala.  The people who translated the Dhamma did a WORD to WORD translation which cause the path to Nibbana to be closed. I agree. To me 'Vinnana' is 'distorted consciousness'. Will write more on this when I get back home today in 12 hours. So sorry for making you wait.

Please do not write anything for my sake. Vinnana does not mean 'distorted consciousness'. For example, a Buddha still has vinnana. Thanks

'Salayatana' is probably omitted in this mode of Dependent Origination because this mode of Dependent Origination appears to be a later-day concoction for propagation to & conversion of Brahmans.
There have been a number of discussions on Sutta Central, which include Ajahn Sujato's agreement, that much of the DN, including DN 15, was probably composed for propagation to & conversion of Brahmans.
Thus, nama-rupa in DN 15 appears to have the Brahmanistic meaning. In other words, the 'salayatana', most specifically sense objects, are possibly included within 'form' ('rupa').
In Brahmanism, 'nama' was the naming of 'forms' (sense objects).

Nāmarūpa-vyākaraṇa (Sanskrit: नामरुपव्याकरण ), in Hindu philosophy, refers to the process of evolution of differentiation into names and
  forms i.e. to the unfolding of the primal state into the manifest
  world prior to which unfolding there was nothing that existed... In the Upanishads this term is
  used to indicate the self-willed manifestation of Brahman under
  visible and nameable aspects, to the said manifestation into the
  fictitious plurality of the phenomenal world...
The sage of the Chandogya Upanishad regarded the creation of the universe as a huge chest/egg from a Primeval Being existing as the
  undifferentiated whole, who alone existed without a second prior to
  the commencement of the process of creation which was the beginning of
  the differentiation of the undifferentiated. "The Primeval Being
  reflected, let me be many, let me produce; having bethought, thus to
  itself, it produced fire which produced water and from water was
  produced the Earth (food or matter)" (Chandogya Upanishad VI.ii.1-4).
  The doctrine of Trivritkarana, the prototype of the doctrine of
  Panchikarana that tells us how matter came unto existence originating
  from the primordial five subtle elements , belongs to this Upanishad.
  From the subtle elements were produced all gross elements, and all
  matter having names and forms that makes-up the entire universe.
Wikipedia


text:
Why can't existence be mostly good?
My question has to do with existence itself. We all know there is suffering in life and that it is due to the fact that fenomena is ever changing, so any state (good or bad) is conditionated and will therefore change. This is what I understand as the number one reason for the pursue of enlightment: reaching the natural, unconditionated and unborn state of (not) being and therefore be released from it.
However, is this search for the ultimate happiness truly hopeless? I mean, imagine if we were to live a life composed of 99% satisfactory states while just a small percentage of it being actual suffering. Wouldn't that life be truly worth striving for? What I see as a human being however is that people mostly suffer just as much as they feel well. We drink, have a great time and then feel empty and a headache; we might even live and overall very pleasant and fulfilling life but in the end suffer greatly from illnesses... Even from my own experience, I don't seem to be able to have any sort of "breakthrough" of overall life satisfactoriness; it always feels to fall back into the same neutral level and I can't scape this.
Personally I feel uncertain about enlightment. Something that has no comming back, nothing for ever after, no pleasure, no pain, just blank, not even color or feelings... I would say it is like being a zero. And if only I could live in a better overall way it would be better than zero. It seems to me that being able to live 1000 very good days every 1 bad day is a pretty good trade. Isn't it possible?

Have you thought about if happiness can be experienced without "change"?

There is a difference between achieving happiness and ending suffering. Enlightment gives you the latter one. If that's what you're looking for or not, that's another matter.

Enlightenment & the path to enlightenment (such as meditative jhana) is a higher & better pleasure than any pleasure that can be experienced in ordinary life.
This is the simple, accurate & correct way to view enlightenment.
Please refer to this link.

Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Household pleasantness and the pleasantness of one gone forth. Of these two, the
  pleasantness of one gone forth is better.
Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Sensual pleasantness and the pleasantness of giving up sensuality. Of these
  two, the pleasantness of giving up sensuality is better.
Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? The pleasantness with substratum and the pleasantness without substratum.
  Of these two, the pleasantness without substratum is better.
Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? The pleasantness with desires and the pleasantness without desires. Of
  these two, the pleasantness without desires is better.
Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Material pleasantness and immaterial pleasantness. Of these two, immaterial
  pleasantness is better.
Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? The noble pleasantness and the ignoble pleasantness. Of these two, the noble
  pleasantness is better.
Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Bodily pleasantness and mental pleasantness. Of these two, mental
  pleasantness is better.
Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Pleasantness with joy and pleasantness without joy. Of these two,
  pleasantness without joy is better.
Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Pleasantness on account of agreeability and pleasantness on account of
  equanimity. Of these two, pleasantness on account of equanimity is
  better.
Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Pleasantness on account of concentration and pleasantness on account
  of distraction. Of these two, pleasantness on account of concentration
  is better.
Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Pleasantness with joy for an object and pleasantness without joy for
  an object. Of these two, pleasantness without joy for an object is
  better.

Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Pleasantness on account of an agreeāble object and pleasantness on
  accout of equanimity for an object . Of these two, pleasantness on
  account of equanimity for an object, is better.

Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Pleasantness born on account of a material object and pleasantness
  born, on account of an immaterial object. Of these two, pleasantness
  born, on account of an immaterial object is better.

As for your other concerns, they are unrelated to Buddhism. Buddhism is not for people who believe ordinary life can be pleasurable most of the time. Buddhism never ever states all people must follow the Buddhist way of life.

"imagine if we were to live a life composed of 99% satisfactory
  states"

Then that would just be an imagination. Because 100% of life(moments of arising and ceasing of five aggregates) is composed of unsatisfactory states.
This is why the first noble truth is something that you should realise. The noble truth of suffering is not just about painful sensations. That is just one type of suffering called Dukkha-dukkha. There's also Viparinama Dukkha that is caused when you cling to pleasant experiences. Then there is Sankhara Dukkha which means the unsatisfactory nature of all conditioned phenomena.
You think drinking, eating, partying or simply feeling pleasurable sensations is good because you haven't realised the first noble truth yet. You think Nibbana is zero because you haven't realised the 3rd noble truth yet.

nibbanam paramam sukham - Nibbana is the greatest bliss.

Dhammapada Verse 204 Pasenadikosala Vatthu
Ultimate happiness is Nibbana. This is beyond existence. If at all, the best analogy is infinity or singularity than being zero, where mundane experiences are comparable to finite numbers. Finite numbers, however big (even if you reach the Brahma Planes), whatever end of the pleasure meter, is always dwarfed by infinity. Pleasure of satisfactoriness at lower states do not stack against the satisfactoriness of Nibbana, abite all conventionality breaks down, hence what ever conventional is not present in Nibbana. Normally the pleasantness arise out of sensations or feeling, which are also conditioned, but in Nibhana this is not the case.

Just for fun ∞+x=∞, ∞-x=∞, ∞×x=∞, ∞/x=∞.. So it's not really the largest number as such (though it is the limit to them), rather it is a concept beyond the relational construction of mathematics and Samsara! In that sense it suits Nibbana well because it is independent of numerical operation. 0 kinda acts like ∞ (∞/∞=x=0/0), but rather than remaining unchanged through operation, it creates extremes: x×0=0, x/0=∞.. Or does nothing at all with addition and subtraction! (in itself extreme - either all out or no effect at all across operations!) (this could be a state of overthinking though! :p)

I have a formal (mathematical) understanding of infinity, and to hear Nibanna described as analogous to infinity is interesting ("Nibanna is greater than any mundane experience, in the same way that infinity is greater than any finite number"), albeit an imperfect analogy.

