text:
Emotional Support without God in Theravada
In religions with God, the believer or devotee can call on God for help during distress, pray to God to seek emotional relief, find a virtual shoulder to cry on and sing God's praises or glories for emotional upliftment (including the use of devotional music).
They also establish a personal relationship with God. In Christianity, one has the relationship of being a child of God. In Islam, one has the relationship of being a servant of God, created by Him and therefore must submit to Him. In Hinduism (Hare Krsna), one can see God as a friend, son, teacher, master, lover etc.
Whether God exists or not is not the point here for discussion. Certainly in the above cases, there may not be any tangible direct interaction with God, but the believer or devotee could often indirectly feel the presence of God or see good things that happen to them as miracles that come as a response to devotion and prayer.
The above describes the emotional support that one could get from religions that have a God. I know this exists in certain parts of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism too with Kwan Yin (Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara) and other Buddhist deities fulfilling the emotional support role of God. Chinese Buddhists have long composed songs and prayers to sing the glories of Kwan Yin, and they also call on Her during distress.
However, in Theravada Buddhism, there exists no such emotional support from any deity. So, what should the Theravada Buddhist do in these cases? For example, during sudden distress or grief or loneliness, how would the Theravada Buddhist seek emotional support or relief, without a deity? How does a Theravada Buddhist sooth his or her emotions without devotional music? With whom does the Theravada Buddhist seek a relationship when they find that their worldly relationships have failed them?

If you are "seeking emotional support", you do not understand the teachings of the Buddha. When suffering has been ended, there is no need to "seek emotional support". Let go of your coping mechanism for stress and seek to end the stress itself.

You point out several supposed benefits of God and then ask how the godless fare without these benefits. I would first challenge the virtue of the benefits mentioned:

In religions with God, the believer or devotee can call on God for help during distress

Unless you believe God directly intervenes, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, calling on God for help seems as useful as calling on a milk carton for help. This cannot be accurately seen as a benefit, since it most obviously sets one up for disappointment and unreasonable expectation.

He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
  Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limits can restrain,
  Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
  Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
  Why triumphs falsehood,—truth and justice fail?
I count your Brahma one th’ injust among,
  Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.
-- Jat. 543 (Cowell, trans)

pray to God to seek emotional relief

Prayer is a lot like meditation so it can certainly have beneficial side effects, but since it relies on the presumption that an imaginary being will prevent harm or bring fortune, it falls under the same pitfalls as the first benefit. It is a lot like depending on a father figure to protect one - it is only beneficial if one's father actually exists.

find a virtual shoulder to cry on

By virtual, we would understand you to mean "imaginary". There is some benefit, surely, in imaginary friends, but in the end we would see this as a dependence. Catharsis is not recognized as beneficial in Theravada Buddhism; it is habit forming, and thus crying on anyone's shoulder, real or imaginary, is unwholesome behaviour that leads to craving, clinging, and further becoming.

and sing God's praises or glories for emotional upliftment (including the use of devotional music).

We do something similar in Buddhism, praising the virtues of the Buddha, and our chanting is similar in nature to this. So, this I would recognize as a virtue, qualified by the fact that the virtues of God are not all appealing to a Buddhist - believing God to be all-powerful, for example, is a sign of delusion, and not at all wholesome.
Either way, there is a similar practice:

I also say unto you O monks — if any fear, terror or hair standing on end should arise in you when you have gone to the forest or to the foot of a tree, or to an empty house (lonely place), then think only of me thus:
"'Such Indeed is the Blessed One, arahant (Consummate One), supremely enlightened, endowed with knowledge and virtue, welcome being, knower of worlds, the peerless trainer of persons, teacher of gods and men, the Buddha, the Blessed One.' Monks, if you think of me, any fear, terror, or standing of hair on end, that may arise in you, will pass away.
-- SN 11.3 (Piyadassi, trans)

They also establish a personal relationship with God.

Again the problem of an imaginary friend. Buddhism doesn't rely upon even the Buddha for support; as above, it's not that having imaginary friends is bad, it's that reliance on others is impractical, since all things change, including God, Buddha, etc.

And those monks who had not yet overcome their passions wept and tore their hair, raising their arms, throwing themselves down and twisting and turning, crying: ‘All too soon the Blessed Lord has passed away, all too soon the Well-Farer has passed away, all too soon the Eye of the World has disappeared!’ But those monks who were free from craving endured mindfully and clearly aware, saying: ‘All compounded things are impermanent — what is the use of this?’
Then the Venerable Anuruddha said: ‘Friends, enough of your weeping and wailing! Has not the Lord already told you that all things that are pleasant and delightful are changeable, subject to separation and to becoming other? So why all this, friends? Whatever is born, become, compounded is subject to decay, it cannot be that it does not decay. The devas, friends, are grumbling.’
-- DN 16 (Walshe, trans)

Certainly in the above cases, there may not be any tangible direct interaction with God, but the believer or devotee could often indirectly feel the presence of God or see good things that happen to them as miracles that come as a response to devotion and prayer.

