text:
Buddhist monks give advice for lay life
Would you say that it is appropriate for a monk to give advice to the laity in how to live life/dealing with obstacles?
Now don't get me wrong, but monks certainly have "safer" environments. They are much less exposed to stimulating sensory input as well as life problems. I am by nature quite skeptical and cannot really take a monk serious if he gives tips and at the same time  does not follow these tips (or rather that lifestyle). How can a monk give relationship advice? Sure, the Dhamma gives such, but then it's just intellectual knowledge given by a monk, but that advice has not been practised by him.
I think the whole "problem" starts with titles like "venerable" or the admiration of monks/nuns. Again, don't get me wrong, seeing in them a role model and paying homage to them because they delivered proper dhamma is appropriate, but one should always keep in mind that they are UNIQUE, COMPLEX (in that they think, feel and do good, bad and neutral things) and FALLIBLE.
Anyone made same experiences? Advice? Opinions?

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

In the same vein as ChrisW's answer, I would ask you, "You and I live different lives.  I do not live your life.  Is it appropriate for me to give advice?"  The answer is generally "yes," especially in the position you have chosen to put yourself in, asking us for advice on this forum. =)  So what is the difference between me giving you advice on a life I don't live and a monk giving you advice on a life he or she does not live?  One may argue that it's a level of differentiation, but that immediately begs the question of what level of differentiation is appropriate?
Indeed, is it not reasonable to seek advice from everybody?  I know that, in my culture, we prize the ability of children to see things through their young eyes and reveal what we cannot see ourselves.  Of course, we aren't obliged to follow their advice either.  If we were, my toddler would have far more cookies in her diet!
You point to the title of "venerable" as an object of concern.  Alan Watts had a line of reasoning in one of his lectures that addressed this issue.  He focused on the concept of the teacher, and asked "From what does the authority of a teacher come from?"  What gives a teacher the right to tell you what to do.  The answer he offered: "The authority of the teacher comes from the student."  If someone wishes to learn from another, they might say "hey, tell ya what.  I'll call you teacher, and you call me student," and from that the authority stems forth.
As you say, they are fallible.  But they have also devoted a tremendous amount of time to seeing the world through eyes very different from your own.  If they are willing to share their advice with you, that should be seen as a blessing.
I can call myself "venerable" if I want.  It's just a word.  Whether anyone wishes to act upon my claim is entirely up to them.  However, as a general statement, we find that the lay society has decided that when a monk or nun is called "venerable," we really mean it.  There is something special there.  You obviously don't have to take my word for it.  I have no authority.  But the fact that lay society accepts that monks and nuns can and should be given this title is something worth noting, and you should decide what to derive from it.  If I were in a position of authority, I'd argue that it indicates that your peers have found their advice is worth heeding, but as I stated, no authority here besides that which you give me.

Would you say that it is appropriate
Yes.
This book, for example, shows there's a whole bookful of advice in the suttas for laypeople -- and that (whole bookful) is without even trying to customise or select, specify, present, apply, offer that advice to specific laypeople with specific complaints.
I am by nature quite skeptical and cannot really take a monk serious if he gives tips and at the same time does not follow these tips (or rather that lifestyle). How can a monk give relationship advice?
Sorry to answer a question with a question, but:

How can a doctor give advice to someone who is sick?
How can a teacher give advice to someone who is ignorant?
Even, how could a sports coach give advice to an athlete? Or the conductor in an orchestra, to the musicians who are performing? Or an air traffic controller, to a pilot?

Obviously these people can, and should.
I wouldn't go to the opposite extreme and say that all advice is skilful and appropriate to you, that you'll be willing to hear it and able to use it ...
And maybe everything is "intellectual" in some way -- e.g. someone might tell me how to ride a bicycle; and regardless of whether they do it themselves, I'd still have to learn to actually do it myself.
Sure, the Dhamma gives such, but then it's just intellectual knowledge given by a monk, but that advice has not been practised by him
Perhaps that depends, on their personal history; I'd guess they've all been children at least, and had families, and been friends, and so on.
Anyone made same experiences?
Not the same but sometimes I have ignored well-meaning advice: and eventually felt good about the outcome, no remorse. Other times, in retrospect I should have given better consideration to advice I was offered, and not have rejected it so quickly. So I'm heir to my own kamma, I guess -- I don't think it's possible to generalise here like this (e.g. to "always" or to "never" offer or accept advice).
Also, beware, rejecting advice because of who the advice comes from is an ad hominem argument. IMO, ad hominem isn't entirely wrong (it's a useful shortcut, like "don't ask for legal advice from strangers on the internet"), but it's not right either.
Also maybe there is some advice, some types of advice, which you'd rather get from friends, family, and/or professionals -- when you're lay, asking for lay advice about the lay life. And I think you can say that without going too far, i.e. so far as to say that a monk shouldn't or cannot give advice.
And the success or otherwise of offering advice (i.e. suggestions about a future which you haven't experienced yet) depends partly on faith -- whether or not that faith is justified isn't easy to generalise about.
I think the whole "problem" starts with titles like "venerable" or the admiration of monks/nuns.
Wow.
So ... the whole problem, it starts there, is that so?
Maybe that is a type of conceit: comparing people -- "they are better than me, because they are ordained"?
The converse might sound like a 'conceit' too, though -- "my advice is better, because I'm lay".

The Pali suttas provided relationship advice, which is basically the same as modern professional relationship advice of sociologists & psychologists. Monks should give relationship advice from the teachings of the Buddha in the suttas. For example:

Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present time but also in the future, they should have the same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity and the same wisdom.
Buddha's advice

How can couples immunize their relationship from the inevitable stresses and strains of life? How can they enjoy the profound
  satisfaction that is possible in a committed, long-term relationship?
  The answer is by sharing and setting mutual goals for the
  relationship and committing to daily actions to reach those goals.
  Just as you have personal or professional goals, you and your partner
  can mindfully consider what you want for your relationship and how
  you're going to achieve it.
Modern advice

A summary of the advice from the suttas for laypeople can be found in the book: Constitution for Living by P.A. Payutto. Most of the advice remains relevant and effective. Again, monks should give relationship advice from these teachings of the Buddha in the suttas.

My own failure in implementing what I learn has to do with the complexities of learning any skill. It's very difficult to go from simply learning something in a classroom to actually integrating it into your daily life. For example, a person may spend several years in university studying programming but to the company that takes him on as a junior developer he's still only in the learning stage. What matters to the company is not his ability to understand theory but to have assimilated it to the point where he is able to produce something tangible they can use.
I'm also a coward but that's another story.
As for priests, I do think you should be careful who you let into your head. Years ago, I read some books by someone I later found out to be a cult-leader. I stopped reading his books immediately but some of the teaching remains in me to this day.
A major reason I don't join a religion in spite of reading lots of religious texts is that I don't feel comfortable subordinating my own judgment to that of a priest. To me, 'faith' is something that belongs with family members or people who have proved their good will and loyalty to you over time.
And yeah, I wouldn't take advice on relationships from someone who'd only read about them in books.

I somewhat agree with your concerns and your reasoning. In theory, a monk should have enough insight into lay life, from both their own life before becoming a monk, and from movies and interaction with people. However in practice, I think someone who became a monk early in their life cannot have the same depth of experience with normal life, so their appreciation of the challenges and difficulties may not be enough to provide a convincing advice.
Personally, one of the reasons I actively participate in "normal" life, as opposed to ordaining as monk in any tradition, is because I want to be able to relate to people and have a first-hand experience of all the typical problems: relationships, parenting, house-holding, career-building, work relationships etc. My goal is to apply Dharma and learn to live in peace within these situations, so I can teach others to find that peace, having attained it myself.
This is a very Mahayana-spirit approach. In Tibetan Buddhism especially, it was not untypical for lamas to lead semi-normal life, complete with a spouse, children, and maybe even a small family business like farming or sheep herding.
My goal, as a Mahayana evangelist, is to promote a lifestyle in which lay people could find inner peace and social harmony through application of Buddhist insights and values - without disrupting the normal fabric of social life but rather transforming its attitudes and values from within. In my view, the dominant ("western") paradigm of personal success should get transcended in favor of a new paradigm, one based on the values of maitri/metta: altruism, compassion, humanism, tolerance, acceptance, love.
The only way to promote this, in my mind, is for each of us to implement it in our own lives first, without quitting society, and then spread to our children and people around us.

When I go to get advice from someone, even if they can't fully relate to my situation, it's still possible they can assist.  Even if they just listen, really listen and perhaps give a gentle nudge or kind remark, the interaction may well provide unexpected insight.  If I already have the tools to address my own problems, it's not a matter of being given the solution, but rather given guidance in how to find it.
It's tempting to say that the lay life is more complicated or problematic, but from where do these complications and problems originate?  Getting to the root of this is, in reality, what the monk also faces, so although the apparent face of our problems may differ, the fundamental issue is the same.

Householder Val, interested,
Householder asked Buddhist monks give advice for lay life with many assumptions on total strange foundation.

The Buddha and his Monks taught, teach and will teach lay people for a life toward long term benefit here, hereafter and beyond. Even that householders would be able to fully join the religion.

