text:
Did the Buddha speak the Mahanidana Sutta in the Digha Nikaya?
In the Pali suttas, there are scores of suttas about Dependent Origination which take the classic form of the 12 links, the benchmark being SN 12.2.
In the Digha Nikaya, there is the Maha-Nidana Sutta, called the 'Great Cause'. I find the name of the sutta strange since if it is 'great', why are there only 9 links instead of 12?
While there are many suttas containing less than 12 links, it seems strange the Maha-Nidana Sutta omits the six sense spheres, which the Buddha described as one of his core teachings in AN 3.61 & are central to so many suttas on Dependent Origination (such as MN 18, MN 38, MN 148, etc).
More importantly, the Maha-Nidana Sutta defines consciousness & nama-rupa differently to other suttas. In the Maha-Nidana Sutta, consciousness (which is only mental cognition in other suttas) is said to descend into the womb of a mother. Nama-rupa has a Brahmanistic meaning of 'naming-forms'.
Also, 'birth' refers to the birth of different animals & creatures rather than the birth of "beings" or "satta". SN 23.2 refers to a "being" as a mind that is attached to the five aggregates as "self". It is doubtful birds & snakes conceive the five aggregates as "self" or generate "self-views" of "beings" (as described in SN 5.10).
Are there any compelling reasons or grounds why Buddhists should accept the Maha-Nidana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya as the words of the Buddha?

This venerable bikku has discuss about it, The-Law-of-Dependent-Arising_Vol_1.pdf

Any reference to consciousness entering into the womb as reincarnation is unverifiable superstition and not in accord with the many teaching about consciousness by the Buddha. Possibly what DN 15 is stating here is if the mother is not conscious of the embryo in her womb, description (nama-rupa) of the embryo will not arise in her mind. DN 15 then discusses "Delineations of a Self". Again, if the mother is not conscious of the embryo or of her child, she will not make Delineations of a Self, namely, "my baby", "my child".

DN 15 stating ... Mentality-Materiality
“It was said: ‘With consciousness as condition there is mentality-materiality.’
How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would mentality-materiality take shape in the womb?”
“Certainly not, venerable sir.”
“If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would mentality-materiality be generated into this present state of being?”
“Certainly not, venerable sir.”.....

This is as i described. A woman's consciousness must descend (feel) the womb so a woman knows she is pregnant and develops the idea her embryo is a "being". Nama-rupa means "naming" or "description" in DN 15.

Then this should be applicable to the animals and other beings also.

What is the method to decide rubbish?

The Buddha defined his Dhamma as "visible here & now". This is chanted very day morning & night in Theravada Buddhist countries. sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.047.than.html

I think it's better to consider other answers given here.

Definitely not. Why are you so zealous to teach about things that have no evidence for their existence? Were you once a Christian by any chance? Thanks

It is true that Maha Nidana Sutta in the Digha Nikaya points out Paticcasamuppada  (the process of Dependant Arising), and of Nāma-kāya Rupa-kāya - (mentality and materiality) together with vinnana (consciousness) somewhat different to some other suttas.  Paticcasamuppada is the most important of all other related teachings. It is a deep and complex doctrine, and understanding this is Key to seeing the Truth. So one cannot rule out Maha Nidana Sutta in the Digha Nikaya by just such observations as that you’ve pointed out. We should remember well Buddha’s words:

By not understanding, and not penetrating this doctrine of Paticcasamuppada, beings have become entangled like in a knotted ball of thread and have become like munja grass and rushes, unable to pass beyond the woeful states of existence, and Samsara, the cycle of existence.

For Buddha to exclude Ignorance, Volitional Activities, and Six sense-bases, there is a reason. It is just that you and I have not yet found out as to why it is so.  In Maha Nidana Sutta it is said:

"Thus, Ananda, from Nāma-Rupa as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes Nāma-Rupa. Then from Nāma-Rupa as a requisite condition comes contact..."

It was shown thus because one cannot exist without the other. The Buddha showed this with an example of two bundles of reeds to make it easy to understand. Two bundles of reeds are kept on the ground with a little space between them leaning against each other with their top ends, that both the bundles are kept standing with the support of each other. Removing one removes the other.
I will try and find the answer to your question within the month, but let us keep in mind that learning is a gradual process. The Buddha said that his method is gradual training, gradual action and gradual practice. So I will look into ‘Pancha Bhaya Wera Sutta’, ‘Nalakalapa Sutta‘, ‘Loka Sutta’, ‘Maha Nidhana Sutta‘ etc. on Paticca Samuppadaya.
Until we find a proper answers let us not discard any of the original suttas. Let us not put away what we feel are contradictory statements till we have understood thoroughly the fundamentals. Only if when we detect the structural principles of such paticcasamuppada links, in the entirety of the teaching, then you would have arrived at the true Dhamma. So let us try to dig a little deeper.

It is obvious that Paticcasamuppada links in Maha Nidana Sutta are less in compare with ubiquitous Paticcasamuppada in Nidana SN.
But the difference in between SN Suttas and DN Maha Nidana Sutta is target audience and initiative question.

The questionnaire of Maha Nidana Sutta is Monk Ananda and it is very doubtful that first council answerer Ananda did manipulate or invente Maha Nidana Sutta by his own.
By the time of questioning about Paticcasamuppada by Ananda, the venerable Ananda was Sottapanna level.
The main question about Maha Nidana Sutta is

"It's amazing, lord, it's astounding, how deep this dependent co-arising is, and how deep its appearance, and yet to me it seems as clear as clear can be (it seems very easy to understand for me)."

and not asking

Lord, please teach me Paticcasamuppada

The Sakkara Samjna (the idea of self) does not happen at all in one mind of Sottapanna level. Wikipedia said

A sotāpanna doesn't actually have a view about self (sakkāya-ditthi)

Instead sotapanna person has Samma Ditthi which is deeply discoursed by Sariputta in MN 9: Sammaditthi Sutta. In this sutta,

Saying, “Good, friend,” the bhikkhus delighted and rejoiced in the venerable Sāriputta’s words. Then they asked him a further question: “But, friend, might there be another way in which a noble disciple is one of right view…and has arrived at this true Dhamma?”—“There might be, friends.
“When, friends, a noble disciple understands the sixfold base, the origin of the sixfold base, the cessation of the sixfold base, and the way leading to the cessation of the sixfold base, in that way he is one of right view…and has arrived at this true Dhamma.
“And what is the sixfold base, what is the origin of the sixfold base, what is the cessation of the sixfold base, what is the way leading to the cessation of the sixfold base? There are these six bases: the eye-base, the ear-base, the nose-base, the tongue-base, the body-base, the mind-base. With the arising of mentality-materiality there is the arising of the sixfold base. With the cessation of mentality-materiality there is the cessation of the sixfold base. The way leading to the cessation of the sixfold base is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view…right concentration.
“When a noble disciple has thus understood the sixfold base, the origin of the sixfold base, the cessation of the sixfold base, and the way leading to the cessation of the sixfold base…he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view…and has arrived at this true Dhamma.”

Gautama Buddha did not include Six bases in Maha Nidama Sutta because Venerable Ananda was already Sotapanna person and he had no self view on all six bases. And Gautama Buddha did not totally exclude six bases in this Sutta. When Gautama Buddha explained Phasa section, it said

"'From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. If there were no contact at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., contact at the eye, contact at the ear, contact at the nose, contact at the tongue, contact at the body, or contact at the intellect — in the utter absence of contact, from the cessation of contact, would feeling be discerned?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for feeling, i.e., contact.

This means six bases is a bridge between Contact(Phasa) and Nama-Rupa(Material-Mental). Five bases of Rupa (Material POCs) and one base for Nama (Metal POC) is indirectly discoursed in Maha Nidana Sutta.
The logical assumption about not discussing six bases in link was Ananda probably had well understanding on six bases by Samma Ditthi (without self-view, Sakkara Ditthi). On his question Paticcasamuppada was easy to understand we can deduce that Venerable Ananda had Vijja and got rid of Avijja since he first joined Sanga. So Gautama Buddha did discourse without discussing Avijja as well as Sankhara (which is closely related with Avijja).
In conclusion, Maha Nidana Sutta is highly tailored to Venerable Ananda who was already sotapanna person so it is safe to exclude Avijja (Ignorance), Sankhara (fabrication, formation, Constructing activities) and six bases.
But for the normal, ubiquitous and common causes and effects links should include six bases and mainly Avijja and Sankhara as well. I do not know how much extent Sotapanna person would understand the causes and effects of Avijja, Sankhara and six bases but here in Maha Nidana Sutta, Gautama Buddha discussed only 9 causes and effects probably because of Venerable Ananda understanding on 3 missing links and based on this understanding he thought Paticcasamuppada was so easy for him.

Source: Conditioned Arising of Suffering

Maha-Nidana Sutta omits the six sense spheres

As there cannot be Phassa without Salayatana this is implied as sense-object, sense-door, and sense-consciousness are all needed. In the Vipaka cycle (see diagram above), the most important is Passa and Vedana any other elements can be omitted.
The Sutta also omits the past.

descend into the womb of a mother

Without a womb or being born with a physical body there cannot be Nama-Rupa or Salayatana which is needed for Vinnana to exist.

Are there any compelling reasons or grounds why Buddhists should accept the Maha-Nidana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya as the words of the Buddha?

