text:
Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'?
Further to these comments, why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', specifically, instead of about 'attachment'?
Wouldn't they make as much sense, or even make more sense, if they identified attachment rather than craving as a condition for the types of suffering which are mentioned in the first noble truth?

Are you distinguishing between Taṇhā and Upādāna -- respectively craving and attachment?

Yes (at least as far as I understand those two words). The second noble truth in SN 56.11 says that taṇhā is the cause/origin of  dukkha ... which I find not quite immediately obvious, because the types of suffering identified in the first noble truth seem to me to be to be more immediately associated with attachment (i.e. grasping for specific somethings).

my understanding is the 2nd noble truth of 'samudhaya' is not about 'cause'. 'samudhaya' does not mean 'cause' ('hetu'); 'hetu' means a singular cause. where as 'samudhaya' can include multiple causes. it means 'complete arising'; similar to 'origination'. therefore the 'arising' of suffering is when there is craving that results in new becoming. there must be both craving & becoming for suffering to 'arise' or 'mature' or 'samudhaya'. Within that 'becoming', there is attachment (upadana). that is why is some suttas, the 12 link D.O. formula is used as the 2nd noble truth (eg. AN 3.61)

@Dhammadhatu To attempt to be non-attached towards craving symptoms is a difficult endeavor because the craving symptoms themselves, whilst not being suffering itself, still have a tormenting or oppressive quality. --- Since you mentioned this, craving itself is NOT considered to be Dukkha? Only attachment and the subsequent loss of the object is? Regards

Craving (lit. "thirst", tanha) is a technical term that means that very phenomenological moment when you (here!) daydream about something (over there!). Buddha says "unsatisfied craving IS dukkha" (suffering) - note how he does not say "craving is the cause of suffering", he says "unsatisfied craving IS". That's because dukkha isn't exactly "suffering", it should be more precisely translated as "unsatisfactoriness", or, as I sometimes translate it, "the feeling of wrongness". So as you see, to say that "unsatisfied craving IS the feeling of wrongness" is almost a truism, a statement that is obviously and self-evidently true. This way Buddha not as much identifies the cause of suffering, as illustrates the nature of suffering, brings it into light and shows it upclose so we can see it for what it is. Indeed, suffering is nothing else but the painful experience of the unsatisfied craving for another experience.
As for "attachment", I feel like this is a long-standing misunderstanding that crept in since the earliest days of Buddhism, when the term upatthana/upattana (to attend) got mixed up with upadana (fuel). In my opinion, the sequence here is that what one craves for, one attends to, thereby fueling the craving. In other words, as you keep obsessing over the object of your craving, you only make it worse.
This makes it clear that upattana/upadana (to-attend/to-fuel, usually translated as clinging or attachment) is not really the direct cause of suffering, but only a sustaining factor. The direct cause of suffering is craving.
Four Noble Truths (at leat the first three) are focused on the immediate experience of suffering, as it occurs and can be ceased in the present moment. That's why they talk about craving being the cause.
The Twelve Nidanas cover the big picture: how entire experience of "I" and "The World" arises. In that context it's more appropriate to talk about Upadana being a fuel for Bhava, and Avidya being the root cause of it all.  Avidya (invalid/confused understanding ~of the experience) causes reification of experience as external objects which then become the object of craving. This craving causes dukkha, sure, but more importantly for the big picture it leads to ego-centric imagination (Upadana) which leads to individuation (Bhava).
I hope this analysis of the terms and how they relate to the phenomenology of suffering clarifies the topic.

It is very difficult to deal with attachment (clinging; egoism) if one has not dealt with craving. If (the urge; drive; energy of) craving is not extinguished then attachment will keep raising its ugly head.
It is like having craving symptoms towards a drug. To resolve this, the craving symptoms must be destroyed via cold turkey, otherwise the mind will continue to be tormented by the craving symptoms. To attempt to be non-attached towards craving symptoms is a difficult endeavor because the craving symptoms themselves, whilst not being suffering itself, still have a tormenting or oppressive quality. MN 148 is the only sutta I am aware of that mentions non-attachment towards craving. Most suttas mention the extinguishing of craving.
Or many men become monks but fail due to not being able to overcome sexual desires. Abstinence from sexuality & attempts at non-attachment towards sexual desire generally do not extinguish the sexual desire (craving). Thus, the life of a monk is difficult for them.
That said, attachment (upadana) is mentioned in the 1st noble truth as suffering itself. By using the word 'sankhittena', the 1st noble truth summarises all suffering as attachment (to the five aggregates), such as described in MN 140:

I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I
  shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall
  not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor
  non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing
  is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing,
  he is said to be a sage at peace.

For example, the various sufferings that occur in relation to child-birth, living, aging, sickness, death, separation, grief, loss, etc, only occur when there is attachment involved. The sufferings of birth, aging, sickness & death do not occur when there is no attachment.
Whether the mind is attached to something (e.g. possessive) or whether the mind suffers sorrow (grief) from losing what it is attached to, both the pre-grief possessiveness & post-possessiveness-grief are suffering & bondage. (However, this can generally only be comprehended with the experience of non-attachment. Without a meditative experience of liberation via non-attachment, most people cannot comprehend attachment itself is suffering).
The 2nd noble truth does mention 'becoming', which is similar to attachment, when it describes the arising of suffering as: "craving leading to new becoming".

"Wouldn't they make as much sense, or even make more sense, if they identified attachment rather than craving as a condition for the types of suffering which are mentioned in the first noble truth?"
If I understand correctly, in that case it seems it would explain the origin of attachment as attachment.
In the sutta SN 56.11 in your comment dukkha itself is exemplified by a list of things:

birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering;

and summarized as:

in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.

The list of examples seems to freely mix things that can more or less swing either way as craving or attachment. But when describing the origin of dukkha, he says "craving". Though he gives a few examples afterwards, one reading is that the very presence of "craving", this identifiable and characteristic thirst independent of the object it craves, is a deeper problem, more fundamental than attachment, this being a posterior stage in the process.
Indeed, this is reflected in dependend origination:

With craving as condition, attachment comes to be.

In reverse order:

But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving comes cessation of attachment; with the cessation of attachment, cessation of existence [...]

From the Pali dictionary from the Ven. Nyanatiloka (p. 327)

Taṇhā: (lit. ‘thirst’): ‘craving’, is the chief root of suffering, and of the evercontinuing cycle of rebirths. “What, O monks, is the origin of suffering? It is that craving which gives rise to ever-fresh rebirth and, bound up with pleasure and lust, now here, now there, finds ever fresh delight. It is the sensual craving (kāma-taṇhā), the craving for existence (
  bhava-taṇhā), the craving for non-existence (vibhava-taṇhā)’’ (D. 22).

According to this explanation it becomes quite clear that taṇhā and the second Noble Truth is more a statement about the origin of suffering. The term condition doesn't really imply that. If you ask about the pure condition of suffering clinging would probably be the proper answer (according to dependent origination). But it's practically speaking more important to name the root, because that is where you tear something out by the roots (make an end to suffering).
From page 340:

Upādāna: ‘clinging’, according to Vis.M. XVII, is an
  intensified degree of craving (taṇhā, q.v.). The 4 kinds of clinging are: sensuous clinging (kāmūpādāna), clinging to views (ditthūpādāna), clinging to mere rules and ritual (sīlabbatūpādāna), clinging to the personality-belief (attavādūpādāna).

I think the definition of clinging as strong desire is very compact and explaining. If you look at it from a point of view of dependent origination, there is vedanā (feeling) followed by taṇhā (craving) which is the key point in this chain, because before the moment of craving the mind is still free from defilements. After this there is upādāna (clinging), but it's of the same type as craving.

