text:
Difference between buddhasasana and buddhadhamma
Is it correct to say that the buddhasasana (the teaching of the Buddha) is conditioned and impermanent in contrary with Dhamma itself which is unconditioned and permanent.

Is it correct to say that the buddhasasana (the teaching of the Buddha) is conditioned and impermanent in contrary with Dhamma itself which is unconditioned and permanent.

No.
Sasa = verb (Teach)
Sasana = noun (Discipline&Doctrineteaching)
Dhamma = Discipline&Doctrine
BuddhaSasana = Discipline&Doctrine of the Buddha
Sutta. Tī. Pā. Udumbarikasuttaṃ:

Let a sensible person come—neither devious nor deceitful, a person of integrity. I teach (aham-anusāsāmi) and instruct them doctrine (Dhamma). By practicing as instructed they will realize the supreme end of the spiritual path in this very life, in seven years.
Ahaṃ  pana  nigrodha  evaṃ  vadāmi etu viññū puriso asaṭho amāyāvī   ujujātiko   ahamanusāsāmi   ahaṃ   dhammaṃ  desemi  yathānusiṭṭhaṃ tathāpaṭipajjamāno     yassatthāya    kulaputtā    sammadeva    agārasmā anagāriyaṃ   pabbajanti   tadanuttaraṃ  brahmacariyapariyosānaṃ  diṭṭhe  va  dhamme sayaṃ   abhiññā   sacchikatvā   upasampajja   viharissati   satta  vassāni .

Dhamma in your context is a part of Buddhasasana. To consider abot it, the  Buddha taught in Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷasaccakasuttaṃ:

'Form is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant. Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. All conditioners are inconstant. All phenomena (Dhamma) are not-self.' This, Aggivessana, is the way in which I discipline my disciples; this part of my instruction is generally presented to my disciples."
rūpaṃ  bhikkhave aniccaṃ   vedanā   aniccā  saññā  aniccā  saṅkhārā  aniccā  viññāṇaṃ aniccaṃ   rūpaṃ   bhikkhave   anattā   vedanā   anattā   saññā  anattā saṅkhārā    anattā   viññāṇaṃ   anattā   sabbe   saṅkhārā   anattā sabbe   dhammā  anattāti  evaṃ  kho  ahaṃ  aggivessana  sāvake  vinemi evaṃbhāgā ca pana me sāvakesu anusāsanī bahulā pavattatīti.

By above Sutta:

All aggregates are conditioners (each others) because they are same inconstant.
All aggregates are Dhamma because both of them are same not-self.
So some Dhamma, Nibbāna and Sammati, is not conditioned and not inconstant.
-Nibbana is not conditioned, not constant, and not-self. It is reality which never arising, no aggregates at all. It's real because it is the opposite of all aggregates, not based on any aggregates. People can access Nibbana by the complete Vipassana, Magga.
-Conception, Sammati, is not conditioned, not constant, and not-self. It is unreal and never arise, just imagination based on aggregates. Every people can access Sammati. Some people can use Sammati in meditating Lokiya-Jhāna to avoid craving in aggregates, but it is impermanent avoidance because minds create Sammati from thinking of aggregates, therefore it is possible to crave aggregates again in the future, so Sammati is not the perfect opposite of aggregates. However Lokiya-Jhāna is still important for Vipassanā meditation.

I think that dhamma is usually translated "doctrine", i.e. "what is taught", isn't it -- whereas vinaya is "discipline". So dhammavinaya, "the doctrine and the discipline".

Thank you so much

Did you try to answer the other part of the question -- about whether the dhamma and/or sasana are "conditioned and impermanent", or whether they are "unconditioned and permanent"?

I edited the answer about that topic. At first, I decide to avoid writing about it because I often write like this and it seems no one understand it. It's too hard, however it is a core of Phenomena (all things).

sāsana (lit. 'message'): the Dispensation of the Buddha, the Buddhist religion; teaching, doctrine.
Navaṅga-buddha (or satthu)-sāsana, the ninefold Dispensation of the Buddha (or the Master) consists of Suttas (Sutta), mixed prose (geyya), exegesis (veyyākaraṇa), verses (gāthā), solemn utterances (udāna), sayings of the Blessed One (itivuttaka), birth stories (jātaka), extraordinary things (abbhutadhamma), and analysis (vedalla). This classification is often found in the Suttas (e.g. M. 22). According to the commentaries, also the Vinaya and the Abhidhamma Piṭaka are comprised in that ninefold division (see Aṭṭhasālinī Tr., I, 33). It is a classification according to literary styles, and not according to given texts or books.
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_s.htm

Yes. Is it correct to say that the Buddha Sasana (the teaching of the Buddha) is conditioned and impermanent. For example, there are many puthujjana who do not follow the Buddha's Teaching and say all things exist due to mind, including when they falsely translate Dhammapada Verses 1 & 2. This shows the Buddha Sasana is conditioned & impermanent.

Mara.... Your serried squadrons, which the world with all its gods cannot defeat, Now I’ll break with wisdom sharp, as with a stone a raw
  clay pot.
With all mind’s thoughts within the range, with well-established mindfulness, I’ll travel on from state to state many disciples leading
  out.
They, both diligent and resolute carry on my Sāsana, and though you like it not, they’ll go to where they do not grieve.
Snp 3.2

Both for those who proclaim it And for those who listen to it, Confident in the Sublime One’s teaching (sāsane), The supreme good is fully
  purified As they live diligently in the teaching (sāsane).
Iti 98

‘Oh, if I’d only live for another day and night, I’d focus on the Buddha’s instructions and I could really achieve a lot.’
‘aho vatāhaṃ rattindivaṃ jīveyyaṃ, bhagavato sāsanaṃ manasi kareyyaṃ, bahu vata me kataṃ assā’ti
AN 8.73

Where as, in contrary, the Dhamma itself is unconditioned and permanent, as follows:

Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles...
Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā
AN 3.136

In other words, the Dhamma always exists, even when there is no mind to experience it. Even if there were no Arahants and the world was 100.0% puthujjana, the Dhamma would continue to exist; but unknown & in secret.

Based on the following verse I would say "Buddhs Sasana" is not the same as Buddha Dhamma.
"Sabba papassa akaranam
Kusalassa upasampadha
Sachitta pariyodapanam
Etam buddhanu sasanam"
I asked a similar question in Dhamma Wheel.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35481&p=530361&hilit=Sabba+Papassa+Akaranam#p530361

It appears my answer is incorrect.


text:
Is it in line with the pali cannon suttas to accept other scriptures?

According to the suttas

Are human beings capable of discerning what dhamma is outside of the suttas?
Is it possible to know enough from the suttas and then make use of the Abhidhamma?
What about the mere possibility that a dhamma practitioner could make use of Jesus's teachings, Hindu teachings, Sufi teachings or sutras outside the the official Theravada context?
When is it appropriate to be more closed minded?
When is it appropriate to be more open minded?

The meaning of the "Four great references", the source mentioned. an Q&A Could someone teach the Dhamma better then the Buddha? may be of use for householder and others able to take on given.

Other teachers do not teach all four types of clinging;

Clinging to sensuality
Clinging to rites and rituals
Clinging to views
Clinging to a doctrine of self

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel390.html
Only Buddhadhamma is for the abandonment of all four. Other teachings in as far as they include abandonment of a type of clinging are to that extent wise.
Brahmajala sutta explains various wrong views and speculative doctrines about the world which are basis for other religions.
Also when hearing or reading teachings it should be compared to teachings known to be true, to see if they align and if they do they align they then ought to be accepted. I think this is in the great references sutta.
Making use of Abhidhamma depends on what you want with it. It's quite useful for improving expression and understanding of the Dhamma as it breaks down many teachings word for word, it will improve understanding of terms like jhana, factors of enlightenment etc. In this sense it is very useful imo.

Are human beings capable of discerning what dhamma is outside of the suttas?

That's a mark of a Sotapanna in this sense; In the Sarakaani Sutta Buddha says that if trees could discern what is rightly spoken he would proclaim them a Sotapanna how much more so his son Sarakaani who took to drink https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.024.wlsh.html

Maybe the four great references of the parinibbana sutta.

Yes that's the one but SC doesn't load well on android, so can't verify. sutta is also in an4.180 https://suttacentral.net/an4.180/en/sujato

Actually, even by going with the suttas, that's not enough. The Buddha was more of a hands-on kind of teacher, and He always advocate one to put the money where the mouth is and hold off on jumping to conclusion on any teaching, be it Hindu, Sufi, Christian,... or even Buddhist. And say if 2 guys were brought in front of the Buddha: one was a "Buddhist" who commits killing, stealing, adultery, lying, taking intoxicants, while the other was a follower of an "outside" sect but abstains from all of those unwholesome conducts. Guess who'd be considered a better "Buddhist" in the Buddha's eye?