Feeling the presence of God is just a feeling; one's association of one's feelings with the existence of God is merely conjecture. Buddhists have the same sort of feelings, but they recognize them simply as feelings. It is not considered a positive activity to cling to such feelings or ascribe meaning to them beyond their existential nature, since that leads to craving, clinging, and further becoming.
Seeing the good things that happen to one as miracles is pure speculation; it is often accompanied by (similarly speculative) rationalization when bad things happen. Neither is particularly wholesome, since they lead to unreasonable expectations and disappointment. More directly, they ignore the fact that there are perfectly natural causes and conditions that lead to all of one's experiences, and thus fail to attain understanding about the nature of reality - chalking it all up to "God's handiwork". This is a bad thing, since an understanding of reality is necessary to free oneself from suffering.

‘This, monks, the Tathāgata understands: These viewpoints thus grasped and adhered to will lead to such-and-such destinations in another world. This the Tathāgata knows, and more, but he is not attached to that knowledge. And being thus unattached he has experienced for himself perfect peace, and having truly understood the arising and passing away of feelings, their attraction and peril and the deliverance from them, the Tathāgata is liberated without remainder.
-- DN 1 (Walshe, trans)

So, your supposed benefits are, in all, not very impressive to a Theravada Buddhist. As to your questions:

For example, during sudden distress or grief or loneliness, how would the Theravada Buddhist seek emotional support or relief, without a deity?

We don't seek relief from emotions, we seek to understand emotions. It is by understanding something that one becomes free from it. The need for relief implies aversion, which becomes habit forming and leads to craving, clinging, and further becoming.

How does a Theravada Buddhist sooth his or her emotions without devotional music?

Same. Also, devotional music leads to sensual attachment, thus - you guessed it - craving, clinging, and further becoming.

With whom does the Theravada Buddhist seek a relationship when they find that their worldly relationships have failed them?

There is an underlying assumption here in the importance of relationships. In fact, Theravada Buddhism takes relationships quite seriously. As acknowledged, having a relationship with an imaginary friend can be helpful - a Buddhist's relationship with the Buddha is similar to this. But Theravada Buddhism sees more importance in one's relationship with one's teacher who is a tangible source of knowledge, advice, and exemplary behaviour very much unlike one's mental construction of God or the Buddha.

"Know I am Nārada by name,—a kassapa; my heavenly rest
  I have just left to tell thee this,—to associate with the wise is best.
-- Jat. 539 (Cowell, trans)

Thank you for the great answer. The fear removal technique of SN 11.3 would also be helpful.

The Being called on for help need not be imaginary. He could be a Brahma or deva. In any case, these beings are not permanent. AN 11.16 says that one who practices Metta is protected by the devas.

@ruben2020 good point :) still, that has less to do with prayer and more to do with goodness... also, still conjecture for the most part as to whether one is actually receiving help.

Thank you, this is such a wonderful answer. Is there a view in the sutras about times when one is exceptionally overwhelmed and may need the support of imagery or the notion of being helped by a Divine being. Can one then rely on such a practice with an understanding of it's impermanence, and with a view of overcoming the crutch as soon as possible?

There can only be subjective evidence for the grace of a higher power. Those who have felt it know it as more real than any sense reality. Those who haven't deny it, quite naturally. Which isn't to say anyone is lying, they are merely putting forth their experience. It's not beneficial to deny one's reality just so one can confirm to a theoretical concept, such as Mahayana or Theravada. The truth is found within, for those who find such self reflection difficult in times of crisis, they can look outside to higher powers, who ultimately only serve as a vehicle for self reflection.

Like pointers in computer programming, $God is a pointer to ones inner reality. They can be used deftly or abused. I've had personal experiences of divine intervention that blew away my decades of skepticism like it were nothing. What then is left in some theoretical definition of religion, establish a personal relationship with the truth, and be guided by it.

@Buddho "establish a personal relationship with the truth, and be guided by it." That's very well explained. Thanks!

However, in Theravada Buddhism, there exists no such emotional support from any deity.
Yes this is the same problem i experienced.Having come from a back ground of devout Christianity i was very used to being soothed by praying.Theravada Buddhism seemed to be almost indifferent about this subject.And i had to go through a period of a hybrid religion,where i still prayed to God and practiced meditation to maintain emotional support.Then i stopped doing that because God stopped becoming a Being to me and became more of an Embodiment of certain qualities i would like to emulate.Qualities such as love,kindness,generosity,patience,etc.Qualities that i can see in the Buddha and in different religions.Qualities that i see in human beings and even animals and nature and myself.I realised that these qualities were universal.
So, what should the Theravada Buddhist do in these cases?
My need for a God vanished without a trace when i saw the workings of Karma. This is what changed my life.I saw it clearly and in some ways it took the place of God.So if anybody asked me what i believe in,i would say Karma.Like God,knowledge of karma protects your morality,it develops your wholesome qualities,it is what you base your aspirations on.
For emotional support,i recognized the same mental quality in praying to God,singing,reading scriptures as piti and sukhha.In fact i think some christians have an overwhelming amount of piti which puts them in a euphoric state.I can access these soothing states from samadhi meditation and it gives me a sense of contentment.Brahmaviharas gives the quality of spaciousness.I also develop faith either through reading the scriptures or through having faith in my meditation object.This is important in both vipassanna and samadhi for example when developing the jhanas or gaining insight one can then see for themselves that the Buddha really knew what he was talking about and this dispel doubt.If he was right about this he could be right about Nibbanna.
Also another important quality that comes with seeing the workings of karma is Equanimity.One just has to develop this because ..what other choice does one have.Especially when dealing with the result of past karma that is bearing fruit.You just have to meet it with equanimity.
Therefore for me this let go of my need for a God.As a God doesn't give us these qualities,they don't come from anything external.