If you were certain about enlightenment you would either be wrong or enlightened.
Your thoughts sounds like mine were in the beginning. I thought "What's the big deal, I don't suffer.", but OMG do we ever suffer and we don't even realize it!
It is a subtle thing to realize and there is nothing good or bad about it. Good or bad are words made up by human beings. The Dhamma is about moving past words that we think actually exist in our hearts when they only exist in our intellectual and story making minds.
Remember the world. You can see how we all suffer rather clearly, if you look at the world as a whole.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the meaning of Anicca and Anatta?
Most of the English translation I read, Anatta is translated as not-self and Anicca as impermanence.
However many Sri Lankan Buddhist monks do not agree with this translation.
They say it is a miss translation by Buddhagosha.
According to many Buddhist monks, it appears, Anicca means our inability to control the five aggregate. Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate. Is this true?

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

It is 'anatta' that means our inability to control the five aggregate, as found in the Pali as follows, where the word 'anicca' is not found at all:

Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, anattā. Rūpañca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe: ‘evaṃ me rūpaṃ
  hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ
  anattā, tasmā rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe: ‘evaṃ me
  rūpaṃ hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti.
Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to disease, and it would be possible to have it
  of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because
  form is nonself, form leads to disease, and it is not possible to
  have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’
SN 22.59

It is 'anicca' that means the futile nature ('dukkha') of the five aggregates, as also explained in SN 22.59:

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent (niccaṃ) or
  impermanent (aniccaṃ)?"
"Impermanent (aniccaṃ), O Lord (O Bhante)."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or
  satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is
  it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my
  self (attā)'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

Anatta (not-self) is the recognition that conditioned things (such as the five aggregates) do not belong to you (i.e., are not "mine") and cannot be an intrinsic permanent "you" (i.e., are not "me") due to their impermanent (anicca) nature.

Can you explain (or prove) e.g. why anicca is translated as impermanence?

Why? Because the sutta says anicca means subject to change. Also refer to SN 22.97 https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.97 where nicca is correlated with words such as stable, eternal, not subject to change, that will remain the same just like eternity itself.

Anatta - non / not self is right. No self is wrong as it is an extreme view. See: Ananda Sutta
Anicca - impermanence. In ability to control comes because of impermanence but this is more to do with Anatta.
Anatta is also the in ability to control the 5 aggregates, 6 sense bases and their experience, not anicca.
Also see: Sutta references which Discuss Self and Not Self under Different Contexts

I don't think it's enough to merely give a definition, for this question. The OP expresses doubt about usual translations so I think they want something more (proof or reasoning, perhaps).

If there were something permanent, I'm as well unable to change it. So by the same logic even the permanent "is" anicca? (I don't really like the use of "is" etc in this context/expressions, thus I possibly do not apply it here "correctly", but just for the other contradiction in my comment.)

"Anicca means our inability to control the five aggregate."

Original translation of Anicca: impermanent.
2nd translation of Anicca: our inability to control the five aggregates.
Both translations refer to the same.
When one has no ability to control the five aggregates, impermanence is present.
It's because of the inability to control the five aggregates, that impermanence arises. Thus, looking at both translations with such wisdom, they are both correct.
If we use the 2nd translation, you must realize the nature of the five aggregates. Once realized, you know how and why they arise. By knowing how and why they arise, you get the ability to control the five aggregates. Once you get the ability to control them, you make them cease. Once ceased, impermanence is destroyed.
Both translation lead you to the same result: cessation of suffering. Cessation of impermanence.

"Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate."

Original translation of Anatta: not self.
2nd translation of Anatta: the futile nature of the five aggregates.
Both translations refer to the same.
When the futile nature of the five aggregates is present, one is subjected to clinging onto this wrong view: "this is self".
The futile nature of the five aggregates is like a magician playing a magic trick and you being ignorant can't recognize it's a magic trick. Once you start investigating and scrutinizing the magician's magic trick you slowly start to see how it works and once you realize how it works, you finally realize it was just a magic trick!
In the same way, when you investigate and scrutinize the futile nature of the five aggregates, you slowly start to see how it works and once you realize how it works, you finally realize it was just "not self"!
When one realizes the futile nature of the five aggregates, one is free from the wrong view: "this is self" and comes to the right view: "this is not self"
Thus, looking at both translations with such wisdom, they are both correct.
And what is the futile nature of the five aggregates?
It arises and it ceases. It does that for a very very long time. In doing so it does not lead to happiness, to the cessation of suffering, but always to suffering, to impermanence. It always ends in suffering. It leads to suffering. That's why it is futile. When one sees this futility, he comes to the realization "If this were self, it wouldn't be subjected to such futility" and concludes "thus, this is not self".
Why he comes to such conclusion? Read my answer here: Impermanent self

"Most of the English translation I read, Anatta is translated as
  not-self and Anicca as impermanence. However many Sri Lankan Buddhist
  monks do not agree with this translation."

I wouldn't say that there is disagreement in the translation. They just translate it or interpret it differently to explain the same thing. I would say this is more a question about the way of passing wisdom to listeners. They translated/interpreted it differently so to lead their listeners to the realization of the truth. Nonetheless, bot translations/interpretations lead the listener to the same goal: cessation of suffering.

Nyom Sarath, and those with interest,
At(t)ma(n)-peap (my person, "I-ness", usually, polite and modest 3rd person addressing of oneself when speaking with householder as pabbajita "one gone forth", here where he dwells) followed the hard leaded discussion on many places of Dhamma-discussion a little, which was merely very un-welcome to many and sometimes "brutal" and ignorant approached, from my persons view, especially in scholar-spheres and where practicing is merely secondary matter, even unwished to be discussed.
Coming to this question, not as a linguistic scholar and also not as a script scholar, but from a practical use, also of language and of it's sense, in relation to the practice and aim.
Here in Cambodia, which maybe has the longest unbroken "oral only"-tradition, with less exchange to organised communities elsewhere and seemingly long unbroken lineage without much scholars, in a more modern way, and scripts very young, many pali and sanskrit words are living part of the countries language in daily use, and also general translations into Khmer (khema = land or person at peace) language are mostly often different to modern translation in living languages.
The word atthanay,for example, as part of common language, adjectivly used, means simply "makes no sense", "has nothing to hold on".
Anicca is translated as min-deang or *min-dang (khmer), which means, not-knowable, not to see, not control-able, not in the sphere of control or foreseeable.
That would, independently of this "old" Sri Lankan approach, Sarath quoted,

Anicca means our inability to control the five aggregate. Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate.