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'
"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" ~~ AN 8.53 ~~

It is a wide spread idea that ''all religions'' talk about the same thing, or that all religions are more or less compatible or that the dhamma is compatible with some doctrine invented by some puthujjanas. For instance some people say that Jesus was an arahant, or an Anagamin. Some people say that because the buddha does not say explicitly that there is no god, judaism, christianity and so on are not false,
And then outside explicit religion, some  puthujjanas try to build their societies on the dhamma (which is weird since samma sankappa is the opposite of the goal of a society, which is to fulfill their cravings and ideas for comfort and work and duties, responsibilities, honor, praise, material rewards, medals,  and so on) like the humanists keep saying that the dhamma is compatible with  liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism and the idea that humans are happy when they have a salary and buy the goods they crave, when they ''have meaning'', ''a sense of purpose'' and that when the desires of all the humans are fulfilled, humans will be nice to each other and live in harmony, like the christian says when they talk about their heaven.
This is a cute idea but does not go well with the dhamma. So any ''explanation'' which is the dhamma is this one

"I will teach you the penetrative explanation that is a Dhamma explanation. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "And which penetrative explanation is a Dhamma explanation?
"Sensuality should be known. The cause by which sensuality comes into play should be known. The diversity in sensuality should be known. The result of sensuality should be known. The cessation of sensuality should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of sensuality should be known.
"Feeling should be known. The cause by which feeling comes into play
should be known. The diversity in feeling should be known. The result
of feeling should be known. The cessation of feeling should be known.
The path of practice for the cessation of feeling should be known.
"Perception should be known. The cause by which perception comes into
play should be known. The diversity in perception should be known. The
result of perception should be known. The cessation of perception
should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of perception
should be known.
"Fermentations[1] should be known. The cause by which fermentations
come into play should be known. The diversity in fermentations should
be known. The result of fermentations should be known. The cessation
of fermentations should be known. The path of practice for the
cessation of fermentations should be known
"Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play
should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of
kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The
path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.
"Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play
should be known. The diversity in stress should be known. The result
of stress should be known. The cessation of stress should be known.
The path of practice for the cessation of stress should be known.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html
as long as some poeple claim to ''explain'' something and it is exactly what is mentioned  in the sutta, you can say the explanation is the dhamma. But is the explanation is different or  less or more than this, then it is not the dhamma.
What is true is that plenty of the wrong views created by puthujjanas allow them to do meritorious activities and they have plenty of deva realms to go to. You do not need to cultivate right view, even less cultivate wisdom to do activities with good karma.
The buddha even says that the non returners cannot even go to the highest realms, only puhutjjanas can die and be reborn here as some devas. just like only puthujjanas can go to bad realm (because non-puthujjanas are said to not do activities from bad karma (because those people do not have bad intention)).
you can cultivate metta and dana, and some weird samadhi created by puthujjanas, and those are still meritorious activities, but as long as they are not seen from wisdom, right view, right investigation, sati and   whatever the buddha praises, it will not lead to nibanna.

Are human beings capable of discerning what dhamma is outside of the suttas?

Yes, when one understand the path enough.

Is it possible to know enough from the suttas and then make use of the Abhidhamma?

I make use of Abhidhamma for whole my life. I am a happiest man in the world.

What about the mere possibility that a dhamma practitioner could make use of Jesus's teachings, Hindu teachings, Sufi teachings or sutras outside the the official Theravada context?

They are included in Tipitaka already, so we call the Buddha "Sabbaññū".

When is it appropriate to be more closed minded?

When one doesn't recite, memorize, practice and understand Suttas enough to keep their mind in the middle path forever.

When is it appropriate to be more open minded?

Vinaya: When one recite, memorize, practice and understand Suttas enough to keep their mind in the middle path forever.
Commentary: When one has the quality enough. This is the qualification list.

Are human beings capable of discerning what dhamma is outside of the suttas?
Clearly they are, since otherwise the suttas could not have been written.
Is it possible to know enough from the suttas and then make use of the Abhidhamma?
Odd question. I'm not sure it would be strictly necessary to know the suttas to make use of the Abhidhamma.
What about the mere possibility that a dhamma practitioner could make use of Jesus's teachings, Hindu teachings, Sufi teachings or sutras outside the the official Theravada context?
I'd say go for it. The idea that the Buddha's teachings are unique in their message is about as daft as the idea that those of Jesus are unique. The whole point of the suttas is to tell us we can discover the truth for ourselves, which means that the Buddha  does not have monopoly on knowledge. The idea that what the Buddha taught is somehow at odds with what the rest of the mystic teachers teach is profoundly damaging to Buddhism.
My feeling is that Theravadins feel the need for the Buddha to be uniquely authoritative and for all other teachers to be untrustworthy but Mahayanists do not. By endorsing Nagarjuna the latter become part of the 'Perennial' philosophy and lines itself up up with Sufism, the Upanishads and the gnostic teachings of Jesus.
When is it appropriate to be more closed minded?
When is it appropriate to be more open minded?
I don't think it is about being closed or open minded. It is about doing the research and using ones powers of discrimination and reason.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is lack of doubt a form of self-cherishing?
Many people frequently make bold and confident claims about what Buddhism is or isn't with little or no humility or doubt. Their views are asserted to be correct, and anything contrary to their view is asserted to be simply wrong or a misunderstanding.
My own doubts are sometimes the cause of suffering, but they also protect me from having fixed views which can be erroneous and leave no space for growth, adjustment and wisdom.
My view is that the more confidently a view is expounded, the more likely it is to be wrong, and the more likely that self-clinging and self-cherishing are lurking in the mind, but even this view seems uncertain.
Perhaps developing contentment with the uncertainty of reality is a part of wise practice, but I can't be too sure of that either.

The first part, "bold and confident claims", sounds like it might be associated with doctrines about "stream-entry".
I think that one of the characteristics of stream-entry is "confidence" -- for example SN 55.40

a disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence

Whether that confidence is justified or deluded is another question -- which I think is a well-known problem/question -- i.e. "how can you tell whether you are or whether someone else is a stream-winner?"
Further to that subject, this answer says that a stream-winner might have conceit -- but only "true" conceit.

One of the way to avoid that problem -- I hope -- is to cite references. For example "a confident claim about what Buddhism is or isn't" might be accompanied or supported by a reference to a Buddhist sutta -- then the claim of whether something is "Buddhist" might rest of whether it is (accurately) based on "a Buddhist sutta".
Pali suttas begin with ...

so i have heard.
evaṃ me sutaṃ—

... which I like.
After a while -- after you learn some "Buddhism" -- you may or may not need or want to ask for references, when someone says something about Buddhism without citing a reference -- because you might recognise which sutta or other doctrine supports what they are saying.
Then there's also a matter of, whether you can "verify" a doctrine based on your own experience -- because the dhamma is said to be:

... well declared by the Bhagavā:
  visible here and now, immediate,
  inviting to come and see, effective,
  to be individually ascertained by the wise.

Another solution is to find a teacher of whose teaching you are confident.

The second part, "anything contrary to their view is asserted to be simply wrong", sounds more questionable to me. I think a lot of suttas warn that arguing might be papanca etc.
Translator's Introduction

Three passages in the discourses — DN 21, MN 18, and Sn 4.11 — map the causal processes that give rise to papañca and lead from papañca to conflict. Because the Buddhist analysis of causality is generally non-linear, with plenty of room for feedback loops, the maps vary in some of their details. In DN 21, the map reads like this:

the perceptions & categories of papañca > thinking > desire > dear-&-not-dear > envy & stinginess > rivalry & hostility

In Sn 4.11, the map is less linear and can be diagrammed like this:

perception > the categories of papañca
perception > name & form > contact > appealing & unappealing > desire > dear-&-not-dear > stinginess/divisiveness/quarrels/disputes

In MN 18, the map is this:

contact > feeling > perception > thinking > the perceptions & categories of papañca

The third part, "developing contentment with the uncertainty of reality", sounds like basic right speech -- AN 10.176

"And how is one made pure in four ways by verbal action?
"There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty, if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he does know, he says, 'I know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I have seen.' Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world.
"Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord.
"Abandoning abusive speech, he abstains from abusive speech. He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing & pleasing to people at large.
"Abandoning idle chatter, he abstains from idle chatter. He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya. He speaks words worth treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the goal.
"This is how one is made pure in four ways by verbal action."

Finally, all dhammas (including the dhamma) are supposed to be "non-self".
And Buddhists do I think "cherish" the dhamma.
So it may be "dhamma-cherishing" rather than "self-cherishing".
But one of the modern teachers warned against "Spiritual materialism" -- I don't know what exactly that might correspond to in the earlier doctrines -- and I haven't even read what "spiritual materialism" means exactly, I think it means something like, an egoistic tendency to want to accumulate spiritual attainment in the same way that other people like to accumulate material things like fame or fortune.
So, I guess, yes, it's sensible to be a bit sceptical.
I think there are people, though, who will teach the doctrine carefully and maybe step-by-step and also so on -- AN 5.159

It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching. Which five?

The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak step-by-step.'
The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].
The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out of compassion.'
The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.'
The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without hurting myself or others.'(note)

It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when these five qualities are established within the person teaching.
(note) According to the Commentary, "hurting oneself" means exalting oneself. "Hurting others" means putting other people down.