This is a simplification of the 12 link sequence hence there is no reason to dispute this is not the words of the Buddha.


text:
how to eradicate past smaskaras
A monastery nearby my house, where I was about to be ordained and venture into the world of which I have been waiting so long, has now denied me ordination due to my bad habits of reading erotic literature, sensual audios and masturbating -- all of which I want to leave forever. I do go on abstinence streaks, but when something unfortunate happens to me(an incident or mishap that saddens me) I get triggered and relapse.sometimes even the most simplest of natural phenomena such a blossoming flower can be the root of the lapse.other times it's just plain advertisements on t.v which cause the downfall.it has become tedious to avoid triggers, it also leaves no time for meditation and other stuff.
Due to the kind advice of ven. Yuttadhammo bhikkhu I have quit my porn viewing addiction, but  I can't seem get enough of masturbation and other forms of pornography(though the frequency has been significantly reduced)I request the members of this forum to provide some comprehensive techniques and advice  that can be adapted with a practical approach and help me quit all these bad habits forever.
It has ruined my life to such an extent that I longer feel the state of bliss that I used to have during my abstinence streaks(i now recognise they were the best period of my Buddhist training)
P.S: if possible, do explain in detail how to inculcate "sila" in my practice, because @Dhammadhatu mentioned that a proper practitioner has to practice three methods of lust eradication (I have attained mastery over the other two).

I can't tell if your saying you relapsed because of Ven. Yuttadhammo's advice or the opposite of that.

@Uuu I changed the punctuation. Is it clearer now?

@ChrisW Yes that part is clear but what about where the question says  "... but can get enough of ", the context seems to imply that "can" should be "can't", right? Thank you Chris :)

@Uuu I read that as "with advice I have quit my addiction, however I still masturbate and get other forms of pornography".

@Dhammadhatu is not a 'Venerable' (monk)

@Uuu: Sorry for the bad grammar,I've fixed it up today.

Ven.Yuttadhammo bhikkhu has given you proper advice. Being true to monkhood is being rooted and grounded in a Life of celibacy. The benefits of celibacy (sexual abstinence) are obviously not widely understood nor fully appreciated. Even though sex may be a natural, essential part of life, so is being stuck in a physical body along with all its severe restrictions, miseries and complications lifetime after lifetime. Celibacy is a change in the direction of sex and sensuality, not its repression. But this advice is easier said than done.
In becoming a Bhikku with an idea of performing the practice of breathing towards samatha and vipassana (calm and insight) without first attempting kayagata-satipatthana (mindfulness as regards the body), resembles an owner who yokes the still untamed bullock (an adult bovine animal) to the cart or plough without the nose-rope. Such an owner would find oneself unable to drive the bullock at his desire. Because the bullock is wild, and because it has no nose-rope, it will either try to run off the road, or try to break loose by breaking the yoke.
The Buddha, in one of the Suttas pointed out that the realm of sensual pleasures resembles the forest where the wild elephant enjoys himself/herself. The Buddha Sasana, "the teaching of the Buddha",resembles the open field into which the wild elephant is first brought out. The mind resembles the wild elephant. Confidence (saddha) and desire (chanda) in the sasana-dhamma resemble the tame elephant to which the wild elephant is hitched and brought out into the open. Sila-visuddhi (purification of virtue) resembles the stockade. The body, or parts of the body, such as out-breath and in-breath resemble the post in the stockade to which the elephant is tied. Kayagati-sati resembles the rope by which the wild elephant is tied to the post. The preparatory work towards samatha and vipassana resembles the preparatory training of the elephant. The work of samatha and vipassana resembles the parade ground or battlefield of the king.
Firstly what you have to learn to do is the Meditation on loathsomeness (Asuba). There’s a series of meditations called guardian meditations, which are very helpful in using skillful perceptions to get the mind in the right mood, in the right attitude, with the right understanding, as you come into the present moment. You’ll often find, as you’re sitting here meditating on the breath, that the problem is not with the breath. It’s with the mental baggage you’re carrying with you. So you want to open up the bags and throw out all the unnecessary weight. In practicing this, you see that we all have the same garbage inside ourselves. This contemplation is helpful because it’s a guardian. There are so many people out there you could feel lust for, so cultivating this protects you from inappropriate lust. Even if you’re not practicing celibacy, you need a way to guard yourself against that kind of vagrant lust. So instead of weaving all sorts of narratives you’ve developed around beauty, it’s good to teach yourself other narratives, other associations. While at it, you should learn to do what is skillful.

“And what is skillful? Abstaining from taking life is skillful, abstaining from taking what is not given... from sexual misconduct... from lying... from abusive speech... from divisive tale-bearing... abstaining from idle chatter is skillful. Lack of covetousness... lack of ill will... right views are skillful. These things are called skillful.”—MN 9

Also the Buddha said… “Come guard your sense-faculties; be the master of your senses. When you see something with the eye, do not get attracted to it by its appearance, but treat it with self control. So allways be mindful by controlling and guarding your senses the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind.

My advise is do the 32 Parts of the Body Meditation (click the link to practice sytematically)or Asubha meditation.This helps counter a lustful mind.You are attracted to bodies because your not seeing the reality of it's unpleasantness.Since you magnified their attractive qualities to the point of masturbating you need to magnified their unattractive qualities to the point of being turned off.You have to train the mind to see skin as skin,sinew as sinew,body hair as body hair,bile as bile,feces as feces,mucus as mucus.See this in every one.When you see a person your sexually attracted to even romatically. See this in them.That they pass gas and excrement,that they smell,that they store urine,that their mouth and stomach is filled with bacteria.when you see a beautiful person picture them in the toilet,vomiting.blowing mucus or having their period or picture them old.See these people through this lens/filter.

the truth is that after practicing asubha,now the lust for bdies have decreased but i still vouch for the sexual act itself?how can i cultivate sila towards all women?

1.Don't place unwise attention.I know it seems like sexual need is "pressing" or it's a "need" that "has" to be fulfilled.It's not.It’s the simple act of placing attention on it that magnifies it.Change your attention or distract yourself,either go out jogging or go for a swim.You'll be surprised when that "need" changes when just a few hours ago it seems so pressing..@littlemonk

2.Contemplate the disadvantages of breaking the sila.Which leads to lower rebirth and unhappiness.Your not breaking the sila by having sex with a consenting partner but if you want to be a monastic my advise is you need to adjust to leading a celibate life. Train yourself to be celibate at least 2 years,no sex.no masturbation,no pornograpghy before ordaining. Thats the good way to prepare for monastic life is for you.Sex is not a need.The body’s perfectly fine without sex.

3.Contemplate having pure sila. It makes you feel whole and confident. You feel good about yourself.

4.Cut off any triggers.Like if you get triggered by tv,try not watching tv.If you get triggered by music try not listening to music.Cut the causes out.This strong sexual desires don’t appear out of nowhere their kept in place by conditions.If you can cut the conditions it will die down.
5.Restrain.Just don’t do it.everytime it comes up don’t act on it.Its like building a muscle.It gets stronger and stronger each time you  say no and don’t do it.And before you know one day the thought won’t even come up.

6.Practice mindfulness of breathing.I would not use metta as an object of meditation when the mind is lustful.atleast not intensively.Mindfulness of breathing s neutral and when developed deeply you will naturally lose interest with lust.

Addiction of a thousand faces is pandemic in the "world". The harmonic of social and political instability and perhaps the sub-harmonics of rapid onset climate disruption and accelerating species extinctions also contribute to explicit and subtle triggering events.
It may be possible to eradicate the behavioral loops of trigger, response, ease, and it may not be - thus the way of the renunciate in a formal and traditional sense may be closed to you, at least for now.
Perfection of behavior is neither a requirement for nor an impediment to full awakening. In fact, gnarly afflictions, can be accelerants for the conditioned mind to burn through its cherished beliefs and adornments thus opening the doors of unafflicted being.
One's primary objective is what's already present, this would be objectless and unafflicted being. Perhaps the life puzzle that's before you is not how to remedy and transcend your local nature so you can enter the monastery, but how to discover nirvana in the midst of your local nature, suffering no loss or permission to enter the gate of yourself?
Warmly, NightSkySanghaGuy

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How prevalent are siddhis in buddhism?
Abilities (such as flying through the air, walking through solid obstructions, diving into the ground, walking on water, and so forth) are performed by changing one element, such as earth, into another element, such as air.
How does one expect to achieve them?
I have read some commentaries which claim they are mere illusions on the path to enlightenment and that the true sadhka shouldn't be distracted by them and should aim for higher realms.
Moreover are these claims made in documentaries true?

See http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/12107/has-anyone-seen-any-meditation-master-demonstrating-abhinna-or-supernatural-powe/12127#12127

Below one answerer said: "For example, the famous arahant disciple & jhana master Sariputta did not have siddhis...", wrong, or only convicted in the Pali literature? Śāriputra had Rddhi power, in Agama Sutra recorded he once laid his cotton belt on the floor, Maudgalyāyana ( Moggallāna) was unable to move it.

Siddhi - a paranormal power possessed by a siddha – is a true phenomenon. These are certain by-products of the practice itself. But just as gain, respect and fame can become obstacles to liberation, so, too, can such siddhi. Such phenomena are categorized under the Tenth Army of Mara. A battle faced by meditation masters, this last army is perhaps the most lethal of all. In the Buddha's time there was even a man, Devadatta, who tried to kill the Buddha under its influence.
There was once a layman who told that the Buddha should widely deploy all of his disciples who had psychic powers and ask them to demonstrate miracles to the people. "People will be really impressed," the layman said. "You'll get a lot of followers that way. The Buddha refused. Three times the request was repeated, and three times it was refused. Finally the Buddha said, "Layman, there are three types of psychic powers. One is the power to fly in the air and dive into the earth, and to perform other superhuman feats. The second is the power to read other people's minds. But there is a third psychic power, the power of instruction. This last power is the most important psychic power. The first two psychic powers can be attained and displayed if this interests you. It is not essential, or a hindrance, if you know it for what it is.
True disciples of the Buddha are more interested in developing ‘the Four Irdhi-paada.’ Iddhiya: of attaining completion or perfection; pado: root or basis -the root or basis of attaining completion or perfection. Hence it is called iddhipada. There are four kinds of iddhipada. But this is another subject/answer for another time/question.