fit well with each other. Practical in living language and meaning, as well practical in relation of the path, for the aim to get ride of suffering/stress, rather to find such as an "I" or destroy it.
At the heart - the sense stays actually (like also particly mentikned by Beginner her) the same with the usual words - it would, for a good and in line of the general context of the Dhamma, and ways conductive for the path, just fit better than use the modern/popular words, since speculations about, if there is a self or not, needs to be avoided, and are root causes of suffering (e.g. papanca).
But maybe the "problem", causing disputes, lies merely there, that the issue of at least emptiness, usually have not been taught to the untrained person (mind), and that people not free of sakkaya-ditthi, one of the lower fetter, self-view, self-believe, has simply a hard to work without self or not-self, therefore prever the use of one or another extreme and bend it here and there that it does not possible seem like eternal- or nihilism, but still is.
How ever, to cut away a "dangerous" assuming that some might draw from it: that would not mean that Nibbana is self - making a dopple-chance in a thought line - it just would mean that Nibbana makes sense (attha), aside of all other phenomenas which do not (anattha), and it is no more not in the sphere of insecurity, niccha, secure. For whom or what, is no question in this sphere, cut off, made an end.
How ever, my person never come across a saying of "nibbana atta, nibbana niccaṃ" quoting the Buddha, ditectly. Maybe out of good reason as well, such was not said, since Nibbana is not an antidote to Samsara, but "simply" beyond.
But this "tiny" distinction fits also well into the "not-modern" translation, suggested here:

anattā
While in the case of the first two characteristics it is stated that all formations (sabbe sankhārā) are impermanent and subject to suffering, the corresponding text for the third characteristic states that "all things are not-self" (sabbe dhammā anattā; M. 35, Dhp. 279).

Hence: Nibbana "just" nicca: secure: might be possible valid to express, taken that sabbe dhammā anattā incl. Nibbana (for security to be not mistaken as "the Self")
So the answer here will again either stay food for not conductive thoughts for the path either, or possible lead even more "just" to practice and see (dang km) for "oneself" (kluan eing km).
May all able to, gain the best out of it and reach the stream till highest fruit.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for any commercial purpose or other wordily gains]

To understand anatta, you need to understand what is sasvata and what is uccheda very deeply.
For example, through samma ditti, one might be void of Sakkaaya Ditti, Vicikiccha, Silabbatha Paramasa, but unless you become an arhat, you won't understand Attawada (a consequence of not understanding anatta).

I am a bit suspicious about all those meanings due to following reasons.

Buddha should have given these discourses in Magadhi language which was the language mostly used during that time in that area. Magadhi is not Pali, even though there are some resemblance between them.
The Suttas were edited appropriately in the first Buddhist council for the purpose of preservation by oral tradition, by arahants. The discourses were delivered could have been resembled the modern day talks (for instance, the first sutta was delivered overnight, but if you chant it now, it will be finished before half an hour) so the arahants could have taken the core of the teachings and made it into something that could be chant-able.
The fourth council in Sri Lanka paved the way to write them down and it was conducted without the patronage of the king at that time. The king Vattagamini-Abhaya was a sympathiser of Mahayana. Perhaps the monks were really concerned about the threats to the teachings by some people who were dealing with the king. There is no mention about arahants in the meeting and perhaps, only scholarly monks undertook  the recitations and writings. Because the language of these monks is Sinhala and they had to learn Pali to understand (remember, Pali was not spoken in Sri Lanka, it used to be , even now, should be learnt), there is possibility that some of the meanings got lost with time.
Still, there is a possibility of understanding the meaning of those words if the Sinhala commentaries were preserved.  But as soon as Buddhagogha translated them in to Pali, all the Sinhala commentaries were burned. This should not be a problem if can have full faith in Buddhagosha's ability to translate. Unfortunately, no-one knows about his Sinhala skills as well as the grip on Buddhist teachings being a previous practinioner of Vedas. There are possibilities, that he tried to explain the terms the way he understood them through his knowledge in Vedas ultimately introducing vedic concepts unwittingly.

It appears, Anicca means our inability to control the five aggregate.
  Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate. Is this true?

As far as I understood yes this is correct. I'll explain how I realized that this is correct.

Anicca

The closest word to the meaning of the word Anicca is insatiable. According to the Buddah, world (five aggregates) is insatiable.

Why is it (five aggregates = world) Anicca | Insatiable

Because everything in this world is based on reasons. The results, which we see as the world (five aggregates) are there as a result of some causes (reasons) happened previously.

Below are evidences from the cannon to prove that Anicca is the core of this Dhamma, and it is about insatiability.
Below is from Dhammacakkapavattana

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.

What alway get mistaken from above content is that birth is about the normal birth we talk about everyday. And the death is about the normal death we can see every where. And the aging etc...
But this sutta called 'Assutavā Sutta clearly state that Assutavā bhikkhave, puthujjano is clever to worry about the outer world. So if someone think and worry about outer world he is puthujjano. Which means he doesn't know the correct path to the Nirvana.
And also in the same sutta, it clearly states that Tatra bhikkhave sutavā ariyasāvako paṭiccasamuppādaṃ yeva sādhukaṃ yoniso manasikaroti which means the person who knows the path to Nirvana focus and think about the paticcasamuppada but not the outer world.
So when this compares with the Dhammacakkapavattana sutta, it get proven that Birth (jathi), Aging (jara), Death (marana) in Dhammacakka.. are not about outer world things, which we think they are. The true meaning of those are about the mind and thoughts. Here jathi mean birth of thought, if that thought initiate as a result of ignorance then that causes to existence of life (sasara). Like wise all those things are about thoughts and the mind.
Then in Dhammacakka.. what mistakenly understand was not getting what is wanted is ...(yampiccan na labathi thampi dukkan = Anicca = Insatiable). Majority (putajjana) thought this is another fact same as birth, aging, etc. No this is a common fact for all birth, aging, death, etc.. Below is an evidence to prove this point from Sacca-vibhaṅga Sutta where not getting what is wanted is extracted and explained.

“And what is the stress of not getting what is wanted? In beings
  subject to birth, the wish arises, ‘O, may we not be subject to birth,
  and may birth not come to us.’ But this is not to be achieved by
  wishing. This is the stress of not getting what is wanted. In beings
  subject to aging… illness… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress,
  & despair, the wish arises, ‘O, may we not be subject to aging…
  illness… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, and
  may aging… illness… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &
  despair not come to us.’ But this is not to be achieved by wishing.
  This is the stress of not getting what is wanted."

Therefore Anicca = Not getting what is wanted = insatiable is applied to all the facts (birth, aging, death, etc..) mentioned in the Dhammacakka.. and it is not just another fact like birth or death.
And also this clears that why five aggregates cannot be controlled? It's because those are Anicca. They behave the way those are supposed to be (according to the hethu phala reasons and results). Understanding that makes to realize nothing in the world behave the way we want. Abstract word to explain all this is Anicca.
If someone think about impermanence is the cause for the dukkha in buddhism, No it is not, Because in buddhism dukka ariya sacca is a ñāṇa (knowledge = understanding) it's not a feeling. But putajjana people think this dukka ariya sacca as a feeling which we feel through, death, aging, etc.. But as mentioned NO it's not a feeling but ñāṇa, an understanding about the world, which is meant by Anicca. Though I just say Anicca here, I don't think anyone understand the word Anicca from this answer, as that word contains more complex meaning which is very hard to explain in words (specially using a language which is not my mother tongue)

Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate

Yes, as explained above once the five aggregates are behave the way they are supposed (Anicca behavior) to be (due to the previous causes) everything become futile. Because though we thought something from outer world (we identify the outer world from five aggregate; I'm not going to explain it here) is giving us happiness no it is not. Why? if that something is giving the happiness to us then everyone should get that happiness from it, isn't it?
Eg: Some people like old type cars, if that happiness come from the old cars then everyone should be happy after owning an old car. But it is not the case. Some people hate old cars. So it is very clear that the happiness is not given from the outer world (from five aggregates) not from the old car. So where the happiness is created? it is created in someone's mind thinking that outer world thing is worth to have (kind of feeling; sorry don't know words to explain it more).
Here thinking the outer world is giving happiness is a cause of ignorance, because putajjano doesn't know that world is Anicca. So they think (made up in the mind) outer world (car) is a worth thing to have, which is not and going after those without knowing the fact that car is the way he wants it to be. But the reality is that car is there (and this person owns it etc..) because of the reasons not because of he wants it that way.
hetum paticca sambuthan hethu banga nirujjahthi World come to live as a result of reasons and once reasons are gone (exceeds) world dies ; here take the car an example to world
Therefore everything (world, which born from five aggregates) are futile. There's no meaning of running after them, securing them.. Only thing to do is see the world with the understanding of Anicca which causes to understand paticcasamuppada. Then we realize that only thing to do in this world is obtaining the Nirvana.
NOTE:
I tried many times to answer with these contexts, but most of the time the answer get down voted. And I'm not worrying about that, because the world is Anicca, and there are no reasons to understand this dhamma by majority. That's buddha's word. Anyone who has reasons | causes to see the correct path may read and understand this answer. (I'm not trying to be an expert here, I'm also another follower to Nirvana like others).
With Metta...!

See also Is “impermanence” a bad translation of “anicca”?

@ChrisW yes, I raised that question, and you see, that question is down voted (means somethimg like rejected as a valid content) That's why I said real dhamma won't be understood by the majority, and the putajjana people (the majority) wont understand the reality of the world

In this comment you seemed to accept that it's derived from a+nicca not from an+iccha so I don't know why you're still posting the opposite. And yes SN 56.11 says what it does, about craving, it doesn't mention anicca at all though does it, so maybe it's not on-topic when you're only trying to define anicca.

@ChrisW as I said, to understand what I'm trying to say is not easy here. I'm not trying to define a word here. This is the dhamma. Get the meaning don't run after words. "Yampiccan na labathi thampi dukkan" is the result due to the "Anicca behavior" of the world. Its because "hetum paticca sambutban hetbu bhanga nirujnathi" About the comment you mentioned here, I've agreed to the opposite of anicca is nicca, not to the meaning. Meaning of aniccha as impermanence is not correct. With that there are lots of conflicts. At one place it says, 'maranan niyathan' = death is for sure;

I'm not trying to define a word here. This is the dhamma. Well your interpretation of SN 56.11 sounds orthodox and I too see that (the noble truths) as the essential core of the Dhamma. Sometimes a topic is about trying to define a word though (like the OP's topic here, "What is the meaning of Anicca and Anatta?" -- those words are in other suttas (not SN 56.11). I think that the doctrines or observations about anicca and anatta (translated "impermanent" and "not-self") are also useful (as well as SN 56.11) and important parts of Buddhism, which we're lucky to have, it seems a pity to ...

... say that those words mean something else (i.e. only what's said in SN 56.11) -- unfortunate practically, because right view or right understanding are important, and unfortunate in a scholastic sense, because muddying the "dictionary" definitions makes the suttas less accessible to readers IMO ... and I fear that's how a "cult" might start (e.g. "follow me, only I know the true meaning/translation of the text"). There was this post on the Sutta Central forum a while ago which says that ...

Impermanence is a sub set of anicca. No matter something is impermanent or permanent it falls under to anicca, that means it exists as a result of reasons (hethu) and it will end once reasons are exceeded (exceed might not the correct word). So thinking something is there as the way we want is a wrong view. Realizing this and having the correct view (anicca) is called samma ditti ( correct view)

With that there are lots of conflicts. At one place it says, 'maranan niyathan' = death is for sure I can't imagine why you think that's "a conflict". I think impermanence means, something like, "All compound things (sankharas) are subject to cessation" -- Anicca Vata Sankhara

@ChrisW sankharas mean "mental fabrication" its a state of thought creation and its not a word used to explain outer world things. “Aniccawatha sankhara” means those thoughts created are not the way we want, those created as a result of causes and cessation happened when causes are gone (upppada waya dammino, upajjitwa nirujjanti)...

The best argument for wrong translation of Anicca come from
SN 12.20, “Paccayasutta” which says,

Katame ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppannā dhammā? Jarāmaraṇaṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ saṅkhataṃ paṭiccasamuppannaṃ khayadhammaṃ vayadhammaṃ virāgadhammaṃ nirodhadhammaṃ. Jāti, bhikkhave, aniccā saṅkhatā paṭiccasamuppannā khayadhammā vayadhammā virāgadhammā nirodhadhammā. Bhavo, bhikkhave, anicco saṅkhato paṭiccasamuppanno khayadhammo vayadhammo virāgadhammo nirodhadhammo. Upādānaṃ bhikkhave … pe … taṇhā, bhikkhave … vedanā, bhikkhave … phasso, bhikkhave … saḷāyatanaṃ, bhikkhave … nāmarūpaṃ, bhikkhave … viññāṇaṃ, bhikkhave … saṅkhārā, bhikkhave … avijjā, bhikkhave, aniccā saṅkhatā paṭiccasamuppannā khayadhammā vayadhammā virāgadhammāvirāga nirodhadhammā. Ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppannā dhammā.

Translated:

And what, bhikkhus, are the dependently arisen phenomena? Aging-and-death, bhikkhus, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation. Birth is impermanent … Existence is impermanent … Clinging is impermanent … Craving is impermanent … Feeling is impermanent … Contact is impermanent … The six sense bases are impermanent … Name-and-form is impermanent … Consciousness is impermanent … Volitional formations are impermanent … Ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation. These, bhikkhus, are called the dependently arisen phenomena.

It appears that it is incorrect to say death is impermanent ... and therefore, anicca doesn't mean impermanent!

According to the following video, the Nibbana is Atta.
This video is in the Sinhalese language.
https://youtu.be/ma81JD_LNeM?t=6084

I don't understand the first part of this answer, nor the second.

The second is an example of a link-only answer. Please summarize a bit more (in the answer) what the video says, especially since the video isn't in English (sometimes I would summarize it for you, but I can't Sinhala). SE doesn't approve of answers which contain nothing but a link.

I think I understand now (though I don't agree with) the argument in the first part of the answer ... I tried to expand that first part of the answer, to clarify what it's saying: please verify whether my expansion is correct i.e. what you wanted to say.

Why do you say 'Aging-and-death, bhikkhus, is impermanent' is wrong?

Very good. So in this context anicca means, the phenomenon lacks continuity or solidity. We conjure it momentarily and at those moments it seems as if it existed and will exist, but in actuality we assemble it at that very moment. So here I'd translate it as ephemeral, non-continous.

@SarathW Sir, Every element in dependent origination belongs to Sankhata Sankhara. i.e. They are all effects of causes, thus make them all Anicca (impermanent). Remember the verse, "Ye dhammā hetuppabhavā - tesaṃ hetuṃ tathāgato āha, tesañca yo nirodho - evaṃ vādī mahāsamaṇo". I don't understand how can someone reject the heart of the buddhism by rejecting the basis of dependent origination?