Yes, good householder, lack of doubt in regard of ones own opinions is the most lowest security. Yet on the other side, a disciple of the Buddha, having followed the path for an end of doubt in regard of way leading out of suffering and all doubts, carries the quality of no more doubt in regard of the Sublime Buddhas teachings and the path of practice leading to an end of suffering.
Itjs because of this, that the admirable friend, one whom one can trust in regard of path to liberation, at least the Buddha and good following disciples, is the first and most important outwardly condition to arrive at right view and to gain rightly doubtlessness in regard of whats benefical, leads to long term benefit, and what kind of conduct are demeritious.
More and in detail how to gain righteous doubtlessness is generously given in Into the stream

Not all wrong views are equal. If 'X' is either true or not, then foremost wrong view is; 'maybe it is true maybe it is not true' as it is allows the possibility for truth. This is in a Sutta.
One should also observe a person over time to see if they have grounds for corruption which would make them say 'i see' when they don't see and 'i know' when they don't know. Only when observing that there is no such apparent basis should one visit and grow close to learn and practice his teachings for personal realization. I think this is Canki Sutta. I think it makes sense that one should get to know a person well before placing confidence if one does not yet see and know.
I think keeping an open mind and entertaining ideas is a good way to do it. One can still have confidence in the Buddha and that there is truth to be realized whilst searching for it and practicing what makes sense.

When the Buddha first spoke boldly and confidently to another, Upaka walked away.

MN26:25.27: When I had spoken, Upaka said: ‘If you say so, reverend.’ Shaking his head, he took a wrong turn and left.

The Buddha was not self-cherishing, nor was he wrong. So lack of doubt is not a reliable metric. Mistrusting confidence, we might follow Upaka and take a wrong turn.
That is why proper attention is a requirement.

SN12.65:1.8: Then, through proper attention, I comprehended with wisdom:
...

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


text:
Idea of the Breath
I heard a few times the notion that in meditation one must focus on the sensations of breathing (which seems to make sense to me) but not the idea of the breath. What would be the 'idea' of the breath? Is there a single thought or mental entity one could focus on? I feel like thoughts change and follow one another quickly, I don't understand how one could try to meditate on the 'idea' of the breath.
What does such an idea refer to?

I've heard similar expression given on difference between samatha and vipassana, whereas the concept is the idea of breath and reality is the sensory perception. I think that was mostly a misuse of both terms. Because samatha is calming or stilling as in the Patisambhiddamagga 'in the first jhana hindrances are stilled, in the second thought and evaluations' and the vipassana can be explained as many things but the practice of observing the arising, persisting and the cessation of thoughts, feelings and perceptions for that is called 'development of concentration leading to alertness & mindfulness (samadhi sutta). Therefore it is imo a misuse of both terms for whatever was called vipassana in the time of the Buddha is probably not what they called the development of concentration leading to mindfulness & alertness. There are much better explainations for these terms afaik.
As to how to resolve this in practice, i would use the training of 'vipassana' for mindfulness & alertness. I would do it while being percepient of the breath, ardent & mindful of thoughts, feelings & perceptions, their arising, persistence and cessation.
As to what do i mean by being 'percepient of the breath' i can answer that if i was training perception of Death i would be thinking and exploring that theme with intellect.
So anapanasati is in practice sort of mindfully exploring phenomena associated with the theme of breathing or the air element (sutta about Pukkusati for air element equated to in & out breaths, can't recall title).
Also one can be mindful of the difference between 'a thought' and classes and categorizations of thought. The classes and categorizations should be directed at the theme of breathing or wholesome perceptions like the body, impermanence, fading, cessation, on the lack of a self, etc etc, so one would think i am breathing.. making long or short breath or just think that 'there is breathing' or otherwise just be aware of sensations, arising, persisting and ceasing, this is what id think about.
If one notices hindrances like perception of attractiveness, lust, anger, restlessness or drowsiness, id advice directing to a different theme to establish perception of daylight or unattractiveness or even go study, recite texts, do walking meditation, look at stars and whatnot depending on what hindrance it is before proceeding.
Eventually i want the unwholesome themes to stop invading and as they get stilled pleasure will arise and one sits quite comfortably, mindful & alert.

Like when I used to focus on the breath at the abdomen in the beginning, I was focusing,  unintentionally and incorrectly, on a picture of an abandon in my head  instead of only focusing on the actual moment by moment sensations of the abdomen as they go by.
It was the idea of breathing. See, I was told to follow the breath by the teacher so all I could do was follow some idea of the breath that I made up.
Really, it was more like a theme because I didn't know what precisely I was looking for but I would sometimes get into profound states of peace but ever since  I realized what I was doing I haven't seen much peace except when I practice metta.
It was very subjective and conseptual until I did it right.

Afaik if you were picturing the abdomen it would be kind of bodypart contemplation, is included in mindfulness of the body. Should develop that i think.

It was the idea of breathing. See, I was told to follow the breath so all I could do was follow some idea of the breath that I made up. It was very subjective and conseptual until I did it right.

Even imagining colors works to tranquilize hindrances, is called kasina training u might know it. Sounds similar to what you did, i know ppl do it with objects like bones. Good for u:)

I personally think the best way to answer is to simply sit with your own breath day after day.  You will see your experience of your own breath change before you!


text:
What's the origin of the Chinese Farmer story?
Alan Watts told The Story of the Chinese Farmer, which is also sometimes found under the title Maybe. It appears that he told this story sometime between 1960-1969, since it was published in Watts, A. (2011). Eastern wisdom, modern life: Collected talks: 1960-1969. New World Library.
Is there any history of this story before Watts? Is there a similar story that it might have been based upon? On the other hand, has some scholar researched this question and concluded that Watts wrote it himself?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_old_man_lost_his_horse#Potential_origin,_chengyu,_proverbs,_and_delimitations

There may be earlier renditions, but this story is in the Huainanzi compiled around 139 BCE:

近塞上之人有善術者，馬無故亡而入胡，人皆弔之 。其父曰：此何遽不為福乎
Among the people who lived close to the border, there was a man who
  led a righteous life. Without reason, his horse escaped, and fled into
  barbarian territory. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said : "what
  makes you think this is not a good thing?"
居數月，其馬將胡駿馬而歸，人皆賀之。其父曰：此何遽不能為禍乎
Several months later, his horse returned, accompanied by a superb
  barbarian stallion. Everyone congratulated him. But the old man said:
  "what makes you think this is cannot be a bad thing?"
家富良馬，其子好騎，墮而折其髀，人皆弔之。其父曰：此何遽不為福乎
The family was richer from a good horse, his son enjoyed riding it. He
  fell and broke his hip. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said:
  "what makes you think this is not a good thing!"
居一年，胡人大入塞，丁壯者引弦而戰，近塞之人，死者十九，此獨以跛之故，父子相保
One year later, a large party of barbarians entered the border. All
  the valid men drew their bows and went to battle. From the people
  living around the border, nine out of ten died. But just because he
  was lame, the old man and his son were both spared.
故福之為禍，禍之為福，化不可極，深不可測也。
Thence, good fortune turns into bad fortune, and bad fortune turns
  into good fortune. These changes never reach an end, their complexity
  can never be fathomed.


text:
Protection from tree-stumps
In the Paritta Parikamma, there is the line:

May you take care in protecting yourselves from the dangers of tyrants, robbers, human beings, non-human beings, fires, floods, demons, tree-stumps, thorns, evil planets, epidemics, wrong-doers or heretics; from wild elephants, horses, beasts, oxen, dogs, serpents, scorpions, poisonous snakes, leopards, bears, hyenas, boars, buffaloes, ogres, devils etc., and from dangers of various fears, diseases and disasters.

What dangers would tree-stumps pose?
What would protection from tree-stumps look like?

Protection from tree-stumps

Santa100 already gave an answer from a historic perspective.
Here is an answer from a modern perspective. The dangers and solution seem to still be the same.

What dangers would tree-stumps pose?

According to "Dangers of Tree Stumps – Land Owners’ Responsibilities", the dangers are: constant tripping hazard, the stump harbouring insects, equipment damage.

What would protection from tree-stumps look like?

The solution would be to remove the stump by oneself or hire a professional stump remover.

Imagine if you were a good old villager in 5 B.C India walking barefoot on the field at night, then yeah, tree-stumps and thorns could pose some real danger to your feet! And how would protection from tree-stumps look like? Well, as the very first phrase has said: "May you take care in protecting yourselves...".

It's not different today for those not wearing shoes and do or not care where to step. At least good imagined. And what is care for one self? Sila, metta. Even with shoes stumps can be "reason" for broken leg, ...even death. They nevertheless would listen to modern...


text:
Are loving-kindness and compassion (metta and karuna) special kind of attachments?
To alleviate someone from suffering, Buddhism teaches one to practice mettā
karuṇā. But it seems to me that to thinking good about someone and wish them the best, we need to have a better version of the suffered person, so that we can disagree with their current version. If we don't have that image, then we wouldn't say the suffered person is suffered at the beginning. Thus, it seems correct to say that in order to practice metta and karuna, we need to have an attachment?
Since this attachment is necessary, then I think it's fine to have? For example I ask this question, thus I have some attachment to it, and that's fine. I think this is related to the conventional truth and absolute truth.
So is it correct the in order to practice metta and karuna, we need to have an attachment to begin with?
Edit: One can simply say that the better version of that person is just a ideal fabrication of them (because they are not actually like that), or just the good side of them that they always have but not shown yet. In either case, I think it's necessary to assume good faith. Would that assumption be an attachment?