Siddhis only occur in people/minds with an underlying disposition for siddhis. For example, the famous arahant disciple & jhana master Sariputta did not have siddhis.
Enemies of the Buddha, such as Mara & Devadatta, had siddhis. Christians & Hindus have siddhis.
Siddhis are a supernormal yet mundane worldly phenomena, unrelated to Buddhist enlightenment (refer to Susīma Sutta &  Kevatta Sutta).
There are enough Buddhists & Christians that have siddhis. If you look or pray for them, you might find them. Or if you practise seriously in monasteries & other serious places, you might meet them. The Attavagga states such people cannot purify your mind.
Generally, people with siddhis control their devotees, who relate to/worship them like gods. In the Kevatta Sutta, it is taught the greatest miracle is that of 'instruction' to Nibbana rather than siddhis.

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


text:
Feeding meat to pets is it a good karma or bad?
I switched my diet to complete vegetarian diet just out of compassion towards animals. However I am confused about feeding meat to my pet dogs. Feeding meat to one animal will directly or indirectly involve the killing of another animal. I feel like I am provoking the slaughtering of animals.
Is that a bad karma though it's good for another animal? What was Buddha's thoughts about this?

According to the Brahmanet Sutra you should not own any pets which typically eat meat, except dogs who guard your property. Part of the reason is that a bodhisattva should not be engaged in fostering the consumption of meat, which is not compassionate. However, I would also be concerned with the health of the animal on a vegetarian diet.

Meat eating is a very sensitive topic. Other people or You or I may have different views on this and each may be right to a certain extent. But we all should be open enough to look at the Buddha’s insights on this. He is the Tathagata who knows and sees, or by that I mean the Suttas and Vinaya – our guide and teacher (AN 4.180). In Majjhima Nikaya 55, it is said that:

“Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself) … I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)….”
“If anyone slaughters a living being for the Tathagata (i.e. Buddha) or his disciple, he lays up much demerit in five instances … (1) When he says: ‘Go and fetch that living being’ … (2) When that living being experiences pain and grief on being led along with a neck-halter … (3) When he says: ‘Go and slaughter that living being’ … (4) When that living being experiences pain and grief on being slaughtered … (5) When he provides the Tathagata or his disciple with food that is not permissible ….”

Now you know how the Buddha distinguishes between meat that is allowable (With the exception of ten types of meat which are prohibited to monks: human, elephant, horse, dog, hyena, snake, bear, lion, tiger, and panther. Refer to Mahavagga, the Books of the Discipline: Book 4, pages 298-300. The Books of the Discipline is the English translation of the Vinaya books (in Pali) by the Pali Text Society, U.K..).

a non-buddhist reply :
it depends  -   people who feed their dogs  not bought store food should really be experts on the subject of what dogs eat  --   and if you feed the a vegeterian diet i belive its much harder to mess up
There are some good quality balanced vegan dog food actually of some known producers like natural balance  which have their experts advising them on the food .... but im not sure that you have that in india (your indian right?)
It might be more compassionate to feed your dog a good diet with meat than to give him a home made diet without meat
but also if you give your dog home made with meat you still need to become an expert on the subject so you wont mess up on it
............ that being said  - the longest living dog ever in the world which lived to 27 years  ate  a vegan diet of "rice, lentils and organic vegetables" ..... but im sure her owners knew what vegetables to give her - they might have been organic   - i dont know where the dog got  b12 from - maybe his own body can make it....this are issues you need to check first - and understand them very well
anyway i dont think feeding a dog meat is the same as eating it yourself which is much more important : not in an atheistic way  and   in my personal understanding of Theravada it has benefits to you personally cause it reduces attachment and even might help develop metta
So keep with the meat until your sure ......  !!!  You can try to get free leftover meat from butchers - my grandpas brother used to do that -   he got leftover meat from butchers to feed his dog and they were quality parts also - this seems like a good solution - making good kamma for you and the butcher !!!

I would love to get a comment from whoever disliked this answer and explain to me why  - if its cause i wrote (a non-buddhist reply)   i just put it that no one will take this as 100% theravada view on the subject  but i did talk about benefits of avoiding meat in a buddhist sense and also explained why someone should not avoid giving meat if hes not very well informed on dog diet needs in a very detailed way and give a very well balanced diet - a diverse one as well

to me, your answer was a useful answer.

Thanks  -  and if i commented i will re-say again to all who reads : if you give your dog home made food with meat but even more a vegan diet you should defiantly  know what your doing and do a big research online -  and even after you give your dog food keep updating on what is a good homemade diet (meat or no meat)

Both questions and answers should be on topic for the site. "This is not a Buddhist answer" is a variation of "Well, as a Christian, God says it is okay to (whatever)" If this answer isn't a Buddhist answer, then it just chit chat unrelated to the site. If you think this is a question strictly for a vet, then per the way things are done on SO, you'd vote to close and migrate the question to the pet website.


text:
Differences between U Ba Khin and S.N. Goenka
Are there (small) differences between the vipassana meditation technique of U Ba Khin and S.N. Goenka?

From many of S.N. Goenka's writing it is implied that U Ba Khin gave explicit instruction not the change anything regarding to the technique and I believe this is the case. Also many times in this writing S.N. Goenka has expressed profound and deep respect to his teacher. So it is unlikely there would have been any changes.
Since U Ba Khin died some time back, while S.N. Goenka taught based in India while U Ba Khin this would only be known to someone who was a student of both masters if at all who might be surviving would be very few who would know the this for sure.
Also see: U ba Khin / Goenka Vipassana putting stress only on vednanupassana


text:
What does Buddhism add to a Stoic?
Is there any thing that Buddhism can add to a Stoic Pursuit?
Below is a friendly laid-back discourse between a Stoic and a Buddhist, which could be used as a guide to what I’m trying to compare.
Buddhist:  Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering; separation from the loved is suffering; not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.
Stoic: Yes, if you attach yourself to what is not given you will sure suffer. These five aggregates you counted must have been something not in your power. Have you nothing which is in your own power, which depends on yourself only and cannot be taken from you, or have you any thing of the kind?
Buddhist: what do you mean, there are only five aggregates there is no I or mine
Stoic: what? Is any man able to make you assent to that which is false or compel you to desire what you do not wish?
Buddhist: No
Stoic: In the matter of assent and desire then you are free from hindrance and obstruction?
Buddhist: Yes
Stoic: So, if we let go of the body which is subject to revolution of the whole and withdraw from externals, turns to our will to exercise it and to improve it by labor, so as to make it conformable to nature, elevated, free, unrestrained, unimpeded, faithful, modest, and virtuous will we not achieve tranquility and avoid suffering.
Buddhist:  Well said, training an act of will is a noble did, but until you learn that there is no “I or my-self” you would remain in cycle of rebirth.
Stoic: what do you mean?
Buddhist: But what is that you call my-self or I?
Stoic: Sir, it’s my soul. If you ask me what is a soul I can’t say this or that, but I have just told you an attribute of mine which is not bound by suffering. Will you be kind enough to show me that my act of will is not mine?
Buddhist: If that you call mine is the volitional formation you should know that it has ignorance as conditions and he who assume volition to be the self will surely be afflicted in mind.
Stoic: I do not understand, you seem to me to be talking very obscure, you surly do not mean that the all wise will not act?
Buddhist: No, I’m saying you should not say volition is mine.
Stoic: Why?
Buddhist: Perhaps you will understand if you look at it from another angle. Answer my question, by acting virtuously and by wisdom you are training the will towards the good?
Stoic: Yes
Buddhist: When the will become all virtuous, all wise and attain the good with no trace of ignorance will you claim that all wise will to be yours.
Stoic: Far from it, there is but only one wise. If at all possible to reach of what you speak without quitting the body then the act of will be one with the one.
HE

Stoicism says that if you are suffering it is within your power to change your internal interpretation of the situation. I don't know much about Buddhism, but if most of life is suffering, then there is the opportunity to adjust your perspective in most of your life.

Thank you for your answer. Try to provide some quotes or references to support your posts. Thanks

“Trust me, real joy is a serious thing. Do you think someone can, in the charming expression, blithely dismiss death with an easy disposition? Or swing open the door to poverty, keep pleasures in check, or meditate on the endurance of suffering? The one who is comfortable with turning these thoughts over is truly full of joy, but hardly cheerful. It’s exactly such a joy that I would wish for you to possess, for it will never run dry once you’ve laid claim to its source.”
—SENECA, MORAL LETTERS, 23.4

“This is the true athlete—the person in rigorous training against false impressions. Remain firm, you who suffer, don’t be kidnapped by your impressions! The struggle is great, the task divine—to gain mastery, freedom, happiness, and tranquility.”
—EPICTETUS, DISCOURSES, 2.18.27–28

"On the occasion of every accident (event) that befalls you, remember to turn to yourself and inquire what power you have for turning it to use. If you see a fair man or a fair woman, you will find that the power to resist is temperance (continence). If labor (pain) be presented to you, you will find that it is endurance. If it be abusive words, you will find it to be patience. And if you have been thus formed to the (proper) habit, the appearances will not carry you along with them." - Epictetus, Enchiridion

Stoicism is straight to the point, which is nice, but Buddhism covers a bit more territory.  Also, Stoicism requires less etymology to understand.
There are a few kinds of attachments that cause mental anguish.  Buddhism attempts to end all forms of this, plus increase insight and awareness, and allow one to experience different mental states, like jhanas.
So, for example, if someone insults Jane, an all too often reaction is for her to defend her identity, her values, what she owns, and what she thinks she is.  This creates a lot of unnecessary stress, and this defensiveness can turn into an argument.
Buddhism aims to increase empathy and compassion, decreasing conflict:  By understanding ourselves we understand the world better.  This in turn removes conflict and ill-will, removing unnecessary stress.
Buddhism aims to remove mana, which is a kind of comparison that creates jealousy and hurt.
Eventually Buddhism overlaps with Stoicism, removing quite a bit of attachment.  However, as far as I can tell that's where Stoicism mostly begins and ends.  Buddhism gets to the point where new attachment is not created, so that there is no future suffering.  However, I haven't seen anywhere in Stoicism going this far, only dissolving attachment once the suffering has started.
All in all, Stoicism and Buddhism do overlap, but Stoicism is a bit of a blip on the map.

