text:
What is the difference between anger and frustration?
Many times in the suttas the monks are said to be frustrated, but the word anger is never used.. what is the difference?
My short thought is - anger is seeing wrong speech or action, and saying 'why are you acting this way - it hurts the other', whilst frustration is 'why are you acting this way - it hurts you'.
Any thoughts on this from respectable sources?

Which word is translated as "frustrated" (or which translation of which sutta includes that word)?

I cannot give you a definitive Buddhist answer but I can give you one that is grounded in modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, which is why I am posting in comments. Anger, or any other extreme disturbance occurswhen we take our preferences & values, which are often completely fine, & turn them into MUSTS & SHOULDS. We essentially play Ruler of the universe. With frustration, sadness, disappointment etc. it's just a (strong) preference, but we recognize that reality is there that might block our goals. These emotions are still negative in tone so they act as an appropriate feedback system.

By the way, when having an "extreme" emotion, that is for ex: Anger, depression, irrational jealousy, shame, guilt etc. we almost always feel frustrated because our desires, goals & preferences have been thwarted. So in anger we not only think we're ruler of the universe because we set unempirical standards (Where's the evidence that no one must steal, commit murder etc?), but we also feel frustrated becauses of the impediment. If we only stick to our preferences without our rigid demand, we would only feel frustrated. It's frustration that propels humans to act eith vigor & initiate change.

In suttas, monks (bhikkhus) are exalted, delighted, overjoyed etc at Buddha's words, not frustrated.

Frustration might be when one doesn't find an object for ones anger letting flow out

If I remember correctly my Abhidharma lectures, both anger and frustration are the types of aversion. Anger is how aversion manifests when you feel that you are stronger than the object of your aversion, while frustration is when you feel weaker than the object/cause of aversion.

To quote Yvan Amar: "Peace is happiness at rest. Happiness is peace in motion"...
I'd say "Frustration is resistance at rest. Anger is resistance in motion". With resistance always coming from attachment.
I agree with Ted Wrigley in a previous answer, monastics (and most people actively in a spiritual path) first master the outward facing (anger). The inward facing (frustration) takes much more work and dedication.

Speaking from a kind of buddhist perspective on psychology, anger and frustration represent emotional reactions to different types of attachments.
Anger is usually a response to a perceived external injury to an identity-object. In other words, one has an identity attachment to something — be it one's self, a loved one, a favorite book or tool or rug, etc — and one perceives that another person or thing has caused insult or injury to it. Someone sits in your favorite chair and the chair leg breaks; anger arises at that someone because they ostensibly 'caused' the loss of that attached identity.
Frustration, by contrast, is usually a response to a perceived obstacle. In other words, one has an identity attachment to a goal, desire, or achievement, and one becomes frustrated that it is not easily or immediately achieved. One wants to be a concert pianist, but discovers that the dexterity required is just out of their reach; frustration arises at the inability to achieve the attached goal.
It would make sense that monastics would be more prone to frustration than anger. They are instructed early to release attachments to any identity-objects, so they will be less prone to react to insult or injury to that which they have already determined to let go of. But releasing attachments to goals and aspirations is a more difficult project, particularly early on when monks have explicitly set the goal of monastic attainment. Frustration at one's failure to grasp the principles of the faith would be a normal occurrence in a monastic setting.

Anger (kodho) arises out of the cravings of identity view and is described as:

AN7.64:10.1: An angry person kills with body or speech; overcome with anger, they lose their wealth.

Frustration (bhāgī assa) arises out of lack of progress:

AN4.77:1.1: “Mendicants, these four things are unthinkable. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated. What four? The scope of the Buddhas … The scope of one in absorption … The results of deeds … Speculation about the world …

They are both unskillful, but frustration is milder in that one may be frustrated in practice towards a noble goal. Anger, on the other hand should be killed:

SN2.3:3.5: The noble ones praise the slaying of anger, for when it’s incinerated there is no sorrow.”

I think what you meant by anger is dvesha. And I think what you meant by frustration is sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress.
In buddhism dvesha is a reason which results frustration.  I'll explain this in detail.
Below is a quote from Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta.

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From
  fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From
  consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From
  name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From
  the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From
  contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a
  requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite
  condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a
  requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite
  condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging
  & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into
  play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress &
  suffering. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death,
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is
  the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

Above quote clearly shows that Ignorance causes the frustration.
What's ignorance? Most people simply says that it's not knowing of 4 noble truth. But let's try to get another view of this from the cannon.

Not knowing the gratification (assada), the danger (adinava) and how to
  escape from (nissarana) the five aggregates (rupa, vedana, sangna, sankara, vingnana) is called Avidya (ignorance)

Above is my translation of Majjhima Nikaya-3 -> Avijja vagga -> Patama Assada Sutta (Sorry I couldn't find any english reference on this, if any one found let me know) in Sinhala/Pali Cannon. And I'm not a professional translator, excuse me for any concerns with my words here. These definitions are not popular Dhamma, but if you look closely this is clearly explained in many places in cannon. I've added quote from Cula-sihanada Sutta at the end of the answer for anyone interested to have a look
So by now we have evidences to say frustration is caused by ignorance and ignorance is the fact that not knowing assada, adinava and nissarana of five aggregates. And also we know that the path to Nivana is uprooting avijja (ignorance). Now let's see the definition of Ultimate (Nivana) from another angle.
Below is a quote from Asaṅkhata Saṁyutta  (SN 43) which gives the definition of Nivana (ultimate)

The Blessed One said, “Which, monks, is the ultimate? Whatever is the
  ending of passion, the ending of aversion, the ending of delusion:
  This is called the ultimate.

Here aversion means dvesha. One point to highlight is that we are talking about the same thing but in different angles.
So ignorance is the main cause, uprooting ignorance -> results in Nivana. And by ending passion, aversion and delusion also results in Nivana. In the absence of these passion, aversion and delusion the ignorance get uprooted. And these passion, aversion and delusion are risen as a result of not knowing the assada, adinava and nissarana of the five aggregates. And due to this unknown we continue the paticcasamuppada cycle which starts with ignorance (dvesha=anger is one of the requisite condition type) and results in death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress..
(Same thing happens with all passion, aversion and delusion. I won't talk about these in detail here)
(Knowing assada, adinava and nissarana of five aggregates means understanding the four noble truth.)
So, simple answer to your question is,
Anger (dvesha) causes to results in frustration.

Below is quote from Cula-sihanada Sutta just for the reference. And don't forget to read the foot-note 6 of the below quote

"Any recluses or brahmans who do not understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger and
  the escape6 in the case of these two views are affected by lust,
  affected by hate, affected by delusion, affected by craving, affected
  by clinging, without vision, given to favoring and opposing, and they
  delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are not freed from birth,
  aging and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair;
  they are not freed from suffering, I say.
"Any recluses or brahmans who understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger and the
  escape in the case of these two views are without lust, without hate,
  without delusion, without craving, without clinging, with vision, not
  given to favoring and opposing, and they do not delight in and enjoy
  proliferation. They are freed from birth, aging and death, from
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; they are freed from
  suffering, I say. [66]


text:
If there is no literal rebirth, why have samvega (a sense of urgency)
Some people believe in rebirth after this life because (for them) it seems that the suttas claim literal rebirth.
And it somewhat makes sense because in some passages it'd be harder to believe in "just" mental birth, especially here:
"With the break-up of the body, re-appeared in..." (difficult here ro believe that body means the "body" of the 5 aggregates)
& here:

"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.
  “Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination.

SN 56.11

Elsewhere I read that birth (jati) means birth in a particular realm (mind dwelling), which is caused by a sense of "I", and this in turn is caused by craving & the underlying asavas, but even if this is true (& per the sutta it arguably is), Why have samvega (sense of urgency that death may strike) without believe in literal rebirth
Why not live a normal life? This may sound provocative, but it really should not. Surely one can reply "because suffering", but most people living their live imperfectly okay, with some suffering here & there, but still find meaning & go through live with all its ups & downs.
With warm wishes.

Good question. If we don't believe in any kind of rebirth then, for the reasons you give, I'm not sure why we should feel any urgency, Indeed, I struggle to see the point of the practice if death wipes the slate clean. But does it? is this not just a speculative view among a subset of Buddhists? .

Some traditions don't even have a universal teaching that is sure about this (re)-birth thing. Personally, I like Buddhasas down-to-earth "empirical" approach, which is also backed up with some suttas, but then surprisingly contradicted by other suttas. Dhammadhatu's approach too seems very solid because like Buddhadasa's, it's backed up, although we still must be crirical of personal bias (& of English Text interpretations)

Yes - there's a lot of interpretation going on.  .

@Val, I've yet to see any teacher from any Buddhist tradition who says outright that rebirth exclusively solely means momentary mental rebirth. If any, some teacher only add momentary rebirth as an extra interpretation in addition to the traditional physical rebirth explicitly spelled out by the Buddha. But if you're able to find any teacher who claims the opposite, we're all ears!

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa and Ajahn Chah did not really teach literal rebirth. The former I'm pretty sure, the latter not so much.

@Val, but as already asked, you have to provide sources to prove they only exclusively teach momentary mental rebirth and reject physical rebirth. If no outright rejection, you cannot automatically assume they reject the traditional teaching of physical rebirth.