Related:
• Is radiating loving kindness increase attachment?
• How to view people with metta and karuna?
• Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people?

Try Metta for a month regularly and then see.

So is it correct the in order to practice metta and karuna, we need to have an attachment to begin with?

Well, attachment is a default software built into the core kernel of every human's "operating system", so whether we need to have it or not is kinda irrelevant. And no, there's no need to come up with some fabrication or some altered reality about the other person's personality in order to cultivate metta/karuna. It's a truth  that both evil and goodness co-exist within every single human being, it's just that the relative ratio is different from person to person. So it's not a fabrication to focus on a person's 'good side', because s/he does have a good side! So the beauty of metta/karuna cultivation is that one can start training right away, even with their existing attachment at the beginning stage. But as one proceeds to higher, deeper, more subtle levels of the Path, the attachment will naturally subside and eventually goes away completely. Once it's become second nature, Metta/karuna at that stage will no longer involves any kind of attachment at all.

yes, I mean the good side of that person. Would focus on that good side be attachment?

As mentioned, at the beginning, there's attachment in everything you do, good or bad. But it's still more skillful to focus on the good side with attachment than on the bad side with attachment. Once one gets into deeper and higher level of cultivation, attachment will naturally subside though. Please check out this sutta on the nature of desire and attachment: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html

Metta and karuna are an attitude of kindness and compassion towards yourself and others in order to transcend the the sense of separation between you and the next being.
It's good wholesome stuff.
You can learn to just hold the metta in your heart without attatchment.
Remember  why they have all those  meditation practices and the dharma teachings? So you can learn how to let go and not attatch to the fruits of practice and anything else.

Good question.
That is why we have Upekka (equanimity) as a part of four Brahma Viharas.
Equanimity balance the other three.
There are the near enemy and the far enemy of Brhma Viharas.
=============
Each of the four brahma-viharas has what is called a near enemy and a far enemy. The near enemy is a state of mind that is close to the brahma-vihara and is sometimes mistaken as the good emotion, but is actually “a near enemy” and not the correct mental state. The far enemy is virtually the opposite of the brahma-vihara and is completely off the mark for the emotion that is strived for. This is shown in this table:
https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/4_Brahma_Viharas

I think you're implying that metta is a fabrication and an attachment to a fabrication.
But this answer implies that the non-existence of something is a different kind of "conditioned", is not even impermanent, and I think "unfabricated" rather than fabricated.
I think that metta might be an example of the latter, i.e. not a fabrication but an unfabrication.
The words of the metta gatha, for example,

May [each and every one] ...
  ... be free from enmity and danger
  ... be free from mental suffering
  ... be free from physical suffering

I think that's talking about an absence -- an absence of suffering, an absence of malice.
What's "fabricated" might be the opposite of metta -- for example "I don't like that person -- may they receive payback for what they've done, for what they've said!"
I guess that metta is -- at least partly -- intended to undo your own malice and selfishness, conceit -- and that it's these (i.e. enmity) which are fabricated, not the metta.
That said the practice is also described as metta bhavana -- the development or becoming of metta.


text:
To Be or Not to Be?
If it's wrong view to say, "I am" then why isn't it also wrong view to say, "there is" since they both point to the same verb, "to be?" It is said that there are Four Noble Truths. Yet, somehow, these conditioned phenomena of words and mental formations (i.e. "truth" is merely a concept) are not subject to cessation.
All conditioned phenomena arise and cease, except for the "magical" mind stream that, somehow, from beginningless time manages to avoid cessation with the exception of its eternal annihilation at parinibbana (i.e., the extinction of all subjective experience which is said to be the "highest happiness"). If the mind stream is "just a process, not a person," then the same should be true of all phenomena, yet all conditioned phenomena are subject to cessation whilst the mind stream somehow dodges this immutable law until the manual intervention of practicing the path finally pushes this naughty rebel of conditioned phenomena into the annihilation machine of parinibbana.
I'm just trying to better understand the logic of this. I have some doubts and thus push hard on certain issues that don't make sense to me. Personally, I don't need the Buddha to be 100% correct about everything to find value in his teachings. However, I'm not even claiming that something is correct or incorrect, only that I have doubt, yet I still find value in many of the teachings.

i would say it's not necessarily wrong to say 'I Am'. It would depend on what we mean by 'I'. . .

Existence is always existence of something. Existence without a "something" is a fun abstraction to talk about, but for practical purposes there is no existence unless it is an existence of something. We could say, existence is a quality of something - and as any quality, it does not stand by itself.
Once we have "something", we have boundaries and conditions for its ongoing existence. Outside of those boundaries and conditions, that "something" can no longer exist.
So "existence", "something" and "boundaries and conditions" always come bundled together.
Now, if we put any serious weight on that "something", if we lean on it for our own objectives or goals - then our objectives and goals become bounded and conditioned by the boundaries and conditions of "something". Boundaries and conditions are transitive.
So when you say "something is", you implicitly entering a contract. If you now think in terms of that "something" having existence, if you believe in its existence - which means you take its definition, its boundaries and conditions seriously - then those of your actions that are based on that "something" - are now subject to its boundaries and conditions.
This is true for any value of something, including "I". As soon as you take "I am" as something real, you are bound by its definition. Needless to say, "bound" is not "free".

The stream we are talking about is not a "stream" of individual person's mind. (The "stream" of individual person's mind is an optical illusion. It is a "something" we ourselves delineate, and moment to moment work hard to delineate again and again, connect with something in the past, in order to maintain the appearance of identity.)
The stream we are talking about is a stream of mind at large. And when we say mind, it is not what you think of as person's mind, but mind as a global dynamic process of integrated information exchange permeating all interactions whatsoever.
This process is what's known as The Law (i.e it is what's described by Dharma) and it is this very process is what develops into self-perpetuating confusion called Samsara. Understanding this process is what's required for liberation. Gaining peace that comes from realizing ontological reality of this process, sans confusion and boundaries of Samsara with its "somethings" and definitions, is what's known as attaining Nirvana.

As far as I can see, this process is made of quadrillions of spanning nested self-reinforcing tendencies.
There is no annihilation, no eternal existence either. Only individual "somethings" arise and end, because the underlying process keeps on unfolding and endlessly shifting.

The process itself is the Law. Whether "somethings" arise or cease, whether Buddhas arise or cease, the Law of self-reinforcing tendencies remains.

“I am” causes suffering.
“There is” does not cause suffering.
The Buddha taught about suffering & it’s cessation.

In a simple way
Nirvana just means you stop when you transcend anger, greed and not knowing.
You stop grasping for stuff, you stop reacting.
You neither want to be or  not want to be
You just do whatever is appropriate without any greed anger and ignorance.

The only fault is building up of the "self". Let everything be something. Don't happen to see a real organism behind. It's something apparent only. The critical point of one's mind is also formed out of the basic building blocks of matter that experience change. The "self" is relative to time and its cause, simply a natural phenomenon that we have mistaken!

No person being, just elements depending on each other's for surely vanishing.
Attachment, craving and clinging on the elements definitely cause suffering again and again forever.
Ignorant never know the elements' dependent originations.
Wrong view always misunderstand on dependent originations' relativities and thinking of wrong concept about the elements, person being.
Doubt again and again in wrong concept of wrong elements'  relativities.

Niether ,'I am'  Nor , ' there is ' a Wrong view OR Right view  ,because it depends upon the mental state of person who is saying these words.
When an enlightened person says , "I am Buddha , an enlightened one; I have destryoed all my enemies". Here ,' I am' is a state of pure awareness with NO-Self .
When an Ignorant or unenlightened person (like me :) ..) says ,' I am this, I am that ' or says ,"There is a Buddha present in this park ". Here , 'I am' refers to a state of feeling proud or depressed or attached-one. Even in this scenario  ,'There is ' also represents to a state of ," I am with Buddha " along with ,may be , feeling proud , depressed ,attached-one etc. type of ignorance.
Regarding Mind's cessation ::  Pay Attention
Process(Mind) is an abstract term ,it doesn't represent a device . If a particular result/fruit/reaction is coming within or outside our body ,it is due to that process.
Process remains alive till the machine(body) is there and factors(various types of ignorance) responsible for recreating the machine are there.
If there is only machine with NO-OLD-Factors(ignorance) , process will work till machine is lively with NEW-Factors(awareness & detachment ) .These new factors don't support clinging towards new body ,hence when machine(body) is destroyed or stops working , process vanishes forever.
This conversion of factors is also called as चित्त परिक्रमण (Chitta Parikrmana)  in Pali & Hindi  and  Process(Mind) rectification in English.After this rectification one may re-encounter corruption(ignorance) ,therefore this new process needs protection ,as stated in 4th Noble truth elaboration ," Path to & MAINTAIN this annihilation of suffering within body" .It's completely logical and scientific.
Read about Chitta Parikrmana in Sallekh Sutta of Majjhim Nikaya (सल्लेख सुत्त , मज्झिम निकाय). This chapter deals with Process of Meditation.