Well, that dialog reminds me of two stories.

This bit of your dialog:

Stoic: what? Is any man able to make you assent to that which is
  false or compel you to desire what you do not wish?
Buddhist: No
Stoic: In the matter of assent and desire then you are free from
  hindrance and obstruction?
Buddhist: Yes

Reminds me of a Zen story called "Nothing Exists".

Nothing Exists

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after
  another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and
  sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena
  is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no
  mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked
  Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come
  from?"

Perhaps I'm not supposed to explain it, but the way I read it is that Buddhism (though I'm not sure about Zen Buddhism) identifies various hindrances or fetters, of which maybe "anger" is one. Buddhist teaching (including e.g. the doctrine of "emptiness") is intended to help people escape these fetters.
In this story the student is claiming "attainment", i.e. he's claiming to realize that things are empty, perhaps implicitly claiming that by his realization (of emptiness) he has attained freedom (from fetters).
The teacher's action shows (teaches) that it's not enough to just say that things are empty: the youth's pride and self-protection ("self-love") remain as a seed from which anger can arise.
Similarly in your story you have the Buddhist claim that he's immune to coercion, free from hindrance, etc., which I think begs the question: because part of the purpose of Buddhism is to develop such freedom, and Buddhism doesn't take for granted that people already have that freedom which maybe your Stoic is trying to claim.
Your Stoic is maybe describing an ideal, an ultimate end. The Buddha (Buddhism, Buddhist Dharma) describes the present non-ideal (suffering) situation, and outlines a way towards the end.
The Stoic's claim, as stated, might be a bit naive, too, if you analyze it; for example:

"to desire what you do not wish" might be a paradox (logically impossible), but IMO there are real-life examples of desires that make people unhappy, and of addictions etc.
In the phrase "you are free from hindrance" it presumes that "free from hindrance" and "you" can coexist; whereas perhaps "you" (i.e. a sense of self) is a type of attachment, and maybe "free from hindrance" starts when the sense of "you" stops.

The latter part of your dialog starts with:

Stoic: Sir, it’s my soul.

And ends with:

Buddhist: Perhaps you will understand if you look at it from another angle. Answer my question, by acting virtuously and by wisdom you are training the will towards the good?
Stoic: Yes

Here the topic has been focused on "self" and "my" and "soul" and "one" and so on, rather than on the previous hindrances-versus-freedom dichotomy.
Well on that subject I think that Buddhism has at least two things to say about "self".

One is that a sense of self, or a self-view, or selfishness, is a cause of suffering.
Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22)

"You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."

When it (the sense of self) is used towards the good (which your Stoic seems to be suggesting, "by wisdom I train my will towards the good"), I think that Buddhism maybe calls this type of sense-of-self, "conceit".
Conceit is a subject of the answers to this question: How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? which includes for example:

If one is better than someone and he thinks "I am better", or "I am equal" or "I am not as good" it is conceit. If the person is equal and he thinks: "I am better" or "I am equal" or "I am not as good", it is conceit". If the person is not as good and he thinks: "I am better" or "I am equal" or "I am not as good", it is conceit. - it should be 9 permutations rather than levels.. I couldn't find the sutta to link it. I just remembered it.

Conceit is also mentioned in this sutta (AN 4.159):

'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

It's a bit long but I think it's saying, "I have a conceit that I think I can be good: that I can be as good as someone else who was good or did well. The conceit itself isn't good, but by relying on it, etc."
IMO there's a similar sutta (SN 51.15) about using desire to abandon desire.

In summary I think these are examples of what Buddhism can "add to" what your Stoic was saying?
I'm not sure why the Stoic introduced "self" into the conversation at all. Buddhism too talks about Wisdom and Intention (e.g. "Right Intention", etc.), but maybe (at least initially) without claiming whether they are or are not mine.
I'm not sure what the purpose of the Stoic's "soul" (or theory of soul) is. I guess its purpose is to identify with eternal/divine virtues, which I more or less ignorantly attribute to piety of the Ancient Greeks (who I imagine saying that Man isn't good but that some men embody some godly virtues).

Hi Chris,
Thank you for taking your time to respond in detail.
I was fully aware that a discussion on act of will lead to Anatta that is why the second section on the discourse flow in to a quest about what the stoic claim to be myself.

On the first section, the stoic is only discussing on one attribute “act of will” noting more. And the stoic claim that the act of will is his own.
If one is attached to his body or any external he could be forced to do what he doesn’t desire, this is not a paradox (logically impossible) as you stated. If a man is attached to pleasure he get from substance abuse then he has shown for what coin he sale his will. Provide him the substance and he will do unwholesome act.

Method of Stoic teaching, especially Epictetus, is characterize with hard talk  and thus it is quick to declare the ideal (i.e) what the act of will is capable, but that doesn't mean that it does not teach as to how to attain this like Buddhism. The main difference is that for a stoic all suffering listed on the first paragraph by the Buddhist are training for the act of will not suffering.

On second part I agree with you that conceit is the answer, but even on the sutta (AN 4.159) you quoted it reads: “…. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.'’
I read this to be the same as the stoic pursuit, because the stoic is calling mine only the act-of-will and is laboring to correct it and as it read on the last lines of the discourse the stoic will not dare to call it mine once it reach the goal. Which is the same as been conceited by assuming that he is not as good until the final goal.

Buddhism has a rich resource of written record and educated monastic order safeguarding the teaching and is not to be contrasted with Stoic / Socratic teachings in anyway.
Believe me I’m not trying to contrast these two traditions what I’m trying to get at is what Buddhism can add to the core pursuit of a stoic in this very life. That is why I avoid in the discourse discussing the stoic idea of soul or the Buddhist concept of Karma which aim to link this life with subsequent life.

I said "compel you to desire what you don't want" sounds like a paradox ... "compel you to do what you don't desire" is a different proposition.

I know little about the Stoic tradition. I was literally adding to what you wrote in the question, rather than addressing or trying to find gaps in e.g. Epictetus.

"the stoic will not dare to call it mine" -- that phrase "don't dare" reminds me of hubris (offending god[s], inviting retribution). There might be a Buddhist analog for that in Mara, but I don't think the Buddhist rationale for anatta is exactly that. "the stoic is calling mine only the act-of-will" Doesn't that sound similar to, remind you of, the Buddhist definition of kamma as "Intentional action" and "'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions" etc. (here)?

If you're not trying to contrast the traditions I'm not sure what you are trying to do! I added the [tag:comparative-religion] tag because this is a site about Buddhism, and IMO it's using stoicism (or any other religion/tradition) as a baseline from which to compare, view, or learn more about Buddhism, that makes any question about that tradition (e.g. stoicism) on-topic.

Thank you again...Sorry for responding on the comment line, but the web site doesn’t permit new users to use the chat plat-form the only option left for me was to respond on the comment section or replay to my own question to appear below you answer which would have been even worse.

Nice and generouse answer, Sadhu, and nice discussion afterwards, still visible, Sadhu as well for such sacrifys.

This is poorly made-up conversation to find the loophole of Buddhism teachings especially no self idea (Anatman) but actually it does not prove any strong self (Atta) existence. The answers of Buddhist must be written by non-Buddhist who studied Buddha's teachings superficially and on this particular point "The Act of Will" called Chanda in Buddhism should be "I" and with strong belief that Buddhism cannot deny Chanda is not "I" or "mine".
The person who learned Buddha's teachings properly will reply Stoic questions differently. It could be verbally written like below.

Stoic: Yes, if you attach yourself to what is not given you will sure suffer. These five aggregates you counted must have been something not in your power. Have you nothing which is in your own power, which depends on yourself only and cannot be taken from you, or have you any thing of the kind?

The answer should be -
In Buddha's teachings there are only Sankhara Dhamma are occurring. There is none can be given to possess/control to be taken ownership. There is nothing a single person can possess (can tell this is mine, I am controlling it, I am taking it with me indefinitely, I have power to control/manage how it behaves...).

Stoic: what? Is any man able to make you assent to that which is false or compel you to desire what you do not wish?

The answer should be -
There is nothing can be called as "You" or "I" in here. In this Sankhara world where one person verbally say to another person to understand each other as we called people "Mr. or Mrs./Ms. A", "Mr. or Mrs./Ms. B", A can ask B to do something and vice versa. So called you ask so called me to do something and vice versa. This is the case. There is another case A does something on A's own desire/will/Chanda. This is the second case. Chanda is one of Nama Kaya and it is not permanent/eternal, not able to be possessed. It is one of Nama Kaya originated from Avidya (in plain English Ignorance). Because of this Ignorance a person viewed as Chanda/Will is mine, I did my Chanda to happen, I have Chanda therefore I am,...But in a period of single day, there are many countable obvious Chanda(s) happened and extinguished as well as many delicate Chanda(s) where a very good mindfulness and concentration require to notice them.

Stoic: In the matter of assent and desire then you are free from hindrance and obstruction?