Why have samvega (sense of urgency that death may strike) without believe in literal rebirth?
You could argue it both ways. Why have sense of urgency if you will be reborn? On the other hand - Why have sense of urgency if you're not going anywhere?
Dharma is called "Safe Bet". Whether there is literal rebirth or not, Liberation is deathless. Whether there is literal rebirth or not, dying without Liberation is scary - because either you may go to some strange inhuman worlds, or you disappear forever.
Hence the sense of urgency to attain Liberation.

To answer your first paragraph: It's about certainty. Humans don't know where they will end up, so they choose to be moral & hope for a reward in the afterlife. If I am not going anywhere (suppose this is the materialistic view that with the death of our body, there is no more conscioussness), we can reflect on our death to value it/our time/the people around more, but I hardly see any urgency to specifically attain nibbana. Dying without liberation is not necessarily scary. It's not event that disturb us but our thinking about it. There are unenlightened people who died in equanimity & peace

Exactly. And the Safe Bet gives that certainty.

I edited my comment. The part about "events" in my comment I find to be crucial. If we don't believe in rebirth, we just have our ordinary life (not meant condescendingly) with our everyday hassles, which includes the goods, the bads & the neutrals. If we do believe in rebirth, nibbana now makes sense because we won't be born again in this samsaric world due to us having reached the unconditioned. I might go of a tangent but it's about the existential angst you could say. Why is samvega then important? Why be dilligent if there is no rebirth?

I have spoken :)

A question like this calls for a certain amount of philosophizing, so forgive me if I reach past traditional teachings for a moment.
It seems to me that people tend to approach the question of karma and rebirth from too solipsistic a perspective, thinking of it only in terms of the individual (egoic) self. I understand the motivation behind that: if I feel misery I tend to think of it as my misery, and so I tend to seek out my salvation. It's a natural association in the mind.
But karma strikes me as transpersonal: as something that moves through the egoic self, not something affixed to the egoic self. I mean, if we look at someone we might characterize as cruel — be it an abusive spouse or a brutal dictator — what we mean by 'cruelty' is that this person has attachments that drive him/her to inflict misery on others. That cruelty pervades the space around h'er, spreading outward, and finds resonances with the people and things it encounters. One can say the same about any strong attachment. It isn't merely a question of misalignment with reality that an attachment implies, but also a question of how that misalignment reflects back on the reality it is misaligned with. Like throwing a stone into a pond, an attachment sends ripples out in waves long after it has disappeared from sight.
The upshot is that we do not merely create 'mind dwellings' for ourselves. We create mind dwellings and impose them on the world around us, implicitly demanding that everyone and everything around us share them. Someone who is angry and resentful creates asura loka and tries to draw others into it; someone who is fearful or depressed creates peta loka and tries to draw others into that; someone who behaves as an animal does creates... You get the idea. And when we create these mental realms and draw others into them, we create a resonance (an echo of those mental attachments) that extends beyond our reach in time and place. In effect, we recreate our egoic selves — our attachments, our cravings, our miseries — in others by imposing our mental realms on the world around us, and drawing those others into it.
In this sense, it isn't 'us' who reincarnate, it is these mental realms (egoic states) that reincarnate, reforming themselves in others because of the resonances we leave in our wake.
The dharma, then, becomes a tool for countering this karmic process. We release attachments so that we do not echo them outward into the world; we seek higher states to help absorb what dukkha is presented to us by the world. We do not pass on karma to others — neither making it on our own nor allowing it to pass through us — and so our egoic selves pass on into oblivion.

According to Buddhist cosmology (which is based on Hindu cosmology) rebirth as a human is special. It is only as a human you can contemplate "why not live a normal life", as the human realm is the only one on the wheel of rebirth from which buddhahood is attainable:

Rebirth as a Deva means you're too ecstatic to contemplate Nirvana
Rebirth as an Asura means you're too angry to contemplate Nirvana
Rebirth as an animal means you don't have the mental capacity to contemplate Nirvana
Rebirth as a Preta means you're too frustrated to contemplate Nirvana
Rebirth as a Naraka means you're too tortured to contemplate Nirvana

Only for human rebirth does Buddhism assert that one is reborn in this realm with vastly different physical endowments and moral natures because of a being's past karma. A rebirth in this realm is considered as fortunate because it offers an opportunity to attain nirvana and end the Saṃsāra cycle.

It is urgent because suffering is here and now, suffering is real.
You question is like saying " why should I feel urgency to jump out of a fire?" jump now! don't even count on death....

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Attention to itching makes me unable to focus on anything else
I am spending some time alone in a day (in solitude). During that alone time and during the rest of the day i am feeling itching and tingling. I can ignore both by just watching it as someone described in the below article about itching. However, both are really annoying and feels like i'm unable to focus on anything, as my focus then turn to the itch/tingling.
Reference: https://zenhabits.net/itchy/

Your itch is sent to help you practice. Imagine if the itch was lung cancer. .

Say with it. Perfect if mind likes to stay there, or doesn't it?

Here's the canonical answer:

In this way he dwells contemplating feelings in feelings internally,
or dwells contemplating feelings in feelings externally, or dwells
contemplating feelings in feelings [both] internally and externally;
or dwells contemplating in feelings [their] nature of arising, or
dwells contemplating in feelings [their]  nature of vanishing, or
dwells contemplating in feelings [their] nature of [both] arising and
vanishing.  Or else his mindfulness that ‘there are feelings’ is
established simply to the extent necessary for bare knowledge, for
repeated mindfulness. And he dwells independent, and does not cling to
anything in the world. Thus also, monks, a monk dwells contemplating
feelings in feelings. (Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, MN10 translated by Aggacitta Bhikkhu)

Take note though that feelings here does not refer to the itch, but how you feel about it.

This experience is quite normal. In addition to itching, there are many more bodily functions. One of the monks said that it is called Dathu Manasikara. Actually this is a sign of your progress in meditation according to him.
Do you see the itch come and go or it moves to some other place sometimes?

yes in watching itching/tingling they moves to another place specially itching or sometimes disappeared but i feels doubt to itch or not or i thinks like " why i should resist to itch while even kids do that" and i also thinks like " what you resist persists" and its really happening in this resistance to itch and tingling i think as before when i was not resisting the itches and tingling there was no problem at all but from when i am trying to resist itching/tingling by watching it,they really persisting and bullying me,feeling unfocused and sad ): sorry for my broken english.

Which means you are well advancing in your meditation. Find a good teacher who can guide you. Perhaps try Goenka meditation center assuming you are from India or Sri Laka.

In Chapter 10 of Mindfulness in Plain English, Bhante Gunaratana speaks of itches and other troublesome sensations, specifically in the context of meditation, saying “Watch it come up and watch it pass away. Don’t get involved.”
I often get itches during meditation, and I find that if I simply unattach from the sensation, not thinking about it, most itches go away fairly soon. A few are more insistent, and do not go away as easily; I have yet to find a solution for those.

i can tolerate these itches/tingling during meditation but my mind wants to do it in the rest of the day too,in the day time problem arising as the day time is too long to watch these itches/tingling ):

You can and should practice mindfulness of feelings [sensations]
You should also develop perception of drawbacks;

And what is the perception of drawbacks? It’s when a mendicant has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut, and reflects like this: ‘This body has much suffering and many drawbacks. For this body is beset with many kinds of affliction, such as the following. Diseases of the eye, inner ear, nose, tongue, body, head, outer ear, mouth, teeth, and lips. Cough, asthma, catarrh, inflammation, fever, stomach ache, fainting, dysentery, gastric pain, cholera, leprosy, boils, eczema, tuberculosis, epilepsy, herpes, itch, scabs, smallpox, scabies, hemorrhage, diabetes, piles, pimples, and ulcers. Afflictions stemming from disorders of bile, phlegm, wind, or their conjunction. Afflictions caused by change in weather, by not taking care of yourself, by overexertion, or as the result of past deeds. Cold, heat, hunger, thirst, defecation, and urination.’ And so they meditate observing drawbacks in this body. This is called the perception of drawbacks. https://suttacentral.net/an10.60/en/sujato

This condition has it's drawbacks but i think that it also has it's positives in that it can make one a bit more loathsome and serious.
I think in general one can replace loathsomeness by equanimity and endure the sensations. Afaik there is no trick or technique to it other than a comprehensive development of the faculties.
Also obv try to figure out what causes the itching and see if you can reduce it to a min.

I struggled with eczema and itching for many years.  I felt that watching the itch for as long as possible can be some kind of game.  Watch what feelings and sensations come up.  Sometimes my whole body would be going crazy, tingling, almost shaking that it was almost funny.  Then I would calmly walk up to a mirror and investigate that itch very very carefully.  My eczema almost disappeared this way.  I felt as though this helped train the mind in what was important and what was not.  Sometimes there might be a stray hair, sometimes a flake of loose skin or sometimes some inflamation.

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


text:
How many citta vithis are there in Abhidhamma?
I need to know;How many citta vithis are described there in Abhidhamma and what are they?(ie:chakkudwara citta vithi,manodwara citta vithi, etc..)