In the following statement

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent (niccaṃ) or
  impermanent (aniccaṃ)?"
"Impermanent (aniccaṃ), O Lord (O Bhante)."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or
  satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is
  it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self
  (attā)'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

How is it that the monk replies to the Buddha that everything that is impermanent is Unsatisfactory. If you think about it this cannot be true can it. if you take a simple example, if you have a broken arm, is it satisfactory? I would suggest no. when the injury gets better is it satisfactory? I would suggest yes. In this case the state of a broken arm was impermanent therefore it got better. But this impermanence  did not bring about dissatisfaction
if we think about when we are unsatisfied a bit..
would we be satisfied if things transpired the way we wanted it to? I would suggest yes
would we be satisfied if things didn't transpire the way we wanted it to? I would suggest no
Therefore it seems to me that a better interpretation of anicca might be to mean "we aren't satisfied with a result"
This might be the case, most of the time....
We obviously aren't satisfied when things go against our wishes. The converse is, we get what we want. In this case are we satisfied? Think about it... we still aren't are we? we turn our attention to the next pursuit that we believe makes us happy. We are always looking for gratification, but there is no gratification in external things. So we are constantly unfulfilled, unsatisfied... INSATIABLE
I would say INSATIABLE is a better meaning for Anicca.
Now look at the same conversation with one work changed

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form satiable (niccaṃ) or
  insatiable (aniccaṃ)?"
"insatiable (aniccaṃ), O Lord (O Bhante)."
"Now, that which is insatiable, is it unsatisfactory or
  satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

If form is insatiable is it fruitful to expect gratification from it?
It seems to me that it is futile - anatta
Is this the case for you? This is for you to think deeply through your own life experiences.

This is a question-and-answer site, not a discussion site. So topics consist of one question and several (mutually independent) answers. I can explain that in more detail if you like, but for now I'm going to edit this so that it answers the original question (i.e. SarathW's question at the top of the page) instead of its addressing itself to Dhammadhatu's answer.

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

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


text:
How to become a better decision maker?
What are some Buddhist practices which would make someone a better decision maker? Does Sila improve the right view thus enabling better decisions, thoughts?

All 3:

Sila
Samadhi
Panna

helps towards better decision making.
Sila bring moral angle into decisions. Samadhi may help avoid spontaneous decisions as it is mastery over the mind. Panna helps to ensure decisions are not tainted by greed, hatred and delusion.
Right view is part of Panna not Sila.

Right view is necessary to start practicing sila, but doesn't sila improve already existing right view or panna?

Panna is strengthens Sila. Each factor strengthens reach other.

We all experienced a situation where it is so easy to advise friends when they face difficulties. But when it comes to us, we become clueless, are left in the dark, we loose perspective.  This is a forgetfulness that accompanies all afflictions. Whenever we are subject to an affliction, be it anger, sadness, lust, etc. we are subject to this type of forgetfulness.
Indeed, the three higher trainings (Sila, Samadhi, Panna) will help see things clearly so as to take proper decisions (decision that do not come from fear, frustration, and so forth).
But sometimes, when our delusion is too strong, our mind becomes like a suction cup grasping at the object. Taking a step back is extremely difficult. In such circumstances, I find that training in patience is the most important. In fact, it is about abandoning the eight worldly concerns, especially attachment to pleasure and aversion to pain.
We are so afraid of pain that, as soon as our mind doesn't go where we want it to go, or doesn't dwell with what we want it to dwell, we try to change its course forcefully. We have the tendency to want to get rid of pain right away and that is not skilled. Ethical discipline and concentration do not come about as long as the mind is not flexible and willing, and this comes by practicing patience. So many times do we not see what is right under our nose just because we want to be some place safer. Practicing patience allows you to take a step back and it makes the mind more open and adaptable.
A mind that is too rigid and forgetful does not take the context into account and therefore is not proper for taking informed decisions.

Even if a follower of the Way attempts to improve him/herself through Sila (true morality), it is not possible if the pragna (intellectual and intuitive faculties) are not developed in him/her. Only pragna gives the force or energy with which one can confront the enemies that are of loba (greed), dosa (hatred), moha (delusion). That is why when talking about the Noble Eightfold Path, it is very common to group the 8 points under three headings, 1) panna, 2) sila, 3) samadhi. It is a gradual training. To understand this read the Anubuddha Sutta: Understanding – AN4.1, and Sakka Sutta: To the Sakyan – AN3.73, and Culavedalla Sutta: The Shorter Set of Questions-and-Answers _MN44

The three aggregates of virtue, concentration, & discernment are not included under the noble eightfold path, but the noble eightfold path is included under the three aggregates. Right speech, right action, & right livelihood come under the aggregate of virtue. Right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration come under the aggregate of concentration. Right view & right resolve come under the aggregate of discernment.

Also being mindful is important. Day in and day out, each of us is making a lot of decisions that nobody else will know. It is the internal dialogue that goes on with us. If you are aware of this, you will know which little decisions you make from moment to moment to moment. That’s what you want to learn how to observe. Developing your inner sensitivity as much as you can, you are able to make sure your decisions are going in the right direction.


text:
Who are your mother and father?
Considering the development of embryo technology, who does Buddhist Dharma consider as your mother and father: is it the biological parents, or the legal parents?
The reason I ask this question is that killing your mother and father is a heinous kamma.
One of the monks said that heinous kamma is applicable only for biological mother and the father (i.e. donors of the sperm and the egg). Is this so, and why?

The reason I ask this question was killing your mother and father is a heinous kamma.

One of the monk said heinous kamma is applicable only for biological mother and the father. ie (donor of sperm and the egg)

I suppose you can separate mother and father into those of nature and those of nurture. Whoever provides the genetic code becomes the natural parent, whoever raises the kid becomes the nurturing parent. I wouldn't place much value on the code though - the seriousness of the act of killing a parent is probably more tied to the fact that they have devoted a large fraction of their lives to the rasing of a child.

Yes, this is the best answer I suppose.AN 2.32
Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world.https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/who-are-your-mother-and-father/4710/4:https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=29249

@SarathW I think your comment is a better answer than Ilya's, because you reference a sutta to help explain your answer.

@SarathW In palikanon.com (german version) I find the sutta on parents numbered as  AN 2.34 (http://palikanon.com/angutt/a02_022-042.html#a_ii34) .


text:
What's the difference between monks and priests?
One hears of Buddhist monks and of priests. What is the difference?

So far as I know (I may be wrong), "priest" is only used of Japan.
I've read three different theories for that.

One is that the term is for Japanese monks who marry (or who may marry). Usually part of the definition of a Buddhist "monk" (in any country) is that they keep some version of the Vinaya (which includes celibacy). I think that Japan is exceptional, for historical reasons. Wikipedia's Buddhist monasticism -- EastAsia currently says (see the original for hyperlinks and references),

In East Asia, monastics live in greater isolation from the lay population than is observed in most Theravada countries. Because of local conditions of geography and climate, as well as local attitudes towards begging, monks generally do not make begging rounds in China, Korea, Vietnam, and many parts of Japan. Instead, monasteries receive donations of bulk food (such as rice) and funds for the purchase of food that is then stored and prepared at the monastery. Many monks and nuns are vegetarians and, after Baizhang Huaihai, many monks farm food to eat; some work or sell. Most eat after noon. The management of the kitchen and monastery properties may be the purview of a specially designated layman or a monk who has been given a special role by the abbot of the monastery. Monks chant many mantras in regular living.
Monastics in Japan are particularly exceptional in the Buddhist tradition because the monks and nuns can marry after receiving their higher ordination. This idea is said to be introduced by Saichō, the founder of the Tendai school, who preferred ordaining monks under the Bodhisattva vows rather than the traditional Vinaya. There had long been many instances of Jōdo Shinshū priests and priestesses marrying, influenced by the sect's founder Shinran, but it was not predominant until a government Nikujiku Saitai Law (肉食妻帯) was passed during the Meiji Restoration that monks or priests of any Buddhist sect are free to seek wives. This practice influenced Korea and Taiwan. A nun in Taiwan gave birth. Some Korean monks live with wives in their monasteries.