This is something backing up the religions in which people believe there is god/creator/ruler (details below). In Buddha's teachings Avidya/Ignorance lead Citta Sinkhara (I memorize, I suffer) eventually lead to Chanda/Will/Desire. In proper Buddha's teachings we do not say my Chanda/Will/Desire. Laypeople (one who didn't get any attainment to be enlightened) with Atta Samjna(the perception of existence of "Self" which has either eternal or being controllable/possess-able or both) see the mind is "Self" (I think therefore I am/I desire therefore I am). But in Buddha's teachings there is no such entity callable "Self".
The idea of "Act of will"/Will/Free Will is originated from religions of God(s). For the early believers of God, everything is under God's will. But modern people found that is dangerous and outlaw idea. If someone burn other people or bomb a group of people to death/injured and that person says it is God's will then religion of such people does not help very much about the damage in both physical and ethical. So new civilized people invented a things called Free Will or Will of people which is separated from God's will. By doing so God is relieved from inappropriate responsibility of a single person wrong doing as well as ethical and legal constraint can posted and it is publicly and religiously acceptable. It is obvious that Physical Bodies (Rupa Khandha) is Anatta (not Atta) for Westerners (Middle easterners and Mediterraneans of early Buddhism ages) but they do not fully understand other four Khandhas (Vedana, Samjna, Sankhara, Vijnana Khandas) or called soul to one of them. So all four Khandas combined to a word called mind or soul and they thought there is a chance to find a loophole of Anatta (no self, no Atta) of Buddha's teachings because they failed to notice the latches and couplers between two consecutive transitions of state of mind since Citta Khandas very short-lived and very fast. Only the trained person to do Vipasana with strong concentration can see the details transitions of Nama Kaya.
There are many anatman definitions and explanations in Buddhism literature both printed and web but here is concise repetition here.
I see, therefore I am.
No, I see because I have eyes and things to views. When these two contact I have a sequence of thinking, memorizing, examining and judging occurs in my mind. Seeing doesn't prove it is me
I hear, therefore I am.
...As above seeing
I smell, therefore I am
I can taste, therefore I am
I can feel the touch, therefore I am
...all as above seeing
I think, therefore I am
the contact of things memorized and mind makes thinking, judging and examining mentally and all phases are temporary, not controllable, not possess-able and extinguished/depleted eventually. In every steps and phases of transitions of state of mind (or called soul) a properly taught Buddhist cannot find Atta Samjna (the idea of perception of self). That is true, all mental bodies (four Khandas, Vedana/suffer, Samjna/memorize/percept, Sankhara/initiate/encourage/activate, Vijnana/be conscious or called soul to one of four) are Anatta (not to be possessed, have an end, can deplete, can extinguish). Chanda is also Anatta in both wholesome desire/Chanda and unwholesome desire/Chanda.
Buddha said when a person is doing meditation or Vipasana only Samkhara Khanda is observing or insightfully viewing to other Samkhara Khanda. That means we cannot find I or Me or My or Mine even in doing meditation/Vipasana. Verbally we say I meditate, I do Vipasana but it is just for the sake of language and colloquial sayings. There is no such case that you are going to find any sixth Khanda or/and a Khanda that can be called "I", "Mine" or "Self" in Buddha's teaching or outside Buddha's teaching. This also applied to both external and internal from a viewpoint of a person's Khandas. So will/volition/Chanda or whatever Stoic called cannot be "I" or "Mine" because it has originated cause "Ignorance/Avidya" and other supporting factors which are not controllable/possess-able by a person. In conclusion, any Stoic or early/late philosopher cannot prove a single entity (in physical or metal form) that can be self (either can control/possess, persist, eternal, can be created, can be managed).

It’s for sure a poor discourse, but never intended to find loophole in Buddhism rather to understand the act of will as understood by Stoic and Buddhist.
Please note that your second response don’t answer the stoic, the stoic is not asking weather there are many act of will per day he is asking is if there is a free will to assent or dissent & desire or avert in each one of them! If the act of will can not be control in this very-life then there is not reason to teach anyone the Dhamma.

As Chris put it above, perhaps it’s due to conceit underling the Stoic’s idea that they call the “act of will” or volition mine. That can be said one thing a stoic can learn form Buddhist. If you have similar observation it much appreciated.

More or less the same for morality, just takes away Essence from the philosophy.

I don't know Stoicism well enough, but your question seems to wonder how to add something that somehow enhances Stoicism. This is the wrong approach.
Eg: rebirth is a central tenet of Buddhism IMHO, what does Stoicism say about that? Helping other, creating merit and virtue, cultivating the mind are central to Mahayana Buddhism AFAIK, what does Stoicism say about that? I feel that it's like a blip in the Buddhist map, like someone said.

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


text:
Is mindfulness itself kamma ? does it create kamma?
Is mindfulness itself kamma ? does it create kamma ? is it one of the 50 types of kamma ?
(my teacher who is a monk told me mindfulness is kamma  - and like kamma its an accumulated thing )
Im asking cause if mindfulness is kamma than its accumlated - and if its accumlated it answers my "problem"  :
Is there a value for a single moment of mindfulness (without others) ?

Fabrication (Sankhara), consists of 50 of the 52 Mental Factors (cetasika). Mindfulness appears in the 25 mental factors which arise with wholesome consciousness. Mindfulness is wholesome as it aids liberation. Unlike some factors which accumulates Fabrication which is one which aids in not creating new fabrication which keeps a being in misery. Also what every is Wholesome is not necessary accumulation of positive Karmic Fabrications. The reduction in accumulated Karma is also Wholesome are you are more closer to liberation. Also note the 50 cetasikas are not all wholesome and they influence karmic accumulation.

Sorry i dont do resarch before i ask i want to get as much detailed answers as i can  - im trying to determine whtere being mindful is an accumulated thing like kamma is
My meditation teacher who is a monk said to me midfulness is kamma - is he wrong ?
If somehow i am sure mindfulness is kamma it will help me solving this "problem"  :
http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/18641/is-there-a-value-for-a-single-moment-of-mindfulness-without-others

cetasika  are kammas ?  Saṅkhāra are kamma ?

Kusala Karma is made by the reduction of accumulating fabrications. It is Kusala because the result is conducive. In many cases Karma = Fabrication but not always.

so are you saying mindfulness is not karma but can clear karma ? or is it karma itslef ?

No
There are two types of karma , positive karma and negative karma.
Karma are acts done by body ,words and mind.
Mindfulness itself is not a karma since  it is not an act.
But it will reduce the negative karma that  you'd do unknowingly.because you are aware of your mind.
Thus eventually it will help you to achieve nirvana even though doesn't create karma.

What about the answer below saying that mindfulness sati is part of the 52 mental factors  (cetasika)  -  are this factors not karma ? or Saṅkhāra not kamma ?

I really don't know about that , I just tried to help with what I know :-)

OK - so will say it different :   kamma isnt intention though ? being mindful isnt an act of being mindful ?

Kamma is acts done with intention. Being mindful is just being aware of your mind and acts, it can not be considered as an act done by mind because if it is an act you have to be mindful about being mindful,

in 1 minute medtation what good kamma is made ?

Mindfulness is not awareness of the mind. Mindfulness means to remember to apply dhamma principles.

Right mindfulness is an intentional (mental) act therefore it is kamma. However it falls under a 3rd type of kamma that is called the "kamma that ends kamma".
AN 6.63 states the noble eightfold path is the kamma that ends kamma therefore right mindfulness falls within this.

Dhammadhatu can you re answer my question about the value of a single moment of mindfulness -    but with taking in mind this question
and if you cant give 2 answers you can delete the old one you gave

Cause if a single moment of mindfulness is kamma  - and it ends kamma - than it has value it is "accumelative"  in a sense  that it has its effect even if its just a single moment of mindfulness right ?
meaning even if i am mindful 1 moment this life time  - it has a point right ?

Good & bad kamma (action) & good & bad results are based in self-view. Where as the 3rd type of kamma is based on the ending of self-view. When there is Right Mindfulness, nothing is clung to as being "I", "me", "mine" and "myself". This is why the 3rd type of kamma ends kamma. Right mindfulness only happens when the mind is not thinking in terms of "I".

yes of course there is (itching,tiered,rising,falling ect) im aware of the basics -  but for conventional terms i use this language  and i would like to understand the value of a single moment of mindfulness without connection to others


text:
New Year Resolutions
What are some resolution that we can made in order to make the upcoming year more peaceful ,fruitful. Resolutions which may bring some major changes in our life?

This question does not appear to be a good fit for StackExchange, as it will elicit only opinions.

There is no correct answer to this poorly framed question.  Any possible answer is arbitrary and capricious.  Every respondent is required to elevate their own premise above that of the questioner in order to establish sufficient framework to reach a mature conclusion.

In school, teachers was asking students their resolutions, they can be not to lie, getting high score and so on.
But after some days or times gone no one seem aware of resolutions they had made at start of new year. Seldom of them aware of it; so if I've made resolution as not to lie, first thing I need to remind myself about it for practically achieve it. Need to mind control to not to lie. And so you asking for making year peaceful and happy then you can set it as practicing better than before and so many as you wishing. Meditation is there also you can made resolution of it and you'll have peaceful and bright year, not even year but life.

I am a bit late in answering this, but not too late. IMHO.. to be in the timeless present is a good New Year’s Resolution that will open a whole new world anyone who would take this challenge. We are still at a threshold right now, as it is just one month into the dawn of 2017 after another year has come to an end.  Put into practice what you know of Dhamma right now. The one all important Pali word is ‘APPAMADA’.  You will not postpone any acts or decisions for a ‘tomorrow’. Life is in the today – life is here and now. For many,  this Dhamma Path has created new possibilities, that only in living in the present we can learn to live this truth.
Only if we develop two important attitudes that strengthen skillful desires: a sense of dismay (samvega) over the universality of suffering, and an attitude of heedfulness (appamada) to avoid being duped by types of desires that come our way, that we will have a sense of urgency towards the practice of Dhamma.
The ‘Ehipassico’ & “Opanaiko’ qualities of the Dhamma invites you to come and see it for yourself.  But would you – I mean in the truest sense of the meaning?  If such thinking could help you to have less attachment to the senses – the eyes / seeing, the ears / hearing, the nose / smell, the tongue / taste, the touch and the thoughts – you will find a much more beautiful heavenly world out there that you have never explored.
In the not too distant future, we are going to face old age, when only with difficulty that one could maintain the body – it is just as maintaining a dilapidated old cart. Your body can be at ease. Even if you will feel the pain, you will not suffer when you enter upon and dwell in the minds realm.
A fact of life that almost every one of us deny, is that life is suffering. If you see this truth, understand it, accept it and go beyond it, you will find a peace of mind and happiness as you have never experienced before. If you truly understand this fact of life that is common to every living being, understand the core reason for it, and detach yourself from clinging to all such, then you will experience true peace.  I wish you a Happy New Year.