Bhavaṅga
The bhavaṅga citta, mentioned earlier, is the primary form of mind. It flows from conception to
death except when interrupted by a stimulus through one of the sense doors. When a stimulus
enters, consciousness becomes active, launching into a thought process (citta vīthi). Thought
processes have been analysed in great detail in the Abhidhamma.
A complete thought process, occurring through the physical sense doors, is made up of
seventeen thought moments (citta khaṇa). These are:
1) A bhavaṅga that flows by in a passive state when one of the five physical sense organs
comes in contact with its object (atīta bhavaṅga).
2) A bhavaṅga that vibrates for one thought moment (bhavaṅga calana).
3) A bhavaṅga that cuts off the flow (bhavaṅga upaccheda).
10
4) A citta that turns towards the object through the sense door that has been stimulated
(pañcadvāra-vajjana).
5) The appropriate sense consciousness; in the case of the eye, for example, eye
consciousness (cakkhu viññāṇa).
6) Next a thought moment—the sampaṭicchana citta—which has the function of
receiving the object.
7) When the object has been received another thought moment, called the santīraṇa citta,
arises, performing the function of investigating the object.
8) The act (kamma) itself, especially if it was a weighty one.
9–15) The object having been determined, the most important stage from an ethical
standpoint follows. This stage, called javana, consists of seven consecutive thought
moments all having an identical nature. It is at this stage that good or evil is done,
depending on whether the cittas have wholesome or unwholesome roots. Therefore,
these javana thought moments have roots and also produce new kamma.
17) Following the seventh javana the registering stage occurs, composed of two thought
moments called tadālambana. When the second registering citta has perished, the
bhavaṅga follows, flowing on until interrupted by another thought process.
http://103.242.110.22/theravadins/English-articles/abhidhamma-in-practice.pdf

Here this is a description of a citta vithi( a single citta vithi ), there are more citta vithis like this

Yes. For that, you have to read Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma

I edited your comment above, other people can't read a link to a file which exists on your local (Windows) file system.

According to the Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (page 151):
“According to the sense-doors, the six cognitive processes (vīthi) are:
(i) The process connected with the eye-door (cakkhhudvāravīthi)
(ii) The process connected with the ear-door (sotadvāravīthi)
(iii) The process connected with the nose-door (ghāndadvāravīthi)
(iv) The process connected with the tongue-door (jivhādvāravīthi)
(v) The process connected with the body-door (kāyadvāravīthi)
(vi) The process connected with the mind-door (manodvāravīthi)”
This is a simple answer to your question… but I am curious, why did you ask this question? Why is this important to you?

These are only dhvara citta vithis, there are more like maranasanna citta vithi etc...

Yes, you can add the absorption (jhāna) process, the attainment of cessation process (nirodhasamāpatti), the death and rebirth process, and the sainthood process. Lots of details in the book "Process of Consciousness and Matter" by Bhaddanta Dr. Rewata Dhamma that can be downloaded for free from the Pariyatti.org website.


text:
Nirvana and the six heavens in the 31 realms
In Buddhism there are six levels of heavens in the 31 different realms . These are ranged from the lowest heaven up to the highest heaven . Then , what is Nirvana ? ,  Is Nirvana the seventh heaven ? The ultimate heaven ? Is Nirvana the 32 th realm ? . If there are so many pleasures and happiness in the 6 heavens (in the 31 realms) , then what kind of pleasures and happiness we will find in Nirvana ?

For any realm one can abide and say, "I am here."
Not so Nibbana/Nirvana, which is the cessation of identity view.

MN1:124-146.23: nibbānaṃ nibbānato abhijānāti; ...
MN1:124-146.23: They directly know extinguishment as extinguishment. But they don’t identify with extinguishment, they don’t identify regarding extinguishment, they don’t identify as extinguishment, they don’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they don’t take pleasure in extinguishment

In a sense yes nirvana is the 7th heaven, but it is beyond the realms of form and formless. Nirvana only comes after you have overcomed 6 realm.
The other point you talked about 31 different realm within those 6. All suttas have talked about it, but according to my experience it is 32 different realms and adding nirvana to it, it becomes total 33 realm. Also, this is true when we compare it to our number of vertebra. We all have 33 vertebra. But don't take my words seriously until you experience it by yourself.


text:
Is it fine to learn Vipassana meditation online?
Is it essential to go to SN Goenka centre for 10 days to learn Vipassana? Or is it fine to learn Vipassana online?

The book Meditation in Plain English might be a good introduction, though of course no book can substitute for a qualified teacher and sangha.

Does this answer your question? Can one learn meditation on their own?

Doing an intensive course at a dedicated meditation centre is incomparably better than online learning, but doing an online course or something similar is actually better in my opinion as a first step.
Often when people come to our centre having never practiced or having practiced a different tradition, they spend quite a bit of time becoming accustomed to the practice and accepting it. They waste a lot of time doubting and fumbling, and given they often have a limited number of vacation days it often makes finishing a foundation course difficult.
Much of the doubt and fumbling is mitigated by online teachings - most people coming to our centre have little doubt and lots of practice based on static teachings they have found on the internet. Moreover, those meditators who have completed our online course (which just means they practiced at least an hour a day and we talked once a week, giving them new exercises weekly) veritably and invariably sail through the intensive course since they are very well prepared for it.
So, yes, online meditation is perfectly valid, but I think it serves better as a preparation, rather than a replacement, for intensive practice which is best done with a teacher at a centre.
You can check out https:/meditation.sirimangalo.org/ for our online course system. There are some testimonials you can read I think, but I can say myself the online courses have made a big difference in our community.

Going to a centre has the following advantages:

unburdens you  from responsibility
provide you with proper instructions and guidance

Household Responsibilities
When doing a course online you are not unburdened from responsibilities which might need your attention. This,

breaks your attention on meditation
creates fabrication which is avoided in a centre

Proper Guidance
In a 10 day course is intense. Generally in the oldern days courses were longer. So much instructions were packed into the 10 days. If you are doing a course online it might be easy that you might miss some crucial instruction or skip over something and there is nobody to check and correct you.
Though there are teachers who teach online now, it is always best to go to a centre for the 1st course and when you learn the technique in full then you can do it one your own.

I don't think one should put off starting the training until one gets the opportunity to learn from a teacher in person. That being said it's definitely good to get the guidance if the opportunity presents itself.
My advice is to keep it simple as in sticking to what is least confusing. Second advice is to inquire about the experiences of other people and doing your own experimentation. The third is to study the canon yourself because therein is a lot of guidance that is not generally taught on retreats or courses.

For learning Vipassana meditation as taught by S.N Goenka you need to learn it in a ten days course, and to be present. It requires a fully physical presence so...
May you be fully successful!

I have never been to a meditation retreat. All that I learned was reading books and watching Youtube videos by various monks. You can listen to the ten-day Goenka meditation by Goenka in youtube. Perhaps it is not a bad idea you familiarise yourself reading and listening to retreat set up before you undertake a real one or do a short retreat.
The great thing about attending a retreat is you can clarify your questions then and there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz7QHNvNFfA&list=PLPJVlVRVmhc4Z01fD57jbzycm9I6W054x

The Youtube videos are only evening disclosures. The meditation instructions are given separately during the day. They are not published as people may mispractice them and get unintended consequences.

I agree. Perhaps you can get a glimpse of what is going on in the retreat.


text:
Is buddha's paths corrupt as no one attains the goal nowadays? (or are they?)
Anyone reaching nirvana in recent years?
People practise buddhism for many years but no one achieves nirvana. No one reaches anātman (pali: anattā). The only theories Buddhism offers are anātman, nirvana, and the five aggregates, so my question is this: Is the Buddha's path corrupt, because no one achieves the goal?

I wonder why you suppose nobody reaches the goal, especially as the Buddha tells us we call all do this. I would suggest the question is based on a false premise. .

Good question, the popular buddhism is not the correct path to Nivana. That's the simplest answer.
There are many famous teachers (even in this forum) but they haven't achieved Nivana. Most of them have reached some Dhyana but its not aarya (noble) Dhayana. So they have misguided them self by the state of dhyana they have.
Keep looking if you have reasons you will find the correct dhamma. In next 10 years noble dhamma will come out.
With Metta..!

Since many do not talk about attainments it is difficult to ascertain who has reached Nirvana, but there those who have practised fully would have realised it. This is a conjecture on can reach by taking the 1st few steps one reaches certain milestones in the path.
If you consider more milestones than the final goal itself there would be many more people who have reacht it.
Some milestones one would encounter are as follows:

(Ekādasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan

(Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan
Ones own practise will reveal to you what as further one practices more milestones are reached.

Unsure of the reasoning behind your question...
Can we simply deduce that,  the way to grow a plant is false simply because we couldn't find a plant on the moon?

Is buddha's paths corrupt?
That's difficult to answer objectively. Are you referring to the path which is:

As preserved in the texts?
As embodied by successful followers or masters (perhaps aka the "noble" sangha)
As embodied by various other people you might point to?
As embodied by you?

No one reaches anātman (pali: anattā)
Sorry but I think that has ever been true by definition (and by nature) -- nibbana is anatta, having/being no self.
no one achieves the goal
I think the path itself is worth knowing and practising -- for example to make the cessation of suffering easier or more habitual, and to avoid the causes for its arising.
If the goal is the "greatest good" then the path which leads towards it is, I don't know, "better than nothing" as they say in English?
Complicated or lengthy to explain in detail but there are small realisations maybe like this one which seem to me to be significant:

So the absence of remorse is conditioned, but not being an existing thing, not having been constructed (sankharaed)-- it was the result of not-doing, is not itself subject to ending and is a small taste of Nibbana.

There's more about "the goal" versus "the way to the goal" in the Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15).