Monks are not born as monks and you can be sure that many of them actually leaded "perfect" lay-life, successful and not missing anything of which this mod of live can provide.

Even if a particularly Monk would have no experiances, had no success in lay life, as long as he teaches of what the Buddha taught for a happy lay-life and after, he act for great benefit for many lay people.

If one seeks refuge under householders, one has not taken refuge into the Tripple Gems yet. Such a person will hardly ever come next to the good teachings of the Buddha in a manner so that it may beard long time fruits for one.

Don't forget that most of you live in areas not suitable to prosper in Dhamma, live under people and associate with holders of wrong view. But it would be hard to see and understand before the time one actually has gone for refuge.

As for paying homage to them because they delivered proper dhamma: It would be wrongly grasped that a monk is worthy for veneration because he teaches (is such cases often because he teaches what one like to hear). Monks are not allowed to accept a gift as reward for teachings (something many should consider). What ever gift and offering is good placed, if giving it toward something that heads toward Nibbana, does not harm others by the use of the receiver, would not increase or nourish suffering in the world. Teaching lay people, even those not having gone for refuge, is a pure matter of compassion, if done like the moon.
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)


text:
Which mindfulness technique should I choose?
Namo Buddhaya. I am a beginner.I want to dedicate rest of my life developing mindfulness.I know there are four ways of attending mindfulness. I understand all the four ways. However I am not sure how to undertake all the four ways of attending mindfulness. Is there any progressive way of attending different mindfulness techniques? Should I choose different mindfulness technique at different times ? Which mindfulness technique would be useful for me ?

Ajahn Brahmas book 'Mindfulness bliss and beyond', in my opinion is a great starting point to go any further in mindfulness.

@BodhiWalker Sorry to fuss -- but please post an answer to the question, not a comment.

@ChrisW Sorry, I was not sure that suggesting a book would have been an answer to his question. But I thought it would help him anyways. So I put it as comment. But I will make sure to make it an answer hence forth.

You have to do all four. Cannot skip anything.

When you are walking or sitting and focusing on the belly or moving any body part, it's the mindfulness of the body - Kayanupassana.
When you are feeling pleasure/pain, it's mindfulness of the feelings - Vedanaupassana
When you are thinking past/present/future thoughts, it's mindfulness of the thoughts - Cittanupassana
When you like, dislike, fear, doubt etc. or be aware of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, it's Dhammanupassana

Whether you know these by correct category is not important. What's important is if you note each and everything without skipping.
Here an easy guide book for you

The 4 satipatthanas are not practised like that, although a lot of people (mistakenly) teach it that way. The 4 satipatthanad happen successively. Kayanupassana is the first, where form (breathing) is the main object. After tranquilizing the body, rapture starts to emerge and through letting go (vosagga) all that remains is happiness. This is exactly taught in the Anapanasati Sutta." He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'
"He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.'

@Val You are talking about the Samatha pubbangama Vipassana technique. But it's not the only way. Read the Yuganaddha Sutta

This Sutta wasn't by the Buddha.

@Val it was by venerable Ananda who was the Dhamma treasurer. If you lack faith in the Sangha, read the Bahiya sutta. It's by the Buddha himself. The technique taught there is very different to what you are talking about.

You note which of the 4 foundations of mindfulness the experiential object is? Do you  anchor attention in the breath?

It's about reminding what's happening here and now. Not about going into details. The typical breath meditation is Samatha(concentration) meditation as it focuses on a concept(breath). But if you note the feeling at the nose when the air hits or movement at the stomach, it becomes the type of mindfulness that is considered as Vipassana.

The way I was taught, is that mindfulness is not practiced in-and-of-itself; instead it comes from a critical attitude to ourselves, which in turns comes from a certain goal that we set for ourselves, a certain standard of behavior.
For beginners, this goal or standard is the attitude of egolessness and non-attachment. We watch our reactions (thoughts, emotions) for signs of attachments and egoistic attitudes, and learn to overcome those, learn to be selfless. As we watch ourselves with that goal in mind, we develop a habit of awareness or mindfulness - of our mind and emotions.
For mature practitioners who have mostly mastered selflessness, the next goal is generation of positive, uplifted, powerful state of being. To achieve that, we watch our posture, gait, manners, our inner sense of comfort or discomfort, and we learn to walk in peace and gracefulness. As we work on that goal of peace and gracefulness, we develop mindfulness of our body, and a deeper level of mindfulness of mind.
Right mindfulness is NOT going around with eyes wide open, trying to do everything painstakingly deliberately. Most of our skills - from walking, to talking, to driving - are developed from scratch to the point where they become automatic. Being deliberate is only useful when you are trying to change a (bad) habit, but once you have established a good habit, it works better (faster, more smoothly) when your slow discursive thinking does not interfere. Ask any sport professional or musician or dancer about developing right instincts and right automatic responses.
So in Buddhism, mindfulness serves a goal. First we practice mindfulness of our (selfish) goals, attachments and reactions - in order to overcome them and develop the new habit: operating out of wisdom and compassion. And then we practice mindfulness of our psychosomatic state - in order to overcome inner conflict & suffering, and develop the new habit - living in peace and harmony.
Once we have achieved our two objectives, hard mindfulness is no longer necessary. In fact, at that point it would interfere with spontaneity of suchness, which is the final phase of Liberation. So at some final point very very far down the path, you are supposed to let go of all sense of self-observation and self-control and immerse 100% into spontaneity. It's not that you stop being aware and mindful at that point. It is that mindfulness has achieved such a level of perfection that it becomes fully integrated with spontaneity and suchness. At that point you ARE mindfulness.

Andrei Volkov's answer is pretty good and thorough and clears confusion.
I would like to further add a quick reference/point to resource that might help with extending context atop of what was written for the sake of Mindfulness (Sati) as presented in Pali suttas:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/25767/13383
A clear description of the aim of mindfulness with breath is given there also, along with why Satipattana Sutta often causes confusion regarding four foundations of mindfulness.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Why do I have swaying/floating feeling after completing 10 day Vipassana course?
These sensations and a feeling that my whole body is swaying/floating started on the 7th day of the course. On the 8th day I had quite a surreal experience during one of the group sittings. My eyes would also start watering during meditation. I did share my experience with the assistant teacher and told her that I was scared something was happening to my body. I was also feeling dizzy. The teacher said that this was normal and I should just be aware of these sensations and feelings and not try to control them. The next days until the course ended, I did not pay much attention to the swaying/floating. If I focused on it, I could feel it strongly, otherwise sometimes I would just not be aware of it at all.
My question is that it's been two days that I've been back from the course and the last I meditated was on the morning of the 11th day (final day) of the course. But I still have a swaying/floating feeling. Is this normal? Has anyone experienced this? If yes, what did you do about it and did it stop on its own? After how many days?
Any insight into why this is happening and if its alright to experience this will be appreciated. Thanks!

I am also old Vipassana student. so much 'I' in the question. How did you do Vipassana? :P Btw, a saint like personality told me these experiences happen when you start targeting your wrong notion of self/ego.

Were you physically swaying at all or was it just inside your head? I have seen people physically swaying during their meditation and that is known to be wrongly meditating.

We should ignore those thinking their uncertainty they are purely temporary signals that appear in mind which we should ignore, if we try to inspect these, we will end up losing the concentration of mind.

It's been a week since I came back from the Vipassana retreat and the floating/moving feeling is till there along with neck and back pain. It's difficult to sleep because the moment I close my eyes, it feels like I'm on a boat. It's like vertigo. I'm considering seeing a doctor since it seems like some trauma/injury in the neck or something to do with the inner ear.

i hope you will see this. I am experiencing this now, a few days after finishing my 10 day vipassana course. Had i not seen your post I'd be scared that all the sitting and intense focus, sleep and food deprivation did something to me. I'm wondering what happened to you in your situation?

Yes, it's alright that it's happening (assuming you didn't somehow hurt yourself in an odd way). What you are describing is a normal occurrence at retreats of many varieties, not just Vipassana. They are simply symptoms of prolonged concentration, the degree and type of which are determined by your unique body, mind, and karmic history.
Sensations of lightness, swaying or rocking, tears, tingling, heat, chills, intense joy, bright images, etc. are all common occurences of Piti (also known as Rapture). Piti occurs when a yogi concentrates in the right way for an amount of time. Piti's effects are temporary, and will fade with time, depending on how much and how deeply you experienced it.
You're having the opposite reaction most have to these things - many yogis get attached to Piti and never go beyond it, or stop going deeper because they think they've reached Nibbana. So you're ahead of the curve in knowing that these pleasures are also Dukkha. You're having an anxious reaction to it, which in turn causes additional problems like trouble sleeping, which in turn causes more anxiety, panic, and stress in an endless feedback loop. What we resist, persists. Surrender.
I've personally experienced what you're describing many times. It will pass. You may also be experiencing a new, deeper awareness of your body that you haven't had before. Your mind is now more clear, focused, and observant - it's no wonder you're experiencing new strange things. That's pretty neat! A shift in perspective may be all that you really need.
Your feeling of lightness may be akin to the early stages of what is described in the suttas and by monks as the power of levitation. ;) Just try to let go, stop worrying, and enjoy these new things for now. Get back on the meditation cushion. Observe them just like any other meditation object, investigate them. Where exactly is the sensation? What makes it so insufferable, in terms of experience? Does it have an essence? Does it change? When does judgement arise, before or after the sensation?
Hope you feel better, find peace, and liberate yourself from this suffering.