In Buddhism Dhamma should be experienced here and now. In order to do that you have to practice Vipassanā. Hence a fruitful resolution would be that you pratice 1 hour in the morning and evening and to do at least one retreat for the year.


text:
Does mindfulness end kamma ? is that a good thing ?
Does mindfulness end kamma ? is that a good thing ?
!!! yes I am aware that the goal is not to attach to anything so avoiding suffering and that good kamma in the end is also "bad"  !!!
I am asking about whats the benifits of mindfulness eradicating kamma becaus :
Dont we all have a ton of kamma from a gigantic amount of kamma and if we eradicate kammas throw mindfulness it will just be replaced with other kammas which can also be bad kammas ?
i mean its not like we reach nibana by cleaning up all the kamma "We" got - but by developing wisdom  so whats the good thing about mindfulness ending spesific (not all)  kammas ?
I ask this after receiving this reply (and wanted this as a follow up different question) :
"Right mindfulness is an intentional (mental) act therefore it is kamma. However it falls under a 3rd type of kamma that is called the "kamma that ends kamma". "
from here (I wanted this as a follow up in different new question) :
Is mindfulness itself kamma ? does it create kamma?

What is wholesome is what you perceive positively at the time the result manifests. Since all worldly experiences are unsatisfactory, experiencing Nirvana is wholesome. Anything that reduces your stress and suffering is a good thing.
When you are practice Right Mindfulness, you do not create new Karma then your old Karmas start surfacing which reduce your old stock of karma and newly created karma. Development of the path factors is good Karma. Path factors are also part of the Mental Factors (cetasika).

Does mindfulness end kamma ? is that a good thing ?

It's a necessary condition toward the ending of kamma. But it's not a sufficient condition. SammaSati is one factor to be cultivated among the 8 factors of the Noble Eightfold Path. Regarding the other question, one even needs to have wholesome desires in order to put an end to all desires. See Ven. Ananda's "park" simile in SN 51.15

do you have time for a chat ?

if not - do you think there is value in doing 1 minute of medtation only in 1 year ?   (of course the more the better but asking if its alone does it have value)

Answering your Question "Is mindfulness itself kamma ? does it create kamma?"
In short answer Yes mindfulness itself generating Kamma.

We need to clarify the word "Kamma" and
How it affects to the life?  and
How the Kamma nullify in which stages?

Let's do it one by one
01. We need to clarify the word "Kamma"
Very simple we can say actions conducting by

Words using mouth - Verbal deed (vaci-kamma)
activities using body - Bodily deed (kaya-kamma)
thoughts using consciousness - Mental deed (mano-kamma)

Further Reading: Know more about Wholesome Unwholesome acts
We have 6 Consciousness born places called

Chakku[Eye]
Sotha[Eyers]
Ghana[Nose]
Jivha[Tongue]
Kaya[Body]
Mana[Consciousness]

We have already inherited those due to our previous Kamma. We called them Purana Kamma[Ancient Kamma]. Now Leading consciousness we are doing actions by using word body, and mind.
Example:
When a mosquito bite. First you feel Vedana[Pain]. Then suddenly your hand works and hit the mosquito. But that hand works due to your pain consciousness act and hand works. Now you completed a bad kamma.  At the same time when the hand works consciousness suddenly think that killing is a sin i should not conduct that evil act and instead killing you simply make mosquito fly. Then you avoid killing and you did the wholesome act means good Kamma.
Likewise whole our life is filled with thoughts and actions and we are in the process of continuous kamma generating.  In a eye blink like this millions trillions thoughts are processing and each has it's own Kamma processing 7 thought we called them "Javana" which generates the future results of that action.
Similarly, while you are engaging in mindfulness, what you are doing is controlling your sensory organs engaging in unwholesome acts and instead engage them in wholesome acts. So all thoughts that you are processing in that moment 7 Javan consciousnesses resulting you the future Good Kamma.
02. How it affects to the life?  and
To have better understand of the Javana read this; Seven Javana
Once you read above webpage you will have the better understanding of the Javana and how it affects the life and how it's nullified.
1. Stream Enterer
The first stage is that of Sotāpanna (Pali; Sanskrit: Srotāpanna), literally meaning “one who enters (āpadyate) the stream (sotas),” with the stream being the Noble Eightfold Path regarded as the highest Dharma.
The stream-enterer is also said to have “opened the eye of the Dharma” and is guaranteed enlightenment after no more than seven successive rebirths, possibly fewer.
2. Once Returner
The second stage is that of the Sakadāgāmī (Sanskrit: Sakṛdāgāmin), literally meaning “one who once (sakṛt) comes (āgacchati)”. The once-returner will return to the human world only one more time, and will attain Nirvana in that life.
3. Never Returner
The third stage is that of the Anāgāmī (Sanskrit: Anāgāmin), literally meaning “one who does not (an-) come (āgacchati)”. The non-returner does not come back into human existence, or any lower world, after death. Instead, he is reborn in one of the worlds of the Rūpadhātu called the Śuddhāvāsa worlds, or “Pure Abodes”, where he will attain Nirvāṇa; Pāli: Nibbana; some of them are reborn a second time in a higher world of the Pure Abodes, but in no case are born into a lower state.
4. Arahant
The fourth stage is that of Arahant, a fully enlightened human being who has abandoned all fetters, and who upon decease (Sanskrit: Parinirvāṇa, Pāli: Parinibbāna) will not be reborn in any world, having wholly abandoned saṃsāra.
There are 5 Main Unwholesome acts which resulting even in Arhants.
Those are:

Killing Mother
Killing Father
Killing Arahanth
Shaking Lord Buddha's Body Blood
Arranging the sangha to fight each other [this happen in between Sangha only]

May you be able to find the way to attain Nibbana!!! May Triple Gem Bless you!!!


text:
Which is this sutta, which describes a monk prepared to travel and to experience violence?
A reference-request question. Which sutta contains the following story?

It starts with a monk who will travel to a far land (perhaps to a state on the west coast of what's now India, and perhaps as a missionary). The Buddha asks, how will he react if he's attacked?
It ends with the monk's saying that he will reflect that death is something which some (other) people seek, that these people have to arrange to find a murderer who will kill them, and that the people killing him have saved him this trouble! And in that way, he'll keep a mind of good-will.
The Buddha approves.

I remember it as similar to the parable of the saw; perhaps a much shorter sutta.

It is the Punna Sutta: To Punna (SN 35.88)
In a nutshell the story goes like this.....There was a rural village called Sunāparanta. No one went to this village because the people of Sunāparanta were fierce and rough, but a Bhikkhu volunteered himself to go visit that village. That Bhikkhu’s name was Punhnha. He requested the Buddha’s permission to go to that village. The Buddha told him the nature of the villagers in Sunāparanta. The Buddha showed him that if he goes to that village, even his life could be in danger. Punhnha Thero happily accepted that challenge and went to that village. After only few days, the whole village was changed. Those dangerous villagers took refuge in the Triple Gem. Some of them entered the monkhood and developed virtuous qualities… How did that happen? Even though those villagers were known to be vicious people, they had skills in them. When they started to listen to the Dhamma, those skills started to develop in them. If someone realizes the Dhamma after listening to it one day, that person’s skills start to develop gradually. This Sunāparanta could be the present day Saudi Arabia.


text:
More self control - Beginners
Most of the time we are under control of our mind and old habits.If a beginner wants to break the old habits and get more control of it.From where do they should start ?

One starts by seeing with insight how the old habits are disadvantageous, unsatisfactory (incapable of bring lasting hapiness), dangerous, harmful &/or promote suffering.
One starts by seeing with insight the advantage & benefit of giving up those old habits.
The Dvedhāvitakka Sutta is one of many suttas describing how the Buddha, before his enlightenment, reflected upon the advantages & disadvantages of differing types of thinking.
The Upanisa Sutta states a cause of faith in Buddhist practises is the experience of suffering.

The short answer is BE WISE. BE PURE IN DEED, SPEECH AND THOUGHT.
The wise are controlled in deed, they are controlled in speech, they are controlled in thought. Only if you could stay heedful, would you be able to put out the fire of lust (Ragaggi), the fire of hatred (Dosaggi), and the fire of delusion (Mohaggi) that are waiting to flare up at any moment. We all have these traits to a lesser or greater degree. Otherwise we cannot be living in the society. Since one does not live alone, living in unity in society requires self-awareness, self-control, adaptability, non-violent attitude and good-will. Buddhists are taught to diffuse the Four Divine States of Mind: loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity towards all sentient beings who may be of different nationalities, religions and environments. The Five Precepts that we follow help us to abstain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, and intoxicants which cause carelessness. We should be kind, honest and mindful. Then our society will reach the goal that persons can live together peacefully and in mutual trust. In the scriptures it is said:

"Good is restraint in action,
             And good restraint in speech,
             Good is restraint in mind,
             Restraint throughout is good.
             Well guarded is he said to be
  Who is ashamed of sin, in all things self-controlled "'

Stop trying to control is a good way to gain  some control(: Insight meditation(I assume your talking about insight so if your practicing something else than this answer probably doesn't apply) is so easy in a way because the only thing you ultimatly have to do is experience what is going on in your own experience. Although it's good to do preliminary stuff like doing good sila so that the mind can better become clear and concentrated and making sure the facilities are ballanced. In insight meditation there are ways to control your own faculties but it's better to find a good teacher. They will know how to guide you so your practice is effective. -Good luck

You start with self restraint. Initially this would be having a list of rules or code of conduct you try to adhere to. When your old habitual or reflexive responses try to manifest himself try to take a step back, compose yourself, see if the actions are in the list of acts you want to avoid if so avoid it. Also have a list of action you want to do as try to do it when you get the opportunity. As you go on see if the actions are for the good of oneself or that of others, or one's action are the way you want to treat others, then follow through accordingly and if not abstain from such action. [Velu,dvāreyya Sutta, Sedaka Sutta] Finally as your wisdom increases see if the metal states and content (Refer to Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi and Kīta,giri Sutta section on feelings) are favorable and then follow through if the actions are conducive.


text:
Why does my mind naturally wander?
Before sitting for meditation I got a few strange questions: why does my mind even wander? What does my mind want, and can it ever be satisfied completely? Can anybody please explain this to me?