Craving is not good because it is more than an unconscious attachment--it is an uncontrollable addiction... and it is an extreme form of attachment.
Attachment can be good. Having an attachment to Dharma can be good, having an attachment to truth, good words, etc. leads to unconscious inclination towards factors of the Way.
The Buddha did declare that we must have a strong attachment to Dharma and then eventually must abandon it. But he never said we need craving for anything.
Attachment to everything including the idea of attachment itself is eliminated as one dissolves into complete enlightenment.
Even the idea of eliminating this attachment-to-attachment. It might seem like just playing with words. At the ultimate state there is no such thing as attachment, no nothing and no not-nothing.
It is something to meditate on when doing vipassana to be free from mind-objects and the idea of freedom form it in itself.

I don't want to quibble but AN 4.159 says, "This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned."

Oh that is interesting.. definitely not quibble. I dont like that passage very much. It skips over the possibility of using sexual intercourse to overcome sexual intercourse, breaking the principle of becoming free of something through it. Typical theravadin limitation.

I don't understand "non-Theravada" doctrine about "using sexual intercourse to overcome sexual intercourse". There's also SN 51.15.

i.e. Sexual Tantra. It is good he didn't go into that teaching because there are easily too many misconceptions about sexuality although I recommend the book "TantraCure for Men" for some excellent clarification with eastern and scientific experiment principles on the nature of this "beyond sexuality through sexuality" just like "beyond attachment through attachment" because neither are as straightforward as they sound pretty...

I think we can show that the Noble Truths talk about both craving and attachment. We don't have to read them as craving "instead of" attachment.
First note that the Noble Truths (DN 22) describe the origination of stress as particular kind of craving, and this kind is

[b] "And what is the noble truth of the origination of stress? The
craving that makes for further becoming

What AN 10.92 says specifically about the condition for suffering is a lot of things but begins with ignorance

With ignorance as a condition ...
With feeling as a condition there is craving.
With craving as a condition there is clinging/sustenance.
With clinging/sustenance as a condition there is becoming.
With becoming as a condition...old age & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

The Second Noble Truth (DN 22), identifies non-attachment ("letting go") as the condition for the cessation of stress.

[c] "And what is the noble truth of the cessation of stress? The
remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment,
release, & letting go of that very craving.

If the way to awakening was to simply to quit all desires (water, food, sleep, breath, chanda, etc) "cold turkey", then why would the Noble Truths tell us that "letting go" leads to cessation stress, rather than to say simply "quit food, water, breath, etc."
So I'm almost in agreement with your second question, since the condition for cessation of stress is non-attachment.


text:
How to identify a sotapanna (stream enterer)
I just wan to know whether there are any measurements advised by the Buddha to identify a stream enterer (sotapanna). I know for a fact that from the stream enterer and above, all four types have given up on self doesn't tell that he/she is enlightened or in this state or not.
So how are we to find these noble people? Are there any instructions and where is it cited?

I have posted this book before, here it is again: Sotapanna Handbook (or available here).
It's a compilation of 50 or so suttas where Buddha mentioned stream-enterer (free from publisher).
Yes, Buddha gave us tools to measure ourselves.  Please notice that there is no tool to measure other people's progress.  Only Buddha had that quality, not even his great disciples ever proclaimed progress in others.
And for reference why one should not judge other's progress (stream-enterer, once returner, etc..) is from Migasala Sutta, Buddha told Ven. Ananda

"I alone, Ānanda, can measure their measure or one like me."

The reason i feel it should be told because some teachers would proclaim their students to be such and such for some other questionable purpose.
summary of migasala sutta

Ananda visits Migasālā in her home and is questioned as to why both
  Pūrana and Isidatta, the former of whom was a brahmacārī and the
  latter not, should both have been born in Tusita, as sakadāgāmins.
  Ananda offers no explanation, but consults the Buddha, who declares
  that Migasālā is but a foolish, frail, motherly body with none but
  mother wit; how, then, could she understand the diversity in the
  person of man? (purisa-puggala-paropariyañāna). The Buddha then goes
  on to divide men into six classes according to their capabilities and
  attainments. It is not possible for anyone, save a Tathāgata, to
  measure persons.

Sure we can measure others progress, just not as good as the Buddha.

Hugh, you're welcome.  It's a work from group of Buddhists who study words from Buddha only (or confirmed by him).   They put together suttas from searching about 30 pages pages from Vinaya and  130 pages from Sutta Pitaka and dismissed teachings from Abhidharma (65 pages).  example of what excluded is Cula-sotapanna (small or minor sotapanna which Buddha never mentioned it).  I am one too studying from Buddhawaja (Buddha's words) but I have no quarrel with those who study Dhamma from other sources.

Thank you very much Dean for the time you have sacrifice to create the book and thank you for the answer

Akila, you'e welcome.  i think all Buddhist should aspire to be very least a stream enterer.  And there are many new additions to what a stream enterer is.  However, in Buddha's words,  it is not unrealistic goal to achieve.  He also said, when one believes that 5 skanda are impermanent, he is started walking a path of stream enterer (sotapati magga-path), he should not die before reaching full sotapanna.  There are many other characters of stream enterer per Buddha all are achievable realistic goals.

To find or identify noble people can be difficult, even impossible, because you yourself must have some idea about the True Dhamma to be able to do this. Therefore, a problem arises similar to the question of: "What occurs 1st, the chicken or the egg?"
The Canki Sutta provides the following preliminary answer to the question:

How is truth discovered? There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder
  or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three
  mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on
  aversion, qualities based on delusion: 'Are there in this venerable
  one any such qualities based on greed that, with his mind overcome by
  these qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I
  see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way
  that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?' As he observes him, he
  comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities
  based on greed, hated & delusion. His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of
  one not greedy, hateful or delued. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard
  to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
  to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a
  person who's greedy, hateful or delued.

The Ani Sutta also provides possible guidance. It states:

...in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
  meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness (sunnata) — are being recited.
  They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
  regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will
  listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets,
  elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of
  disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on
  knowing them.

Today, many Buddhists claim to study words from the Buddha only but when these individuals explain the core teachings, such as Dependent Origination, their explanations do not accord with a dhamma that "can be experienced for the wise for themselves" (per the Canki Sutta) or that are "connected to emptiness" (per the Ani Sutta). Instead, their explanations are "within the scope of conjecture", namely, unverifiable speculative theories about an unknowable past & future.
In summary, if you yourself are not a stream-enterer or are not well versed in the teachings of the Buddha, you probably cannot measure if another person is a stream-enterer, regardless of how virtuous that person may appear externally.

i thought i remember i read a sutra that say whoever come across this sutra is a sotapanna and now i can't remember where i read it from. but does it matter that much to find a sotapanna? wasn't it better if you concentrate on cultivating yourself because you may have already encounter some in your present life. Stream entrant are said to have unshakeable faith in buddhism , doesn't that mean if the stream entrant has already meet buddhism, you are most likely to meet them where the buddhists assembly will gather?
i am apologizing if what i wrote here is offending anyone. communication is not my strong point.
Added note:
if anyone was thinking about reaching sotapanna earlier there is this samanthabadra text that if one listen recite by a qualify person, one can reach the stage of within three lifetimes. so it might be a good idea to listen to this once so that in future lifetimes it will be easier for one to attain the three lifetimes (unless you had a commitment with your guru, you may need to ask your teacher)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W91pUTf2Jc&t=37s&list=PLjUJNKDN2ecAZtNHQElrb591QmSj_3z-9&index=41
another two i believe that help me in my buddhist path is both om mani padme hum and tara mantra in which i think tara mantra really helped one in attain spiritual path faster. i was relying on tara mantra to help get out of my bleak circumstances and to see if it can set my wealth path right on the track, although not much changes in my worldly life (but i still think it has probably help me out numerous time in very difficult and challenging situation), my spiritual buddhism path seem to progressing so fast by leaps and bounds as if there is no tomorrow.
added note 2:
found a sutra that help one to attain stream enterer stage known as sanghata sutra. anyone who can read this sutra is consider rare. and do be open minded when reading this sutra.
http://fpmt.org/education/teachings/sutras/sanghata-sutra-in-various-languages/