Note it as a feeling. Ex: Swaying... Swaying... Swaying...
Feelings are not important regardless of whatever form they come in. The are caused, impermanent and cause suffering when clung to. You just need to note them until they go away.

It's been a week since I came back from the Vipassana retreat and the floating/moving feeling is till there along with neck and back pain. It's difficult to sleep because the moment I close my eyes, it feels like I'm on a boat. It's like vertigo. I'm considering seeing a doctor since it seems like some trauma/injury in the neck or something to do with the inner ear.

@ParulGupta yes you should consult a doctor. Until then, simply be mindful of the feelings/pains. Always remember that wisdom and detachment are the indications of spiritual progress. Not any kind of feelings.

I am having the same thing and the course ended over a week ago. It feels like I have been on a long haul flight and I am still flying.
I don’t feel sick and my balance is ok but the swaying won’t stop.
Did yours finally shift? After how long?

You can get different experiences in meditation use to past karmic factors (sankhara) and surfacing of past exercise (sanna) which manifests by the mind playing tricks on you.
Best is not to give too much importance to this and continue meditation.
When Pīti this can cause swaying and vibrations of the body. Again it is best is not to give too much importance to this and continue meditation.

Obviously, the Goenka long duration sitting meditation was too intense, causing your brain & neurons to become overloaded.

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


text:
What will be a video game version of Buddhist Samsara be like?
I am designing an educational computer simulation to explain the Buddhist concept of Samsara. The gameplay will consist of players interacting with the simulated environment and other players. One of the concepts of the game will be if you are doing creative actions with other players or environment then your Karma points will increase and you will get more powers if you do destructive things like shoot someone with a gun, you will be reduced of Karma points. Based on them you will be transferred to different levels.
This is one of my ideas I will be implementing. Can you help me with more ideas related to the Buddhist understanding of what Samsara is? This should be educational about Buddhist Samsara.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m66XVfVkrHI

I think you want to be ethical, not "creative"; and dutiful (including e.g. the six directions) ... being unethical will make your situation worse and more difficult. One of the difficult things to do is nothing, or the repetitious. Remember that taking what's not given, lying, revenge, are all bad karma ... lust for existence, too; and for status. Generosity is virtuous ... possessions are a burden (and/or a duty). Maybe simulate addiction, e.g. you can do something to "power up" temporarily but end up worse than before (and with an opportunity to make the same mistake again). Include opportunity for study instead of adventuring: study can offer Buddhist doctrine and in-game tips (don't kill, don't steal). Include opportunity for meditation: guided meditation perhaps ... see what the player does if their in-game character is attacked while they're doing metta meditation. Simulate the different levels: in the animal world it's difficult to understand things, in the ghost world it's difficult to find satisfaction (e.g. lots of food but the ghost can't eat it, unless perhaps someone kindly remembers to give it to them), hell is even more powerless, heavens are temporary. Perhaps (if you can design it that way) the different levels should all be on the same playing-field (so that e.g. humans have an opportunity to interact with animals, with ghosts, etc., and vice versa). Unless it's an MPORG (multi-player), include NPCs, some of which are good role-models: the player can recognise and emulate these to become as successful as they are.

See also 601: Game Theory --

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Wait, no, that one also loses. How about a nice game of chess?

Whenever you die, it shows a blind turtle, in a deep slumber, in the depth of the ocean. At the surface of the ocean, a small yoke moves around randomly. You have to wait for days before you can actually control the blind turtle. You have to get the turtle to surface, and to pass its head through the yoke. If you succeed, you get one chance on two to get a good rebirth.
Then, you control your mental consciousness (like the spirit/soul in World of Warcraft) but instead of finding your body back, you have to find parents that are having sex. Of course, you only see the parents of the class you can, according to your karma and the turtle test.
Every time you are reborn, you get another body, your character is of another race, another class, etc. Whatever you were previously familiar with will come a little bit easier to you.
Your body grows and decays and even if you are not killed, you'll die of old age or sickness eventually. Your mind also degenerates with time and you forget your skills and lose your items.

It's an RPG-style game where you run, shoot enemies, collect coins, but every five minutes your character dies of old age and loses all progress, respawn at a random place. The more enemies you kill, the more the level around you gradually transforms to hell, with darker colors, neon lights, and even more monsters. The more time you survive without killing, the level gets brighter and lighter, with flowers and coins. There are numerous signs around, pointing to "immortality potion" and "exit" but they are all fake. Lots of fake stuff in general, like fake coins, fake monsters, fake doors etc. The levels design look beautiful and there's always that feeling that you are about to enter something even grander (like a boss level) but you never actually get anywhere, you just keep going in circles. The entire gameplay is pointles and frustrating, with enemies reanimating and coins falling out of your pockets etc.
The only way to win is to quit playing.

what would gameplay based on vajrayana look like?

Record Karma points separately for each action. Both good and bad.
The next level should be picked based on the following precedence of actions.

The action(good or bad) with the highest Karma points above a certain lower limit.
The most recent action(good or bad) done with Karma points above a certain lower limit. But this limit should be much less than in the case of #1
The most frequently done action(good or bad) above a certain lower limit for the number of times it was done.
A randomly picked action from all the past levels that wasn't previously used for determining the next level.

There's a lot more complexity of calculations you can add based on how Karma works, but this is a start.

Samsara's Trap!
Create 10 levels,difficulty increases each level.The 10'th level should be impossible to pass.
The game,which btw is a representation of life,can't give you liberation if you follow your ego!I don't see any point in following karma,good karma doesn't free you,liberation from karma does!Nor the power ups you gain through the game,but when you gain knowledge of oneself,similar to Dante's inferno which I think is a man's journey to all facing all his sins!

“When you run after your thoughts, you are like a dog chasing a stick:
  every time a stick is thrown, you run after it. Instead, be like a
  lion who, rather than chasing after the stick, turns it's face to the
  thrower. He only throws the stick once at the lion .”-Milarepa

You have 31 levels.
You randomly go between levels based on last thing you were doing in the previous level. Chances of going in to a higher level is very slim.
You get the picture. If you do it right no body will want to play it.

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


text:
What is the mind-state during vipassana after anger disappears?
If the anger disappears once it has been seen, what is that state of mind then? After that, saw mind has two sides, no klesa and klesa, like a coin.

do mean taming anger or just for the moment?

Just for the moment.

The state of mind according to your question is doubt or confusion. It is Kilesa(ignorance). Otherwise it is simply the awareness that anger has disappeared.

According to the Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification), vipassana (insight meditation, mindfulness meditation, also wisdom or psychological insight) is characterized by upacara-samadhi (neighbourhood samadhi or access collectedness). Anger is one of the five nivarana (hindrances to upacara-samadhi) called uddhacca-kukkucca (restlessness and scruples, where anger is a form of restlessness). While upacara-samadhi provides access to appana-samadhi (full samadhi, jhana), it also provides access to panna (wisdom, insight, knowledge relevant to nibbana or nirvana), whereas appana-samadhi does not provide access to panna. A person does not practice vipassana merely by sitting on a meditation cushion and focusing the mind. The practice of vipassana also requires a state of upacara-samadhi. Hence, an angry person cannot practice vipassana. He must first calm his anger. After calming his anger, he may not be able to enter upacara-samadhi because of the presence of another nivarana. The term “klesa” is a Sanskrit variation of the Pali term kilesa (defilement, the Visuddhimagga lists ten defilements). Once a state of upacara-samadhi is achieved, panna may or may not arise. When panna does arise, it can take many forms, some of which are symbolic. To perceive the mind as having “two sides” was a symbolic representation of the fact that a sankhara (karma-formation, the psychological causes of an action) can be kusala (wholesome, free of defilements) or akusala (unwholesome, defiled) but not both. The mind, of course, has a vast number of sankhara(s), none of which are both wholesome and unwholesome. It would be a serious mistake to view the mind as having two sides like a coin, because (1) is a mere metaphor and (2) it is seriously ignorant of the Buddhist teachings.


text:
What is the mark of cessation?
What is the "mark of cessation"?
E.g. from Kihwa's Commentary on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment:

From the standpoint of cultivation and severing, the sequence is from
  coarse to subtle: ceasing, changing, abiding, and arising.
  If you extinguish the mark of cessation, then you have for the first time attained the level of faith.

Is it an abstract entity? If so, how would Dignaga's theory of apoha account for it?
If not, I think it would be phenomenal, but I don't know what sort of actual thing it could be. I mean, can it studied empirically, like fire, or like consciousness?
Does it matter either way to Buddhist practice or just life in general?