If it's wrong view to say, "I am" then why isn't it also wrong view to say, "there is" since they both point to the same verb, "to be?"

The use of personal pronouns is not wrong view. The various speculative wrong views and a doctrine of 'a self' in particular are wrong views.
People speculate about phenomena existing and not existing. A person will say; 'this is what i call a car and a car to that extent exists'. Another to him says; 'all is of a  dreamlike nature, nothing exists to that extent'
Both are speculating about what can be thought about and have arrived at these position by thinking yet neither has a complete and accurate understand of how that which is thought about comes to be, what are all the governing principles making it come into play, knowing what can be known one would go beyond speculation and be able to overcome false expectations, unrealistic expectations, sub optimal goal setting, sub optimal directing, delusion and ignorance in general.
Furthermore they use language differently, what person A means by existence and what he wants to convey are one and the same in meaning but how person B perceives it might turn out otherwise. Person B would have to explain exactly what he means by a dreamlike state to communicate the meaning of his expression to explain his position. They both are speculating and therefore arguing about it. A person with right view would not argue nor take a position for he relies on a demonstrable basis for inference and understanding, his understanding is without speculation and he can understand the positions of other people better than they themselves do.

all conditioned phenomena are subject to cessation whilst the mind stream somehow dodges this immutable law

The idea of mind stream is mind-made, it is like intellectual property, merely an idea and a convention, a philosophical principle conceived and perceived as a part of a model to understand how that which is thought about works.
Therefore it is not something that transcends impermanence because ideas are impermanent.
One thing that is imporant to understand is the concept of something 'arising as one thing and ceasing as another'
This points to two important circumstances to be discerned;

If X has that property, then the cessation of X won't be discerned before 'Not X' is discerned. Otherwise one gets stuck in a variety of states included in X to be discerned.
Based on the Sabba Sutta and what is called World in the pali discourses one can infer that as soon as any change is conceived and perceived to occur anywhere in the universe that means mindmade phenomena changed, a before and after can be delineated and cessation of past conditions can be discerned as a before and the coming into play of new conditions as an after. It is impossible to explain the change of mind in terms of the speed for this reason.

In this way id explain that cessation of conditioned phenomena isn't discerned on account of change as before & after ie after tomorrow or after breakup of the body or anything like that, but on account of discernment of the unconditioned, there could be no after for what is after is in the context of before and is also conditioned, there has to be a discernment of what isn't included in what is thought about as past, present and future.
That what can be thought about and understood is one thing and the understanding and thinking is another. If one thinks about what can be thought about as phenomena and grasps it with wrong view as a self, personal and self referable, only such person is said to adhere to a doctrine of self.

References on request, im on a phone so it's not convenient to substantiate every sentence but ask if something looks unfamiliar and i will give a reference and explain how it is inferred.

I see you have some good pointers here, including your own response to the others, but perhaps this may also be helpful:
I would suggest that your problem here is not understanding the dividing line between conventional speech and the careful, precise speech needed when discussing Dhamma.
It is perfectly propper to say "I am", for example when speaking of going to the store. It is when discussing existence and non-existence that the idea "I am" becomes the statement of a point of view.
And there the Buddhist position is clear: There being no thing there that can qualify as a self when that qualification is that that thing is under one's own control, the statement "I am that" becomes a statement of an opinion, or point of view concerning existence and non-existence, and as such will always be partly wrong and not helpful when it comes to disassociating one's self from that 'that'.
Hence the frequently repeated:
"Is the eye permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent"
"Is that which is impermanent going to cause pain in the end or not?"
"It will cause pain."
"Is it proper to say of that which causes pain:
"This is Me", "This is my self", "This I am" ? "No."
The key to distinguishing when to use which is to ask yourself:
"Is what I am saying an opinion, a point of view, or is it just a statement of an observable fact."
Opinion: "There is no self"
Statement of an observable fact: "There is no thing there that is the self."
"But!" you object, to say: "There is no thing there that is the self," states an opinion about all things and all things are not observable to an individual. What's the difference?"
It is the statement of an opinion when it is being made by someone who does not perceive the essential nature of that which has come to be as being 'change'.
We can observe one thing which encompasses all the rest: That, by definition, that which comes into existence is subject to Time; that which is subject to time is bounded by a beginning, middle and end.
It's that "end" bit that is the troublemaker.
It is also that 'end' bit which allows one to say: "There is no thing there that is the self" because a 'thing' is a thing that has come into existence and will pass out of existence and we have established that a phenomena so bounded is not under one's control and cannot therefore justifiably be called 'the self' or 'belonging to self'.
That cannot be said of the statement: "There is no self" although that may seem like a logical conclusion to be drawn from the statement that 'There is no thing there that is the self." It isn't. To say: 'there is no' is to state an opinion about all things that has no basis in the observable. It would require being able to see all things at all times and that is beyond the power of even the Buddhas.
"Is this not just a lot of words amounting to nothing?"
Of course that depends on one's seriousness with regard to the problem the Buddha's Dhamma solves: Serious one will, sooner or later, work one's way to a serenity (samadhi) which will reveal one's attachment to a stream of 'lives' going back into endless time and moving on out into the endless future and one may see at that point the utter horror of that in its companion: endless aging and death, grief and lamentation, pain and misery and despair. At that point, having the opinion "There is no self" will not help you to escape; but seeing that "There is no thing there that is my self" will.
That is the point, say I.

It is not considered wrong view in Buddhism to say I am within a sentence. After attaining Nibbana, the Buddha continued to use personal pronouns in many of his discourses and teachings. For example,

In the Anapanasati Sutta translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2006) we find the Blessed One saying, “Monks, I am content with this practice. I am content at heart with this practice. So arouse even more intense persistence for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. I will remain here at Savatthi [for another month] through the ‘White Water-lily’ Month…”.
In the Ogha-Tarana Sutta translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (1998) a devata went to the Blessed One and asked, “Tell me, dear sir, how you crossed over the flood[?]” And the Buddha replied by saying, “I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place.”
In the Hatthaka Sutta translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (ND) Hatthaka of Alavi asked the Buddha, “Lord, I hope the Blessed One has slept in ease.” And the Buddha replied by saying, “Yes, young man. I have slept in ease. Of those in the world who sleep in ease, I am one.”

Therefore, I think we can safely assume that using words such as ‘I am” are not considered wrong view. There is no contradiction with the “to be” statements.
Next, the magical mind stream that you keep referring to will eventually cease. It is not like the atman (soul) which Hindu’s believe is permanent and unchanging. Instead, it is only the continuum of momentary consciousness and mental formations. Once the liberated person dies and enters Parinibbana all faculties which build the self (Consciousness and physical/mental formations) dissolve. The Buddha is re-absorbed into the Dharmakaya. Where they will play an active role in the awakening and alleviation of beings caught in the wheel of Samsara.

It is a mistake to treat this as ontology. The Buddhist metaphysic here is about relationships — being-for-self/others, not being-in-itself — and reducing it to an ontological question confuses the issue.
When I say "I am such" (e.g., "I am a doctor," "I am a spouse," "I am enlightened"), I am creating a relationship between myself and the active human world around me, and that relationship I have created is impermanent and subject to cessation. Even if the human world around me agrees with all of those assessments for a time (which it very well may not), I will eventually reach some point where it is impossible to maintain that relationship. That can cause misery for me or anyone who is attached to that relationship.
When I say "There is such" (e.g., "there is an apple on the table," "there is a million dollars in my bank account," "there is a truth beyond all truths"), I am also creating a relationship between myself and the active human world around me, and that relationship is impermanent and subject to cessation. The only real difference is that I am not as likely to identify closely with the relationship, and thus not as likely to be attached to it as a permanent feature of the world. Will I suffer much misery if I turn around and realize there is no longer an apple on the table? Depends on how much I like apples, I suppose...
The only thing that is not subject to cessation in this sense (at least, potentially, until the moment of death), is our sense of perception: our 'subject-ness', devoid of any identifications. "I am I" is a tautology that (if we focus on it) collapses into a non-self-reference. The goal of Buddhist practice is to collapse that self-reference, so that we can clearly see the "I am such" and "there is such" are superficial attachments, not self-references. That's how we end misery.

What matters is your existential experience not the words ,if the words somehow made a connection with a realization of an experiential reality ,then that is ok(however still unreliable) ,but the teaching is beyond concepts and beyond the mind entirely .Its beyond intellect ,beyond what is right and what is wrong ,its purely subjective and from that pure subjectivity ,you are what you are .So if Iam is understood experentially as a feeling of a person existing and not as a permanent person that you actually are ,who needs to tackle life and is tackled by life then you have understood Iam correctly.
So don't rely on concepts ,just trust your experience of life ,see there will always be new tricks by your mind as long as you still have concepts on what is right ,the cycle will keep going till you completely surrender & the person who you think you are ,gets defeated and all his methods fail ,only then will you realize emptiness beyond its concept.


text:
What happens if no beings choose to act on one's bad karma?
What happens if no beings choose to act on one's bad karma?
Does one then hallucinate one's bad karma?  ( By this I mean i.e. is there experiencing of hallucinations (or illusions) alongside things such as real pain? ).
E.g. What would have happened to Moggallāna if no being chose to attack him?