In Udana 7.2, Ven. Sariputta (the Arahant) tried to teach Ven. Bhaddiya without realizing that he too was an Arahant.
The Buddha saw this and exclaimed the verse, describing Ven. Bhaddiya:

He has cut the cycle, has gone away to freedom from longing. The
  dried-up stream no longer flows. The cycle, cut, no longer turns.
  This, just this, is the end of stress.

This shows that only a Sammasambuddha has the psychic or supernatural ability to recognize the attainment of others. Even one Arahant cannot recognize another Arahant.

The stage of enlightenment can be identified by the presence or absence of each fetter. In the case of a Sotapanna, it is the absence of the 1st 3 fetters:

Source: Fetter (Buddhism)

I am a sotapanna. When I started my journey in Buddhism 16 years ago I would search the internet looking for confirmation. That yes: this is possible for me. I would go seraching "Enlightened Beings", "Where can I find an Enlightened Being" and such. Sadly, I could find very little. So I was left with reading the suttas. Misinterpreting them. And really left to struggle badly until I came across Mooji on Youtube about 3 years ago. THats where my life took a radical shift. I had always had a serious "spiritual" bent, but I could neveer gain a solid footing in it. It seemed as if any progress I would make would be washed away by the 'world'. So I would spend my evenings building up my 'metta' and it would be washed away by the happenings of the 'worldly people' (I realize now, that it was only my mind that was unstable, but I'm digressing). So I did not really gain a solid footing in spirituality until i met Mooji on Youtube. It was being in the presence of a real live Master that I believe completely shifted my life from an aspirant to 'established'. I felt like I had found a solid ground to rest upon. So when I realized the true nature of reality: That I am Nothing, That everything comes from Nothing Including "Me",That Emptiness the Basis of Everything, I decided that I want to make myself available. I didn't want to hole up in a cave in the Himalayas and meditate till I die. (Although that feels really tempting some days). So here I am

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:
Consciousness and Name-Form
In the twelve nidanas in the dependent origination it is said that through ignorance arises constructive activities (Sankskara). I do understand that. But the fact that I am still having trouble understanding is how Sankara causes the consciousness to arise and how consciousness cause the name and form to arise.
I do understand that cause of name-form the consciousness arises as these two are very interdependent. But my question is as the above.

How does Sankskara cause consciousness to arise?
How does consciousness cause the name-form to arise?

For a related question, see How can Nama-rupa of Dependent Arising be same as Five Aggregates?

@ThiagoSilva is it possible to elect an answer now? Anything specific you are looking for in the answers?

Hi @RavindranathAkila, I can't because it wasn't me who asked the question

@ThiagoSilva I'm sorry, I made a mistake.

Taṇhā (craving) and upādāna (clining) creates saṅkhāra (fabrication) to experience the karmic result of what you craved for. To experience past fabrications when they materialise in the present a particular viññāṇa (consciousness) should arise, e.g. fabrication to experience pleasant taste now due to past conditioning you need tongue consciousness hence also a tongue and tasty food. Since consciousness cannot arise on its own, i.e., there cannot be tongue consciousness without an tongue, arises nāmarūpa (name form) with saḷāyatana (sense bases / faculty) so the particular experience can be felt. Since particular experience does not arise without phassa (contact) this should happen giving arise to Vedanā (feeling) so that the Karmic experience is completed, but base on your reaction of craving and clining you create Bhava (becomming / exsitance). Avijjā (ignorance), i.e., not knowing the 4 Noble Truths, what make you react with craving and clinging hence creating fabrications and consciousness. Also the experience any residue of fabrication, Jāti (birth) must happen and if so Jarāmaraṇa (old age and death) follows.
In other words, past fabrication to experience creates the experience, to which contact, faculty, consciousness should be in place, and for faculties to be in place a live being with a body and mind needs to be in place. Also if you do react to sense stimuli with craving and grasping you continue your existence, and if not you cease existence.

It may have taken some time since the time I asked this question I was a beginner to understand DO. But your explanations where you state " To experience past fabrications ....." and such, it made much more sense on how name-form arises from consciousness. Rather than the explanation of Ignorance causes Fabrications to arise and so on, The explanation of Tanha and Updana creates Sanksara (Since cause of suffering is Tanha,  the 2nd truth and not understanding 4NTs is Ignorance) is a good explanation.

In my interpretation (a product of study, practice, and meditation), the translation and interpretation of nidanas is a little different. I tend to think of nidanas in terms of developmental psychology:

Avidya is innate ignorance, so far so good.
Sankskara is "imprint that creates subsequent tendency to react in a certain way". Kind of like memory but at a lower organizational level. So when there is ignorance, the interaction of primordial nature with itself leaves traces, which, given enough repetitions, eventually accumulate into tendencies and expectations.
These tendencies and expectations get progressively more robust and integrated until they connect into full-fledged continuous experience ('vijnana'). This experience is not reality itself though, but an interpretation/projection assembled from the tendencies and expectations.
Through the same process of accumulation of sankskaras (which remain the underlying fabric comprising the experience) the whole process keeps on maturing until some of the tendencies and expectations crystallize to the status of objects ('namarupa'). These objects are second-order constructs - the signs (nimitta) that make up the original experience are further interpreted up the chain of abstraction.

So in my interpretation the twelve nidanas describe the natural process by which the primordially impersonal becomes (first aware and then) personal.