Here's a copy of the text in question:

Here is what's going on in that text:
Bodhisattva "Pure Wisdom" asks "Buddha" to explain the levels and stages of attainment.
Buddha responds with a usual prajna-paramita explanation of emptiness: that Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi has no svabhava, that Bodhisattvas and sentient beings are mere illusory appearances, and that therefore there is nothing like “attainment” or “an attainer”, let alone any such "stages".
He then elaborates on this point by saying that because sentient beings are “thoroughly confused” and are bent on making things up, they can't help themselves but continue to contrive notions like “cessation” or “person who attains cessation” or "a level of attainment", hence the question about levels. When they attain real cessation, like that of the Tathagata, they will clearly see that all these notions are illusory, making the question irrelevant.
The phrase that you are interested in belongs to this line of argument. The exact phrase goes like this:

”Since they have not [mieh] [mieh] illusory activity, they automatically make discriminations.”

(By “discriminations” he means concrete entities and events like “cessation”, “attainment”, “Boddhisattva”, “sentient being”, "a level" etc. By "illusory activity" he means reification, conceptual fabrication, and overgeneralization.)
The word "mieh" means “cessation” or “extinction”. It is not clear why it is repeated twice in the text. My understanding is that it is repeated for emphasis. IMO the meaning of the phrase is: “Since they have not ACTUALLY CEASED the illusory activity” – meaning, that even though some of them may be “advanced” Buddhist students and practitioners, they are still caught up in the habit of reification – and subsequent discrimination and attachment based on that reification. And so they still posit notions of "attainment", "one who attains", "levels" etc. Hence asking wrong question about levels.
That's the basic meaning of the passage. Now, Kihwa (whoever he is) chooses to read that "mieh mieh" repetition as “they have not ceased the cessation”, which he then has to interpret as “ceased the mark of cessation” or “extinguished the mark of cessation”. He then brings in an entire (unrelated) theory of Four Marks, which postulates that each dharma (phenomenon, NOT thought) goes through the four lifecycle phases (“marks”) of arising, abiding, changing (=deteriorating), and cessation. (See Mulamadhyamakakarika for Nagarjuna's take on emptiness of the four phases).
Kihwa says that all samsara is rooted in reification of these “four marks” as something substantial. He argues that in order to stop maintaining our delusion we should stop seeing Arising, Abiding, Changing, and Cessation (of any and all phenomena) as having concrete reality, we should see them as mere conventions, simplifications, arbitrary points of designation. Neither phenomena nor their phases of lifecycle have existence outside of the designating mind.
He goes on to explain that the notion of arising is the subtlest and hardest to stop reifying, while cessation is the easiest. Based on that, he says, we should start by ceasing reification of the notion of cessation (of all entities and phenomena), and then proceed to cease reification of “changing”, “abiding”, and finally “arising”. He then equates attainment of cessation of each of these four, with attainment of the levels of Faith-follower, Arahant, Sage, and The Fruition correspondingly.
He finishes by making an assertion, that when the Four Marks are completely extinguished, the practitioner returns to “original reality”, i.e. the actual ontological reality where the mind-made phenomena have never really existed. Since they never really existed, cessation of their designated point of cessation is not real either, and nevertheless it happens. All of this argument seems to be needed to support Kihwa’s position that while Buddha of the Sutra says that there is no attainment and cessation, in his, Kihwa's opinion there is still a sense in which a practitioner advances through levels and attains cessation. In other words, a practitioner advances through levels of understanding that there are no levels, and attains cessation of any notion of “cessation” (and other reifications).
To answer your question directly, “mark of cessation” is an arbitrary point designated as the moment when a phenomenon stops to exist. From the perspective of Madhyamaka such point is necessarily empty (=conventional, subjective), as is the point of arising, and the phenomenon itself.
In context of the Sutra speaking about attainment (of Enlightenment) aka cessation (of dukkha, samsara, avidya), this "cessation of [the mark of] cessation" refers to no longer reifying the notion of Enlightenment as something concrete that happens to a person at a point in time, since both the person and the cessation are empty conventional designations. In other words, Enlightenment entails no longer reifying Enlightenment, which has been the Sutra's message all along.
Now, if I can be as bold as to offer a connection with Dignaga's theory of apoha, I would say that it pertains to a relationship between "whatever actually happens in the ontological reality around the time we designate as the moment of cessation" and the (mind-made) designation of cessation. The exact question is, how are the two connected and are they. According to the top-down theory of Dignaga, the conceptually designated event of cessation serves as a conceptual relationaly-isomorphic stand-in for something actually happening in real life. While according to the causal chain theory of Dharmakirti, something in real life caused us to experience that particular locality of events as "cessation", and this causal relationship gives ontological credibility to the designation, however mistaken/simplified/reified it be. If you ask me, I prefer the second theory. The weakness of the standin theory IMO is that it still implies some sort of one-to-one correspondance between the experienced phenomena, the conceptual stand-in, and their ontological correlate. In real life this one-to-one correspondence falls apart under careful examination. The causal chain theory provides a nice and comforting explanation that although our notions and concepts may be reifications, simplifications, and overgeneralizations, their arising in our minds was caused by ontologically real stuff, making them not completely arbitrary and hopefully even partially useful within some boundaries.
In other words, even though cessation and Enlightenment are not something real, there's something real that leads to all these conversations, and the effort to achieve Enlightenment is not in vain.
P.S. I guess the overarching goal of this entire line of thought, is to show the connection between suchness and non-reification. Reification leads to invalid attachment and therefore to dukkha. Reification is samsara. Non-reification leads to suchness which is nirvana.

what do you mean by "an arbitrary point", that's what the question is

How do you define when exactly a melting cube of ice has disappeared? Or better yet, when a burning fire has died out? Now let's take something more interesting. When exactly did the Roman civilization cease to exist? Get it? The temporal boundaries of a phenomenon are co-dependent on our definition of the phenomenon and its constitutes that we identify as its essential properties necessary for it to retain its identity. The Madhyamaka position is that in every single case it's always a giant conventional simplification. Phenomena do not have identities and boundaries, we make them up.

I'm not familiar with those texts or traditions.
What I understood, just from the reading the quoted text (not from also reading other related texts), is:

Each thought or thought-moment has (or appears to have) four aspects:

Arising
Abiding
Changing
Ceasing

It's easiest to extinguish the thought at the end (i.e. when it ceases).
If you don't even extinguish it when it ceases, then it's a persistent illusion (and consequently you "automatically make discriminations" etc.).
If you do extinguish it when it ceases then you have attained the level of faith.
It's more difficult to extinguish it earlier (when it's changing, abiding, or arising), but better (and is a higher level of enlightenment).
The last paragraph, I think, implies that if you extinguish it earlier then there's nothing to extinguish later; and in particular, that if you extinguish arising then there's no cessation.

The 3rd statement above ("If you don't even extinguish it when it ceases ...") was my inference, not in the text. I'm not sure of that, not sure I understood that properly: instead the text might be saying that there's illusion if there's arising, i.e. unless/until the level at which arising is extinguished.
Also:

"Cessation" and "extinguishing" were the same word in the Chinese
See also a reference to one of Wŏnhyo's works, who describes th four marks in more detail

If we follow your line of interpretation we would have to conclude that the text suggests that Liberation is equivalent to cessation of thinking?


text:
How to mitigate the negative karmic effect of killing
I'm a graduate student studying plant-insect interactions. My research, necessary for my degree, requires me to collect (kill) a few hundred insects. Are there any suttas, or general Buddhist recommendations, for how a lay person can best approach this? Are there ways to make up for the bad karma incurred by this action?

Wanting to become a degree holder is Bhava-tanha or craving to become. That craving is causing you to break the first precept. See how dependant origination is at play here.
You can either look for insects that are already dead or tell your professor that you cannot kill as a Buddhist.

If one is not fully enlightened Bhava-Tanha is always "in a person". Since this person in question is not a monk and since precepts are not commandments but training rules he is free to do anything if it helps him. Suffeeing cannot be completepy mitigated and kamma  is largely dependent on one's beliefs. If he does not intentionaly kill with anger but for a higher purpose which is believable to him then kamma won't produce much bad fruit (if at all).

@Val Karma is not a God who is going to hear your plea. Karma is like fire. Whether a grown man who knows better puts his hand in fire or an infant does it, it will burn.

Your example is not correct with regards to kamma. If we have 2 wrong doers and one is holding a self compassion belief and the other does not and self denegrates himself instead,  the kammic consequences will differ in both instances (and keep in mind that both person experience the same event).

It is appropriate as in fire is a natural phenomena and so is Karma. Bhava-tanha is not synonymous with compassion(Karuna). Proximate cause of killing is always aversion. In this case the aversion is caused by the greed to become.

If you are in the position to kill 5 old people or one young people who is there aversion involved? Similarily, if you decide to hurt an animal because they are biting your little child how is there necessarly anger involved? Besides, even if you are angry your are not spending the rest of your life in hell.

One cannot decide on sheer will that one will abandon greed and hatred once and for all. Even if we set intentions we still might act contradictory. Why? Because we are fallible, we have limited capacities (in that we sometimes forget new resolutions or overly focus on the short term benefits of the bad things) and often we are just victims of cause and conditions (in that we don't know better coping skills to manage the situation)

@Val start practicing Satipattana meditation. Then you dont have to kill regardless of whatever situation you are put in. You will simply note the aversion instead of acting on it.

Sankha, good luck in practising "satipatthana meditation" when you feel aversion because someone wants to kill you or one of your relatives. Just watch it go by. Anicca.. everything is impermanent.