I know for certain that there is one person who has achieved this lofty state of Nibbana. May I for now call him Ven. Jahn Galt?  John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged (1957). Although he is not identified by name in that novel until the last third of the novel, he is the object of its often-repeated question "Who is John Galt?" and of the quest to discover the answer. What is important here for you and I, is that this Ven. ‘Jahn Galt’ who is an Arahant can show you the correct way. For example one correction I will make here. It is not ‘Nirvana’, but ‘Nibbana”.
Nibbana means freed from existential captivity or having existential relationships extinguished. The antonym is samsaric captivity. One who is captive in the circle of raga, dvesha and moha creates own existential relationships for survival and goes adrift. All three binds of captivity are like strings woven together (bāna) causing samsaric existence to continue. Nibbana is the outcome of eradication or uprooting of all three strings of the bāna.
For your next main question, YES, the 'Buddhism' that is known to us in the present day is CORRUPT. It is high time that this corruption is shown as there can be at least one or two of you can then attain Nibbana in this very life.
As expounded by the Buddha, the Buddha Dhamma that discusses the noble path toward the attainment of Nibbana is known as Patichcha Samuppada Dhamma (pati – bond; ichcha – desire; sam – 3 fetters – lobha, dvesha & moha; uppãda – arise). To comprehend the four immovable truths (chatu ariya sachcha), the knowledge of the Patichcha Samuppada Dhamma is indispensable. Gaining of true penetrative wisdom, to grasp the reality of life (or existence) as it is (yathābhuta gñana), is possible only through full comprehension of the four immovable truths. This is not about gaining the full extent of theoretical knowledge or learning but rather, attaining a penetrative deep experience that exceeds the dimensions of conventional wisdom while transforming one’s attitudinal inner view on life/existence.

Nice bro.......

It's a good thing Ayn Rand is dead, or I suspect her head would explode.

"It is high time that this corruption is shown..." Followed by not explaining what this corruption is or where it can be seen...

@Muuski I think it's saying that the corruption is, "gaining the full extent of theoretical knowledge or learning", instead of the Buddha Dhamma which is, "Gaining of true penetrative wisdom, to grasp the reality of life (or existence) as it is (yathābhuta gñana), ... through full comprehension of the four immovable truths" and "attaining a penetrative deep experience that exceeds the dimensions of conventional wisdom while transforming one’s attitudinal inner view on life/existence".

I have achieved nirvana. But it took me 4 years of practising extreme ascetism. I took cold shower everyday for 2 years and practised semen retention in those 4 years. There comes a day where you think you might lose yourself, your body, your mind. It's hard to unlearn all the wrong teaching of childhood. Once you are in state of jhana you feel some electromagnetic current inside your body. To achieve this sensation you need to practise semen retention and have strong moral codes. Once you go 4th jhana the perception disappears and something else takes place. There's no pleasure but you feel like you are downloading awakening from the universe. After it's completion the truth becomes crystal clear. I cannot explain these things in words because it can be only explained though experience. World,  worldy people appears same but your consciousness feels very different. You can't relate to anybody, there's no attachment. In this state of nirvana, all you are is pure consciousness. You will find it yourself. If you want to achieve it then there are only two codes : 1. Very strong moral. 2. Semen retention. Everything else will fall into place itself. Lastly, remember 8 noble fold path is very real in this practise.

I’ve been retaining semen for 29 years!  How come I’m not enlightened?  I know.  It’s these damn ovaries again, isn’t it?


text:
What are the differences between Zen Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism?
I am primarily interested in following the teachings of Mahayana. Mahayana refers to the path of the Bodhisattva, a person capable of achieving Nirvana, a state in which the practitioner is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth, but instead chooses to save other beings from suffering.
Zen and Tibetan Buddhism are two different schools of Mahayana. What is the essence of these two paths, and how do I determine which path to follow in order to become a Bodhisattva?

It would take volumes to distinguish between the different types of Tibetan Buddhism let alone distinguish them from zen.

@user17214 I think if a user asks a very broad question they might be asking for an introductory superficial answer. Or if you happen to know where the specific question has been answered in-depth -- in one book or article, for example, rather than "volumes" -- then a reference to that might be a welcome answer too.

From my experience, the biggest diff is in the amount of rational explanation.
Tibetan teachers and texts are much more inclined to giving a step by step logical rational reasonable conceptual framework. Zen teachers and texts speak to direct experience, using spur of the moment analogies and play on words.
Judging by the very fact that you asked this question, you seem to be inclined towards the Tibetan style. (It seems to me if you were a good Zen material, asking this kind of question would not even occur to you. You would not trust anyone's opinion and would be inclined to try both and find out for yourself.)
And judging by how you mentioned "essence" and your practical tone, I suspect Kagyu may be a good lineage for you.
If you are interested in differences between Tibetan schools, you may want to see this answer.

To paraphrase an answer I once heard from the POV of a Gelugpa Lama:

In Tibetan Buddhism, we guide the student to the top of the mountain using well-trodden and safe paths, around and up to the top. Zen goes right up the north flank.

Generally speaking, both are categorized as Mahayana, but there is much more ritual and esoterism in Tibetan Buddhism, it schools mostly subcategorized as Vajrayana than there is in Zen, which is often called the Sudden Teaching and subcategorized as Subitism.
One of the main reasons for this difference is the local culture into which both forms of Buddhism were imported from India and the related chronology.
In Tibet, the Buddhist texts were first translated from Sanskrit around the 8th century, and the wordings used to translate many of the Buddhist Sanskrit principles were based on local concepts from the Animistic Bon religion. In the texts that came to Tibet around this time, Indian Buddhism had transformed Buddha into a cosmic figure. This resulted in Indra, the Thunder God being absorbed by Buddhist spiritualism until Indra’s thunderbolt, known as Vajra, a symbol of the power of nature was transformed into the Buddha’s diamond scepter, representing spiritual supremacy and the power of compassion.
In China, the first Buddhist texts were translated much earlier, during the Han dynasty around 200 BCE, and influenced by the local Taoism. The texts central to Ch'an (Zen) only came to China around the same time Buddhist texts came to Tibet, but by that time the core Buddhist concepts were already part of the Chinese vernacular and had already been associated with core Chinese principles such as Tao. The essence of Zen is found in the
Flower Sermon, in which the Buddha simply held up a Golden Lotus instead of preaching with words. The disciple Mahakasyapa, whose insight of understanding this message was shown only by a quiet smile, was designated his successor. The Chinese found this teaching to perfectly match with the opening verse of Lao-Tzu's Tao Te Ching:

道可道、非常道。名可名、非常名無名天地之始有名萬物之母
The Way that can be followed is not the eternal Way. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

Please keep in mind this is a very generic answer. If you would look at the establishment and evolution of individual Tibetan or Ch'an/Zen schools, a very different pattern emerges, and of course, there were new or refined concepts introduced in both schools. A good example of this would be Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka.
For a detailed comparison, see Presentation on Zen and Tibetan Buddhism

The essence of these two paths is the Noble Eightfold Path. There are eight persons on this path:

DN33:3.1.9: The stream-enterer and the one practicing to realize the fruit of stream-entry. The once-returner and the one practicing to realize the fruit of once-return. The non-returner and the one practicing to realize the fruit of non-return. The perfected one, and the one practicing for perfection.

The Bodhissatva may be understood as one practicing for perfection. I started with Zen and now I study the suttas. Looking back it was always one path. The Noble Eightfold Path.


text:
Khandha vs Kaya
What is the difference between "Khandha" and "Kaya". Are the words related?
The translations for khandha that I've found are "groupings", "aggregates", "heaps".
Also for Kaya I have found that the most used translation is "Body", but the meaning can also be "heap", "collection", "group". There's also an interesting document that says that "kaya" did not originally mean "body" but "sentient being capable of consciousness". The argument proposed by Kuan is in Chapter 4, "4.2.2 Kayagata sati/ kayasati and the individual possessed of  consciousness", page 100.
https://www.amazon.it/dp/B001QEQR92/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
http://watflorida.org/documents/Mindfulness-in-Early-Buddhism_Kuan.pdf
It seems to me that understanding the word Kaya correctly can be very important for practice and right view.

The word "kaya" appears to be used in various ways in the suttas. It can mean:

"Physical body", such as in Kimsuka Sutta & Assutavā Sutta, as follows:

‘City’ is a term for this body made up of the four primary elements,
  produced by mother and father, built up from rice and porridge, liable
  to impermanence, to wearing away and erosion, to breaking up and
  destruction.
‘nagaran’ti kho, bhikkhu, imassetaṃ cātumahābhūtikassa kāyassa
  adhivacanaṃ mātāpettikasambhavassa odanakummāsūpacayassa aniccucchādanaparimaddanabhedanaviddhaṃsanadhammassa.

Mendicants, when it comes to this body made up of the four primary
  elements, an uneducated ordinary person might become disillusioned,
  dispassionate, and freed.
“assutavā, bhikkhave, puthujjano imasmiṃ cātumahābhūtikasmiṃ
  kāyasmiṃ nibbindeyyapi virajjeyyapi vimucceyyapi
But an uneducated ordinary person would be better off taking this
  body made up of the four primary elements to be their self, rather than the mind.
Varaṃ, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano imaṃ cātumahābhūtikaṃ kāyaṃ
  attato upagaccheyya, na tveva cittaṃ.
Why is that?
Taṃ kissa hetu?
This body made up of the four primary elements is seen to last for
  a year, or for two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty,
  fifty, or a hundred years, or even longer.
Dissatāyaṃ, bhikkhave, cātumahābhūtiko kāyo ekampi vassaṃ
  tiṭṭhamāno dvepi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno tīṇipi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno
  cattāripi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno pañcapi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno dasapi vassāni
  tiṭṭhamāno vīsatipi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno tiṃsampi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno
  cattārīsampi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno paññāsampi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno
  vassasatampi tiṭṭhamāno, bhiyyopi tiṭṭhamāno.