The second is that "priest" is used for senior monks, who have graduated and are no longer students. Note the quote above, which says that "monks and nuns can marry after receiving their higher ordination".
Thirdly, some perform the role of priests in other religions (i.e. Shinto). Wikipedia's Tendai and Shinto says,

Tendai doctrine allowed Japanese Buddhists to reconcile Buddhist teachings with the native religion of Japan, Shinto, and with traditional Japanese aesthetics. In the case of Shinto, the difficulty is the reconciliation of the pantheon of Japanese gods, as well as with the myriad spirits associated with places, shrines or objects, with the Buddhist doctrine that one should not concern oneself with any religious practice save the pursuit of enlightenment. However, priests of the Tendai sect argued that Kami are simply representations of the truth of universal buddhahood that descend into the world to help mankind.

In English (Christianity) the difference between priest and monk is that a monk lives in a monastery or priory (with other monks); while a priest will, more likely, live alone (in parish) to serve the lay community.

Householder Thomas Schulte, interested,
if looking into the texts this, Monks and Priests, is often mentioned as "Brahmans and contemplatives (Samana)", both regarded as people of respect in good societies.
The main different is in regard of livelihood. A monk, contemplative as given up all kinds of trades and lives from alms from the land. A Priest is one who still trades, involves in association with worlds societies and often has not given up harming totally, sense-pleasures and holding on home, land, house.
Most monks outside the Savaka Sangha and old tradition, even if often called monks (Bhikkhus) are actually "just" regarded as householders often not sticking to fundamental marks of one who has left home. Even many monks are actually "just" Brahmans and it's not easy that one would met a Samana, the fourth heavenly messenger after encountering the truth of suffering and can so imagine The Fruits of the Contemplative Life.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)


text:
Questions from 10 Days Mr. Goenka Vipassana Course?
When I was trying to do Vipassana at home, I experienced vibrations in entire body. But there, in the Vipassana training centre, my face becomes so heavy that I could not focus on my body. Why was that happening?
Whenever I closes my eyes my entire face starts with vibrations.
When I was trying to focus on nose, automatically I felt something very strong between eye brows, but gradually I was able to neglect it.
One day my a certain part of my left arm was on fire (felt literally burning). Does that mean something?
For every question, teacher had the same answer: “These are previous birth mind’s Disorder which are healing now”.
On 6th day again face was so heavy, so I gave up and started talking with other people who were not so serious, bunked classes, went to the mountain near by, then I felt a bit normal; on lowering my diet I felt more normal; on 9th day I felt vibration flow in entire body only on surface of body.
In between, for 3 consecutive days (4th, 5th, and 6th days), I saw a Dog, Snake and Centipede before sleeping, as soon as I closed my eyes.
After attending this course I have more clear knowledge of how this technique works; but I want to know, is that all Buddha taught, or is there something else?

Give not importance to any of these experiences. They are just conditioning. If you give importance of have prejudice towards any meditative experience, you might end up generating aversion and craving.
What these experiences could be:

you are more sensitive to these vibration
Piti or sukha has surfaced
vibrations are part of the Mahābhūta and you mind is becoming sensitive enough to experience it
other past Sankhara manifesting itself as vibrations (above included)

When you get such an experience try to see the arising and passing nature of it! This experience, as with any other experience, in essential you your practice of equanimity. Whatever your experience be equanimous - this is the exercise and what you should be doing.

I saw a Dog, Snake and Centipede before sleeping, as soon as I closed my eyes.

People have odd dreams / day dreams. I am not sure what this means. Buddhism does not deach how to interpret dreams.
Like anything else, do not give any importance. Be equanimous.
Also there is a lot more of what the Buddha taught than what is taught in a 10 day course. The Tipitaka is very vast. This contains all which what Buddha taught.

After the completion of course I got my phone back, and next day I received some provoking messages from a friend, I responded observing everything with great compassion, I tried my best but when he continously keep on doing the same for 30 minutes, I lost my cool and was very angry at him, As soon as i handled him strictly I started behaving good as it is said  “Stubborn people don't listen to you till they have a very good thrashing”.
How one should handle it?

Ignoring might have worked also!

Buddha spoke mainly of discipline related to the Noble Eightfold Path. He also says one must understand Four Noble Truths.
There is no place I've seen Buddha speaking of meditation which doesn't speak of either The Four Noble Truths or Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta.
Whichever form of meditation teaching you follow that doesn't emphasize on these facts actively, isn't Buddhism.
Body is a very complex system. YouTube contains a lot of material on this such as what happens in the body when a virus enters or how many other things live inside us. So what you experience could be one of many million things, if not more. Please don't take this the wrong way. What I suggest is you follow the right meditation, as explained by Buddhas teacher - Dhamma.
Dhamma, the teacher recommended by Buddha himself, is still available and easy to understand, which begs the question of why follow some other teacher?


text:
Why is it necessary to scan entire body in Vipassana?
Mr Goenka teaches that there are six senses including mind, and that when we observe them in vipassana we eradicate our sankaras.
My question is, nearly all my senses are on my face: like taste, smell, hearing, and seeing. Only "touch" and "mind" I am not sure of.
So why not just focus on the my facial sensations, and do it smartly?
Otherwise, what is the use of observing my legs' sensation, when I am fighting with anger, frustration, love, etc.?

Otherwise, what is the use of observing my legs' sensation, when I am fighting with anger, frustration, love, etc.?

When you are angry the distribution of the sensations through the body may take one form. When in love another. There will be places where sensations are more intense, but nevertheless there is sensations throughout.

So why not just focus on ...
Why is it necessary to scan entire body in Vipassana?

You have to understand the full sphere of experience. You have to understand all sensations in the body. If you move from more gross or intense sensations to another, you will never understand the more subtle sensations. You have to come to a state where you experience any sensation in the body, always, and though the body. This is how you will know the whole sphere of experiences is unsatisfactory.

touch

Throughout your body - skin

mind

head and around the heart
Also keep in mind. When something happens in the mind also bodily sensations arise. When something happens in the body metal sensations arise.

What if i keep on saying everything is impermanent and believe in that what you said is true, Do i still need to Know myself that this body or sensations are impermanent.

What you lean, try to verify and validate it experientially. You have to contemplate it is impermanent.

May i ask if you have seen earth, water, air and fire in each atoms and how mind is entangled with them as claimed by Goenka, Also have you seen what is permanent?, beyond atoms

What matters is you have to see. Another's experience does not add value to your empirical understanding.

One Night I was so scared, any little sound makes my heart pound so fast, I tried to be in equanimity, nothing worked for like 3-4 hours. What could have worked? and I believe it happened to many students once. and every one had cried at-least once in 10 days, why is that sir?