Nice to know about your personal experience with Christianity and emotional relief from prayers, before moving to Buddhism.

Usually a Buddhist isn't completely only a Theravadin and does use mantrayana methods to generate merit and ask for assistance from various deities which exist only to serve.
There is no one to turn to in Theravada though (and in actuality) because there isn't really anyone that can absolve "our own" karma, Buddha or deity--otherwise the all-compassionate Buddhas would have already made things perfect for us.
Nonetheless, there is a solution to removing the suffering.
First of all recognizing the disadvantage and unskillfulness of experiencing sorrow or holding onto whatever emotion that is disadvantageous and generating a clear mind (that can actually accomplish one's goal).
This is done through a gradualistic means, starting with reasoning and gentle methods and if that doesn't work bashing and destroying the unskillful thoughts and emotions.
Look into their interdependent origination, come to full acceptance of it ("reality is reality whether you accept it or not") and then letting it go and exercising upekkha. This does not mean indifference.
After coming to terms with the reality, one can become even more flexible, clear-minded, aware of the reality and able to create a better reality.
There is no magical process and the Buddhist psychology only facilitates the natural psychology of DABDA.
The Four Noble Truths contains all these lessons of course and more.

+1 for DABDA. I do agree that the Buddhist view leads to Acceptance sooner.

In religions with God, the believer or devotee can call on God for help during distress

Some of the attributes of God include "eternal" and "omni-present" ... which (i.e. "God is always present with you") is a useful attribute, when you want a friend (or when you want a father, etc.).
Buddhists are taught to avoid putting their trust/faith into things (sights, senses, feelings, other people) which are impermanent, so perhaps Buddhists too develop a relationship with (i.e. an attachment to) that which is ever-present or, if there's no such thing, then they develop non-attachment.

They also establish a personal relationship with God

Apart from ideas like "Jesus is God and is also the Son of Man, and therefore God i.e. Jesus is a person too who you can relate with", I think that when you say "a personal relationship with God", there is only one person in that "personal relationship" (because God is not exactly a person).
And so, "a personal relationship with God" means "a person's relationship with God" not "a relationship between two people one of whom is God".
So if you're talking about "a person's relationship" it's possible for a person (i.e. a Buddhist) to develop their "personal relationship" with something other than the "God" of other religions.
Buddhists develop some relationship with some combination of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.

For example, during sudden distress or grief or loneliness, how would the Theravada Buddhist seek emotional support or relief, without a deity?

In the same way that "hatred is allayed by non-hatred", perhaps sudden distress (instability) is allayed by stability. It seems to me that Dharma is fairly stable: always the same. For example,

Q: Why did my friend have to die?!!
A: Impermanence; non-self; suffering. Craving. Cessation.

It's not for me to say, but perhaps the personal message which you're supposed to get from God is fairly simple:

"Don't worry: God still loves you."
"Don't worry: what happens is God's will."

The message from Buddhist Dharma (impermanence, non-self, etc.) seems more complicated than that.
Unfortunately I don't believe or have faith in these messages from God (though maybe I should ;-).
I have more faith in the Buddhist message so, although it's more complicated, it's how I have been seeking emotional support.

How does a Theravada Buddhist sooth his or her emotions without devotional music?

Poetry, maybe? Or perhaps suttas, meditation; waiting for emotions to sooth themselves. The whole eight-fold way possibly.

With whom does the Theravada Buddhist seek a relationship when they find that their worldly relationships have failed them?

If you really want inter-'personal' relationships, then maybe seek new (or renewed) relationships with other 'people' (or animals).
Another possibility is that my friend, being human, was not very different from me (also human). If I'm alone I might think, "If my friend were here too ...". My friend would be more of the same (aggregates/skhandas) as me ...
"Worldy relationships have failed" sounds quite apocalyptic by the way. It reminds me of something slightly off-topic (non-Buddhist) i.e. a poem written by a Shivaite i.e. someone who sought a personal relationship with Shiva,
If it rains fire
    you have to be as the water;

if it is a deluge of water
    you have to be as the wind;

if it is the Great Flood
    you have to be as the sky;

and if it is the Very Last Flood of all the worlds,
    you have to give up self

and become the Lord.

More on-topic I think that things like Metta meditation may be intended to help train you to have (i.e. 'have' in the sense of 'to control or generate') stable 'unconditioned' emotions and relationships.

Thank you. It is true that where I used to think "it happened because it is God's will", now I'm inclined to see it as "nothing is permanent".

It's easy to have a simplistic or straw-man view of prayer: called "petitionary prayer" where you're asking for something (maybe a miracle). There are other forms and motives: communal ('we' pray together); egalitarian (all believers equal before God); social justice (forgiveness); ethics (remembering God's laws); thanksgiving; submission (to God's will); small needs (daily bread); etc. I wrote that there's only one person in a "personal relationship with God" but IMO religion is also a relationship between "a people" (i.e. several people, a society) and God.

The Being called on for help need not be imaginary. He could be a Brahma or deva. In any case, these beings are not permanent. AN 11.16 says that one who practices Metta is protected by the devas.