Paticcasamuppada (the Law of Dependent Origination) is fundamental to the teaching of the Buddha. Emphasizing its importance, the Buddha said: “Yo paticcasamuppadam passati, so Dhammam passati.   Yo Dhammam passati, so paticcasamuppadam passati.”  One who sees paticcasamuppada  sees the Dhamma. One who sees the Dhamma sees paticcasamuppada.  Paticcasamuppada sets forth the arising of experiences as a succession of items each coming to an end before the next appears (Imassa nirodha idam uppajjati). The reason for the continuous birth – death cycle is delusion or ignorance (Avidya) which doesn’t allow one to comprehend the Four Noble Truths is this. It destroys one’s perception and blinds him; which leads him to see morality as sin and immorality as virtue.
Delusion or ignorance (Avidya)  leads the being to collect merits & demerits (volitional fabrications /Sanskara) (bodily, verbal & mental fabrications). Merits & demerits lead to consciousness (Vinnana) (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body & intellect consciousness). Consciousness leads to mentality & materiality (Nama rupa).  Feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention are called ‘name/mentality’ or nama and the body dependant on the four great elements (Earth, fire, water & air - ‘Patavi’, ‘Apo’, ‘Thejo’, ‘Vayo’) is form/ materiality or rupa). ‘Name-form’ leads to the six sense media (Salayathana) (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind). ‘Nama’ and ‘rupa’ are linked together like flowers and their scent. They are born together.
Sankhara is a key word in the Dhamma. The Buddha chose to use it in his last words, to summarise 45 years of teaching: Vyadhamma sankhara, Appamadena Sampadetha: it is the nature of sankhara to disappear, strive unremittingly. Sankhara do not just disappear (Sankhara Nirodha). If it were the case, the Teaching would be pointless. Sankhara is translated as ‘formations'/ ‘fabrications’. For most of us sankhara is Kamma (action) - by reversing the statement: It is intention that I call Kamma. In some contexts, sankhara does mean 'intention' (Cetana). While all cetana are Sankhara, all Sankhara are not cetana, as for example Ayu-sankhara.
Sankharas are the kammically active volitions responsible for generating rebirth and thus for sustaining the onward movement of samsara, the round of birth and death. In this context sankhara is virtually synonymous with kamma.  Sankharas  in dependent origination is put into three types: bodily (inhalation and exhalation), verbal ( Vitakka-vicāra: 'thought-conception and discursive thinking'), and mental [feeling (vedanā) · perception (sañña) ]. Sankharas are divided into the meritorious and demeritorious. Sankharas, propped up by ignorance and fueled by craving drive the stream of consciousness onward to a new mode of rebirth, where consciousness becomes established determined by the kammic character of the sankharas. With good deeds the sankharas or volitional formations will propel consciousness toward a happy sphere of rebirth, and with demeritorious deeds, the sankharas will propel consciousness toward a miserable rebirth.
The next domain where sankharas apply is among the five clinging aggregates (the aggregate of volitional formations). There are six classes of volition - volition regarding forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, and ideas. Though these sankharas correspond closely to those in the formula of dependent origination, the two are not in all respects the same, for the sankhara-khandha has a wider range. The aggregate of volitional formations comprises all kinds of volition. The word sankhara also occurs as a designation for all conditioned things. Buddha said that all sankharas are suffering (sabbe sankhara dukkha) as they are transient. "Having arisen they then cease," and because they all cease they cannot provide stable happiness and security.

"Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications (Saṅkhāra) These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications.

'Consciousness' is a difficult one. Consciousness is mere presence; and since there cannot be presence without something being present, it is what distinguishes living from non-living, such as tables and chairs. Paticcasamuppada (dependent arising) 'boils down' to Vinnana paccaya (conditioned by consciousness). No one can be conscious of consciousness. It cannot be syringed out to look at it, without by consciousness. There are no states of un-consciousness. Consciousness is discontinuous - like a monkey swaying through trees, holding a branch here, letting it go, and grabbing another... Consciousness is nothing but a conjuring trick (Samyutta 22.95).

"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

Chain of Dependent Origin Forward Order is…
Sankhara paccaya Vinnana  -Dependent on ignorance, reaction (conditioning) arises;
Namarupa paccaya vinnana -Dependent on reaction (conditioning), consciousness arises;
Dependent on consciousness, mind-body arise;  etc. etc.
Reverse Order is…
With the complete eradication and cessation of ignorance, reaction (conditioning) ceases;
with the cessation of reaction (conditioning), consciousness ceases;
with the cessation of consciousness, mind-body cease.
Sankhara paccaya Vinnana would come to mean – to better understand the interlink - “Sankhara - Immoral/unfruitful actions and thoughts as root condition for ‘Vinnana’ - defiled consciousness”. So Vinnana can be taken as consciousness contaminated with immoral mental factors such as greed and hate. The more sankhara that one generates, the more that one will keep “feeding the ‘vinnana’. The stronger the vinnana gets, one is more likely to engage in same kind of acts, i.e., sankhara.
“Namarupa paccaya vinnana“, happen, together with “vinnana paccaya namarupa”. This is referred to as an “annamanna paticca samuppada step”. Here “annamanna” means “inter-dependent”. Thus nama rupa is conditioned by vinnana and vice versa. Just as vinnana gives rise to nama rupa, so also nama rupa leads to vinnana. Although vinnana and nama rupa are interdependent, the former is the determining factor and, hence, it is described as the cause of nama rupa. In fact, when vinnana arises because of sankhara, its concomitant cetasikas as well as the rupas resulting from sankhara come into being at the same time. So vinnanas and nama rupas arise together from the moment of rebirth.
"Form... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. - with the actual seeing does there come a dramatic shift during one's life and one's relationship to the Dhamma. One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening.

Buddha has stated to bhikku Ananda that Paticca Samuppada is not simple to understand and that it has great depth.
However, may I point out to you a paradox that may exist in your question.
Let's say I like apples and you ask me

Why do you like apples

I can say

I like apples because they are tasty to me

If you now ask me

Why do you like apples because they are tasty

That is something I am not able to interpret as a question or answer.
The reason I can't answer is, that it is close to an ultimate.
It could be that Lord Buddha explained Paticca Samuppada to be understood as reasons for certain conditioning to happen. However, maybe we are supposed to understand the reasons rather than ask "What is the reason for the reason?".

How does consciousness (Vinñana) arise? (What causes Vinñana)

Due to Sankhara

How is the Sankskara causes consciousness to arise?

This is the answer (likely an ultimate) re asked in a manner of question.
(Try this: Why is the boy crying? Because I hit the boy. Why is he crying because you hit him? Because it hurt the boy. Why is the boy crying because it hurt? Because the boy is weak.... So on and so forth but sooner or later you'll reach an ultimate).
The matter gets more complicated because in one place Buddha says Vinñana causes Nama Rupa, and Nama Rupa causes Vinñana.
The reason Sankhara causes Name and Form is, I believe Karma. If Vinñana doesn't root itself through the help of Sankhara, I believe that is the state arhatans be. (

"How does Sankskara cause consciousness to arise?"
This is my personal understanding, not necessarily any traditional interpretation:
Sankhara being the active tendency onward, the driving force to seek something or another state (as per our dissatisfaction), is the terrain that makes it possible for consciousness to arise, since consciousness is the basis for coming into contact with anything.
When that force is calmed down, there's no interest in "reaching out" (or "reaching in", or simply "reaching"), so consciousness does not get established.
"How does consciousness cause the name-form to arise?"
In DN 15, the Buddha explains the dependency of namarupa on consciousness  in the context of a person being born & growing:

when namarupa does not find consciousness persisting in the womb, namarupa does not develop.
when consciousness depart from namarupa in the womb, namarupa would not come to secure a birth.
if consciousness of a young boy or girl were cut off, namarupa would not grow up and develop.

Also, consider SN 12.39:

“Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name-and-form. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases come to be; [...]
“If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has a tendency towards something, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name-and-form. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases come to be…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
“But, bhikkhus, when one does not intend, and one does not plan, and one does not have a tendency towards anything, no basis exists for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is no basis, there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is unestablished and does not come to growth, there is no descent of name-and-form. With the cessation of name-and-form comes cessation of the six sense bases…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”

I will explain how the terms are held in mind and their meaning. Think of this as first setting up a mathematical equation [how terms are held in mind] before the input of values [meaning] in changing x for a particular value.
As to holding in mind;

name is one end, form is another end, consciousness is in the middle [and craving is the seamstress].

This is analogical to 'past is one end, future another end and present in the middle'
and or
'Contact is one end, origination of contact another end and cessation of contact is in the middle.'
As to meaning;

Consciousness - That which cognizes is spoken of like that, aka mind or intellect. Arises as one thing and ceases as another. Changes as it arises.

Is to be understood, is conjoined with understanding because what one understands that one cognizes.
Is not the same as understanding, understanding is said to be developed, consciousness said to be understood.
Vinnana is furthermore conjoined with the terms denoting 3/5 aggregates (feeling, perception, genesis), it is not conjoined with itself or with the Form aggregate.