"Grouping" of aggregates, such as in MN 44, as follows:

Visākha, the Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are
  identity.
“Pañca kho ime, āvuso visākha, upādānakkhandhā sakkāyo vutto
  bhagavatā,

"Grouping" of similar types of phenomena, such as in DN 15, as follows:

Suppose there were none of the features, attributes, signs, and
  details by which the categories of mental or physical phenomena are
  found. Would either linguistic contact or impingement contact still be
  found?”
“Yehi, ānanda,  ākārehi … pe … yehi uddesehi nāmakāyassa ca
  rūpakāyassa ca paññatti hoti, tesu ākāresu … pe … tesu uddesesu asati
  api nu kho adhivacanasamphasso vā paṭighasamphasso vā paññāyethā”ti?

"Grouping" of specific types of phenomena, such as in MN 118, as follows:

I tell you, monks, that this — in-&-out breaths — are classed as a body among bodies
Kāyesu kāyaññatarāhaṃ, bhikkhave, evaṃ vadāmi yadidaṃ—assāsapassāsā.

To answer the question asked, as demonstrated in the examples above, it appears a "kaya" ("grouping") is made up of various khandhas or even subsets of one khandha (such as the four elements) but a kaya is not necessarily made up of all five khandhas.
This appears to be the difference between "Khandha" and "Kaya", which also shows the words are not necessarily related.

As for the author Tse-fu Kuan, based in the paragraphs quoted at the bottom below, he appears to be attempting to define the word "kaya" in one way, which appears incorrect.
Also, in the context of Satipatthana, the word "kaya" does not mean "the individual" (as it does in MN 44 cited above), as Tse-fu Kuan appears to propose. Both the Satipatthana & Anapanasati suttas clearly distinguish between kayanupassana, vedanuspassana, cittanupassana & dhammanupassana.
In the context of Satipatthana/Anapanasati, the word "kaya" in the 1st tetrad refers three types of kaya, namely: (i) nama-kaya - the mind; (ii) assāsapassāsā-kaya - the breathing; and (iii) rupa-kaya - the physical body.
It follows the 3rd step of Anapanasati is defined as "sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī", which means "experiencing all bodies/groups". This means experiencing how the state of mind effects/conditions the breathing; and how, in turn, the state of the breathing effects/conditions the physical body; and how, in turn, the state of the breathing & body effects/conditions the mind.
As for Tse-fu Kuan reference to the Balapandita Sutta (SN 12.19), the "kaya" here never meant a "sentient being capable of consciousness". This is ridiculous because SN 23.2 defines "a being" as "strong attachment". The word "kaya" in SN 12.19 merely refers to the grouping of the five aggregates.
Thus, SN 12.19 says: "there is this kaya (internal five aggregates) and external namarupa (external minds & bodies). Based on these two things, there is sense contact".

Based on Chinese versions Kuan argues that Kayagatasati originally
  meant not just mindfulness of the body, but had a similar meaning as
  Satipatthana. He believes that Anapanasati Sutta contains the oldest
  of the teachings on mindfulness, and Satipatthana Sutta the latest -
  derived from several older sources.

The analysis shows that kaayagataa sati and the four satipa.t.thaanas are two different ways of formulating the teaching on mindfulness
  according to different schemes of classification of phenomena.

a further examination of the canonical contexts
  in which kAyagatA sati and kAyasati occur shows that kAya here refers to an
  individual that can experience through his senses. KAyagatA sati or kAyasati
  is mindfulness directed to kAya, the locus of our subjective experience based
  on the senses. It can transform our subjective experience, and thereby
  enable us to achieve liberation. It is a general guideline or fundamental principle applied to the path to liberation, and is not restricted to those specific
  exercises given in different versions of the KAyagatAsati Sutta

All the above discussions lead to the conclusion that kAyagatA sati and the four satipaWWhAnas are two different ways of
  formulating the teaching on mindfulness according to different schemes of
  classification of phenomena, which cover the individual and the external world
  perceived. Both kAyagatA sati and the four satipaWWhAnas concern subject-object
  interaction, where lies the crux of saSsAra as well as nirvana.

KAyasati and kAyagatA sati are usually rendered as “mindfulness of the body”
  and “mindfulness concerning the body” respectively. Chapter 4 will show
  that kAya here refers to the “individual” rather than the “body.”

Chapter 4 will show
  that kAya here refers to the “individual” rather than the “body.” I will leave
  the two terms untranslated. This function of sati is elucidated in the
  Kimsuka Sutta, which follows the Dukkhadhamma Sutta. Here the Buddha
  makes a simile as follows: A king has a frontier city with six gates. The gatekeeper keeps out strangers and admits acquaintances. The Buddha explains
  that, in this simile, “the city” is a designation for kAya; “the six gates” stand
  for the six internal sense bases; “the gatekeeper” represents sati (SN IV 194)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. It is the first time that I read that nama-kaya is comprehended in the first tetrad. There are also references in the suttas about this? Also the fact that we have to look at how the mind conditions the breath... It is Buddhadasa advice, but the sutta seems not to ask this: "They practice breathing in experiencing every kaya/group". Where's the instruction to look at conditionality and interrelation between those kayas? Seems that the instruction only asks to make "experience" and nothing else. Thank you very much.

The Patisambhidamagga (a commentary in the suttas) explicitly refers to nama-kaya & rupa-kaya at Step 3 of Anapanasati. Buddhadasa only referred to rupa-kaya & breath-kaya at Step 3, which is wrong, because if the Buddha intended this he would have referred to "experiencing the kaya-sankhara" at Step 3. While Buddhadasa correctly translates "sabba kaya" as "all bodies" (rather than the "whole body"), Buddhadasa incorrectly refers to "two bodies" rather than to "three bodies". As I already said, if sabba kaya was about how the breath affects the body the Buddha would have said "kaya sankhara".


text:
Buddha's view on sexuality
In contemporary society (apart from religion) sex is mostly seen as something pleasurable, which is done even without considering childbearing.
As far as I can see, Buddha taught extensively to lay people how to treat each other friendly & compassionately, but omitted the bodily intimacy aspect of it.
It's largely sensual desire that binds human couples together, and I am not merely referring to appearance, but also the craving to be touched etc. (as it's always correctly pointed out in the suttas: Pleasant feelings at the 5 sense doors)
Q1: Did the Buddha remain silent on these matters because of a specific reason?
Q1.1Was the Buddha even concerned about sexual objectification & did he suggested perhaps sexual repression?
Dhammapda 242 states:

Unchastity is the taint in a woman

Q2: Could it be that a majority of Buddha's teaching are timeless, but few are open for change, due to different societal context etc.? (e.g., 3rd precept)
Q3: In the above quote, isn't it a bit biased to state that it's ONLY a woman's taint? Why not a man? Why focus overly on women?
Back in those days, there were probably fixed gender roles, but I believe society should progress & should rather acknowledge individuality even among the genders. It seems that the Buddha is over-generalizing, or did the miss the boat?

There are two levels of Teaching, for the common people, and for professional seekers of Nirvana.
To first, Buddha taught no-nonsense ethics, chastity etc. Sex for procreation, faithful marriage, these kinds of things. Going mostly by his basic principle of "what leads to peace and harmony is good, what creates causes for potential conflict is bad" - applied to the social norms of those days.
To the second, he taught universal principles operating at cosmic scale. Natural evolution ("dependent origination") emerges as cyclic self-perpetuating tendencies. These self-perpetuating tendencies culminate in arising of sentient experience. Information trapped in these tendencies identifies some elements of this experience as "self". What in reality is a perpetuating part of the tendency (its capacity for continued existence) in sentient experience arises as something subjectively desirable. This includes sexual attraction.
Therefore, breaking through the charm of seemingly pleasant, and correctly attributing its nature to the self-perpetuating tendency for continued existence, is an appropriate component of practice leading to liberation from the trap of subjective experience.

As far as I can see, Buddha taught extensively to lay people how to
  treat each other friendly & compassionately, but omitted the bodily
  intimacy aspect of it.

Correct.

It's largely sensual desire that binds human couples together,

I think the Buddha would disagree with the above. In AN 4.55 and AN 4.53, the Buddha says it is having the same faith (goals), the same morality, the same sacrifice/generosity and the same wisdom that binds human couples together.
Since the 1960s sexual revolution, the amount of sex has enormously increased and the amount of "binding of couples" has enormously decreased. This appears to show that it is not largely sensual desire that binds human couples together.
Historically, it was obviously family, children & religious norms that bound couples together.

Unchastity is the taint in a woman

"Unchastity" is merely a translation of a word (duccarita), which most generally simply means "misconduct". The English word "chastity" can mean "celibacy" (which in Pali is "abrahmacariyā") but it can also mean "the state or practice of refraining from extramarital sexual intercourse", which is what Dhp 242 is obviously referring to.
AN 6.52 says: "Itthī puttādhiṭṭhānā: Women have sons as their support/mainstay". In other words, women should not use sexual intercourse as their support/mainstay or social refuge.