Just because there is no evidence that a God does anything to help (or even exists), we can't say that the activity of prayer doesn't seem soothing at all. It may be true that no real help may come from such a God, but the activity of prayer itself, might soothe the heart.
If we as Buddhists deny this or refuse to accept it, just because of "lack of evidence", we don't stand on very firm ground. In fact, there are many atheists and agnostics who claim that Buddhist meditation also doesn't have any of the positive effects that Buddhists attribute to it. Again, while the scriptures positively assert that in the fourth jhāna one can gain supranormal powers, many people scoff at these claims. Even some secular Buddhists say that such ideas are implausible. They too stake their claims on the lacuna of direct evidence.
That said, prayer is not the only way to soothe the heart. It is one of the ways. And it is not without serious dangers and pitfalls. Before I come to these, let me briefly talk about the ways of dealing with sudden sorrow, and briefly talk about the ways outlined in Theravada Buddhism.
A survey of ways to soothe the heart
Beings have invented a variety of techniques that help take the mind off of sudden grief and sorrow.
Activities such as drinking, smoking, adultery, etc. are the worst ways of dealing with pain. Even though they take the mind off the sorrow, they lead to regret, unhappiness, and ultimately to self-destruction - thus they are morally dark kamma. Incidentally, while some atheists or agnostics would recommend these activities, a Buddhist would never recommend these ways at all. In this sense, Buddhists are NOT your regular atheists.
Now come the morally neutral activities: really, prayer and calling God for help can be merely classed along with traveling, listening to music, reading books or poetry, or engaging in some hobby. This does not mean that a Buddhist would recommend prayer - it is just morally neutral, and takes the mind away from the sorrow temporarily. One may choose to use these if one sees them fit, but then again, one's judgement may not be very strong when struck by sudden sorrow. So these activities could even become a delusional prelude to something worse. Tread carefully when using these methods. We'll come to the pitfalls and dangers in a bit.
A better thing to do would be to engage in morally bright activities that can also take the mind off the sudden grief at the same time. This is what a Buddhist would recommend. Activities such as volunteering, donations, and community service are morally bright activities and help alleviate mental suffering, give the mind a sense of high self-esteem, and lighten the heart.
Theravada Buddhist Ways of soothing the heart
I listed above some morally bright activities that can take the mind off sudden grief. Many of these can be done by even non-Buddhists, but some of these are usually considered to be "Theravada Buddhist" methods. Although you don't have to be a Theravada Buddhist to try any of these, one could say so with due respect to the tradition that preserved these. It simply involves asking for advice and listening to stories of people that dealt with similar circumstances in a better way. This helps one take courage from the lives of such people.
Thus one can recollect the stories of the Buddha, his disciples, modern monks who faced similar circumstances, and even lay people among us that could serve as good examples. This sort of recollection (anussati) is the best recommended strategy for dealing with sudden grief. From my own personal experience, even before I turned a Buddhist, I remember that the act of crying and praying was not as useful as someone pointing out examples of people that achieved despite the odds stacked up against them, and despite repeated loss. I am especially thankful to my mother for doing that when I was a young despondent teenager.
In fact the whole of the Buddha's teaching is about providing a good example of a person that managed stress very skillfully. The Buddha says that there are two basic responses one may have to the web of samsāra and dukkha: a) bewilderment, b) seeking someone that knows a way or two out of this suffering. The Buddha's teaching supports precisely this second response.
Traditionally, there is the list of ten recollections, and at least the first four recollections - buddhānussati, dhammānussati, sanghānussati, devānussati - are truly activities of recollections that can lighten the heart. (I'll not go into details of how one uses these meditations. If you're not familiar with them, I recommend reading the book "A meditator's tools" - by Thānissaro Bhikkhu)
But this is not all! The other six reflections (6 satis in the ten recollections group) can also have a soothing effect on the heart if used skillfully. A young Indian boy named Venkataramana lost his father, whom he admired and loved a lot. In his grief, he recollected how his father's body had become upon death. He considered how it would be if he too were to die. He imagined his own body as dead, and reflected on the imminent possibility of death. While to some of us, this sort of thinking could drive us into depression, young Ramana became cool, and calm, entered meditative states and decided to renounce everything and search for inner peace. He went on to become one of the most famous spiritual masters of 20th century Asia: Sri Ramana Maharishi.
So the methods of practice that the Buddha recommended work even for non-Buddhists. You don't have to be a Buddhist for these methods to work. You only have to be skillful in using them. What's more: Theravada Buddhism offers a whole array of techniques. In fact the whole religion is about dealing with suffering.
Dangers and pitfalls of petitionary prayer
It doesn't matter if the one prayed to, is imaginary or not, or is even capable of helping or not. Even if one were to pray to one's political ruler (who may be living), and ask for help, there are significant dangers and pitfalls involved in the act of prayer and important reasons to be extremely careful. For brevity, I shall list only two dangers and two pitfalls, although there are many more.
Danger 1: Justified aversion
When one sees oneself as a victim in need of help, one could see someone else as a villain. This could be anything between one that really makes fun of you in your misery, to one that is just indifferent to your misery. All of them are seen as villains. And these people can be the target of our aversion. We can see this tendency in almost every single religious lore.
In Numbers 31:1-4:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel
  of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
  And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm ye men from among you for
  the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute the LORD'S
  vengeance on Midian. Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the
  tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.