Every life form is born in the world due to craving. Within life forms, there are seeds, such as sperm cells, which are propelled by craving. Parents of children engage in sexual intercourse & reproduce new life propelled by craving. New born children are born with craving to eat, craving to be safe, craving for love, craving for pleasure, etc. The mind wanders due to craving. This 'wandering' is called 'samsara'.

Wonderful Explanation ! i am really amazed by the clarity of your thoughts.

You ask as to why the mind wanders. But it is there for cognizing thoughts – just as the eye is there to seeing forms, ear for hearing sounds, nose for smelling odours, tongue for tasting flavours, and body for touching tangibles. That is why, the more we watch our mind and see what it does to us and for us, the more we will be inclined to take good care of it and treat it with respect. One of the biggest mistakes we can make is taking the mind for granted. The mind has the capacity to create good and also evil for us, and only when we are able to remain even-minded no matter what conditions arise, can we say that we have gained a little control. Until then we are out of control and our thoughts are our master.
Taming this monkey is not an easy thing. So you have to take baby steps in the beginning. Even if your attempt at meditation takes only a few seconds, or a couple of minutes, be happy about it.
Left alone the mind behaves like a monkey in a forest. Meditation is a great way to calm the monkey mind.  But prior to that we have to learn how to go beyond - being resolved on sensual passion, being resolved on ill will, being resolved on harmfulness—because all these things stir up the mind and interfere with its settling down.

why does my mind even wander?

Whenever there is a contact we perceive this as favorably or unfavorably, this results in a feeling of pleasantness or unpleasantness, this leads to thoughts of memories of the past or future expectations, these thoughts proliferate into more thoughts.

What does my mind want,

You mind always crave for sensations / feelings.

... and can it ever be satisfied completely?

Not by means of seeking pleasant experiences.
But still it it can be stratified if you practice meditation and realise Nirvana.

It's because of entropy, a natural law of nature which measures disorder (the higher the entropy, the greater the disorder), as physicist Rudolf Clausius stated: "The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum". The mind, like all conditioned phenomena, always tends toward scattering, fading away, disorder, decay, and cessation. It'd take effort to control and steady the mind just like proper effort is required to maintain a physical building from disorder and decay.

I suggest that you give the kind of answer that Saurabh Padwekar could not get anywhere but on a Buddhist platform. Something like a traditional Buddhist answer.

Since the original question is not particular toward a technical Buddhist topic, but about the scattering mind in general, I simply don't see the need to limit the answer to a "traditional Buddhist answer". I find it actually pigeonholes one's understanding and prevent one from seeing things in a bigger picture.

I'm not sure that it's a useful model (i.e. an appropriate model to mention in this context). Would you, for example, say that the ocean wanders "because of entropy"?

It's a fact that oceans, mountains, land masses do move. We just don't live long enough to see that. And notice, moving or "wandering" is just one  manifestation among many manifestations of entropy. As long as any phenomenon "move" from order to disorder, stability to chaos, creation to destruction, that's entropy. To say that entropy is not a useful model is the same as saying that anicca is not useful, or the 4 stages of formations of becoming, accruing, fading away, and destruction are not useful.

I'm not sure that "entropy" a useful model of the mind. Entropy is a property of (physical) thermodynamic systems; the connection (if any) between mind and matter isn't obvious; and "life" is a local reversal of entropy, isn't it? I suppose you're saying that entropy predicts cessation of the thermodynamic universe, but I'm not sure how that's a useful answer to the OP's question (except that, maybe, theories about physics try to be objective and self-less). Is the entropy model even prescriptive, does the model prescribe a solution (e.g. what is "effort" within that frame of reference)?

But how can you separate the mind from its bio/physiological processes that involves all kinds of chemical/physical interactions? You can't. And if you can't, then you cannot conclude that entropy is not useful. To understand entropy is to understand the process of becoming, accruing, decay, and destruction. I don't know about you, but it certainly arouses lots of viriya/energy to strive harder and at the same time, a sense of samvega also.


text:
How is it possible to change habits cultivated over lifetimes
If one has cultivated a habit for countless lifetimes, how is it possible to reverse such habit? Is it possible at all? Is that person entirely at the mercy of external factors? (are we ever not entirely at the mercy of external factors? This is an entirely different question though).
I have trouble understanding how habits are changed, and where that change originates. I figure the answer to this 'extreme case' question will shed some light.
Thank you.
EDIT:
This question is a different way of phrasing these two questions What allows to make a choice and What is volition?

Easy. Well, easy in theory :) -- you need to get fed up! You need to get really sick and tired of your conditions, so sick that you cannot live like that anymore. You are so fed up that you are either ready to die - or to change your habits. So that desire to get out leads to iron intent to change.

Your karmic results force you to change your mind - ha ha!

It is not at all a simple task to reverse the habits cultivated over umpteenth lifetimes. It is next to impossible without gaining a good knowledge of the Dhamma and putting it to practice diligently.  Then, and only then you are going to have any success in thwarting the mind’s ingrained habits. The personality view is the hardest of them all. If you could begin altering your habits, one day in the years to come you will be very thankful for getting into a path that made the impossible possible. Now it will feel like drug withdrawal of an addict when quitting the bad habits.
We can alter our habits because they too are impermanent. Consciousness too is impermanent and constantly changing. Thus, all these aggregates are constantly changing and impermanent. They are processes, not things. They are dynamic, not static. This knowledge will help us to see personal experiences in terms of processes, in terms of impersonal functions rather than in terms of a self and what affects a self.
You’re learning to use the tools that Buddhism offers to sort out your own mind. First the tools help you look at the habits, the things the mind is doing. Then goodness will come, not from any innate goodness in the mind, but from a keen sense of the dangers of the unskillful habits already there, and the benefits of the skillful habits that one can develop in their place. Once we have this understanding, we can overcome ingrained habits. This is why the Buddha said that heedfulness is the root of all skillfulness.
In psychotherapy, to root out ingrained tendencies in the mind one may trace things back to what you did as a child.  The teachings of the Buddha instead gets you to focus on looking at your habits right now, as they keep coming back again and again and again.  The Dhamma will inform you as to what is virtue, and what is not; what is blameworthy, and what is not; what should be made a habit of, and what should not. This will get you to civilize your eating habits by learning to wean yourself  from your passion for the junk food of sights, sounds, smells, etc., and look instead for good food within.
Unlearning some old habits is not easy.  After a while complacency sets in. Complacency is a form of sloth/torpor. Complacency can be said as lethargy in the body (sloth) and drowsiness in the mind (torpor). It is when the mind is not sleeping, but not awake either. So be aware of this twilight zone, where nothing of use is achieved. Buddha advises us to be aware of this enemy in life that would stop you from succeeding in life. So we have to make a habit of getting up early every day, being energetic. Energy arises when one has a clear-cut direction. One knows exactly where one is going and keeps at it. This is one to keep Mara’s armies at bay.
Also check Cetana Sutta 3 - S 12.40 to find out how we form our personal habits.

If a yard has lots of weeds, just by getting rid of the weeds alone won't be effective. One will also need to overseed their yard with strong grass so that they will overwhelm the weeds and grow into a healthy lush green lawn. Similarly, not only one needs to abandon bad habits, one'd also need to cultivate good habits so that they will "overwhelm" the bad ones. In Buddhism, it's called SammaPpadhana/The Four Right Exertions

And even if just getting rid of the weeds worked, it would not be a very uplifting result. Why bother, only to end up with sterility and death? Weeds would be better.

Paying conscious attention to whatever you are doing now fully, whatever the activity may be. Life is happening right now, right this moment as you read.
Any actions have consequences, even thoughts. Unconscious activities have unknowable/unforeseeable consequences. Habits are like unconscious activities. If you are doing a good thing why don't you do it with full attention? Why do you need "good habits"? Why do you need habits? Habit seems like you are using some body memory to just do whatever action and it will have whatever consequence.
Put yourself in control over this moment. The next moment does not exist except in your mind. Quell it. Your past lives don't exist except in your mind.
Don't create past lives in your mind. It does not know anyway. You have no idea about them. Habits are forming when you don't pay the right attention to whatever you are doing. For example, if I go to draw water from the well everyday, outside people may see it as a habit, but I am doing it for a particular purpose, we need water for some other activities. In the same way, look at your actions as doing something we need for the circumstances. Not as a habit.
Focus on whatever action you are taking now. Focus on life right now. Not past lives.

Well said. I especially agree, to not reify ideas like past lives.

The Pali Buddhist scriptures teach that present happiness & suffering of a person are not caused by actions performed in the past. Refer to AN 3.61, which states:

When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort, 'This should be
  done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or
  reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered &
  unprotected.