Q2: Could it be that a majority of Buddha's teaching are timeless, but
  few are open for change, due to different societal context etc.?
  (e.g., 3rd precept)

No. It is a timeless religious teaching the people should not have extramarital sexual intercourse. Anyone that believes extramarital sexual intercourse is not unwholesome & not harmful and a life-style possibly will not attain the Noble Path. MN 115 refers to what is possible and impossible as says:

They understand: ‘It’s impossible that someone who has engaged in bad
  conduct of body, speech, and mind, could for that reason alone, when
  their body breaks up, after death, be reborn in a good place, a
  heavenly realm.
MN 115

The Buddha taught (DN 31) parents have a duty to arrange the marriage of their children. Therefore, in the 3rd precept, the word "protection" means this, namely, children and particularly a daughter is "protected" by her family until she is married. The Buddhist Commentaries are also very clear about this (which the monk named Yuttadhammo posted somewhere on this forum).

Q3: In the above quote, isn't it a bit biased to state that it's ONLY
  a woman's taint? Why not a man? Why focus overly on women? Back in
  those days, there were probably fixed gender roles, but I believe
  society should progress & should rather acknowledge individuality even
  among the genders. It seems that the Buddha is over-generalizing, or
  did the miss the boat?

No. It is not biased at all. The question simply shows a misunderstanding of women and being beguiled/fooled by the modern social engineering or sexual exploitation of women. Women are different to men. Women have wombs and biological & psychological mechanisms created for both child bearing & controlling of families (nest building). There have been many scientific studies done on how sexual promiscuity affects female "bonding" instincts. Unlike men, in my experience, once women veer down the perilous path of sexual immorality or sexual promiscuity it is difficult for them to return to a state of wholesomeness. Women can develop "sexual addiction" in a manner which is a quest to over rejection & regain power. There are many studies & theories on this, such as merely this example: Female Sex Addicts: Using Sex for Power and Control. Even when such women eventually get married & have children, they will generally maintain the wrong views about sex, which they will impart to their children, who are then likely to commit sexual misconduct. Thus relationships in society, which we witness today in the West, often fall apart.
One should be aware, for example, it is reported 25% of Western women, over the age of 40, are using some type of antidepressant. Women are simply not designed by nature for sexual promiscuity because, as the Buddha taught (in AN 6.52), women have the strong tendency towards "domineeringness" and thus, in my experience, they generally struggle to admit wrong doing once they commit wrong doing. If one has any experience with women, one will find they get very angry, very upset & even very shattered when they are accused of serious wrong doing. If one examines Radical Feminism, for example, it will be found Radical Feminism rarely blames women for their problems and generally exclusively blames men for female problems. Any competent psychologist can explain this, such as this video called One Clinical Mistake That Can Heighten a Client’s Shame.

Women are nearly twice as likely as men to be taking the medications, the report found, with antidepressants used by 16.5 percent of females compared to just under 9 percent of males.
WebMD

Over the past decade, people have increasingly treated depression with medication: Starting in 1994, the number of antidepressant prescriptions written by doctors went up 400% over a 10-year period. And today, about 15% of women take an antidepressant. Among women age 40 to 59, that number is nearly 23%, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Woman's Day: Depression is common among American women, and antidepressant use is on the rise. Yet women tend to keep both a secret. Why aren't we discussing this more?

In summary, per MN 115, anyone that believes extramarital non-committed sexual intercourse is a lifestyle possibility  will not attain the Noble Path. This is because they will not be free of the hindrance of sexual desire and have insufficient loving-kindness & compassion to empower their practice.

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

Q1: Did the Buddha remain silent on these matters because of a specific reason?

There are several suttas outlining the premises for a healthy partner relationship, according to buddhism. See samajivina sutta for instance: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.055.than.html, or sigalovada sutta: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html

Q2: Could it be that a majority of Buddha's teaching are timeless, but few are open for change, due to different societal context etc.? (e.g., 3rd precept)

The third precept advice against adultery among other things, but to my understanding the specific actions considered harmful vary with different interpretations of the suttas.
However, if one look beyond the specifics, one could say that the gist of the third precept is to refrain from hurting relationships with sexual actions. Going into specifics of what is prohibited, what is permitted, with who, where or when, risks clouding the purpose of the precept.
I would argue that this principle in its essence is still valid in today's society.

Q3: In the above quote, isn't it a bit biased to state that it's ONLY a woman's taint? Why not a man? Why focus overly on women? Back in those days, there were probably fixed gender roles, but I believe society should progress & should rather acknowledge individuality even among the genders. It seems that the Buddha is over-generalizing, or did the miss the boat?

Are you asking why the suttas doesn't correspond to your values of societys progress, or gender equality? I am not looking to debate these things, but i do wonder why you expect several thousand years old suttas to match contemporary ethics.

Hi Erik! I think the last question is interesting because it helps to understand what the Dhamma is (in its timeless quality) and what its contextual applications are (which depend on the cultural zeitgeist). Or is this application timeless as well, independent of cultural changes?

In contemporary society sex is mostly seen as something pleasurable
Or not, perhaps it depends on who you ask.
craving to be touched etc
Perhaps, but even in ordinary society there are many, many forms of non-sexual social "contact".
Did the Buddha remain silent
I don't think so. You might like to read Bag of Bones or something like that, the doctrine is all pretty explicitly anti-sensuality -- including the stories of the Buddha's resisting Mara's beautiful daughters, and the beautiful servants in his palace -- it (anti-sex) is explicitly in the Vinaya (the rules of Discipline for all monastics).
Could it be that a majority of Buddha's teaching are timeless, but few are open for change, due to different societal context etc.? (e.g., 3rd precept)
As it happens, yes :-) -- i.e. I think that the 3rd precept changes on Uposatha days when laypeople practice "8 precepts" instead of "5 precepts" (more in this answer) -- perhaps (on Uposatha days) to be more like the Sangha.
In the above quote, isn't it a bit biased to state that it's ONLY a woman's taint? Why not a man?
I too find that strange.
I even questioned that once, here ...

Questioning the translation of AN 8.15, “Misconduct is a woman’s stain”

... asking whether that's really the right translation. I'm told the translation is correct.
If you find it incredible, another possibility is that the text might be "corrupt" i.e. altered.
In an answer to this topic -- Can the Buddha ever be a woman? -- I found a long analysis comparing a sutta to its equivalent agama. That analysis showed -- quite credibly IMO -- that the two were slightly different and that in that case it was the agama which seemed to be the more reliable -- and the sutta had had some "women are inferior" ideology added later.
But who knows.
Some modern sensibility is to be egalitarian, there are limits to how universally true that is (e.g. in all societies).

The link provided about AN 8.15 appears to be a Cultural Maxist forum with transgenders & radical feminists moderating it. Unlikely an objective answer will be found there. Regards

I asked there partly because I wanted to understand for myself or verify why Ven Sujato translated as he did: which, he was kind enough to explain here. I don't know a user on this site who can do that. But anyway -- I don't think that's to do with gender.


text:
How a sotapanna person experiences the mind?
What is the difference between lay person and a person who achieves sotapanna?Does sotapanna person experience less thoughts?Would they experience as dukka,happiness,pain like mind states?

Maybe the simplest answer to this question is that a sotāpanna does experience the mind, whereas most people identify with the mind so strongly that they cannot experience it at all. They are immersed in their thoughts, emotions, and urges, and cannot effectively separate themselves from these mental conditions.
Someone is sotāpanna when they have eliminated the following three obstructions:

Self-view
Clinging to rites and rituals
Skeptical doubt

The first — the elimination of self-view — means that they have abandoned the idea that the self is intrinsically bound to the 'five aggregates': physical forms, feelings or sensations, perceptions, mind structures, and discriminative thinking. All of these still arise in a sotāpanna, but the sotāpanna realizes that these are not identical to him/herself. For instance, imagine a man who feels a sudden wave of hatred towards something. If he is unskilled he merely hates, with no qualifiers; if he has the skills of a sotāpanna he recognizes the hatred as something separate arising within his mind. He may still be controlled by it because his attachments are still strong, but he has created a certain spaciousness — a mental distance from the arising — that he can cultivate with further practice. As he progresses, this spaciousness grows and those arisings weaken.
Sotāpanna is just the first step, and there's no sense expecting the unconscious habits of a lifetime to fall away like dead leaves. So yes, dukkha and tanhā will still be there; the mind will still be filled with thoughts and feelings and urges. We have to get into the water first, and only after that can we start to learn how to swim. But getting into the water is an accomplishment.

The biggest difference is in their actions. Instead of acting impulsively (I want this / I hate this) they think: "will this get me deeper into Samsara or further out of Samsara?" Their every choice is like this.
The second biggest difference is in their vision. Instead of thinking "this thing is so" / "this thing is not so" like the regular people blindly do - stream-enterer thinks "my mind delineates this object and assigns it such and such qualities because I operate within such and such frame of reference".
So whatever happens in their daily life, good or bad, they see it differently and they react differently. They may not do it 100% right (because they are only sotapanna, not Buddha) - but on the overall their mental framework is like this.
The more they act like this, the better they see, and the better they see - the more they act like this. This practice and this teaching improves itself automatically.
This is the reason they are called stream-enterers, because in their own life they have established the self-reinforcing self-perpetuating tendency that inevitably flows towards Nirvana, in maximum of seven lives.