Even in the Mahabharata the battle of Kurukshetra is justified as it is said to be done for the "establishment of Dharma". The Pandavas who patronize Krishna (considered God by the Hindus) avenge their humiliation, and even claim that God is on their side. Even killing one's grandfather and teacher are justified under the guise of social duty (caste duty for kshatriyas).
Even Germany justified starting WWII by reminding the world of the humiliation they had to undergo in 1919. And the people of Germany looked on for a savior. That this savior (Fuhrer) happened to be human doesn't make much difference - the people's attitude was that of praying to this savior to help Germany. And in the process, they justified everything this savior did.
Danger 2: Being beguiled
In some cases, one may talk to a priest that may recommend a particular expensive religious service, where the religious body may benefit, but really gives little solace to the sponsor. Some may not see much danger in this, but the first danger is in trusting a person that makes a business out of people in distress. If the priest makes a business out of such activities, he is not gaining merit from the prayer - instead it can be dangerous for him. And if the sponsor pays his respects to such a misled priest it can be equally dangerous to him.
Additionally, some priests get you to perform some rituals - such as sacrificing an animal. Believing that such acts would help, one engages in what is actually dangerous kamma. And such kamma is detrimental in the long term, whether or not one is aware that it is immoral.
Pitfall 1: Breeds non-chalance and heedlessness
In a few cases, our misfortune is caused by our own stupid actions. In those cases, it is very important to learn from one's experience. Petitionary prayer could lead to complacency and heedlessness (pamāda). The last words of the Buddha were about heedfulness (appamāda).
Pitfall 2: Deceptive consolation
Prayer and crying on someone's shoulder (whether virtual or real) could have the effect of generating self-pity and a growing sense of entitlement for self-pity. If one's parents or children die, grief is but inevitable. And people might even feel sympathy. But sometimes, people grieve just to win sympathy. The act of prayer feeds the mind's tendency to wish for sympathy.
A donation made out of free will, as an expression of one's gratitude for the guidance provided is totally different from payment for a religious service meant to soothe the heart. The act of donating gives a sense of wealth. But the act of payment for a prayer service at a religious institution reinforces a sense of poverty and self-pity.
Conclusions
Prayer may be a morally neutral activity, but has some serious pitfalls that easily delude the psychologically weak. Instead of praying for help, it is much better to engage in activities such a donating, community service, volunteering, or even hearing stories of people that faced similar circumstances, and learning lessons from them. These activities can renew one's energy, lift one's mood, keep one engaged, and also enter deep states of concentration, which can act as a platform for developing insight and attain full liberation from all suffering.

asked: With whom does the Theravada Buddhist seek a relationship when they find that their worldly relationships have failed them?
Relations are always wordily. If relations are abounded, that has become already the beyond. As for the way, the "buddhist" practice: a Dhammica seeks for relation with the three Juwels, Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha.

The Verses on Respect
Satthu-garu dhamma-garu
  One with respect for the Buddha & Dhamma,
Saṅghe ca tibba-gāravo,
  and strong respect for the Saṅgha,
Samādhi-garu ātāpī,
  one who is ardent, with respect for concentration,
Sikkhāya tibba-gāravo,
  and strong respect for the Training,
Appamāda-garu bhikkhu,
  one who sees danger and respects being heedful,
Paṭisanthāra-gāravo:
  and shows respect in welcoming guests:
Abhabbo parihānāya,
  A person like this cannot decline,
Nibbānasseva santike,
  stands right in the presence of Nibbana.

It's a terrible missconception and total path destroying to spread that devotion does not or only less works as a fundamental tool.
There are two wonderful essays/talks, which, if finding the right devotional attitude in regard of the blessing meeting teacher, might change ones non-dhammic believes and bring one on track:
Devotion in Buddhism, by late Ven. Nyanaponika Thera
Respect, Confidence and Patient and Opening the Door to the Dhamma - Respect in Buddhist Thought & Practice, by Ven Thanissaro Thera
General infos and explaings in regard of respect and devotion might be found here: Respect and Veneration
Showing disrespect toward the Three Gems is a serious break of the Base, cutting one off. If such might happen to one, one should quickly confess it and renew one refuge. Out of that case Dhammic-Refugees with solide confidence cite daily in the evening:

Kāyena vācāya va cetasā vā, Buddhe kukammaṃ pakataṃ mayā yaṃ,
  Buddho paṭiggaṇhatu accayantaṃ,
  Kālantare saṃvarituṃ va buddhe.
Whatever bad kamma I have done to the Buddha [same for Dhamma, Sangha]
  by body, by speech, or by mind,
  may the Buddha accept my admission of it,
  so that in the future I may show restraint toward the Buddha [Dhamma, Sangha].

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

There are gods.

Gods can help humans if they are interested. But no
god can remove one’s karma.

You can pray to god “God may will bless to you,” as I mentioned before.

But according to Buddhism, you
have to be your own master, you have to be your own survivor. No one
can help you but only you can help yourself. So if you do good karma,
you will definitely get its results.

Gods are not eternal. They enjoy the results of their past positive
karma. [The only eternal thing is Nirvana].
So you can seek help from god, but Buddhist teaching is about “you
can help yourself.”

If you do positive karma, you will get positive results. If you
understand reality and question by yourself, you will solve problems
in your mind. If you follow the path to Nirvana, you can achieve
eternity.

Remember, any god can’t get you to their realm, only you can go there
by your own behavior."

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


text:
"Switching focus"
When completely absorbed in a meaningful task, a friend or stranger passes by and says "Hello" or initiates a conversation. I now find myself not being as kind as I would like to be as my mind is still completely absorbed in the task at hand.
Meditation has helped improve my ability to focus like this and let external events just flow by, but from a Buddhist perspective, how can I practice my ability to "switch" and be more present in the interaction with the by-passer when I actually want to?