Name - That which is perception, feeling, contact, intention [can be spoken of as sankhara but not as nama]. These are all terms that are associated with an object, eg perception perceives this or that color & form.

Name is spoken of as a thing that is not really a thing among the things that one speaks of. This is like your name is not really a thing but is only  a word implicated in a system holding understanding in mind; or how the end [extinguishment] of a flame is not a thing among fuel, heat, wind nor the flame that was but it is something in that it is a word in a system holding understanding in mind.

Form - Is the four classes of forms and form derived from it. It is that which is the object of said perception and is associated with it. One can see a color&form with the eye and one can imagine that form mentally, that eye, form visible to the eye & mental perception is said to derived from the four; earth, wind, heat and water because your physical body is composed of those elements like a plant is but a seed, water, earth, wind and sunlight. Likewise even that imagination or remanence of form & color is derived and depends on those four great elements arranging themselves in course of entropy [evolution; can be thought of an electro-colloidal, electro-magnetic process or just nature].

Now knowing just this one can develop understanding by asking questions like why one can't say that ie

'contact is one end, form another end and consciousness is in the middle'

why is sankhara sometimes spoken of as intention or nama?

If one keeps thinking about these things one will start to recognize the different contextual implications and by the development of inference it will more and more grow together to paint a clear picture.
It is not at all perfect to me but it is to my liking and i hope other people learn to appreciate it.
This answer and analogies are found in the Sutta, i just added a second analogy to complement what was in the texts.

These six are classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact,
tongue-contact, body-contact, intellect-contact. This is called
contact.
With contact as condition, feeling comes to be;
"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness.  The
meeting of the three is contact...
Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The
meeting of the three is contact...  Dependent on the tongue & flavors
there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is
contact...  Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises
body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...  Dependent
on the intellect & mental qualities there arises
intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact.
From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.  From feeling as
a requisite condition comes craving.
"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not
disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another,
to delineate the difference among them.  For what one feels, that one
perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these
qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having
separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among
them."
`He who knows both ends and has no secret plans in the middle, Is a
Great Man. He has gone beyond the seamstress.'
Friends, what is one end, what is the second end, what is the middle
and who is the seamstress?
When this was said a certain bhikkhu said to the elder bhikkhus.
Friends, contact is one end, the arising of contact is the second end,
the cessation of contact is the middle. Craving is the seamstress.
a certain bhikkhu said to the elder bhikkhus. Friends, the past is one end, the future is the second end, the present is the middle. Craving is the seamstress. Craving weaves for him to be reborn here and there.
...
Friends, pleasant feeling is one end, unpleasant feeling is
the second end, neither unpleasant nor pleasant feeling is the middle.
Craving is the seamstress. Craving weaves for him to be reborn here
and there.
Friends name is one end, form is the second end, consciousness is the middle.
Craving is the seamstress. Craving weaves for him to be reborn here
and there.
Friends, the internal spheres is one end, the external spheres is the second end, consciousness is the middle. Craving is the seamstress. Craving weaves for him to be reborn here and there.
...
Friends, one's body or person is one end, the arising of one's body or person is the second end, the cessation of one's body or person is the middle. Craving is the seamstress. Craving weaves for him to be reborn here and there.

As a person is reborn the consciousness arises as that which can be grasped with wrong view to be personal for one and ceases as that of another because it changes as it arises.

These six are classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for
sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile
sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving.
for more excerpts https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NHDYCBjXLKwCxEUqbqvk7ui9fPfUx6oKxibjXcEH2CM/editcertain bhikkhu said to the elderFriends, name

"Consciousness" is a broad term with many different contexts. The vinnana following sankhara in the DO formula is the kammic-consciousness/KammaVinnana, a connecting thread of personal continuity through sequence of rebirths, as described in the commentary to SN 22.3 (Ven. Bodhi's footnote in "The Connected Discourses"):

I follow the reading of the text in Se and Ee, rūpadhāturāgavinibaddhaṃ , also supported by Spk (Be), as against Be -vinibandhaṃ. Spk resolves the compound, rūpadhātumhi rāgena vinibaddhaṃ, and explains this consciousness as the kammic consciousness (kammaviññāṇa). The passage confirms the privileged status of consciousness among the five aggregates. While all the aggregates are conditioned phenomena marked by the three characteristics, consciousness serves as the connecting thread of personal continuity through the sequence of rebirths. This ties up with the idea expressed at 12:38-40 that consciousness is the persisting element in experience that links together the old existence with the new one. The other four aggregates serve as the “stations for consciousness” (viññāṇaṭṭhitiyo; see 22:53-54). Even consciousness, however, is not a self-identical entity but a sequence of dependently arisen occasions of cognizing; see MN I 256-60.

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


text:
Seven 10-day and one 20-day Goenka Course but no "good results"
I have attended seven 10-day and one 20-day Goenka course, but never experienced either the "subtle sensations" or the "free flow."  I have stopped going to Goenka retreats because I get frustrated hearing about how after the first day I should be experiencing such and such, etc.  I still practice anapana for a couple of hours a day and study the Dhamma, and am resigned to being apparently incapable of having these experiences, which they also say are not important, lol. However, Goenka talks about them over and over in the courses and about how various people get "good results." I wonder if others have this experience also, and how they have dealt with it.

I would try not to place expectations on your experience. You're trying too hard. Just be, and let come what comes.

I would suggest you try another vipassana lineage. Goenka goes for body sensations only (AFAIK, later they add mind objects, but I only have 2nd-hand knowledge about it). Use a technique where all 4 foundations (body, feelings, mind, mind objects) are used from the very start could be useful; I am personally doing Chomtong-style practice (Ajahn Tong, a variant of Mahasi, dry-vipassana with lower concentration) and being exposed to e.g. difficult feelings and learn to acknowledge them and let go is extremely valuable for me. What I also find very useful is to have regular interviews with teacher on the retreat.
Meditation has good results if you have more clarity, understanding or yourself and others etc; in short, if your life is better. Experiences come and go and have little long-term relevance (despite the mind trying to persuade us this is it in that moment).

Disclaimer: I'm not a teacher. This is just my interpretation of Goenka's words, but his words are so explicit about this topic, and repeated so many times, that I feel that I'm just stating the obvious in the following paragraph.
"Free flow" is not the point of the technique. The point is to systematically observe whatever you feel in different parts of the body, with equanimity. Goenka talks a lot about the free flow, because many people experience it, so that they know how to respond to it. If you don't experience it, you can simply ignore that part.
As for "subtle sensations", I'm not exactly sure how you interpret them, because (as far as I know) Goenka never explicitly says what exactly a "subtle sensation" is. I'm pretty sure that acute pain wasn't the only sensation that you ever felt in your life. Some sensations are more subtle than others, and Goenka explicitly says that we aren't supposed to judge them, so why should anyone care if any particular sensation is "subtle enough"?
I did experience good results of meditation, and they are completely unrelated to the free flow or subtle sensations. The benefits I experienced include things like better self-confidence, less stress, better social relations with others, less procrastrination. Sometimes I felt free flow, sometimes didn't. The benefits I get when I meditate regularly are not related to whether I feel the free flow in a particular period of time.
Seriously, I really don't see the point of struggling to have a free flow or some other particular sensations. If your aim is to have pleasant sensations in your body, then I'd suggest having sex or masturbating, or perhaps watching porn. That will get you what you want. And requires much less time than two hours of sitting per day.
May I ask, did you ask the teacher about your problem? What did he/she say?