Luck is not required @Val. Only mindfulness. In any case, there are many ways to avoid such situations without having to kill if you are smart enough.

Behind a computer screen with a full belly everyone can give big talks. If your or your relative's life is threathened  I am curious to see your mindfulness.

@Val Ad hominem comments won't contribute to this conversation

@Val Yes that seemed quite close to wishing ill on Sankha's relative, motivated by curiosity or anger. :-( To make the criticism or discussion more "constructive", instead, is there some specific change (an addition, or a rephrasing) which you'd like to see in the answer Sankha posted? I guess you were saying that the answer wasn't helpful, e.g. because Bhava-tanha is normal (especially in a lay person), and that the underlying intention/motivation (e.g. "for a higher purpose which is believable to him") affects how much bad fruit there will be.

Normal isn't always right or good. If one is able to identify the corrupted mindstate even in situations which people call 'normal', it's will only be beneficial. Taking the view that killing is ok is quiet harmful to the mind.

Chris, I never meant to be harsh but usually most people know intellectually about higher teachings but don't embody them in real life. Knowing something intellectuall is just 1/3 of the bill.

@Val that is a comment about your assumption regarding my personal practice. It does not answer OP's question.

Your best (and only) approach to dealing with karma is to understand the Buddhist psychology of karma. This psychology is based upon the concept of sankhara, a Pali term that can be approximately translated as the English term schema (schemata in plural form). Both concepts are complex and sophisticated psychological constructs. Strictly speaking, sankhara can be viewed is a process or as a set of predispositions.
I will start with the process definition because it is easier to understand. As a process, sankhara is the process of selecting a response or action (that may be a mental action or a bodily action) in response to a perceived situation. This process unfolds in a complex manner under the causal influence of a multitude of factors, such as:

past beliefs determined by past experience,
innate forms of intelligence that sort out the possible causes and consequences of perceived events and actions,
an innate and automatic predisposition that causes us to always select the best action given the circumstances,
the process of perception that selects certain events to be significant while ignoring others (based upon past experience), and
our experience of “reality” based upon a great multitude of lifetimes.

No matter who we are or how old we are, this process necessarily involves a great deal of intelligence, most of which is unconscious. In Buddhist psychology, we do not have “free will,” as defined by Christian theology. Instead, our choices are determined by how we have understood our past experience. The only source of freedom is knowledge. The better we understand our situation, the better choices we make. There is no equivalent to the Christian concept of blame in Buddhist psychology.
As a set of predispositions, sankhara consists of the psychological causes of the sankhara process. Needless to say, describing a sankhara as a cause of behaviour is a daunting process that is drastically reduced by referring to some belief or wish that merely helps to identify a very complex set of causes. This abbreviation of the description of the set of causes of an action is the source of very serious misunderstandings of the nature of sankhara. For example, it is a serious blunder to refer to “clinging” as a cause of behaviour. It is also a serious blunder to think that killing an insect somehow automatically has some kind of “negative karmic effect.”
Overall, a great deal of wholesome (kusala) sankhara is acquired by being a “graduate student studying plant-insect interactions,” because a factual and objective understanding of biological processes is very conducive to wholesome behaviour and understanding. But, independently of whether or not you kill any insects, you lack the deep meditative understanding and appreciation of life itself and its many hidden causes. Through no fault of your own, you have no awareness of the deeper dimensions of the mind. This can be acquired only through many years of mindfulness meditation or vipassana.
I wish you well in your practice and suggest that you not be concerned by such a superficial understanding of karma. You cannot “make up for the bad karma incurred by this action” because it does not exist. I suggest you meditate on the complex causes of action and come to appreciate the extraordinary dimensions of human intelligence.

very good answer IMO, and should get more attention

How to mitigate the negative karmic effect of killing
Generally speaking it can't be done.
Don't kill. Tell your teacher you're a Buddhist.
However, if in this particular case you have made up your mind on killing... At least you can cleanse your own mind. Please perform a Bardo Deliverance ceremony for each insect. Exact details don't matter, what matters is your sincerety, so you can make up the exact ceremony yourself. Should be at least 20 minutes long per insect, first stand on your knees and talk to each insect, explaining why you have to kill it and what benefits it will bring to the world, and asking forgiveness from the insect and the future generations of its children, not to be born because of you. Make it clear that you don't think that you are better or higher than the insect. Then, after you kill it, talk to it again and promise a swift rebirth in a pure land of Tushita, where it can listen to the teachings of Maitreya. Describe what it will look like to live in Tushita heaven and tell the insect how awesome it will be to learn directly from the great Bodhisattva. Make a vow to the world, that through the power of your compassion these promises will actually come true and they will. Say thank you, to each insect individually, for being your teacher at the moment and giving you this lesson on interconnectedness. Have a clear understanding that at that moment the insect is in fact a representative of the Dharmakaya, teaching you.
If other people happen to see you, don't hide. Explain that you are a Buddhist and relay to them the outlines of the ceremony in broad terms. This should seed enough good seeds to offset the negative effects, in this particular case.
This is an overall scheme. Like I said, what matters is your sincerety. Feel free to improvise and elaborate.

I like this answer so much! You are skillful :)

I have seen worst. I have seen people eating animals alive. I have also seen people killing people. Your crime is not too big. You should focus on keeping your heart clean. Keep your conscience clean. If you feel you have done wrong i.e. you have been cruel to insects then ask for forgiveness by practicing non violence for the rest of your life.And promise not to repeat such mistakes. If you feel you have done nothing wrong then ask yourself why it was necessary? How it solved the problems of humanity ?  Keep your conscience clean. If you don't have conscience then you need to develop it by practicing good will and compassion.

This won't be the answer you wanted: but I think it's normal for monks to not kill insects. For example, there are monastic rules against their digging in earth which might contain insects.
These specific (monastic) rules don't apply to lay-people. Perhaps it might be seen as an unfortunate reality that lay-people will kill, to some extent: especially as a side-effect of agriculture.
One way to avoid doing that might be to become a monk yourself.
A way to mitigate bad kamma might be to accumulate merit or good kamma (e.g. via generosity, perhaps towards the sangha or, I don't know, perhaps towards insects).
People have also been mentioning the Lonaphala Sutta (AN 3.99: The Salt Crystal) recently.

Lay people are not supposed to break the first precept. This question is about deliberately killing insects. Not accidentally killing them.

Yes, I suppose that your statement is Theravada orthodoxy. But I'm not sure that you and I can agree on the details of this topic. I would agree it's difficult to classify the scientific research as "accidental" killing. However, IMO it's also difficult to classify digging the earth as "accidental" (not "deliberate") killing. I'm also of a view that buying meat is analogous to asking someone to kill on one's behalf. But you've commented previously that a vegetarian diet is no more moral (or perhaps not much more moral) because agriculture still involves the killing of insects.

5 conditions must be met to break the first precept. When you are digging the earth, there's no knowledge that you are digging on an animal, there's no intention to kill an animal. But in case of killing insects for scientific research, there's clear knowledge that it's a being and there is clear intention to kill. Thus breaking the precept.

5 conditions That's Abhidhamma. When you are digging the earth, there's no knowledge that you are digging on an animal, there's no intention to kill an animal. When you are carpet-bombing a city, is there no knowledge that you are bombing on a person, no intent to kill a person?

Carpet bombing a city is always intended directly to kill people. Digging the earth is (usually) not intended to kill insects, but rather for other purposes like planting crops.

@YesheTenley I think Sankha wasn't talking about intention, though, but about knowledge: i.e. do you "know" that you're digging on an animal (because if you don't "know" then it's "accidental").

@ChrisW can you link to the reference prohibiting digging in the earth for ordained sangha?

@YesheTenley Pages 269 through 271 of this explanation of The Patimokkha Rules: Should any bhikkhu dig soil or have it dug, it is to be confessed. They may ask a lay person to do it but only indirectly. Digging clean sand is OK. The explanation is for the sake of the soil, which is "a form of one-facultied life". That ends with, "Another consideration, carrying more weight at present, is that the act of digging soil risks killing or injuring whatever animals might be living there".

@YesheTenley I read an account in which labourers in Tibet were digging for some construction work, and their work progressed really slowly because they wanted to gently discover and save (put aside) any worms and insects in the soil. I don't know what current agricultural practices are, but I've little reason to doubt that insects and so on die, as some kind of side-effect -- and IMO this is knowable, predictable.

@ChrisW intention to kill is one of the 5 conditions. Also when you are carpet bombing there's knowledge that the people you want to kill are in that area. In most cases, they observe the enemy activity to pick the area they want to bomb. That's never the case with digging for agriculture.

@SankhaKulathantille Isn't an "intention" mixed, imprecise? "My intention was to protect myself" ... or "to protect other people" ... or "to feed myself when I was hungry". Or, in a science experiment, the intention maybe to isn't to kill, is instead to improve agriculture. In old-style "carpet-bombing" (instead of new-style "precision bombing"), the intentions included to make the "enemy" want to stop the war; and to reduce their industrial capacity (destroy factories), and disrupt transport.