Following is possible ::1.) punishment by natural phenomenon like hurricane , flood , volcanic eruption ,thunder bolt etc. 2.) punishment through defilements like sadness , depression , insomania , illness ,etc. where punishment is un-intentional (cause illness can be due to bacteria , virus which don't want to punish anyone ,just wanna fill their belly). As per enlightened one ,reasons & fruits behind karmic activity come back to us.Eg. ,Sacrifice an animal & same amount of agitation & pain come back towards Sacrificer mind along with sankharas within to cling towards this pain.

I edited the question but changed it back to earlier version. By "Does one then hallucinate one's bad karma?" I mean i.e. is there experiencing of hallucinations (or illusions) alongside things such as real pain?

For enlightened one :: Nope , no kind of hallucination/ illusion /punishment can change behaviour & hence Mind. For Others :: Yes , Punishment will effect to the extent of remaining Ignorance.

I edited the question again so now the extra descriptiveness is in the question.

You can find the answer for your question from a Jataka called "Matakabhatta-Jātaka". Herewith I've quoted the section of the Jātaka which may answer your question.

"In times past, brahman," the goat began, "I was a brahman who taught the Vedas like you. I, too, sacrificed a goat as an offering for a Feast for the Dead. Because of killing that single goat, I have had my head cut off 499 times. I laughed aloud when I realized that this is my last birth as an animal to be sacrificed. Today I will be freed from my misery. On the other hand, I cried when I realized that, because of killing me, you, too, may be doomed to lose your head five hundred times. It was out of pity for you that I cried."
"Well, goat," said the brahman, "in that case, I am not going to kill you."
"Brahman!" exclaimed the goat. "Whether or not you kill me, I cannot escape death today."
"Don't worry," the brahman assured the goat. "I will guard you."
"You don't understand," the goat told him. "Your protection is weak. The force of my evil deed is very strong."
The brahman untied the goat and said to his students, "Don't allow anyone to harm this goat." They obediently followed the animal to protect it.
After the goat was freed, it began to graze. It stretched out its neck to reach the leaves on a bush growing near the top of a large rock. At that very instant a lightning bolt hit the rock, breaking off a sharp piece of stone which flew through the air and neatly cut off the goat's head. A crowd of people gathered around the dead goat and began to talk excitedly about the amazing accident.

Quoted from: Matakabhatta-Jātaka (Jātaka, Khuddaka Nikaya, Sutta Pitaka, Tipitaka)
The subject of Kamma is very deep and hard to understand. Only a Tatagatha Samma Samubuddha can understand.
Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

Kamma is only one of the five Niyamas. Five Niyama's are Citta, Dhamma, Utu, Biju, and Kamma. The operation of Kamma is hard to understand in certainty.
If Arhant does not exhaust of all his Kamma in this life all residual Kamma become non-operative.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html

The suttas (SN 12.37) say [the results of] old kamma are to be felt [as feelings] & not identified with (not acted upon). This will dissolve the results of old kamma. This is why the suttas (AN 6.63) say the Noble Eightfold Path destroys/ends kamma.
As for Moggallāna, according to mythology, he was attacked because he made the Jain religion look bad when he reported Jain followers had poor rebirth. This is just a worldly matter and unrelated to any kamma of Moggallāna because, as an Arahant, Moggallāna would not have identified with any past actions & present painful feelings & therefore would not have suffered when he was attacked.
Many people hated the Buddha & wanted to kill him. That people hated the Buddha is not related to the Buddha's kamma. The Buddha has no "kamma" in the ordinary sense of the word.
MN 117 explains the ordinary meaning of "kamma" is connected to "asava" ("defilements" ) and "acquisitions" ("upadhi"; "attachment"). Arahants are free from "acquisition" thus are free from "kamma".

I believe that beings have the choice to act or not act on one's bad karma.
It seems like a good idea and safest to assume that the consequences of one's bad karma will necessarily be severe.

I edited the answer and it reads: "I believe that beings have the choice to act or not act on one's bad karma.". I am doubtful that free will exists though (by "free will" I mean decision-making that is uninfluenced by any conditions.) but I do believe that a being's bad karma does not force other beings to do bad-action.

In short one can say that at some point it became determined that he would experience assault.
If a car is on a course of collision, the eventuality of collision at some point becomes inevitable due to the circumstances like ìt's velocity.
Analogically events become determined for this or that being due to the prior development of circumstances.


text:
Permission of parents to be a Monk
I already know this much    https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/35802/17220
Still ,there is a particular case where ,I have no experience/knowledge which is below.
Person with 27 yrs. of age and above. Parents are alive. No responsibility over Person. Person is having exemplary character & is unmarried. Person is unsatisfied by any meditation center , monastery , ashram , yogi etc. ,so want to meditate alone in forest alongside other *religious meditators. Parents are not ready to accept buddha or buddha's teachings for their child cause they think that it(buddhism) is only to destroy householdness. It tears down parents if person flees away to forest or even tries to do so.
Update
Under these circumstances, is permission required ,if yes ,then how to convince parents.
Note:: 'To be a monk' means 'to go forth to be' ::
detached one , beyond all sense of his own name and form. Without any existence of I, my or mine. Not to grieve if his name and form entity were to decay and deteriorate.

FAQ’s about a monk may give inspirations.

Another related discussion: Q&A Permission of your parents in your renunciation

This rule is put in place because joining a monastic order (like any thing else one does in life) is a karmic act, and one should strive not to do harm. The idea that a child might disappear into a monastic order, never accomplishing any of the 'normal' things that parents expect of children — gainful employment, grandchildren, social status or respect, or any of the other hallmarks of worldly 'success' — can be frightening and disturbing to a parent. One is asked to seek parent's permission so that one does not enter monastic life leaving a cloud of fear and resentment in one's wake. It's an act of compassion for parents and the world they live in.

Person is unsatisfied by any meditation center , monastery , ashram , yogi etc. ,so want to meditate alone in forest alongside other *religious meditators.

Then he isn't immediately seeking an ordination as that would usually entail integrating into an existing group for which such an allowance is to be obtained.
I hope the person figures out a good solution ensuring a comfortable & safe abiding; not subjecting themselves to unnecessary hardship and stress.
It is going to be difficult to be a yogi without ordination because going forth in the dispensation of Buddha Gotama without a formal ordination is very uncommon. As it is, it is often asked of one to complete a trial period before being given a formal going forth which is like a meal ticket to an extent.
Imo a yogi without formal association is more likely to be assumed to be an outcast holding wrong views, unable to get along with 'the contemporary masters'. Therefore it will be difficult lest one makes a living recycling stuff or otherwise gets the money.

How about lay people without formal association? Without Name and face? How are they assumed?

@SamanaJohann I don't know about other countries ,but in India/Nepal :: if person is financially poor ,he/she is considered to be lower caste by 'people following caste system' and an idiot by others. If person is powerful or rich , no objections/obligations against/to such person in public will be made. Only 1 in 1lakh would respect such person in India/Nepal.

So is it mostly under Brahmans in India, Europe US and everywhere: But what is really an outcast, Brahman @TempoItan ? Vasala Sutta: Discourse on Outcasts Geatings from an "Outcast"

@SamanaJohann this false behaviour/thinking is of all upper-castes towards such lay person. I know this story of outcast; just gave situation in India. Moreover ,I don't call anyone(even if buddha suggested to brahmin) as an outcast ... I call them more Ignorant than me ...cause... at some point ,I was also more Ignorant than anyone else that's why I have not attained Nibbana till now. Nice talk.÷)

It's good to know right and wrong, good to reflect for oneself and strive for beyond and encourage others toward the Noble Domain, Brahman @TempoItan . Not is it, that a real Brahman should considered equal anyway and sacrifices upwardly is necessary for escape the dusty life in households.

Nepalese consider mother even higher as heaven, Brahma, already. But that's the way of communisms ideals applied in common sociaty, pulling each other down, as a matter of biased opposite.

@SamanaJohann Please , I request not to call me brahman. Because Buddha ,in dhammapada says, brahman is Buddha. I am not buddha ,just an ignorant one and don't consider anybody(including youself) as an outcast. We all are same Untill enlightenment and will be same post enlightenment... because even a small amount of ignorance is responsible to put in endless cycle of suffering.

Brahman is an adressing for a person from good family and stand. The Buddha didn't avoid but used this adressing also for Brahmans and their sons in common societies. No, nobody is equal another, but some have reached the stream, and some finished the task. Only Arahats can therefor be called equal in their qualities, end even they respect the difference between beings. The is no refuge if doing such toward equality but just stagnation.

Equality on basis of ,"Ignorance is still present" without consideration of ,"Next Birth". Within this birth, Untill state of no-ignorance is reached ,we are equal. Post enlightenment , as new birth within remaining age of this birth, they will be same. I haven't met buddha or Arhant ,so can't tell what they respect & what not but as far as ,'I have seen sages' ,they treat everyone as equal--without any respect/disrespect(a worldly concern) towards anyone.

@SamanaJohann  these sages were not enlightened ,this, they themselves accepted so might be I am wrong ,still above is what's present within deeps of my mind about Arhant. Thanks for guidance & appreciation.