You really should check out the book "The Mind Illuminated" by Culadasa.  I’ve done 7 10-day courses, 2 sati courses and been meditating with varying degrees of dedication for 23 years.  I’ve recently been introduced to the Culadasa book and it’s given me a bit more guidance for these early stages. In particular a precise description of a distinction between attention and peripheral awareness, and what to do with each.

I wouldn't say those meditative  experiences aren't important. I would say they kind of can give us a rough guide to were we are in our practice but we have to be careful of attatching to them or misunderstanding them.
So, how do you practice? Do you focus your attention on:
the raw experience of your breath as it happens
The raw sensations in and on your body as they happen
The partiality towards your experience as it happens?

1st if you crave for these experiences more further away they will be. Once your caving subsides they may suddenly pop up, but this they are also transient and replaced by other experiences.
Also lack of confidence also hinders your progress.
To progress you should

Stop caving
Build self confidence

We don't meditate for the results. If we do, it only decreases the chances of getting results. Of course results happen, but results vary from person to person, from time to time. There are so many factors to include it's very difficult to predict. Like the weather.
We meditate because the Four Noble Truths point to the Eightfold Path, and meditation is putting all 8 spoke of the wheel turning. We meditate for liberation and liberation alone. And we do it with our whole effort. Paring off part of our expectations for "results" diminishes what liberation can do.

Meditation techniques being sold in marketplace are one size fit all which rarely work. It is the right living and right technique which gives the results. In the spiritual marketplace goods are sold without any guarantees !!!. Low stress, boost in self confidence, happy feelings etc etc is not the goal. The goal (I take the liberty to be precise ) is to experience metaphysical and then go beyond.
If you do not find a particular technique or teaching worthwhile there are many techniques or teachers which can give you the results much faster. Do not get stuck with one technique or guru or teaching/teacher. Become a seeker who will not stop till he or she has the taste of the beyond.
What Goenka talks about is the free flow of Prana which makes possible for higher bodies to manifest and therefore generate experiences. But the ultimate goal is to go beyond.
Do not practise hard as it is counter productive.


text:
Where do westerners get their "Buddhist" names?
Many western Buddhists have non-western names:

Jeffrey Block -  Bhikkhu Bodhi
Geoffrey DeGraff -  Thanissaro Bhikkhu or Ajaan Geoff
Deirdre Blomfield-Brown - Pema Chödrön

Are they given to them when they are ordained as monks/bhikkuni (like Dances with Wolves), or are they more informal (e.g. Ajaan Geoff)?
Just curious.

This isn't exactly a duplicate question, but you might find it's answered here: Does your lay Buddhist name follow you for life or does it change with different temples and masters?

Where do westerners get their “Buddhist” names?

In the Theravada tradition a novice receives a new name in Pali when a senior monk accepts his/her request to become Preceptor.
For more information see "Ordination Procedure in the Theravada Tradition".

The same is true for Mahayana traditions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_name) allthough exceptions are possible.
So for example the German Mr. Nölke, since many years abbot Muhô in Antaiji, Japan, got the freedom by his predecessor to choose his own dharma name, which he then officially "received". Justification: as one could not choose its own name at birth, at least the choosing of the dharma name should or can be in our own hands.

What amazes me is that people's "Buddhist" names all seem to be Asian. :-)
People 'get' their name from a guru, which is a form of initiation into that particular tradition, and so the new name is almost always related to the root culture from which that tradition sprung. The new name is a psychological device to provide a sense of belonging to that tradition, and pride is encouraged around it, since you have to meet approval to receive it.
There is really no reason your "buddhist name" needs to be from a particular culture. unless it is useful to you as a tool to walk The Path. If you need that sense of belonging, then its a wonderful thing.
But "naming" isn't a "Buddhist" thing. It is a traditional cultural thing that was brought along for the ride as a useful tool.

good point, Western monks being ordained in the West could as well receive westernized new names, on the other hand the host of names is usually supplied by tradition and the Buddhist tradition for Theravada has been Indic, there's been nobody with a western name to call a new monk after, and the first one to do that will have to break with the tradition which is a painful and normally objectionable thing to do and therefore is not very likely to be undertaken

Which looks suspiciously like Attachment :-)

not necessarily, a fear to offend or stir controversy could be a deterrent, you may be aware of the reaction Ven Brahmavamso provoked in his Thai Nikaya with his bhikkhuni ordination

I understand the functional difficulties with organizations that people are trying to avoid.. I am just saying, it is still attachment, but it is being branded as "useful' to The Dharma (Dhamma). Which is fine with me. We are human beings. But we should be clear eyed about what we are doing and why. Offense is irrelevant, and in fact might be the "most compassionate" thing to do in that moment, however that truth is being weighed against a perceived "greater good" that is served by keeping organizations intact over time, and reaching more people.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Why is samghabedabastu section of the mulasarvastavadin monastic code not published in any language besides it's original language?
Why is samghabedabastu section of the mulasarvastavadin monastic code not published in any language besides it's original language?

You mean, why it exists in the Sanskrit fragments but not in Chinese/Tibetan translations? Is that so - can you point to some references?

I am glad you understood.

Today the widely accepted definition of the term “Sangha Bedha” is division among bhikkhus. All Buddhist sects would rather hold on to this erroneous interpretation of the term “Sangha Bedha”, as the true meaning of it is not in the best interests, or even worse – it is anathema to them. What is meant by “Sangha Bedha” is described in at least six suttas in the Pali Canon.
Patama Ananda Sutta and Sangha Bedha Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya describes what this Anantariya Kamma – the last of the five heinous acts (Kammas) – mean. If you read through the Suttas, this is what is said:
The Buddha condemned schism in strong terms, saying that a person who starts or joins a schism in a Community knowing or suspecting that he is not on the side of the Dhamma and Vinaya, is destined to be boiled for an aeon in hell (AN V.129; Cv.VII.5.3-4).
Buddha’s instruction is to look into the matter and to side with the faction on the side of the Dhamma. The Buddha does not advocate superficial unity for its own sake at the expense of the Dhamma, but instead encourages that the Dhamma be clearly defended against non-Dhamma and that the distinction between the two be kept clear.
When a bhikkhu has learned that a dispute has led to a schism and he wants to get involved, he is to side with whichever faction sides with the Dhamma. According to Mv.X.5.4, a speaker of non-Dhamma is to be recognized as such if he “explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …
Thus the ability to take sides requires that one be well-informed about the Buddha’s teachings. A schism can be rightfully ended only if both sides are able to investigate the grounds (i.e., the point of dispute around which the schism crystallized), get to the root (the mind-states motivating the schism — see Cv.IV.14.3-4), and then resolve which side was right, based on the Dhamma and Vinaya.
There are cases where bhikkhus have started or joined a schism rooted in corrupted intent, knowing or suspecting that their views and actions deviate from the Dhamma-Vinaya. Those who joined the schismatic faction through ignorance should be won over to the Dhamma side by explaining the true Dhamma-Vinaya to them.
Ven. Sāriputta: “How am I to behave with regard to these (schismatic) bhikkhus?”
The Buddha: “In that case, Sāriputta, take your stance in line with the Dhamma.”
Ven. Sāriputta: “And how should I know what is Dhamma and what is not-Dhamma?” — Mv.X.5.3
The Buddha: “There are these eighteen grounds by which a speaker of not-Dhamma is to be known. He explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …


text:
What did the Buddha mean by 'development of the body'?