I don't want to argue that "farming" and "carpet-bombing" are morally the same: I chose that as an example only because I couldn't think of any other example where you kill (or where the result includes the killing of) lots of people (or creatures, beings) without seeing those people in advance, by destroying the whole area where they live. Someone who ploughs a field doesn't see the insects, but surely they know that insects are there? So apparently this argument depends on your definition of what you can consider "accidental".

An article here may coincide with your view e.g. If someone were to ask me to intentionally kill an ant or a termite, to squash one with my hand, for instance, I couldn't do it ... However, it may be that I may cause one to die, such as when something crawls up my leg and I brush it off. Maybe it dies, but when I look into my mind there is no feeling of guilt. There is no wavering or doubt. Why? Because there was no intention. Even so IMO monks are held to some higher moral standard (e.g. they mustn't dig whereas laypeople do).

@ChrisW intention is never mixed. One thought can contain only one intention. You feel like it is mixed because thoughts pass by in quick succession. Intention to kill is always cause by aversion and it's always bad Karma. Wanting to pass the exam and deciding to kill do not occur in the same thought. Wanting to save someone is one moment and deciding to kill is another. This becomes clearer if you practice Satipatthana meditation.

@SankhaKulathantille Is "aversion" a feeling? It seems to me you're mixing different things: "intention" (i.e. goal or result), "feeling" (e.g. aversion or guilt), "decision" (what action is necessary to achieve the goal), "wanting" (to pass the exam), "knowing" (whether an action will cause insects' deaths), "thought-moments", and so on. I'm not saying you're confused, just that the distinction you make (I think you're saying "that ploughing a field and/or buying meat is done without intention to kill and without knowledge of animals being killed") isn't a doctrine that I wholly agree with.

@ChrisW Aversion is Dosa(Pali) or disliking. It is a concomitant(Cetasika). Intention to kill is always associated with Dosa.

Practice mindfulness the next time when you buy meat or dig earth . See if an intention to kill arises.

Don't let the four parts of the karmic path get completed. The four parts are basis, intention, action and completion. In this case, the best way would be to stop at the last step and develop intense regret for the action. However if this is a regular action, the regret will not be genuine.
The other is to put the four opposite forces into action.
https://learning.tergar.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The-Four-Powers-copy.pdf
This requires you to commit to not doing the karma again, at least for a specific duration of time.
The last way is to do the 35 Buddhas confession practice:
https://www.lamayeshe.com/article/chapter/appendix-3-confession-downfalls-thirty-five-buddhas

You are knowingly causing the suffering of sentient beings who want to be happy just as you do. Your actions are non-virtuous and you should stop. Thinking that you can continue doing so and somehow ameliorate your continued bad actions will only cause you to incur heavier debt than already incurred. This is necessarily so because if you convince yourself that you can ameliorate it somehow, then using this as an excuse you will continue to cause harm to yourself and others.
All sentient beings wish to be happy and to avoid suffering - even insects - just as you do. Does that mean that all beings know how to achieve happiness? Clearly not! To take an extreme example, human beings who wantonly spread terror by killing and torturing in the name of religious zealotry, obviously do not know how to achieve happiness. They are extremely - to the nth degree - unskillful in the method they are using to try and achieve happiness. Nonetheless, these people wish to be happy and to avoid suffering just as you do. It is exactly the same for all sentient beings.
When you are in a hole... stop digging. Only after you have done this should you make a plan to get out of the hole. Short of this, I think Andrei's answer is excellent. If you practice what Andrei suggests with sincerity and with a mind aspiring for compassion I have no doubt you will stop your non-virtuous actions which will be very good for your - and the insects! - aims to be happy and avoid suffering.

Some insects wish to spread malaria to kill people. For example, today, for the 1st time ever, government inspectors knocked on my door to inspect my property for places mosquitoes can breed to spread dengue fever. Are you saying that these insects "want to be happy just as you do" by spreading dengue fever & malaria? Are yoy saying mosquitoes are like ISIS terrorists who gain happiness from beheading people? These mosquitoes are programmed by nature. They do not aspire for "happiness". They merely perform limited functions of spreading disease & reproducing.

I’d actually like to respond and try to learn something from conversation with you, but this looks like argument and the moderators have asked me not to contribute. Nevertheless, I will try and update my answer to address your objections.

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

Consider letting your material goal go. The Buddha let go of great material success and accepted the Dhamma.
You could even consider putting all your focus on the Dhamma.
We have to learn how to not desire things that will lead to our collective and individual suffering not as only human beings but as just beings. We see these Buddhist "can't kill a fly"  precepts as inconsequential in our hearts. When we kill insects the effects can be so subtle, at a very deep level that we cause our hearts & minds to get more and more tangled.
I'm considering letting go of a small fortune. I haven't done it yet and I can clearly see that I am destroying myself trying to invest all this money for my wife and I. Only rarely can I see at enough of a subtle level to even start to untangle my mind.  Focusing on just the practice is better than spreading the focus and effort around to other projects.

Killing insects is not a offence for monks that leads to expulsion from the monastic community therefore the kamma of killing insects is not something serious. It is kammically "trifling".
For example, insects can spread deadly disease & destroy crops, which shows they are lifeforms that do not have a moral conscience. For this same reason of not having a moral conscience, insects do not suffer when they are killed because their minds cannot generate egoistic attachment. If an insect, such as a mosquito or gadfly, was a rational creature with a mind capable of suffering, a mosquito would not continually return to bite & even kill a human after many loving & gentle attempts of a human to scare the insect away.
The reason a Buddhist, such as monk, refrains from killing insects is to develop a higher than ordinary level of non-violence, gentleness, safety towards all beings, fearlessness, loving-kindness & non-attachment. In other words, there is no serious bad karma for killing an insect, such as killing a mosquito that might bite a small baby. Often, it is a duty rather than bad karma to clean away insects that are threatening to health, life & property.
There is far more serious bad kamma than killing insects, such as watching pornography or having uncommitted sex. You should be aware many internet Buddhists over-esteem non-killing as a "virtue-signalling" to ameliorate themselves from their unwholesome & enslaving sexual deeds.
In respect to your question, the Buddha taught "kamma is intention". If your study is for a wholesome intention then that is enough to ameliorate the trifling bad kamma of killing some insects. The results of kamma is something we known within our hearts & minds. I recommend to read the Lonaphala Sutta for guidance.

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


text:
Buddhism and miracles
Do all Buddhists believe that miracles happen in the real world? Are the miracles described in scripture such as the Buddha being able to walk after birth literal or symbolic?

Yes, most Buddhists do believe that the Bodhisatta walked 7 steps immediately after being born and also believe in the miracles mentioned in the scriptures literally. Within this group some believe the details of miracles in scriptures  word for word and others may say certain descriptions might be embellished.
Then there are others who like to call themselves Buddhists, but reject all supernatural aspects of Buddhism and try to map it all to the ordinary, either symbolically or giving different meanings to the words. When that task proves too difficult, they usually say it's not the teaching of the Buddha.

is the Answerer familiar with the Buddhist term "Nirmanakaya"?

The answerer is not Mahayana :)

Thank you, but that was not my question. Did you,  the " answerer who is not mahayana" know that Nirmanakaya, Dhamakaya and Samboghakaya are mentioned more that once in the Theravada Pali Cannon, within Sutta attributed to Lord Buddha ?

I dont see how your query is related to the question. Might as well ask a new question instead of commenting under this. Samboghakaya is introduced by Mahayana.

I suspect that, if where Buddhists don't exactly believe it, many would certainly tend not to deny it either.
This is a famous Zen story:

The Real Miracle
When Bankei was preaching at Ryumon temple, a Shinshu priest, who believed in salvation through the repitition of the name of the Buddha of Love, was jealous of his large audience and wanted to debate with him.
Bankei was in the midst of a talk when the priest appeared, but the fellow made such a disturbance that bankei stopped his discourse and asked about the noise.
"The founder of our sect," boasted the priest, "had such miraculous powers that he held a brush in his hand on one bank of the river, his attendant held up a paper on the other bank, and the teacher wrote the holy name of Amida through the air. Can you do such a wonderful thing?"
Bankei replied lightly: "Perhaps your fox can perform that trick, but that is not the manner of Zen. My miracle is that when I feel hungry I eat, and when I feel thirsty I drink."

Knowing of that story, I Googled to see what Zen might say about miracles, and found this article, Miracles Great and Small -- of which here are some excerpts:

I’ve been working on a follow-up to my book Don’t Be a Jerk, in which I’m taking a close look at some more of Dogen’s writings. I decided to work on an essay of his titled Jinzu. This title is usually translated as something like “Miracles,” “Marvelous Spiritual Abilities,” or “Spiritual Powers.” My teacher titled his translation “Mystical Powers.” I approached the piece thinking it was kind of a one-idea essay, the idea being something like; there are no miracles, real life is the real miracle, get over it.
I was wrong. What Dogen does in this essay is far more interesting and is an approach I think a lot of people today could learn from.

... and:

In his essay on Buddha’s miracles, Dogen never denies that they happened and he never mocks or belittles those who believe in them. It’s not clear if Dogen believed those stories himself or not. It’s quite possible he did believe that the Buddha once flew up into the sky in front of a multitude and shot water out of the bottom half of his body and fire out of the top half, to name one miracle story he references. He certainly appears to have believed that you could develop psychic powers and paranormal abilities through meditation.
Yet he takes a completely different approach to this stuff from our contemporary atheists. He allows that these kinds of miracles happen but says they are “small stuff” (shou-shou in Japanese) miracles. He urges us to be more awed and impressed by much bigger miracles.