I assume that lay people can go forth without ordination and are to that extent Bhikkhus like Ven Pukkusati.

It is possible to find a monestary that will let that slide. Some are more flexable and take the rules as guidelines instead of law to be followed rigidly, not out of laziness but out of wise practicality and out of an attempt at a sense of what the Buddha might do in today's times.
Also relentlessness in your dedication to break into the monkhood is often a help as they like to  know you are serious.

Exactly , it is possible to find a friend that will help in letting this slide. Still ,tears won't stop .what to do now?how to make parents ready?cause there would be no further contact after going for deep meditation.Should one proceed like Gautama & mahaveera jain before enlightenment. If one tries to do so , it tears down parents.

Wow, no furthur contact forever? You know, monks can go see their parents and even their spouse and kids but when in deep training it is obviously frowned upon. Have you been to any 10 day(or more) meditation retreats first? Have you given any thought to becoming an Anagarika?

Nope , remember ,monk - noble word ,so, noble behaviour (1st characterstic :: same behaviour to All). So , no spouse , no child , no parent . One will be called a monk ... please refer Verse 367 , Chapter 25 ,dhammapada .

Noble behavior does not mean  having  extreme views. The Monastic code allows you to visit your parents. Do you believe your mind will never be able to be vigilant and undistracted around your parents? Letting go of your parents doesn't mean you reject them, it means you stop attaching to them.  Love is not attatchment.

I suggest being around noble friends at monestaries for awhile and listening to them before ordaining. Ask them what the process was like for them and if they have any advice. I think most likely they will respect such questions and think you are a wise student. Whatever you are going through they are likely to relate as they were where you are at one time.

What does ,"having extreme views" mean for a Noble one? Noble Behaviour comes first then Noble Word is given to such warrior. In question ,"to be a monk" means  ,"to go forth to be a detached one" .After one becomes a detached-one , Monk is used in front of that  mighty warrior's name.

Problem is ,I couldn't find *Noble Friend .Well ,whatever the case is ... Ok! Thanks for advice.

It tears down parents if person flees away to forest or even tries to do so.
It seems person is having very strong bond/attachment with h-is/er caring parents.
Parents are not ready to accept buddha or buddha's teachings for their child cause they think that it(buddhism) is only to destroy householdness.
That's an obvious reaction from parents who have not been established in dhamma or they are established but worry about person's capability. Even buddha used to question, when his disciple/s want to go to dangerous/full-of-dukkha places to preach like with the case of 'poorna'.
Moral:: You will have to prove in front of them that you are worthy of independent homelessness.
Under these circumstances, is permission required ,if yes ,then how to convince parents.
Surely, there is a way for someone aspiring to be established on Noble 8 fold path, a 'middle path'.
If parents are very caring, person might start by bearing his own responsibility first, slowly-slowly increasing independent-meditation-time, slowly-slowly showing parents about his/her calibur of asceticness and decision making capability.
Wait for the right time, start reducing any communication-gap among relation.
No caring parent wants to harm his/her child or to be a cause for any harm. It's just the worriness about safety that they pretend to act as a barrier. Understanding them from their perspective will enable person to see/feel them as Helpers in person's decision.
If parents are not so caring, then tears might be out of society-fear but such perception requires one to be very hard-hearted.
In this case, person must make his stand in society first. Person should start by bearing his own responsibility first••• same-as-before ••• decision making capability, ultimately leading him/her to win over everyone's ego.
Wait for the right time, start reducing any communication-gap among relation and society.
With right time and right understanding, person will surely be able to take his/her decision of independent-meditation(asceticness).


text:
Is there any way one can be a Monk without a teacher in India/Nepal?
Nowadays, it can be seen that instead of doing meditation people are focusing on rectifying outside world. Some of such people call themselves a saint, sanyaasi, monk, swami, mahaguru (great teacher), sadguru(teacher of all), etc.
But it can be easily detected that they are not worthy of such noble words. If someone is unsatisfied in one way or other and is not ready to compromise in any way, can that person be a "self inspired meditator" to be an Arahant?
Remember Buddha's last words: "Atta Hi Attano Natho" (You are your own master), in fact this is what our mind does.
Is it possible to live an ascetic life in India/Nepal and meditate to one's heart's contents?
Any suggestions of such place in India/Nepal? (That place must be silent, as in pin-drop-silence).
This question has 2 parts:
1) Possibility of being a SELF - Meditator/Bhikkhu.
2) Silent place/ashram/Monastery in India/Nepal to practice Self-Meditation by being a monk without teacher, other than core teachings of Buddha (Means without teacher-student criteria)?
Contact me at tempoit1@gmail.com to have discussion/advice in private (if you don't want to answer in public).

Remember buddha's last words :: Atto Na Attanno Natho ~ You are your own teacher, infact this is what our Mind does.

It's important to see the Buddha's full paragraph because one cannot solely and entirely be one's own teacher without His Teaching:

Therefore, Ānanda, live with yourself as an island, yourself as a refuge, with no other refuge, with the Teaching as an island, the Teaching as a refuge, with no other refuge. And how, Ānanda, does a monk live with himself as an island, himself as a refuge, with no other refuge, with the Teaching as an island, the Teaching as a refuge, with no other refuge?
Here, Ānanda, a monk dwells contemplating the nature of the body in the body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world; he dwells contemplating the nature of feelings in feelings, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world; he dwells contemplating the nature of the mind in the mind, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world; he dwells contemplating the nature of things in various things, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world... ~~ DN 16 ~~

So while it'd be helpful to have a knowledgeable and virtuous teacher who can coach/advise/correct you along your path, but if you're not able to find one who's truly knowledgeable and truly virtuous, it's totally legit. to go solo provided that you remember to cultivate the Path in both theory and in practice. Use great online resources like accesstoinsight.org, suttacentral.net, themindingcentre.org for the theoretical aspect and observe precepts/practice meditation for the practice side. Remember, one is a monk not because he shaves his head, wears an orange robe, and stays inside a monastery, but because he observes the Vinaya with its 227 rules and seriously cultivate Samadhi and Panna, just like you can't call someone a martial artist because he wears a gi and a black belt, but because you see him walking out of the ring alive and on his own two feet.

Yup! I know that . That's why at last ,in question, I wrote ," to practice Self-Meditation by being a Monk without teacher other than Core Teachings of Buddha". Also , it can be noticed that ," Atto Na Attanno Natho" in itself is complete as ,even if one is a student of Supreme teacher like buddha , s/he will only learn when s/he wants to -- here also one part of s/he Mind teaches another part . That's why ,Mind is it's own Master ,No-one else. Thanks for resource websites.

No need any teacher
Don't become anything.(Monk,etc)
Only need awareness. Choiceless awareness .find out
What is awareness?
What is choiceless awareness?
Indian monk making money from faith.
Indian monk is fake.
Monk  making money  our ignorance .
Search " Ram Rahim ", nimal baba  " indian fake monk
Indian any monk making money from our ignorance..
I am indian so i knew it.

Fake monks :: can be anyone ,not restricted to India. Choiceless Awareness :: It's a type of behaviour that can either be done/applied by enlightened one or by residing alongside enlightened one. For others ,meditation is needed.

Choiceless awareness:: "what is " you are greedy. Aware  you are greedy. You are feeling hate. Aware you are hate feeling.  Don't  resistance

Question is not about type of awareness. It's about possibility of practicing self-meditation & asceticness(monkhoodness) in India/Nepal without any teacher.

No need any teacher

Silent Place(forest/mountain ashram/monastery) where such practice can be done by strictly maintaining 5 buddhist Percepts(Sheela) without anyone's disturbance ??

No need silent place. Only need mindfulness  or awareness.  Aware these moment. Awareness great meditation

Hmm, thanks for advice.

I am interested in this topic but i can't answer based on texts nor give locations.
I can say that it seems to me that most gurus just want to get along and not step on eachothers toes. I've see this play out in public and in personal interaction. This benefits everyone involved in that it avoids conflict.
If you are self learned, capable of thinking, reading and writing people might see you as an op sec threat for this whole arrangement more so than a random person coming to learn enlightenments.
Therefore if you really want to be self-learned and autonomous then don't expect to be popular and enjoying the vast support of established structures neither from the yogis nor buddhists. I think there are these options id consider;
* ordain where people just don't care and do your own thing
* somehow get your own funding, a cave or some property
* be homeless, pick bottles, scrap metal or whatnot
I think more and more people will find themselves in these circumstances and it is probably going to be quite difficult to build these places and even harder to maintain as a place conducive to legit growth. Thus they will probably not be a free for all and those same elements of op sec will come into play hopefully based on right views and not weakness & insecurity. It will essentially be perceived as just another Buddhist sect or an organization.

Agree with you in a lot of context .Ordain where no-one cares :: Correct. Get your own funding :: FALSE .Be Homeless :: Correct. Funding is not required , funding increases EGO. Cave is of nature & for everyone ,so no right of occupying cave otherwise it would not be homelessness .I know few such places but people from other sect residing there beacomes greatest distraction.

Monks are allowed to live in a cave or under a cliff, latter is considered a dhutanga. If you think you can do without then power to you but talk is cheap.