When that pleasant feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his development of the body.

from MN 36 Maha-Saccaka Sutta translated by Thanissaro.
Pleasant feeling (vedanā) is not limited to five senses, but can also be experienced by the mind. To understand the sutta, it seems important to understand what exactly is meant by development of the body.

When that painful feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his development of the mind.

Here the Buddha makes a clear distinction here between 'development of the body' and 'development of the mind', and from MN 119

[The Blessed One said:] "And how is mindfulness immersed in the body
  developed, how is it pursued, so as to be of great fruit & great
  benefit?

What did the Buddha mean by 'development of the body' versus 'development of the mind'?
Then, how does one develop the body?

I only quickly browsed the sutta (not reading it all) but the question seems to not really be relevant to the Buddha because it was not the Buddha that introduces the phrase: "development of the body". Instead, it was Saccaka the Jain that introduced the phrase, probably from Jainism.

Then Saccaka the Nigantha...said to the Blessed One, "There are, Master Gotama, some brahmans & contemplatives who live committed to
  the development of the body..."

The Buddha answered as follows, which is just the standard teaching about development of mindfulness & wisdom in relation to the six spheres of sense contact:

And how is one developed in body and developed in mind? There is the case where a pleasant feeling arises in a well-educated disciple of
  the noble ones. On being touched by the pleasant feeling, he doesn't
  become impassioned with pleasure, and is not reduced to being
  impassioned with pleasure. His pleasant feeling ceases. With the
  cessation of the pleasant feeling there arises a painful feeling. On
  being touched with the painful feeling, he doesn't sorrow, grieve, or
  lament, beat his breast or becomes distraught. When that pleasant
  feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain
  because of his development of the body. When that painful feeling had
  arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his
  development of the mind. This is how one is developed in body and
  developed in mind."

When suttas are read, such the often cited SN 44.10 which is about 'self' & 'no-self' (rather than about the Buddha's doctrine of 'not-self'), I suggest we should be very careful about putting words into the Buddha's mouth based on terms used in questions made by non-Buddhists.
Another example is the Tevijja Sutta, in which the Buddha answers questions to Brahmans, yet some scholars believe it is about Nibbana.

Asked about the path to union with Brahma, the Buddha explains it in terms of the Buddhist path, but ending with the four brahmaviharas;
  the abbreviated way the text is written out makes it unclear how much
  of the path comes before this; Robert Gombrich has argued that the
  Buddha was meaning union with Brahma as synonymous with nirvana.
  Wikipedia

Similarly, the Buddha often uses the term 'nama-rupa' in answers to questions made by Brahmans. Since the Brahmans did not know the Buddha's teachings, the term 'nama-rupa' in these contexts probably retains the Brahmanistic meaning.

It appears to be standard for the Buddha to answer a question by quoting it back word-for-word, which explains why 'development of mind' and 'development of body' are distinguished in this sutta. The meaning that is important to understand I think is to develop mindfulness.

Also the quote most taken from sutta MN 36 is probably  "I am no longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities..." for discussions on the Middle Way

There Buddha said "The developed body" and "The developed mind" (I deliberately changed the word development of to developed because it would be more closer meaning to Buddha speech by following).
How you can have "developed mind" and "developed body" in Buddha teaching in this particular Sutta?
Developed Body
When a student of Buddha who has moderated mind and knowledge in teachings has pleasing sensation. Like having pleasing view by eyes, pleasing sound by ears, pleasing smell by noses, delicious and/or pleasing taste by tongue, pleasing touch by delicate fabrics/material(s) or by a touch of human being. One of the five senses of pleasing or very pleasing which make him/her "out of the world" feeling happens. Then this very clever student has his/her mind in a way that he/she does not leave the mind where it pleases, does not leave this pleasing sensation to overwhelm his/her mind (it does not make him/her obsession). He/she does not let his/her mind to follow the sensation. He/she does not let go Sati; he/she has Sati while he/she has pleasing sensation, Sukha. This is the one who has "developed body".
Developed Mind
When a student of Buddha who has moderated mind and knowledge in teachings has unpleasing sensation (suffering or very unpleasing sensation). Like having unpleasant view by eyes, unpleasant sound by ears, unpleasant smell by noses, unpleasant taste by tongue, unpleasant touch or pain in body. One of the five senses of unpleasing or very unpleasing which make him/her feel the pain happens. Or the pleasant sensation described above is ceased to persist or depleted.  Then this very clever student has his/her mind in a way that he/she does not leave the mind where it sticks himself/herself to feel the pain and allow himself/herself to let crying, lamenting, burning, loosing consciousness;he/she does not leave this unpleasing sensation to overwhelm his/her mind (it does not make him/her angry, sad). He/she does not let his/her mind to follow the sensation. He/she does not let go Sati; he/she has Sati while he/she has unpleasing sensation, Dukkha. This is the one who has "developed mind".
The rest of the Sutta said when Buddha was being a monk he had Dukkha when he did asceticism (limiting food intake himself, limiting breath), Dukkha Vedana cannot overwhelm his mind.
When he had Sukha Vedana (Dhyana Sukha which much more powerful and stronger than Sukha Vedana by five senses [Karma Sukha]), it cannot overwhelm Buddha's mind too. It is recommended to read the whole sutta to respect more on Buddha, to behave like Buddha when we have sufferings or pleasing sensations. This will lead you escape from all sufferings and guidance to attain Nirvana.


text:
Are the four noble truths supposed to be applied to every type of anguish separately?
In the answer to another question user Dhammadhatu wrote that according to the Four Noble Truths

suffering is to be comprehended,
the origin of suffering is to be abandoned,
the cessation of suffering is to be realised, and
the path to the cessation of suffering is to be developed.

That's the theory.
Is it correct that this process needs to be applied to different types of suffering separately, like explained below?
Imagine that on a given day I experienced and registered following phenomena:

Someone said something and I was upset for 15 minutes.
I was angry at the people around me in a crowded place and wanted punch them in the face.
Instead of doing something productive, I watched a movie I saw many times before.

All three are symptoms of suffering. In step 2 (origin of suffering is to be comprehended) I find out, what exactly it was that caused my suffering.

In the first example it may be my wish to be accepted by all people, and when someone reacted in an unexpected way, I interpreted it as if thy weren't liking/accepting me.
In the second example the cause of the suffering was my emotional (I just don't like it) and fact-based (among every 100 people, there are at least 5 rude idiots) aversion to crowded places.
In the third example the cause of the suffering was my thought that I'm too weak resisting the habit of watching movies I already saw.

Step 3 maybe the goal -- how do I want to behave in future, if I experience a similar situation? What could be a better response to it?
In the first example I could realize that the number of people, whose opinion really matters to me is very small, and the person I was upset about wasn't one of them.
In the second example I could decide to

avoid crowded spaces at all (e. g. by coming and going to work outside of the rush hours),
when I experience bad emotions I use them as motivators (emotional fuel) for work (say to myself "work hard now in order to never see those ... faces in the public transport").

In the third example I could decide to

allocate a quota of my weekly time for entertainment and then use it for that purpose without guilt,
define a healthy reward for not watching that movie (if I work instead of watching the movie today, I'll do something fun tomorrow),
during that work I'm supposed to do, regularly think about why (to what end) I do that work and artificially create a feeling of joy during work so that gradually it will become a reward in itself (more attractive than watching a movie).

The final and fourth step is to implement these solutions, i. e. develop a habit of reacting to old challenges in a new way. Then, other types of sufferings will appear, which I handle in an analogous way. Note that for every type of suffering I design a separate strategy.
Is this how the Dharma practice is supposed to work?