Mindfulness in daily activities can be very important to one's Buddhist practice. Meeting every and all social expectation isn't so important to one's practice. So to the extent possible, you may wish to remain mindfully absorbed in your task and not look for social cues that strangers want to talk to you. There is really no need to "be more present in the interaction with the passerby than I actually want to". You can let go of the feeling that you need to be available to everyone.
Of course this won't always work and sometimes it's a friend that's come to talk to you and you must stop what you're doing and respond. Noting your feelings ("annoyed" or "bored" or "anxious") without judging the feelings can help you remain mindful throughout the time you are talking.
If your friends drop by unexpectedly very often, they may not understand your need for time alone for your practice of mindfulness and meditation and the constant interruptions can make it hard for you to sustain your practice. Talking to them about this may be helpful especially since you are feeling "not as kind" as you'd like to be and that's not good for your mental state or the continuation of your friendship.
In other words, there is value to remaining mindfully absorbed at times and limiting the circumstances under which you even need to switch focus may be more beneficial than trying to learn a skillful way of switching focus quickly over and over through the day.

Your awareness and focus should be on arising and passing of phenomena pertaining to the 4 foundations of mindfullness (impermanence if you still cannot see arising and passing of phenomena) with strong equanimity towards sensations and maintaining your mind free from clinging and craving. It is not the task that you should be absorbed in but experiencing phenomena as they come and go. Also any of the 4 foundations of mindfullness you have to experience at the experiential level hence through sensations. E.g. if you are looking at your body posture then it should be the outline of sensations that you experience through your sense faculties that any conceptualization of the particular posture.
What ever task you do keep looking at phenomena / sensations / elements arising and passing equnimously then it is enough. You can even multi task.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
If one's inner monologue stops forever, is one necessarily an arahant?
Question in the title. I'm looking for answers citing either canonical scripture or the position of any particular school of Buddhism.
The inner monologue in the question could also be read as mental chatter; mental noise; superfluous thoughts; extraneous thoughts; or the  unnecessary thoughts that normal people have every moment.
And I mean when the inner monologue has stopped for good; that is, the case when it never comes back.
Another way to read this question might be, Do arahants have an inner monologue?

I'm guessing that the stopping of the inner monologue is just one of the Jhanas (probably the first one), but not Nirvana.

I meant stopping for life. Thanks, I'll clarify the question.

Is it possible to say that something has stopped forever? Even if it hasn't happened in years, can we say it won't happen 10 minutes from now? I like your other version "Do arahants have an inner monologue?" :)

Thoughts are one of the six sense objects; there is no reason to think that they stop when one becomes an arahant. It is quite clear that both the Buddha and arahants did indeed have thoughts after becoming enlightened. E.g.:

And the knowledge and vision arose in me: ‘Āḷāra Kālāma died seven days ago.’ I thought: ‘Āḷāra Kālāmaʹs loss is a great one. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have understood it quickly.’
-- MN 26 (Bodhi, trans)

What does stop forever is uddhacca or restlessness.

Restlessness (or agitation) has the characteristic of disquietude, like water whipped up by the wind. Its function is to make the mind unsteady, as wind makes a banner ripple. It is manifested as turmoil. Its proximate cause is unwise attention to mental disquiet.
-- Bhikkhu Bodhi, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma
In the case of the defilements, [false] view and uncertainty are eliminated by
  the first knowledge. Hate is eliminated by the third knowledge. Greed, delusion,
  conceit (pride), mental stiffness, agitation, consciencelessness, and shamelessness are eliminated by the fourth knowledge.
-- Vism. XXII.65 (Nyanamoli, trans)

The only case in which the inner monologue could possibly stop forever is at the moment of parinibbana, since that is the only event that could be said to be permanent. How else could one understand the word "forever"?
Even if one were to suddenly go without an inner monologue while still alive, there is no reason to infer that the monologue would not start up again; clearly both arahants and Buddhas still have some mental monologue as long as there is still the arising of sankharas.

Anthony's definition of "inner monologue" is clear, but still no quite clear enough.What are these "unnecessary thoughts that normal people have" about?
Assuming we agree that some of these are

thoughts of future
thoughts of past
thoughts arising from conceiving "I am"

The Arahant has none of these:

Atītaṃ nānusocanti,
  nappajappanti nāgataṃ;
  Paccuppannena yāpenti
  They do not sorrow over the past,
  Nor do they hanker for the future.
  They maintain themselves with what is present
http://suttacentral.net/en/sn1.10
Samo visesī uda vā nihīno,
  Yo maññatī so vivadetha tena;
  Tīsu vidhāsu avikampamāno,
  Samo visesīti na tassa hoti;
  One who conceives ‘I am equal, better, or worse,’
  Might on that account engage in disputes.
  But one not shaken in the three discriminations
  Does not think, ‘I am equal or better.‘http://suttacentral.net/en/sn1.20

So the Arahant's mind is considerably quieter than a "normal person".

I disagree that an arahant cannot have thoughts of future or past. Clearly the Buddha had such thoughts.

Granted, Bhante. An arahant can think whatever he/she wishes to think, past, future, present. I think the sutras were referring to the unnecessary thoughts.

What stops is the becoming and creation of new fabrications as you are devoid of clinging and craving.