... and:

That’s why we say things like, “the mystical power and wondrous function is carrying water and lugging firewood.” Your own real, three-dimensional existence with all of its joys and sorrows, its pleasures and pains, it’s spectacular times and its mundane times, that’s the most impressive miracle of all.
Whether you believe in small miracles or not doesn’t really matter. Some folks believe in them and some folks don’t. But the great miracle cannot be doubted by anyone. It exists everywhere and at all times and all places.
You can’t directly investigate small miracles that happened long ago and far away. But you can directly and immediately examine this one great miracle in detail for yourself using your own body and your own mind just as they are right here and right now.

I think there are some analogous attitudes towards miracles in the Pali canon -- e.g. that advanced yogis acquire supernatural powers, these powers don't imply enlightenment -- though there are higher knowledges (Abhijñā), three knowledges (tevijja), which are associated with enlightenment.
Also that the Dhamma is testable by practice and known by direct experience and so on.

I interpret this answer as implying that one may be skeptical of some "fantastic" stories, or interpret them in a way other than "at face value":

It's not uncommon for modern Theravada Buddhists to question the authenticity of the stories, especially given their often fantastical content. Probably, though, it is more common for Theravada Buddhists to accept the stories far more at face value than they really should, again given their content.

Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote that about the Jataka stories, not about the miracles of the Blessed One.
That seems to me in keeping with an attitude I described previously, i.e. "not denying".

I once read a book titled The Golden Bough which compares aspects of the Christian story (e.g. "virgin birth" and "king put to death") with the narratives of other ("pagan") religions, and which finds and describes many parallels -- many others "Gods" with virgin births and so on.
The Golden Bough is in no sense canonical but it left me with the impression that some aspects of the Christian mythos have parallels in and/or were borrowed from other mythologies.
A view I developed is that some of the fantastic elements in the Christian Biblical stories serve as a Narrative hook -- after a miraculous and memorable birth like that, what happens next? Whatever happens, you might be inclined to listen to someone so unusual or superhuman.
For whatever reason, I don't know, "fantastic" stories in general have been remembered and taught to children the world over.
But I think that this view of mine is quite possibly contradicted by the orthodox view of the Christian Church, which would teach that the stories are "true" -- and by that (their) definition, I couldn't describe my view as a "Christian view".
So when you're asking "Do all Buddhists believe?", look at Sankha's answer. I think Sankha's saying that that's an orthodox belief, which is stated in the orthodox canon ... that "most Buddhists do believe" it and anyone who doesn't might just "like to call themselves Buddhists, but".

In discussing religion it's sometimes common to ask whether someone is "a believer" or "an atheist" -- e.g. "Do you believe it's true? Or, do you believe it's false?"
There's a third possibility though, being "agnostic", which means "without knowledge" -- i.e. a valid answer to the question might be "I don't know."
And I think that might be an answer that's true of many Buddhists, i.e. "I don't know."
So if someone says, for example, "I don't believe in past lives" then someone else might reply, "you have to develop your (power/ability/insight) until you can see for yourself." In my opinion, someone who hasn't done that (which so far as I know includes most people who haven't attained final enlightenment) might rightly say "I don't know".
I suspect that even an orthodox Buddhist might say, about miracles: "I don't know. I know it's in the canon: and I know that people are discouraged from boasting of it, demonstrating it, etc."

Also I suspect that a lot of (perhaps even all) Buddhists do believe in small or everyday miracles -- in the concept of "good karma" for example, perhaps, of being "lucky" or "fortunate", perhaps of merit manifesting itself in tangible ways, maybe some wish fulfilment and so on.

There is a famous story of the Buddhist monk at the time of Buddha named  Pindola Bharadwaja.

Once certain rich man challenged him to lift a bowl kept high up on a
  stick to prove the power of his Dhamma, he reportedly levitated and
  picked it up, which thereby stopped the person and onlookers to
  question the dhamma. When the Buddha heard of this, He reprimanded him
  and told him that this is not how you should spread the teachings of
  the Dhamma and told everyone not to show the miracles in public again.

This is as such a norm in Buddhism, not to show the miracles or any supernatural powers you have. So as a Buddhist I do believe in literal miracles.
And other than Theravada stories,
The life of Tibetan master Milarepa is full of miracles.

Before becoming a Buddhist monk he became a sorcerer to avenge an
  insult to his family, he destroyed an entire village through his
  psychic powers.

This story is literally believed by Tibetan Buddhists.
In Jetsunma Palmo's book, she gives an account that certain Tibetan masters attain something called as a 'rainbow body' at the time of death.

Which means when the master is going to die he is covered in a cloth
  and he is left alone in a room, the master leaves his body and all
  that is left is his nails and hair, and when the disciple enters the
  room, his body is engulfed by a rainbow.

This is an eyewitness account.
One of the stories told by Ajahn Brahma is

once a lady was not able to open the door of her car no matter how
  hard she was trying, and Ajahn Brahm was passing by, so she jokingly
  said to him that, "Ajahn Brahm, if you can open the door of this car,
  I will become a nun in your monastery." So taking the challenge Ajahn
  Brahm said ok let's see. So he said he gave loving kindness and Metta
  to the car and he just put the key in and lo-and-behold the car door
  opened.

This was not a discourse about miracles but it was about loving kindness. But leaving all the skepticism aside I will consider this as a miracle.
I have reached to understanding that at higher levels of meditative states miracles are no more special, its a trivial matter.

Maybe some Buddhists do some don't but iddhi and abhijñā (the six higher knowledges) are central concepts in early Buddhism.
The Buddha walking after birth I think is only mentioned once not nearly as much as iddhi powers and abhijna (mentioned hundreds or thousands of times).
It's explained that they are literal physical powers rather than symbolic. The Buddha explains that his body becomes lighter allowing him to easily fly.

“Sir, do you have personal experience of going to the Brahmā realm by
  psychic power with a mind-made body?”
“I do, Ānanda.”
“But do you have personal experience of going to the Brahmā realm by
  psychic power with this body made up of the four primary elements?”
“I do, Ānanda.”
....
“Ānanda, the Realized Ones are incredible and
  have incredible qualities. They’re amazing and have amazing qualities.
Sometimes the Realized One submerges his body in his mind and his mind
  in his body. He meditates after sinking into a perception of bliss and
  lightness in the body. At that time his body becomes lighter, softer,
  more workable, and more radiant.
Suppose there was an iron ball that had been heated all day. It’d
  become lighter, softer, more workable, and more radiant. In the same
  way, sometimes the Realized One submerges his body in his mind and his
  mind in his body. He meditates after sinking into a perception of
  bliss and lightness in the body. At that time his body becomes
  lighter, softer, more workable, and more radiant." (SN 51.22)

It's also explained that a certain degree of iddhi development is required to achieve arahantship:

"Bhikkus, all the bhikkus in the past … future … present who realize
  the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very
  life, and who live having realized it with their own insight due to
  the ending of defilements, do so by developing and cultivating the
  four bases of iddhi power" (SN 51.7)

Moggallana is the arahant who had the highest iddhi power (besides the Sammsambuddha himself):

"Sāriputta, the monk who has crossed over, may be supreme in respect
  of his wisdom, ethics, and peace.
But in a moment I can create the likenesses of ten million times 100,000 people!
  I’m skilled in transformations;
  I’m a master of psychic powers." (Thag 20.1)

It's one of the central concepts in early Buddhism.

"Swans fly on the path of the sun;
  men pass through the air by iddhi powers;
  the wise are led away from the world after vanquishing Mara
  and his host" (Dhammapada, 175)

I personally believe that it's real because of my own personal experiences...I also think it would be pretty easy to prove as well...


text:
How to die professionally?
In this book  Preparing to Die: Practical Advice and Spiritual Wisdom from the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition Lama Tharchin makes a powerful statement

Dharma is how we can come to die professionally.

What did mean by that?
How does dharma help us during the death process?
book's link

I read the answere below but I am little confused, what exactly does the word 'professionally' mean here?

expert,the answer below has been accepted only because it touches an important point which others miss,which is control over death,the rest is useless @BodhiWalker

Is Tibetan Buddhism (Nyingma tradition) quite focused on death, rebirth, post-death existence?
At a time in my life when I'd read almost nothing else about Tibetan Buddhism, I'd seen pictures of the Wheel of Life, and heard there was a bardo, and read a translation of the Bardo Thodol.
Anyway I found Lama Tharchin Rinpoche's Final Words of Advice. It's not very long. Reading it, I suppose the closest it comes to being about "dying professionally" is:

Grateful for the support he's had (during life), from lamas and lineage.
Hopes, and plans for what to do, after dying:

I guess that the word "professionally" has, loosely, three meanings in ordinary English:

Competently (e.g. "he or she is a professional" should mean, "he or she does it well")
With training (e.g. most "professions" require training, and a license to practice it)
As part of a social contract (e.g. someone is a "professional" if you hire them)

Here's the context of the quote, from the book you referenced:

I think you can see there all three meanings of the word "professionally" -- i.e. "well", and "with training", and "as part of a cooperative social contract".