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Help Center with useful resources that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

To answer your question, 'yes', dhamma practise is done in ways you described.
When it is comprehended our suffering arises from our self-centred desires & attachments towards things, we work to change those unhealthy desires, views & habitual reactions (which arise in many forms & are summarised as greed, hatred & delusion).
This is called 'Right Effort', which is the effort to prevent & give up unhealthly & unwise states of mind and the effort to develop & maintain healthy & wise states of mind.
This 'Right Effort', particularly in the social situations you described, often is about changing the way we think about & view things and often requires the creative & thoughtful efforts shown in your post. In Buddhism, this creative thinking for developing solutions is called 'wise reflection' ('yoniso manasikara'). The purpose of it is to change to a kind of thinking that does not produce greed, hatred, anger, confusion & suffering.
The Buddhist scriptures provide an example of this in the discourse on Two Sorts of Thinking

i think all strategies must be based on certain principles, which are also dhammic, and in fact grow out of them, so that a few strategies as possible would cover as much base as possible, because otherwise the practice becomes unnecessarily particular, unsystematic and caught up in strategies
in fact the method described in the suttas is very simple and straightforward: one analyzes whether or not their actions, speech and thoughts enhance the existing and engender the absent wholesome qualities  and whether or not they reduce the existing and prevent emergence of the absent unwholesome qualities, and so acts accordingly doing more of that which enhances and engenders wholesome qualities and less of that which enhances and engenders their opposites

It feels to me that all can be worked with discursive meditation.

In the first example I could realize that the number of people, whose opinion really matters to me is very small, and the person I was upset about wasn't one of them.

To me, this solution is still focused on craving/aversion. The reason why we feel upset is because "we crave" acceptance, which is one of the eight worldly preoccupations: the pursuit of praise. As long as we're holding to this "craving", there is not small enough set of people whose opinions will lead us to suffering.

In the second example I could decide to

avoid crowded spaces at all (e. g. by coming and going to work outside of the rush hours),

Again, for me, this solution is still focused on craving/aversion. In this case, the worldly preoccupation is the avoidance of discomfort. Discomfort is inevitable; what is not is our reaction to it. For example, one could deal with this specific problem by doing loving-kindness with all the crowd, or thinking that we're exposed to this crowd in order to do virtuous actions (such as work) which will lead to the ease of suffering for ourselves and others (i.e., "I'm carrying this suffering so other people won't have to", or "as many others have suffered for me, this is my time to suffer for others").

when I experience bad emotions I use them as motivators (emotional fuel) for work (say to myself "work hard now in order to never see those ... faces in the public transport").

Using our emotions as fuel for the pursuit of material acquisitions and the avoidance of their loss is even a greater pathway to suffering. Not only we're identifying with our emotions, but we are using them to increase our ignorance. There is nothing wrong with being with other people; there is nothing wrong with being other people. They, as us, are there trying to be happy, trying to make other people happy, and trying to avoid suffering. No amount of money or status in the world will prevent us from feeling or seeing ours and other peoples' suffering.

In the third example I could decide to

allocate a quota of my weekly time for entertainment and then use it for that purpose without guilt,
define a healthy reward for not watching that movie (if I work instead of watching the movie today, I'll do something fun tomorrow),
during that work I'm supposed to do, regularly think about why (to what end) I do that work and artificially create a feeling of joy during work so that gradually it will become a reward in itself (more attractive than watching a movie).

In this case, two preoccupations are arising: the pursuit of stimulus-driven pleasure and its counterpart, the avoidance of discomfort. As long as we crave for pleasure, we will suffer. Rewarding ourselves with stimulus for having gone through some suffering will only lead us to more craving, because we're coping with suffering by means of stimulus. There is nothing wrong with watching movies or to relax; what drives us to suffer from such activities is that we haven't done what's important today (this doesn't mean work): the acts that will lead us to a good death. One solution here is to meditate on our precious human life of leisure and opportunity, and on the inevitability of our death. If we don't act now, tomorrow will be too late; there is no time to loose today if we haven't worked on our spiritual practice, our tours, our work, our goals. If we have, today we can watch the movie without fear, as if we die this instant, we won't feel we have wasted our lives (and because watching this movie will help us tomorrow to act with virtue, i.e., a good motivation).

Remember: we are not among bullets and persecution; we are not working ourselves to exhaustion; we don't have mental or physical restrictions; we have this precious human life of leisure and opportunity to be happy, to make others happy, to meditate on the four noble truths and to release ourselves from ignorance and to ease the suffering of all sentient beings.
Our lives are finite, they can end right this moment; there is no time to waste. In order to have a good death we have to have a good life, not tomorrow... today. A good life is not a life full of pleasures or achievements, is a life full of love, compassion and truth for ourselves and others.

From my perspective, the answer to your question is "It Depends". Please forgive me as I go off on a ramble... :-)
There is essentially only one type of 'anguish' and that is "that which arises from craving". However, many buddhist monks have geeked out over the years in categorizing various "types" of things in order to create their own understanding in practice about their condition. It is useful, but it probably isn't "the underlying state" they are talking about, but mental forms.
You have spent a laudable amount of effort thinking about how to fulfill the various conditions to reach equanimity. That's a very good thing, and is important to raising of sensitivity to your condition that you need to develop.
However, The Practice is what is the most important thing. "Thinking" about Practice is second, even though it does tend to condition our Practice.
Also, although Theravada practice is a bit proscriptive for me (as mentioned above.. and if that works for you, then please go in that direction!) I don't believe there is much to gain from continuously questioning every action we take. Rather, being aware of conditions inside our own being that occur when things happen is much more important to our path.
Yes, being aware of those things which cause us and others suffering is important. However, how do you judge the particulars? What is "enough" fun, or relaxation? What is too much? Although we believe we know what "extremes" of these look like, as far as normal boundaries these tend to be arbitrary distinctions, codified into traditions by monks that grew tired of these questions and made up a simple formula that would work for anyone. They knew that if you practiced long enough you would see through this, and find the ground on which you stand.
In the end, the main thing that matters is letting go of Attachment and Craving. That's it. The Path(s) are ways to approach that goal, and The Noble Truths are the guideposts that show you which direction to go. The behavioral, moral and ethical boundaries you set along the way should be informed by your practice, and by compassion towards yourself and other sentient beings. Often, this is the hard part for people.. so they follow a set of guidelines set down by others, and that is perfectly great. But don't forget... these are not written on stone.. they are just starting points.
By the way, I'll paraphrase a number of masters when I say... please don't try to eliminate desire, for that would be as ridiculous as ridding yourself of your head if you wanted to stop thinking.


text:
The Proces of arising and passing away
How can you define the experience of the proces (or the flow) of raising and passing away of all conditioned things?

as you meditate, one of knowledge reveals to you is consciousness (vinnana) can only take place in one thing at a time, tho it rises and falls in one of the other 4 skanda very quickly.    As you pay attention, when you are aware of a thought (could be anything that is not about 5 sensual pleasures or anger) and dwell in it, (that's a power of nandi) you let go of nundi and consciousness raises back in breathing (form), old thought disappeared.  only this much, one recognizes the raise and fall of name-form.   What other dharma reveals in the process?  you would see the feeling of "self" does not disappear along with disappearing thought.  so you know and see for yourself that a thought isn't you.  this is first clear vision of anatta or non-self.  the ultimate goal is to see of non-self in consciousness.  consciousness is the final burden.

this is just one aspect of it, since all things raises and falls.  As a matter of fact, perceiving or perception of raising and falling of things (anijja sanna ) is the highest level of karma from Velama Sutta).