AN6.97 summarizes the benefits of stream-entry as follows:

AN6.97:1.1: “Mendicants, these are the six benefits of realizing the fruit of stream-entry.  What six? You’re bound for the true teaching. You’re not liable to decline. You suffer only for a limited period. You have unshared knowledge. You’ve clearly seen causes and the phenomena that arise from causes.

These benefits accrue because stream-enterers do not have faith in identity view. They have faith in the Buddha, the Teachings and the Sangha. Stream-enterers do not view the world with a mind thinking "this or that is mine". That is unshared knowledge because an everyday layperson habitually considers the world with a mind thinking "this or that is mine".

Offtopic: Just had to thought on Nyom, since a assistant, after right livelihood, started to plant on water basins here in Cambodia. Thought householder might be interested in teach or share knowledge toward good livelihood. He might find ways to contact, if inspired. My person isn't reachable here.

What is the difference between lay person and a person who achieves sotapannna?

From AN 9.12:

“Again, some person fulfills virtuous behavior but cultivates concentration and wisdom only to a moderate extent. With the utter destruction of three fetters, this person is a seventimes-at-most attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among devas and humans seven times at most, makes an end of suffering. This is the ninth person, passing away with a residue remaining, who is freed from hell, the animal realm, and the sphere of afflicted spirits; freed from the plane of misery, the bad destination, the lower world.

.

Does sotapannna person experience less thoughts?would they experience as dukka,happiness, pain like mind state?

Not necessarily less thoughts, more like right thoughts, due to the abandonment of self-view, doubt, and wrong grasp of rules and observances.


text:
Who judges Karma?
I know the Buddhism does not believes in the existence of personal god.But if it is the case that there is no personal God who is capable of interacting with his own creation,then who/how to determine(s) whether a person/creation has done/involved  something which can be treated as bad/good aspects of Karma ?
In Buddhism Karma refers to the actions driven by intention which manifested itself in physical, vocal or mental form which leads to future consequences(having  a moral character).Also the cycle of rebirth determined by this Karma.
If this decision is made at the end of one's life,who/how are these decision made by an impersonal force.How can these forces do anything?Doesn't it necessarily requires a 'personal being' to judge?And who is the final judge of a Karma?

Think of karma like gravity. Nobody decides when and where it operates. It would be strictly deterministic in its workings. For Buddhism the world is law-governed. . .   .

@PeterJ Yes.Thanks for the response.

@Malavika May be this question would help you How does Karma works?

No one judges karma, and karma does not require a judge for it to work.
It's a natural law: what you sow is what you reap. Your actions set up potential for future arising of either conflict and discord or peace and harmony. If you create causes of conflict, you reap (all or some of) their results. If you create causes of peace, likewise.

On the contrary, personal gods are quite the norm in Buddhism, and many of them interact with humans regularly. Read more Buddhist sutras and you may notice this as well.
If you drink poison or medicine, there is no need for an external agent to determine what effect it will have on you. Its effect will be determined by both its nature and the disposition of the one affected.
Lord Yama is the god that holds the office of judgement, but this role seems to be a play on the manifestation of karma that occurs by natural processes anyhow. He is an interlocutor. If a human teacher can inform you of what is right and wrong, and scold or praise you, certainly a deity can do the same, regardless of his or her position in the universe.

Karma works without a judge. It's as much cause and effect as the moon orbiting Earth because of gravity or the wind blows leaves. Karma is.
Karma also has effects on this life, even in the short term.

The answer to this really depends on what you are thinking of as judgment.
If you are speaking about the sensation that is experienced as a result of an intentional act of thought, word or deed, then you are the judge (before the fact). As you intend to create experience of pleasure, you will experience pleasure; as you intend to create experience of pain, you will experience pain; as you intend to end kamma, you will experience neither pain nor pleasure.
If you are speaking about the intensity of such experiences of sensations resulting from your own actions, then, I suggest that this too is a matter judged by yourself, but yourself at the highest perspective - that will be, from the Buddhist point of view, the view closest to the Four Truths, or, stated another way, it will depend on your degree of detachment - in your experience. Here you will find that a change in perspective also has the power to change the experience. So you not only judge, but you are in control of the sentence. The danger here, and you did not ask about the danger of judging, is that the further the foundation of your view is from the highest, the harsher will be your own judgment of yourself. The fully developed compassionate heart is very forgiving.
If you are speaking about the material manifestation, the 'form', (e.g., an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) that results from your intentionally created pleasure or pain or experience without pleasure or pain, then this is something that is beyond the scope of most people to determine. I have a theory that it is the collective wisdom of all beings since the beginning of time, but that is just my view.
See: http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/an/idx_10_dasakanipata.htm#p75
For a warning concerning attempting to judge such matters before you have experienced the full maturity of awakening. One of the 'fruits' of arahantship is this ability.

That time has no beginning and so no judge as well, is a quality of wisdom of one has reached the path already. Other beings have other views since unthinkable times, yes, and will mostly continue as well.

Kamma (action) & vipaka (results) is merely a neurological mechanism.
For example, you get angry or become violent towards another person. When you are self-righteously angry or violent in a survival instinct mode, adrenaline is pumping through your nervous system therefore there is a sense of euphoria when you are angry or violent. But when the social situation/circumstance ends and the adrenaline & euphoria also ends, the stress of the anger & violence inwardly remains. Then you suffer from stress & tension and possibly regret & remorse. This is merely a  neurological mechanism following natural law.
For example, you have wrong view about sex and believe women are sexually equal to men. So you have sexual fantasies about imagined insatiable women (with equal insatiable sexual voyeurism as men) and watch pornography, generating both feelings of pleasure & motivations of lust. But due to continued wrong view & repeated exposure, the sense of pleasure decreases but the unfulfillment of lust grows. Therefore, you suffer from frustration and are reborn as a hungry ghost because you can't get enough pleasure to satiate your building of frustration, restlessness & lust. You try to justify your wrong views with an attachment to a literal reading of the 3rd precept in Buddhism but you remain reborn as a hungry ghost. Eventually, you meet a very lusty woman who validates your delusions about sex but, soon after, this woman gets pregnant, enjoys having children, as has more children. Her natural reproductive lusts wane/ease but, due to your wrong view, you still believe women are sexually equal to men. Your wife, however, no longer desires much sex, you fight, yet divorced, you lose your money to the ex-wife & children, and you spend the rest of your life having sex with prostitutes, about who you continue to believe are sexually equal to men. The prostitutes tell you that your ex-wife was abnormal and you believe the prostitutes, believing they are Buddhas because they can have sex with an empty emotionless mind. This is natural law.

Opponent-process theory is a psychological and neurological model that
accounts for a wide range of behaviors, Every process that has an
affective balance, (i.e. is pleasant or unpleasant), is followed by a
secondary, "opponent process". This opponent process sets in after the
primary process is quieted. With repeated exposure, the primary
process becomes weaker while the opponent process is strengthened.
According to opponent-process theory, drug addiction is the result of
an emotional pairing of pleasure and the emotional symptoms associated
with withdrawal. At the beginning of drug or any substance use, there
are high levels of pleasure and low levels of withdrawal. Over time,
however, as the levels of pleasure from using the drug decrease, the
levels of withdrawal symptoms increase.
Opponent-process theory

So now you say about insatiable women, earlier you said about impermanence women. Have you changed your view. If so good for you.

Sounds like you can't read the English language very well.

Unfulfillment about sexual lust etc. might be true due to adaptation, but to say that a woman's sexuality wanes after she had enough children, is an over-simplification, over-generalization & even sexist, as it portrays women as being only reproductive machines. Correct me if I misunderstood.

Also, your argument about the lusty men ends up in a complete slippery slope argument, as you only mention the bad results. It's also what's called catastrophizing. Men & women alike can feel high levels of sexual desire without consciously thinking about children. The immediate (biological) cause might be reproduction, but it's also done because it's pleasurable & we see more advantages in doing it than disadvantages. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope http://cogbtherapy.com/cbt-blog/cognitive-distortions-definition-of-catastrophizing

Keep justifying porn addiction and similar lust addictions & fantasies. Its always impressive how PASSIONATE the comments become to maintain the image that women sex objects. The Buddha taught to view women as "mothers, sisters & daughters".

@Val Correct me if I misunderstood. I think that Dhammadhatu has specific examples in mind based on his several personal experiences, and generalises somewhat from there, selects references to quote which might appear to support his theory or view, and doesn't take at all kindly to his generalisation being contradicted even in the slightest, saying that to even question what he wrote is to "justify porn addiction" etc.

This is natural law. Hey, DD -- I thought that was a pretty graphic example, kind of horrific -- I wondered where it came from and questioned how even a Bodhisattva might tolerate exposure to that kind of suffering well enough to be able or willing to help "save" the person in question. Then I thought, perhaps the Buddha already has done what they can -- since the text is a product of your imagination, and you have evidently heard the dhamma given that you're able and even keen to repeat it. May you be well...

So if I view a woman as a mother or sister, do I not somehow objectify them? We always objectify; it's called heuristics. Porn has been used for many thousand years (even in ancient times, but it's irrelevant) & it's not because men want to degrade women but to stimulate fantasies in both. I see no direct cause in watching porn & 24/7 viewing a woman as a sexual object ONLY. Let alone in violating their human rights. That's jumping to conclusions. I am well aware that a woman is a complex being, with all the five aggregates, but this thought might not be always in front of the mind.