Yes, householder Anthony, interested,
asavas, effluents or fermentation stop at attaining of Arahat-ship, "the destruction of the asavas". Ones acting, incl. verbalication, is "just" such. Not that there are no more mental verbalisations, but they are no more "schizophrenic", thrown into a "democracy".
Mental verbalications of Noble ones are not personal and have purpose, for example to "hint" toward Devas, to give causes. So 'Do arahants have an inner monologue?', inner is not personal to be understood and there are no "monologues" but shares of compassion.
(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)

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


text:
Directing attention on body parts
In daily life I'm trying to sense my body by directing  my attention to a body part ( e.g lips , throat ) while still engaging with activities . I know when I feel a sensation on that body part my attention is there or that body part is now included in my attention . Emotions and thoughts are so fast and most of the time I get Identified with them . But at rare moments where I manage to keep my attention on part of my body, help me to view my emotion or thought without totally identifying .
I really want to practice , so would like to start from most basic , Mindfulness of body .
I tried mindfulness of breathing . I had following experience ,
When I pay attention to breath , its natural rhythm changes . Feel like I forcefully control the breath .
Is there any teaching in Buddhism , that could use every day life to keep the attention on body? Instead  of sitting meditation .

Body scanning (attention to body parts) is a key part of MBSR (Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction) at the University of Massachusetts. They're a great resource but MBSR training costs. You should be able to find some free versions but IMO it's worth the money. http://www.umassmed.edu/cfm/

You should keep your attention in the 4 foundation of mindfulness from the time you wake to the point you sleep.
Two key elements for a beginner is:

you have to make your body fully sensitive
you have to calm the fabrications

The key ingredient in mindfulness is what ever you sense you should not react with craving and clinging noting the sensation is impermanent.
To make your body sensitive
You should make your body sensitive since all mind matter creates sensations and any changes in the aggregates is sensed through the sensation it creates. So in doing any of the 4 foundation of mindfulness sensation play a key role.
Scan your body from part to part systematically without missing any part until you feel some sensation in the part you examine. Start with small areas and linger on the part during the start but keep increasing the pace you move and the size of the area seeing if you are fully sensitive to any sensation in the whole area when doing so, i.e., when you sense something in the whole area move on to another area systemically - the time to sense any sensation will become shorter and shorter until it becomes instant and through out the body.
Calm the fabrications
You have to calm all fabrication before realising the final goal.
Passive
You keep looking at sensation the fabrications will disappear. First the gross sensations and then pleasant sensation leaving you with neutral sensations. After some practice, mere looking at any fabrication
it disappears.
Active
Calm the breath by looking at the process its speed and length, make the efforts to anchor the mind, if there are body sensations look at it until it disappears (it happens in a short duration) until you have pleasant or neutral sensations
Overcoming some of the hindrances
As I see it, there seams to be some hindrances to your daily practice. They might be the following:
Agitation
If your mind seams very active and restless then more from part to part fast scanning large areas but progressively staying longer and making the area a bit smaller. Note the speed and length or breathing also.
Mental Lethargy
Increase space of scanning to arouse energy. This is also a mental fabrication do generally you should do this in a medium pace (not too long or too short in any part). Do some intentional breathing increasing the length and speed marginally.

In "Satipattana" sutta , "“contemplates body in body”, what it means "body in body" ?

It should be interpreted in the light of body as mere body.

Ideally this should be another question.

Very true , I'll raise this as another question


text:
Is it possible to destroy the rupa heavens?
This may sound like an unusual question, but - is it possible in theory to destroy the rupa heavens - not by avoiding rebirth there, but for other sentient beings?
Not the tusita heaven - which I understand (correctly or not ha) is part of kamadhatu and strictly one of the jhanas :)
Thanks !

If I'm not mistaken, all realms will be at some point be destroyed and would reappear again, forever, in cycles.

There should be an observer experience any plane of existence. Once the observer is no more, in a relative sense they cease to exist.
All these are experienced through consciousness. When consciousness cease to exist so does all the places of existence.


text:
What is Right Action for a Buddhist regarding talking about personal success?
In this question
a comment stated in part "The old sense of transferring merit had to do with mudita, you tell other people about your success so that other people can be happy about that. Being happy about other people success is meritable, so it works like transfer."
The idea that telling people about your success is wholesome, is very surprising to me. I somehow had the impression that from a Buddhist point of view, being very modest and not making such things known was better.
Did the Buddha teach anything specific about this? Thank you.

I would suggest that it depends on how you relate to the success, your attitude to it. Relating an experience can be beneficial to the recipient in many cases, both in terms of use as a teaching and possibly of merit as you mention. In terms of telling about a successful experience as a teaching, this can be related to the Udayi Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya, on how to teach the Dhamma.

"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching. Which five?
"The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak step-by-step.'
"The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'
"The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out of compassion.'
"The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.'
"The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without hurting myself or others.'
"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when these five qualities are established within the person teaching."