Insight meditation is what you observe just watch attentively, no two individual will see the same. And never think before you have such experience as if what to come next. If you feel pounding heart, just notice as you know, if scare, just mentally note "scare". That's it. Dhamma will lead you. Do believe Dhamma will show you.

Generally, this is the ensure you are aware of craving occurring in any of the six senses.
For example, your bed in which you sleep might give you "comfort" and you are likely to appreciate it as "good" and think "this comfort is me", or "this comfort is mine", or "this comfort is experienced by my soul".
Most of vipassana is about identifying and removing such false view. To do this, one needs to be aware of what is going on in all six senses.

suppose one have pain in his leg, would do a vipassana meditator thinks, anyways pain would still be there, I would rather try to distract my mind to something fun so that mind may not feel the pain. But instead if i focus on pain will make it worse i think.

Physical pain is very hard. Of all people I do understand the need for distraction. I believe most of us do try to distract ourselves in case of pain. May I suggest a more meritorious alternative to fun, as a distraction?

Please never go away from pain. You will have the same experience if you come back to the same concentration level. Throughout the samsara, what you did will reveal in your insight meditation. Just observe attentively and patiently. Surely you will not die of this pain. And nothing is permanent, you will see it.


text:
Is psychic disease related to bad karma?
I suffer from a psychic disease (borderline disease of personality) which has turned my life into hell for at least half of the time, I spend several hours a day crying desperately and nothing helps, not the psychotherapy nor the medicines. I am obsessed with the idea that I'm suffering so much because in some way I "deserve" it according to the karma law, for having done something very bad in a past life. Is it true? It may seem weird, but this answer means a lot to me. Thank you for your answers in advance.

In Buddhism, the teachings about kamma are for the purpose of promoting good behaviour rather than for diagnosing the cause of psychiatric illness.
Psychiatric illness is generally caused by a genetic neurological disorder of the brain or, otherwise, kamma (actions) in the present life, such as an accidental brain injury or intentional drug use. It is definitely not caused by actions in a past life.
In his 2nd sermon about the ultimate truth or ultimately reality, the Buddha taught every component of the human life ('the five aggregates') can be subject to disease/damage (ābādhāya).
Even the five aggregates of a fully enlightened person can have disease/damage (ābādhāya), such as the famous Thai monk named Ajahn Chah, who had a brain disease in his old age.
Therefore, about the cause of your illness, you should follow the advice of your doctor rather than listen to Buddhists who speculate superstitiously about unknowable past life karma.

I hope you get well soon.
May I suggest you start focusing on the times you feel well and better; use it to practice dhamma. Meanwhile, also gather material on Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha (such as their nobility).
When you are facing undesirable symptoms, repeat the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha material you gathered. Do it quietly or aloud. Be sure that you know why this is useful to you. If not, it will sound like some useless or crazy activity.
Get well soon!

"There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.' Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this?"
"Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain kinds of feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the) phlegm... of wind... of (the three) combined... by change of climate... by adverse behavior... by injuries... by the results of Kamma — (through all that), Sivaka, there arise certain kinds of feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.nypo.html

This is a good quote however it says nothing about past lives. The term "what has been done on the past" does not necessarily mean past lives. The quote includes "what has been done in the past" as 1 of 8 causes of feeling experiences.

I think (as part of my personal opinion or speculation, this may be not Buddhist doctrine) that "Karma" was a religious concept which pre-dated Buddhism -- it was part of the Vedic religion. I'm not sure but it might have been used in a "rites and rituals" sense (e.g. "if we perform this rite and ritual, that is good karma, which will have a good outcome in future"); or, possibly, which was an explanation of (and justification for) rebirth (e.g. "we are high-born and high-caste because we did good in a previous life, and you are low-born because you must have done something bad to deserve that").
When the Buddha taught, some of his teaching should be understood in that context (i.e. his doctrine was addressed to and meant to correct some  contemporary views of people he met and their culture).
One example of that is his addressing Brahmins, who perhaps believed that they were good (or holy) because of how they were born and/or what ritual actions they performed. So the Buddha corrects that, saying that whether he calls someone "holy" depends e.g. on how they behave.
Similarly I take his teaching on Karma to be intended to correct or to replace the contemporary Vedic view: and I think it's not what "you" may or may not have done in the past that matters so much, what really matters (or what's more important) is your present "intention".

Yes, karma pre dated Buddhism. Actually, Buddha is the person to rectify and clearly break down karma for people.

I do hope that you will see that initial immoral thoughts (as the ones that you are entertaining right now) can be overcome by purposefully generating moral thoughts. This is the basis of the Satipattana and Anapanasati bhavana.
What you are creating here is vaci sankhara, as whether one talks to oneself or actually get the words out loud, both are vaci sankhara. Kamma is ‘Action’. So it is not the past Kamma, but the kamma that you are creating in the present that are affecting you. You under-estimate the severity of mental suffering. It is unlike any physical suffering and is very distructive .
So without any delay get into an experience-based process of practicing Buddha Dhamma. That is the best medicine for this. So start learning about the three characteristics anicca, dukkha, anatta, of “this world”. Almost all of us have mis-understood and mis-interpreted the meaning of these three words - anicca, dukkha, anatta. That is why the True Path is hidden to all of us.
Then getting into practising Loving Kindness meditation. I have shown how this in done in an EARLIER POST. on what-is-metta-bhanava-and-how-do-one-practice-it.
Though I explained as to what “immoral” is in response to @Chris’ comment, it is better if an example is given. Our interpretation of “immoral” is limited IMHO. Harming self or others for whatever reason is immoral. It is a “Ditthi” or “wrong vision”.  It must be noted that the word “ditthi” is used in Buddha Dhamma to specifically denote micca ditthi or “wrong vision”. The opposite is samma ditthi or panna (wisdom).
You are being obsessed with the idea that you are suffering so much because in some way you "deserve" it according to the ‘kamma law’ is a ‘Ditthi’. Many would not see it as a 'ditthi' as such activities as that of yours are incorrectly labelled by our medical community or those religious (referring to it as KAMMA) by their conditioning over time. This is also called “brain washing”. This is why ditthis are very difficult to break. Yet, with a determined mindset, one can break ditthis.
The key problem is that human mind likes to “take the long-held-belief-way”. It is easier to try to justify one’s vision or position rather than trying to spend time looking deeper into the issue to make an informed decision. But one needs to think about the consequences that can last for unimaginably long times. This is why getting rid of “ditthi” and embracing samma ditthi is the first step in the mundane Eightfold Path first and then in lokottara Eightfold Path.
Having wrong kinds of vision (ditthi) can be very dangerous, since one may not even realize that one is doing immoral things because of that ditthi. Such ditthis can only be removed via learning Dhamma. One becomes a Sotapanna just by eliminating such wrong visions and perceptions. The three sanyojana (or samyojana) that are removed at the Sotapanna stage (sathkaya ditthi, vicikicca, silabbata paramasa) all arise due to micca ditthi.

Can you explain what "immoral" means here, please?

I see this psychic disease as a “Ditthi”.  Ditthi or “wrong vision” play a key role in suffering, whether it is inflicted on others, or self inflicted. Ditthi is an immoral mental factor. Its opposite - samma ditthi - is a “moral“ mental factor. A key point about mental factors is that moral &immoral mental factors do not arise together in a mind. A thought is either moral or immoral. A moral thought has one or more of “moral mental factors” such as alobha, adosa, compassion (to self or others), etc. & an immoral thought has immoral mental factors such as lobha, dosa etc. to self or others.