Oh! I never said that I wanna/going to do this. Also , What I meant was :: One can live in cave or under a cliff but can never be owner or claimer of that cave/cliff through an organization or by self.

In the mahavagga Ven Pilindavakkha has a cave cleared out to make a dwelling place ie https://books.google.no/books?id=1Uv8AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=vinaya+cave&source=bl&ots=SkptrjeQKr&sig=ACfU3U3asIbVMz4Bwdj2ZnJmpinO1s3LGQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjN3YGjudPlAhWN0KYKHSdJDrkQ6AEwD3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=vinaya%20cave&f=false

Ok i get it but for practical purposes you should make sure one legally occupies a dwelling. Not self argumentation doesn t work very well with law enforcement.

Hmm , thanks for advice.

Someone always teaches us. It could be from a book, from online videos or from Buddhist forum Q&A but I suppose you mean a one on one teacher that guides you in person.
It's possible to practice in harmony with a monk without a one on one teacher but a good teacher is likely to pinpoint certain subtle problems you are having far more effectively than a book generalized at a group of readers.
Monks aren't the only ones who can beg in a society although there are norms, traditions and beliefs between lay supporters and monks  that may  cause adversity for the ascetic that hasn't ordained but adversity handled wisely can be a teaching in itself.

Saint/Sanyasi/Mahatma/Mahapurush/Monk/Bhikkhu/Anagaami... are Noble words , not meant for anyone following any tradition. Hmm, Thanks for your ideology.

What do you mean? One doesn't have to follow any idea  nessasarily to become an anagami? People can enter stream entry and attain nirvana without ever hearing the ideas of the Buddha? I agree with that.

That's What India is famous for : Self-Enlightenment , even Gautama The Buddha was a Samyak Sambuddha , a Self-Enlightened one without any teacher. What I meant was ,"noble words aren't for just anyone following any belief/tradition without noble behaviour/karma ".

I'm sorry I am just trying to understand, Are you saying,  "noble words are meant for  noble behavior"? I am really confused at how  following beliefs and traditions fits in there.

Yup! Noble words like saint/Arhant  are meant for noble behaviour only.Even if person coming from any tradition/belief. Like Mahaveera Jain , Lord Buddha :: Both might had some different teaching method ,still same behaviour ;even their appearence(physical outlook) was same after they claimed enlightenment.

Answer to Q1:
No need to move to India / Nepal. The place you are right now is the best place to start the journey. There are two things

Move to a forest, thinking it will help to focus
Move to forest or temple after realising that there's no meaning in this life. He moves to forest to increase the speed of getting enlightenment but not to run from the current life.

Majority of the people do the first thing, it's like driving in a play ground, which will cause many accidents when you drive it in the high way. So just to practice you may find a calm place, but running away from day to day life doesn't make sense.
Leaving the current life to a place where you can attend more on attaining Nibbana is the second point. But to do that you might first need to understand one thing. At least you must understand the problem of life.
So my advise is first find the correct dhamma. Don't try to follow a teacher. Keep in mind Dhamma is the only teacher. But today's dhamma is misinterpreted by many people who says that they are teachers. There are few in this forum as well.
With Metta..!

If "it is easily detectable", then you must be able to know what's  wrong in their livelihood, in this case just try to live without doing those mistakes.
If by 'ascetic' you mean to live like how gautama lived after leaving both his teachers, then whichever country you are in whether india or nepal or whatever,  you don't  need to ask anyone cause wherever you are,  I hope your country would've  lot of villages,  forests,  mountains etc.
Pin-drop silent place is within, not outside.
Life is not so easy-going.  If you would've  been matured enough for independent meditation, you wouldn't  be here on internet asking strangers.
Sticking to questions only,  be matured enough to live alone and not to look back,  live like an old, weak man to ignore every distraction and remain focused on meditation, don't  look for food, clothes etc.
From Google maps,  India/Nepal is a vast land of forests,  mountains,  himalayas etc. If you are truely at a level of gautama,  don't  fear from this initial Mara which is pushing you to seek for a Silent&Helping place outside.


text:
Did the Buddha ever say excessive meditation is bad?
I believe that I remember once reading that the Buddha abandoned excessive meditation. Is this true?

The question is very broad in it's current format - do you have any recollection of where in the Tipitaka (Pali canon) it's mentioned? Are you sure you are not thinking of the ascetic practices that the Buddha did before finding the right path?

Maybe it was at the time before his enlightenment yes

the buddha says that ''with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration.''
https://suttacentral.net/mn19/en/bodhi
same thing with ''excessive energy'' https://suttacentral.net/mn128/en/sujato
he says meditation must be ''made much of''
https://suttacentral.net/arv12/en/anandajoti

Ok thanks a lot

MN8 indicates that blissful meditation is incomplete on its own:

mn8: It’s possible that some mendicant, with the giving up of pleasure and pain, and the ending of former happiness and sadness, might enter and remain in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness. They might think they’re practicing self-effacement. But in the training of the noble one these are not called ‘self-effacement’; they’re called ‘blissful meditations in the present life’.

The Buddha goes on to explain that self-effacement is important as well:

mn8: Now, Cunda, you should work on self-effacement in each of the following ways.
mn8: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’  ...

The exposition is lengthy, but quite clear. Practice goes beyond meditation.

Ok thanks for that


text:
what separates us from our identity to another person
I am indian.
You are Americans .
Our identity  divide human beings?
I am hindu.
You are muslim.
Our identity divide human beings?
I am buddhist monk.
I am ordinary human.
I am hindu.
I am muslim.
Hindu  hates Muslim  beacuse   i am hindu .
Muslim hate hindu  beacuse you are muslim.
Indian hate pakistan beacuse I am indian.
Pakistan hate indian beacuse he is pakistan.
Every one carry identity.
Identity create conflict
Conflict create war

Untill Enlightenment ,we all are same ,i.e., "Children of Thirst & Ego , Served by Crave , having Nationality of 12 Sense-Bases & having Delusions of Permanence & Annihilation ". Can be said ,till enlightenment ,only Ignorance is our identity in various Combinations .Post enlightenment ,no-self ,no-identity ... ,no-ignorance.

Book answer..No need ..buddhism answer no need....Only need your experience

Hindu hates Muslim beacuse i am hindu .
Muslim hate hindu beacuse you are muslim.
Indian hate pakistan beacuse I am indian.
Pakistan hate indian beacuse he is pakistan.
Every one carry identity.
Identity create conflict

Identity doesn't create conflict, clinging to a sense of self-identity does. It's a subtle difference, but it's an important difference nonetheless. If it was true that "identity creates conflict", there would be absolutely zero Hindu who loves Muslims, zero Muslim who loves Hindus, zero Indian who loves Pakistanis, etc. But quite the contrary, any "self-identified" Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, etc. who sincerely and honestly practices their faith would treat one another like brothers and sisters in the same family.

I think. No need any identity.

What separates us from identifying with another person?

The fear of the unknown, dosa(fear) and avija(not knowing).
The jealous comparing mind that is  lobha(greed).
Nothing in actuality admits that anything is separate.
What separates us is our belief and perception that we are separate.

You are right. Our belief and perception separate human beings

The scriptures teach conflict comes from craving, as follows:

Craving is a cause of seeking. Seeking is a cause of gaining material
  possessions. Gaining material possessions is a cause of assessing. Assessing is a cause of desire and lust. Desire and lust is a cause of
  attachment. Attachment is a cause of possessiveness. Possessiveness is
  a cause of stinginess. Stinginess is a cause of safeguarding. Owing to
  safeguarding, many bad, unskillful things come to be: taking up the
  rod and the sword, quarrels, arguments, and fights, accusations,
  divisive speech and lies.

Therefore, it is immoral craving or, occasionally, wholesome desire, that separates people. For example:

Indians struggle to understand Buddhism (because the the celibate Buddha & his Arahant disciples probably drained India of enlightenment genetics) so Buddhists must be patient with Indians. This gives rise to identity due to hope.
Americans engage in imperialism, destroy many nations & murder many people so humane people don't appreciate them. This gives rise to identity due to hoping.
Muslims can be fundamentalists & imperialists so Hindus are apprehensive of them. This gives rise to identity due to worry.
Buddhist monks have to twist the Dhamma into mundane dhamma so ordinary person (puthujjana) feels they are a Buddhist. This gives rise to identity due to hoping.
Hindu hates Muslim because (Turkic covert) Muslim has history of violence & conquering. This gives rise to identity due to wishing.
Indian hate Pakistan because Wasim Akram was better at cricket than Sourav Ganguly and because Benazir Bhutto was better looking than Indira Gandhi. This gives rise to identity due to craving.

Therefore conflict & division comes from craving & desire, both wholesome & unwholesome. And then craving & desire gives rise to identity.

No india,No pakistan,No america , no earth
No hindu, no Muslim,No buddhism ,No  human beings
No identity!
No division!
No conflict!
No war
Now question  is
How to make identity

No earth , no planet , no human being .Earth ,planet ,human being is also an identity & taken from book not experience. Experience :::::: We all are just animals feeding each other ,including earth too(it eats dead ones, ashes).

You are right bro.. I edit my answer  no human and no earth..

Thanks  for "no earth " and "human"