Furthermore, even if I lust after a woman because I decided not to live a monk lifestyle, it does not follow logically that I'll act violently or harass her. There is a stronger correlation towards sexual advances, that's true, but even this is not guaranteed. Humans have the capacities to learn not to act upon their desires. You DD seem to demonize porn & we see were this leade: Christian churches & even some monks sexually abuse women & children. And no, porn doesn't cause guilt either. It's the Bible that tells them to feel guilt. Only thoughts can "make" you feel guilt.

The Sigalovada Sutta states that "a man provides a woman with adornments". I could too now see this as sexist, or alternatively, I can acknowledge the cultural time & that a lot of women like adornments. Also "handing over dominance" is also somewhat vaguely stated. I am pretty sure in ancient India it was the case that men were seen as superior, but this could be viewed as another extreme, or it could perhaps mean, handing authority with regards to household and/or children's matters. Why does it mention being courteous to her? The women might not? I am being obv provocative here.

Things are seen as "sexist" by Cultural Marxists rather than by Buddhists. Even today, a husband should give his wife gifts.

A quick research on Culture Marxist with Google unfortunately confirms your unreliability & biased view. Just look for yourself. Wikipedia even states that's a conspiracy theory. By the way, between Buddhist & "Cultural Marxists" is a grey area. A lot of people are found there. Being more tolerant or liberal doesn't mean to embrace a laisses-faire attitude, DD. Your errors come from catastrophizing & over-generalizations. Two common cognitive distortions.

OK. Then the ideas posts are simply heretical and wrong view. That is probably why many Buddhist bloggers don't have a relationship with a woman & are addicted to pornography, leading to the lower realms, such as hell.

Not having a relationship might have various reasons. Lack of being assertive, emotional problems about approaching women.. you name it. Addictions is not magically caused but by our "musty" thinking. Everything that   acts as an escape such as porn is not the best answer to deal with one's problem, I don't ever said that, but as fallible as humans are, people need to relax and if they sometimes escape, I'd say it's ok if done in conjunction with questioning one's beliefs.

Sorry but I am reliable and not biased. Men with right view will marry women in the right way for the right purpose. Men with right view don't follow the Cultural Marxist way of "approaching" women for sex.

People can use all kinds of things as an escape, but they'd better be aware that they are often just temporary one's. Changing one's thinking is key and demonizing porn is actually.. well I dont want to start that again

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
Joining and then leaving the monastic order?
One thing that seems fascinating about the rules of the monastic life, the rules of poverty and celibacy, and so forth, is that as strict as the rules are, it seems that compliance is voluntary.  A monk could,  at any moment, choose to disrobe and leave the order, and he would still be welcome to hear the Buddha and practice as a lay believer.
It seems almost as if he is lauded for acknowledging his limitations rather than continuing to struggle without making progress, and continuing to eat the alms food in vain.  I haven't yet read any sutras where a lapsed monk is told that he earned himself a rebirth in a bad destination.
Am I mistaken?  Does a lapsed monk earn bad karma from leaving the order, or from having mistakenly joined the monastic order?  On the other hand, is it possible that he earns good karma and a good rebirth for having been in the Sangha?  Suppose that his time in the Sangha makes him more wise, compassionate, forbearing as a lay person than he was previously.
Suppose a recently divorced banker or stock broker resolves to join an established Therevadin order for exactly seven years.  He will memorize the teaching and meticulously follow the rules during that time, after which he will return to his profession (and find a new wife).
Is this permissible and beneficial, according to the Dhamma?

I do not recall any suttas that refer to a bad outcome due to disrobing. This said, I do not recall any suttas about a monk returning to lay life given the Buddha generally intervened and prevented them.
However, the suttas do have teachings I recall about bad monks, such as the Dhammapda verses below:

There are many evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe. These wicked men will be born in states of woe because of their evil deeds.

It would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball, blazing like fire, than as an immoral and uncontrolled monk to eat the alms of the people.

As for good rebirth, this can only come from general good karma (rather than a token amount of time as a monk). For example, in Thailand, often corrupt politicians temporarily become monks to redeem their reputations. However, if they are inwardly rotten, ordaining temporarily won’t help much change their destiny.

Does a lapsed monk earn bad karma from leaving the order, or from having mistakenly joined the monastic order? On the other hand, is it possible that he earns good karma and a good rebirth for having been in the Sangha? Suppose that his time in the Sangha makes him more wise, compassionate, forbearing as a lay person than he was previously.

Depends on the situation right before he leaves. If he violated some key precepts which the discipline codes requires an expulsion from the order, then that would incur negative kamma. But if he has not broken any precept and simply found that monkhood was not really the most suitable for him, he can leave the order without any negative kamma. Once back to lay life, if he applies what he's learned and implement the Three grounds for meritorious activity, then indeed he'll earn good kamma and favorable rebirths.

Suppose a recently divorced banker or stock broker resolves to join an established Therevadin order for exactly seven years. He will memorize the teaching and meticulously follow the rules during that time, after which he will return to his profession (and find a new wife). Is this permissible and beneficial, according to the Dhamma?

Again, it depends on how he'll apply what he's learned for his post-monastic life. If he only follows the training rules during the monastic time, but then commits unwholesome deeds once back to lay life, then chances are he'll only reap what's called mixed kamma with dark and bright results, which we can see all around us: smart intelligent man but destitute and in constant debts; rich wealthy guy but subjected to throat diseases which prevents him from enjoying good food; beautiful woman who was sold into brothels; man who seems to have it all: intelligence, wealth, fame, looks, but die tragically at a young age, etc..

There is nothing 'special' about being a monk. People join monastic orders in order to accelerate their development. If they find the process of development too difficult, or come to believe that they will not make progress on the path, or otherwise become disenchanted with the monastic life, then there is no harm in leaving the order. They merely go back to the life they had before — perhaps with some new insights, perhaps not — and develop at the 'normal' (layperson) rate. They can return to the order later when they are properly ready to try the accelerated path.
It would be far worse for someone to someone to remain within the order if they have become jaded about the practice. That just leads towards corruption.


text:
Starting studying again
Let me explain. I have met, got enchanted and started to slowly study Buddhism on my own quite some years ago. But then time passed and life consumed me. I have never abandoned the beautiful and deep perspective on reality that doctrine taught me. But over time you get still and staggered; and life begin to rot your way if you don't keep it fed and healthy. Well, I am talking In my case. I feel that I'm losing my path and I deeply want to grow again in peace and understanding. In this world so void of physical masters and lonely, buddhist teachings have given me great relief and energy to fight on.
So, to the point: may any of you please recommend me a good reading to start meeting and discovering teachings again? If I may add please, if you know of something not too heavy or obscure... Started reading the bodhisharyavatara, which is beautiful but get a bit dense as you follow, so I can't read much at a time and don't understand much neither.
Buddhism scriptures and texts are so huge in numbers that you kinda feel lost in it. I think I would resume it like this: a great reading, no matter the school or the time.
I deeply thank you for these place and for your time and help. Yours,
David

Do you want to read more from the tradition you know already, or from another? Theravada suttas, Mahayana, Zen, maybe Tibetan? Classic or modern? Topical (on any particular topic)? Quite a lot to choose from, as I'm sure you know. What can you say or ask that would inform an answer's selection?

Well, that's a bit part of the point, Buddhism scriptures and texts are so huge that you kinda feel lost in it. I think I would resume it like this: a great reading, no matter the school or the time.

A quick search where to start or books on this site reveals some of the questions asked related to this. I think you need to do a fair bit of searching and trial & error to see what fits your reading style best.

At least with the Pali suttas, start with the first three sermons:

https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/bodhi + https://suttacentral.net/sn45.8/en/bodhi
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.28/en/bodhi

Then basic moral teachings, such as:

https://suttacentral.net/mn61/en/horner
https://suttacentral.net/sn55.7/en/sujato
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html

In the Buddha's Words An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon by Bhikkhu Bodhi is a good compilation (although take care with Bhikkhu Bodhi's often sectarian footnotes).

My nephew gave me a pocket edition of Zen Flesh, Zen Bones for Christmas -- it's literally "pocket", it's 12x8x2 cm, but, surprisingly readable (good typeface, Shambhala).
I haven't read it in years -- before I found this site I had only read that of Buddhism (several times of course), and Three Pillars of Zen, and the Dhammapada, and a few modern things -- including some edition of the "traditional legend" -- which were well enough, but not enough, so, I can't entirely recommend them.
After I found this site I asked these questions ...

English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners

... and that's been great, for study.
For one reason I've read most of what's been posted on this site only.
One person said, I've forgotten who or when, that they studied Zen for a while but then they studied the 'earlier' (or at least, the 'Theravada') doctrine too, and then Zen made more sense to them too.
Anyway -- I opened the Zen Flesh, Zen Bones when I was given it, like it was yesterday or so, and it fell open on a page or story, one of the many which, I remember well:

31 -- Everything Is Best
When Banzan was walking through a market he overheard a conversation between a butcher and his customer.
"Give me the best piece of meat you have," said the customer.
"Everything in my shop is the best," replied the butcher. "You cannot find here any piece of meat that is not the best."
At these words Banzan became enlightened.