This was an interesting sutta... OP you may wish to read the sutta first and then read my comment: the suffering is caused by attachments (2nd noble truth) in the now not mistakes from the past. Our focus should be on removing the suffering now via Eightfold path (especially meditation) not fixing all the myriad mistakes from the past. Although i doubted this sutta at first because positive health habits do contribute to freedom from suffering, it is not ultimate. We should embark on correcting past habits but the emphasis is on the now.

Each experience can trigger your habitual response which might be followed by and intention to act. What triggers your habitual or reflexive response is and external stimuli coming in contact with your sense faculties.
So what you have to see is if your intention is good or bad. If it is good follow through else try to practice some restraint. When trying to restrain yourself you find then your habitual response overpowers you. But with practice you will be able to retrain your self when in intentions are not good.
Generally when your intentions are bad you have either unpleasant or neutral feeling / sensation in your body. If they are good it is pleasant or neutral. You do not get pleasant sensation if your motivation is bad and unpleasant sensations if your motivations is good. Neutral being a gray area. To get a better understanding see the 121 mind states and 52 mental contents. Refer to Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi and Kītagiri Sutta section on feelings.


text:
What allows to make a choice
For example, the body has the choice to walk on path A or B. Before the body starts walking, there must be thoughts of path A and B. There must also be a (mental?) decision/choice made to walk on one path or the other.
What is it that allows to make choices?
I have always been at loss to understand what that untouchable phenomenon is. What is it that let's me choose at all?
I have trouble phrasing the question. So I will give another example. When someone offers me a marijuana joint, there are the options to accept or decline. Both feel just as far, just as easy to make. Sometimes I accept, sometimes reject. What phenomenon chooses? I've never been able to 'touch' that phenomenon directly.
This question about changing habits is the same question as this one.
EDIT:
In another attempt to convey what is being asked (my apologies), there is now another question (this one with a bounty) What is volition?

When a person has a choice between Path A or B, on what basis would that person make that decision, for it to be the right one? For that one has to have a very good knowledge of the True Dhamma. How can one differentiate between what is the Truth and what is not. Even if there is only one path, there is a lower level and a higher level to it. How would a person know such a thing?  Take for example Generosity. Giving (dana) is one of the integral parts of the practice of Dhamma. When practiced in itself, it is a basis of merit or wholesome kamma, but only when combined with morality, concentration and insight, will it lead to liberation from samsara, the cycle of repeated existence. So it is of the recollection of one's own generosity. This is Chaganussati (meditation about generosity).
That is why I would say that you and I are living in very unfortunate times. It is very rare that you and I get to find someone who will teach us the correct path, the True Dhamma, and how to meditate the proper way. Once we learn how to, we will be able to practice these while we are walking, while standing, sitting or when lying down in bed. Then there is no such thing as ‘Choice’. We have found our guide in whom we will place our complete trust. Then we will have unflinching faith in the Path that was shown to us. Then what is important is to practice the little Dhamma that you have learnt. Today almost all the people only read about dhamma. Next moment all this is forgotten. Then there are others who only talk about Dhamma that they think that they’ve understood. They are only fooling themselves to think that they have understood, and put many others too in the wrong path, thereby creating a lot of ‘Akusala Kamma”.
The path to enlightenment is not so easy. It is a path that goes against the stream. Buddha called this "Patisothagami " or going against the stream. It is just like when almost all the fish in the water are swimming with the flow while only one fish is trying hard to swim against the flow. It's not swimming against the resistance of the flow of water but also the resistance of the other fish that may impede its path.

What is it that allows to make choices?

It's a complex combination of various variables, nature vs. nurture, old habit energy, one's own effort and energy, etc. That's why the 4-pronged approach of SammaPpadhana/Four Right Exertions in the other thread is a necessary tool to help one making progress on the Path. For example, to one who's never smoked marijuana and lives a healthy life style (a positive habit), s/he'd be less prone to accept the offer by his friend to smoke. But then if s/he lacks effort and discipline, s/he can still accept it. To one who's a chain smoker (a negative habit), s/he'd be very likely to accept the offer. But then again, if s/he puts in the effort and discipline, s/he can reject the offer. Anyway, until one's attained the super-normal power like the Buddha, it's difficult to know the exact threshold/quantity required for a variable to start "overriding" the effect of other variables. However, common sense tells us that our own volition/intention here and now probably is the main influential variable..

Human consciousness (& wisdom) allows choice, which is what distinguishes the 'human' from the 'animal'. The 'animal' is instinctual programmed behaviour & reactions where as the 'human' consciousness is 'reflective'. The human consciousness can objectively (like a mirror) know the inner motivations & drives of the mind & can choose to follow or not follow those drives.
This is the meaning of a 'human' birth in Buddhism. When people (mentally) behave like 'animals', they cease to be 'human', even though they have the physical body of people.
The common saying in the world of: "he/she is only human" when someone makes a mistake or acts badly is not Buddhist. In Buddhism, 'human' means having a reflective aware mind that can choose between right (good) & wrong (harm).
The Chiggala 1 Sutta describes the non-human state or birth as: "mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak".

What is it that allows to make choices?

Wisdom and awareness helps you make the choice. Being aware you can exercise restraint when your habitual or reflexive response is suffering and this is not the most conducive action to follow though with for the given situation. Wisdom aids to you asses the situation in the right frame (right angle or right light).

Personally I think the beauty of this life is that we have a choice. Otherwise there would b total control ...not sure if that is the aim you are looking for ?
My thoughts are be free with what ever you want but  at the same time according to Buddhist logic there are repercussions of that choice .
You mention how someone offers you a J ..and sometimes you say yes or decline this is a choice between chemical phenomena in your brain that will be yes if you really want a puff or on the other hand you might decline as you don't feel up to it just count yourself lucky you still have the strength to make a choice !


text:
What are the guides for lay followers, as to how far they should go to be compassionate?
How far should lay followers go, to help others?
There is no denying that we all have innate desire to ease suffering of others, but when it’s done without right understanding it may lead to a higher suffering to the assisted person. On the other had if it’s done with right understanding and with the aim to assist the others to grow in Dharma then it is fruitful.
As an example, let’s say your friend is grieved for not being able to celebrate New-Year in Paris with his fiancée because he wasn’t able to save up enough money. If you restore in relieving his grievance you could give him money, but this could be adding fuel on fire. A true teacher of the Dharma will correct his view and relieve him from clinging, however, most of us don’t have that kind of ability: we are in a dark, trying to correct our own view, and the virtues we call virtues are but a guess work.
The point that I’m trying to get at is that on some cases the so-called suffering which we trying to prevent on other people could be a wake-up call or a learning curve, and by preventing it we could be hindering the person from realizing the first noble truth.
Sometimes these so called virtues extend even further in the name of compassion and we find ourselves teaching and arguing about Dharma to correct other. There may be many other cases as well. So how should we curb our act not to hurt others and ourselves in the name of virtues?

The most important things is to get Panna yourself as much as you can. You can achieve it by either reading Tripitaka or consulting monks about wholesome and unwholesome acts or both.
Passionate or compassionate about others is generally speaking wholesome act. But it has it own merit as well as harm to helper and helped if improper intention or volition.
To be specific to your question,
Donation is good to donor as long as donor have no attachment to things donated and have Metta to donee that he/she will free from sufferings. That is the very minimum requirements to have mind in donor. (There are many more details about making donation to the best, you can consult in Tripitaka and/or a well taught monks). In this case donor won't worry about how donee will use donated material/money.
For mental or verbal assistance,
Try to make your friend cheerful by encouraging, assisting to understand sufferings are not persisting. Try to do some activities and distracting him/her from thinking negative ideas if you are persuasive enough (you can either read some from Buddha's teachings or other religious teachings and non-religious self-help. The more you read, the more persuasive you are. Words have power).
For helping other people from clinging, you are absolutely right. No one, except Sammasam Buddha is the best because people with different hobby, desire, volition, perception and attitude need different delicate guidance to right path. We can only recommend some right ways to soothe sufferings. You can recommend him/her to do some meditation/Vipasana. Let him/her find what is bothering by himself/herself. How he/she can understand sufferings and how Buddha's Dhamma can guide him/her right way to end sufferings. There is nothing wrong if you are pushing someone to get to know Buddha's Dhamma as long as you put Metta on the people you are pushing. I read in Buddha's past life, he was pulled from hair to bring in front of Buddha and to get to know prior Buddha and Buddha teachings. But in this age of personal freedom, communities and societies don't go details to true intention of pushing someone hard and is not appreciated.

...by preventing it we could be hindering the person from realizing the first noble truth.

It is very difficult to actually prevent another person from suffering. Generally, people are destined to suffering because of their strong wrong views & opinions. Otherwise, they have a positive intuition or wisdom, which allows us to help them.
Buddhism does not believe each person can attain enlightenment therefore we should try our best to prevent suffering because only a small minority of people will realise the 1st noble truth.
For many, suffering leads to a cycle of more suffering, which is why so many people use drugs & alcohol to annihilate their suffering.

Sometimes these so called virtues extend even further in the name of compassion and we find ourselves teaching and arguing about Dharma to
  correct other. There may be many other cases as well. So how should we
  curb our act not to hurt others and ourselves in the name of virtues?

We cannot hurt people with the Dharma teachings. When people are hurt in Dharma discussion or debate, it is because they are using the teachings in the wrong way, i.e., for egoism (as explained in the Alagaddupama Sutta).

Thanks Dhammadhatu for your insightful response.
Do you mean we should be virtuous to all indiscriminately except to those we think are wise enough and ready to accept the hard truth?  In other works we treat those we think unwise as children and only act to easy their suffering? This could be excellent, but it assumes grand capacity of discernment from us.

We try to help those we know we can help. Generally, we cannot help the unwise. They simply will not & cannot listen to us because their ignorance & cravings are strong. These unwise people can include our own family members. That is how difficult it can get, these days, particularly in a world drowning in & wounded by addictions to sex, drugs & money. Often, the most wounded & damaged people are the most difficult to help.