Chris would you mind adding your opinion or better more on bardho

For example, this answer mentions some references about the bardo (and, other answers to that topic say that other traditions perhaps don't teach that there is a multi-day bardo state after death).

I was talking in regarding to this question

I don't understand what you're asking. The question was, "What did mean by that?" So I found his "final advice" (including about death and dying) and guessed at what he might mean by "professional".

If what you're asking now is, "How does dharma help?" -- I think a summary of the bardo doctrine (beware that it's been decades since I read about it) is that people have a succession of experiences there: and the right reaction (or non-reaction) towards those experiences results in liberation: but unskillful attraction or aversion results in rebirth. Being in the bardo is an experience which people aren't usually skilful with: so there's training, to foresee and prepare for that experience. But maybe don't take my word for it -- ask a new/separate question about this doctrine instead.

Lama Zopa Rinpoche gives a similar account and has this to say - How to be a Real Professional:
On the importance of familiarizing ourselves with the fact of death

By meditating on impermanence, death, not only that death is going to
  happen at some time, but especially that the time of death is
  uncertain, by making the mind familiar with that you always have this
  mindfulness of impermanence, death, that this lifespan is very short.
  So instead of thinking, “I’m going to live very long,” that concept of
  permanence that “I’m going to live for a very long time” that rises
  even on the same day that you’re going to die, the same day that
  you’re going to have a car accident, or airplane crash or heart attack
  or whatever, a situation in which one is going to die. Even on the day
  that one is going to die this concept that “I’m going to live for many
  years” is there in the morning when you get up. It’s there even five
  minutes before your heart attack, before you die. Just five minutes
  before the car accident in which one is going to die, this concept
  that “I’m going to live for many years” is there. So it's not true, it
  cheats, it's defeating. It blocks, it hinders you from thinking of
  Dharma. From your side you have to make preparation for a free death,
  for a happy death. [This thought of permanence] blocks you from making
  preparations for a good rebirth in your next life, so that right after
  this life you have a good rebirth, are born in the pure land of the
  Buddha where you can become enlightened, become a great bodhisattva.
  To have a happier life or a better rebirth with more opportunity to
  practice Dharma, to meet the teachings of the Buddha. Even just simply
  to have a good rebirth, a happy life - it blocks you from making
  preparation for that by practicing Dharma, and it blocks you from
  practicing Dharma to actualize the path, to cease the delusions, karma
  and from liberating yourself from the oceans of samsaric suffering,
  from achieving ultimate happiness. It blocks that. It blocks you from
  actualizing bodhicitta, from having realizations of the Mahayana path,
  it blocks you from achieving enlightenment, it blocks oneself from
  enlightening numberless other sentient beings, to liberate them from
  the oceans of samsaric suffering, and bring them to full
  enlightenment. So it’s not true. That concept is not true. It deceives
  you, it cheats you, if you believe in that. Then suddenly one day,
  death comes.

Our death is coming
Rinpoche goes on to give several examples of people recently passing away that were well known to the audience. In general, Rinpoche is giving an outline about how Buddhist practioners of the Mayahana train to think about death and the surety and finality of it. It is said that the only thing that can help us at that moment of death is Dharma. Dharma is the ultimate refuge for Buddhists at the moment of death. It is the only thing which will subdue the terror and fright that can come to ordinary beings at the moment of their own death.
He continues...

Then one day it becomes one’s own turn. Then others one day, sooner or
  later, hear your name with the word ‘dead’, ‘died’ joined after your
  name. For example, let’s say Zopa. After the name ‘Zopa’, then add the
  word ‘died.’ So up to now we hear about others, but sooner or later
  others will hear your name joined with the word ‘died.’ So sooner or
  later, that definitely happens. Sooner or later, one day, dead -
  daytime or nighttime, one day that happens. You want to go shopping
  for food for this week, and then death happens, you are unable to
  return back home. Death happens like that. Or you’re cooking food and
  before you put it on the plate to eat it, death happens. Or you start
  to write a letter, and before it is finished, death happened. Or you
  start to write a book, then before finishing the book, death happens.
  You go traveling, on pilgrimage or vacation, then death happens before
  coming back. Even while one starts to eat food, before finishing the
  food on the plate, the soup in the bowl, before finishing that death
  happens. You go to the bathroom, but before returning back to your
  room, death happens. So it’s definite that one day you’ll be doing
  something, and death will happen. It’s for sure. That day is going to
  come sooner or later. One day your body will be called ‘corpse.’
  Corpse. Even normal family members, very close friends, they will not
  come near or they won't touch it. Our body will be covered with cloth.
  One’s own body, this body will be on the fire. They will see the
  skull, see some part of the bones. Or the body will be in the coffin
  buried in the ground, the graveyard, some flowers put around, and your
  family members crying, the loved one's family members crying. There’s
  nothing that can be done - you know that you’re going to die now. Now
  death is happening, and you know that you’re going to leave, you’re
  going to separate, you have no choice, there's nothing you can do. No
  choice, you have to separate from all these loved ones, family,
  friends, you have to separate from them. And from all these
  possessions, Mercedes car or limousine. Whatever possessions you have,
  you know that everything has to be left. At that time the only thing
  that can help is Dharma, if you practiced Dharma in life.

How for a Buddhist only Dharma can help us at this time
So how can Dharma help us at this time?

That helps, the virtue. How much good heart you practiced in daily
  life, it helps at that time. How much patience you practiced in daily
  life, it helps at that time. How much kindness you practiced to
  others, it helps at that time. Dharma is the only thing which at that
  time can help you not to suffer, to have a happy mind. For the best
  practitioner of Dharma, they experience unbelievable happiness, joy at
  the time  of death. They can go to a pure land where one can become
  enlightened. By being born there, then one develops attainment, then
  one is able to offer deep benefit to other sentient beings, to
  reincarnate with free will, with total freedom to come back into the
  world only to benefit sentient beings, to come back with total freedom
  into the suffering world to liberate beings. As it’s mentioned in
  Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, you are so happy, for example as
  if you haven’t met your parents for so many years and are now so happy
  to be meeting your parents. Or as if you are going for a holiday after
  working so hard for so long without a holiday and now you are going
  for holiday, so are incredibly happy. For the best Dharma
  practitioner, that's the happiness they experience at the time of
  death. Then the middle Dharma practitioner's death is full of
  confidence in the heart, when you die there is full confidence that
  you will have a good rebirth. Full confidence and a happy mind. For
  the last one, the lowest Dharma practitioner’s death, there is no
  fear, even though it is not clear where one is going to reincarnate,
  still there’s no fear that you will be reborn in the lower realms.

So professionalism? Well, the Dharma is inner professionalism. Here is how Rinpoche describes it:

So without this inner professionalism, the inner profession of the
  healthy mind, the pure mind which is Dharma, the real Dharma, so
  without this, no matter how much you’re externally professional, life
  problems go on more and more.

And what is inner professionalism as opposed to external professionalism?

... if they are missing the inner profession then what is missing is
  mentally how to live life, how to do everything. The real profession
  is missing. That is the positive attitude, living life with this
  peaceful, happy, healthy mind, non-ignorance, non-anger,
  non-attachment, and especially with the thought of cherishing others,
  the ultimate good heart, the thought of cherishing others, unstained
  by the self-cherishing thought, the selfish mind.

So I think Lama Tharchin is exactly right: Dharma is how we can come to die professionally.

how is this different from a normal person?

By 'normal person' do you mean a non-Buddhist or someone who is not a 'professional' in their external daily life or something else?

non Buddhist,,,,

I can't speak for all sentient beings obviously, but it is my impression (seen firsthand unfortunately) that many ordinary beings are filled with terror and fright at the moment of their death :( :( :( :( :( :(

what about those who die in the field of battle?

i have no doubt that many who die on the field of battle are full of the most awful kinds of terror and fright and pain

If you can convince yourself,good!

How to die professionally?
What did mean by that?

The untrained mind, i.e. a mind that has not been subjected to systematic, continual practice, development and purification, can be classified as an "amateur" mind. It does not know how to deal with physical or mental objects such as pain, ill-will, greed etc. It is therefore more likely to cling in the event of death, thereby leading to rebirth.
A trained mind that sees clearly with no obstructions, has insights into the true nature of reality, knows how to deal with conditioned phenomena and has consistently been trained in meditation, is a mind that is more likely not to cling in the event of death. The trained mind will be able to merely observe what happens in the death process, thereby liberating itself from Samsara.
That mind can be classified as a "professional" mind.

My favorite story of Buddhist (professional) death, is that of one Nyingma lama, whose last words were:

This is just so, and not a tad otherwise.

-- this is called to die in suchness, or to die professionally.
Suchness is a state when our mind has no conflict between "the ought" and "the given". If what you're "given" is death, and you take it as such, without projecting any "it ought to be otherwise" - then you die in peace. This is called "to die professionally" - because as a Buddhist you were supposed to practice suchness (tathata) until it became natural, so by that moment you are a professional "suchnessin" (tathagata).