The word "immoral" means something slightly different in standard non-Buddhist English, and so I'm not sure whether the OP can understand why you describe their view immoral. In English, activities like lying and stealing (hurting other people and breaking the law) might be described as immoral, but it's not clear why you'd describe the OP's view as "immoral". And/or if you say that theirs is "wrong view" it might be helpful (and an important part of answering the question) to explain why you say it's wrong (what is "wrong" about it), and maybe contrast that with what a right view would be.

I will add to the OP - a further explanation. If it is still not sufficient, do let me know. I will then try to give an example or two. I am just about to post that explanation.

Well it may be a wrong view, meaning, "a view which doesn't liberate the OP from suffering". And an identity-view e.g. described in Sabbasava Sutta ("Was I in the past?") which results in a "fetter of views".

The working of Karma is complex. This can be Karmic, genetic (Bija Niyama), random (Dhamma Niyama - other cosmic laws). Karma can very well play a part, but we could only just speculate. Roughly only 1/5th of all experiences are due to Karma, the rest constituting other Niyama Dhamma. Only a fully enlightened Buddha may know the answer for sure.
But if this helps in dealing with the situation perhaps it can be used to console your mind.
See: Niyama, Karma in Buddhism

Just because kamma-niyama is 1 of 5 niyama are  does not mean 1/5th of all experiences are due to Karma

More or less or roughly 1/5 of it would be as what I have learned.

Memorizing ideas is not "learning" in Buddhism. Kind regards

Is psychic disease related to bad karma?
Everything one experiences now is the result of previous Kamma.
One can think of it as playing a card game, and being dealt a handful of cards. One has no control over which cards one has been given. It's now up to oneself to play that hand as best (wholesome, meritorious) as possible, in order to assure that future kamma will be wholesome.
As Suminda mentions, Kamma is a deeply complex phenomenon that only a fully enlightened Buddha can understand.
That is also why the Buddha categorized Kamma as one of the Four Imponderables (Acinteyya).
The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta (AN 4.77), as follows:

There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
“The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
“The jhana-range of a person in jhana…
“The [precise working out of the] results of kamma…
“Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
“These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them.”

The Buddha advised not to ponder these 4 phenomena as it will lead to restlessness and agitation of mind.
When thoughts about the working of Kamma arise, one should instead turn them into objects of observation: thereby using them as a means to cultivate insights into the true nature of reality. Insight meditation (Vipassana) is the tool/method the Buddha taught. Vipassana is designed to dispel ignorance by letting the mind see clearly.
One comes to see the Three Characteristics of Existence, ie. Impermanence, unsatisfactory and uncontrollability.
When one sees e.g. impermanence of phenomena one understands that the Kamma that was made in previous lives was made by a "being", that is not the same being as the one now experiencing the results of that Kamma.

AN 3.61 states everything one experiences now is not the result of previous Kamma. It also states experience is not causeless or mere chance, as you appear to have posted. Regards. Also, if kamma is a deeply complex phenomenon that only a fully enlightened Buddha can understand, why did the Buddha teach kamma mostly to ordinary people? AN 4.77 obviously does not state what you have interpreted to state.

Unlike what some other posters suggest, karma is an essential and fundamental part of Buddhism. Buddhism does not make any sense without karma. Karma acknowledge that things happen due to action, due to cause and conditions, this is fundamental understanding of dependent origination.
At the psychological level, acceptance of karma, can help prevent the mind from ending up in the state of nihilism, that things happen for no reason at all. Or that nothing meaningful occur through one's actions. Or that there is no consequences to one's actions because of bodily death. This state of Nihilism is considered very dangerous in Buddhism because it gives rise to deluded mental states and will negatively your ethical behavior as well as your personal happiness will suffer as a result.
In fact karma also offer hopes that your present actions will change your future outcome. Regardless of what is happening to you at present. Some level of faith is required and in fact faith itself is positive karma due to the positive effect on the mind.
According to Buddhist doctrines, each person have accrued countless bad karma from previous lives, indeed most people are accrueing negative karma at very present moment even as they "do nothing" because of the mental afflictions in their mind, eventually manifesting in evil speech and actions. To reverse that process will require you to overcome your negative habits and karma every step of the way.
It will hurt. From what I observed successful practitioners (monks among others) will have stories of experiencing horrible karmic fruition before they make break through. Such as suddenly breaking out in skin diseases, being seriously ill, even collapsing and breaking teeth before they could ordain. For me personally during taking the Five Precepts ceremony I nearly fainted while bleeding heavily through my nose. But I would have to say that since then the effect has been a profound change in my life, I was able to control much more of cravings and urges before. Ethics is a fundamental part of the Noble Eightfold Path, you can't expect to cultivate concentration or wisdom without it. I wish you the best and hope you can turn your life around.

Gaia,  someone gave you the "label" of having a psychic disease called borderline personality disorder.  You are in conflict with yourself about who you are and how you fit into relationships, society, etc. You may be very sensitive and over-react to what life is bringing you.  You are not sure what it is that you really want.
The first thing you should do is stop using all illicit drugs.  You will never be able to find your way out of this with drugs or intoxicants like alcohol. You will have to "go through" this rather than outrun it or escape it. It's not that bad when you know the methods.  Go to AA if you have to.
The "good karma" I see from your question is that you are trying to solve this problem by using the principles of Buddhism.  The psychiatric crowd will see your condition of borderline personality disorder as incurable. However, I will debate that, and disagree.  You are trying to get some stability and peace in your life, and it is attainable.
Maybe some others will have a simple book you can read, that will cover Buddha's first teaching, which was about The Four Noble Truths.
Buddha said in his First Noble Truth that, FOR EVERYONE, life is unsatisfactory.  Everybody is suffering in one way or another.  This is the Dharma, or the way it is.  We must grasp this truth to go on to the second truth.
The Second Noble Truth is The Cause of Suffering.  Basically, it's wanting things to be different than they are.  It is fighting the Dharma, or the way things are.
The Third Nobel Truth is that there is a way to end suffering, and find the peace that we all are seeking.
And the Forth Truth includes the 8 fold path to do this.  It is all very simple, really.  If you get into it, you may say to yourself that this is all so self evident, why didn't you think of it yourself?
You will have to apply yourself to the teachings.  The trick is to remember them as things come up, we all forget so easily. You will have to learn to meditate. First it may bring much pain and then being followed by some clarity to your mind.  Eventually, you will round the corner, and find peace waiting for you.
I have worked in a maximum security prison and State psychiatric facilities where a sort of Buddhism and mindfullness training was offered to the "inmates" and had amazing results. Your Karma has led you here and is about to change from confusion to understanding.  Don't give up. There is a fork in the road approaching.

I suggest three edits, for your consideration -- 1) Remove the sentence which puts words into the mouth of "psychiatric crowd", and the following sentence which disagrees with those words. Avoid interfering with a doctor-patient relationship over the internet (a.k.a. don't assume a teacher's mantle). 2) Use the word "I" more than "You" -- e.g. talk more about your own experience, and talk less about the OP's experience. 3) Also try to answer the OP's question about whether illness is deserved because of karma, or about being obsessed by that.