Interpreting personal success as in the interest of self promotion is not helpful in terms of the teaching - so again it comes back to the attitude towards what is told. If for the benefit of the recipient (in terms of the Path), it could certainly be helpful.
Mudita as a divine abiding is a wholesome state, and allowing mudita to arise in oneself and others by sharing a success experience would be beneficial. However, modesty and humility are beneficial traits to acquire, especially for those of us who have not entered the stream. For most of us, sharing success stories is more about self inflation than for the benefit of others, even though sometimes on a subtle level.
So this answer is 'it depends' - and hopefully the five guidelines above can be of help, when deciding whether to convey a success story, and how to.
(edit: A few notes on Right Action and Right Speech, since they're mentioned in the question)
Right Action
The question refers to Right Action - samma kammanto in Pali - which is part of the Noble Eightfold Path. Specifically, Right Action refers to action that is in accordance with three of the five precepts - namely abstaining from the taking of a life (i.e. not killing any living being), abstaining from taking what is not given (i.e. not stealing), and abstaining from sensual (or sexual) misconduct. I do not interpret sharing a success as related to Right Action. However, in communication, Right Speech may be more relevant.
Right Speech
As translated on ATI:

"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech."

This may be helpful in deciding what to say, when to say it, and whether to say something at all:

"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which
  five?
"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken
  affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of
  good-will."

With metta.

Great answer +1. I especially like that you added the description from the Buddha about when one should teach the dhamma to others. Especially the last step im happy to learn about. Thank you.

The purpose of mudita is counter against envy arising in ourself for others.
The purpose of metta is to counter against hate arising for others.
The purpose of karuna is to counter against cruelty for others.
We don't do something to try to encourage metta in others, though we can teach.
We don't do something to try to encourage karuna in others, ....
My conclusion is so we don't do something to try to encourage mudita in others, ....
IMHO it sounds like the ego rationalising...sorry.

That makes sense to me. Thank you Samadhi.

There is a sutta in Majjhima Nikaya in which the Buddha says that one should not exalt oneself and disparage others.
Boasting with success is not conducive to dispassion, detachment,
 cessation, nibbana. On the contrary it creates attachment, it expands
 the ego so it is not conducive to the goal.
edit:
Telling others of one's own succes so they can develop muddita over the successes they hear about gives to many opportunities for the ego to grow, for defilements to come into the mind and play it.
So my personal advice would be against this, maybe because I know my ego better and how quickly it gets pumped up.

Definitely. But to clarify, I'm not asking about boasting but of simply telling others of success for the purpose stated above.


text:
How do buddhist monks who are teachers have time for their own practice?
For a while now i have been wondering about how buddhist monks have time for their own practice. When i see buddhist monks like Ven. Yuttadhammo, Ajahn Brahm and Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi who contribute so much to the teaching of the dhamma and have set in motion so many initiatives like making videos, written books, teaching pali language, teaching on retreats etc. i wondered when and how they have time for their own practice?
Thank you for your time.
Lanka

It is a part of their practice. Teaching the Dhamma helps one understand it better. The more one understands the Dhamma, the closer one gets to Nibbana. Besides, how do lay people find time for Dhamma while doing full time jobs? Monks don't do jobs. So they have plenty of time to both teach and meditate.

Thanks Sankha. What if a monk who has students wanted to do a soletary retreat for some time e.g. 3-6 month. How can he do that if he has students?

How can a prince who is expected to be the king leave everything(including his wife and newborn child) behind and go meditate in the forest for years? :)

Renunciation. I understand now:)

It could be, if intention isn't actually one to gain favor and followers, if not finished the training, one of the five ways toward release...

“Further, it’s not that the Teacher or a fellow person leading the holy life teaches the Dhamma to the monk. But the monk teaches the Dhamma to others in detail, as he has heard it, as he has learned it2. And in whatever way he teaches the Dhamma to others in detail, as he has heard it, as he has learned it, in just that way the monk, with regard to that Dhamma, is sensitive to the meaning, is sensitive to the Dhamma. In him—sensitive to the meaning, sensitive to the Dhamma—joy is born. When he is joyful, rapture is born. In one who is enraptured at heart, the body grows calm. When the body is calm, one feels pleasure. Feeling pleasure, the mind becomes concentrated. This, monks, is the second opening to release…

Generally, if in training, teaching is next building, making robes... other allowed things, actually a 'palipoth', a hindrance, and suggested to be avoided by one in training generally.
In regard of how to see it as a receiver (which is the better view): a matter of much gratitude in any case (since teaching isn't a duty and requires a lot of sacrifices), and to avoid approach just as entertainment or not really serious, since a 'compassionate' monk could lose much needed substance. Not out of reason are 'practitioners' dwelling near teachers and in Dhammic areas, but do not progress through lake of effort, called 'hungry ghosts', something, an existance, caused also by being of disturbing nature, habit.
Generally, on the other side, from other view, occasions where one could receive Dhamma, has an open ear, are so seldom, that a person understanding the matterwould not hesitate not to sleep, eat, walk long distances and take on burdens seldom someone would be clear of them, and if, never take such as receiving teaching the Dhamma as light and common to gain.
Sure, most here wouldn't easy know, understand, but to avoid great shame later, there are those 'ritual' and ways of body and speech at least, taken on trust since generation back to the Buddha, approaching the Gems.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for release]


text:
What Bad Karma Awaits Adulterers?
Will they get to suffer in hell? I am trying to find out more about their fate..I know that if you get angry a lot you get reborn ugly..But what happens to people who cheat on you??Will they get cheated on in a future life?Or will a worser fate await them..? I vaguely heard Ajahn Brahm talk about the Nirayas and he did mention a hell where adulterers go to.Is this true..
Is there really a special kind of hell for adulterers..if yes what happens to them there?
Thank you

Ah.. you wanted "cheat on you" and not "cheat you", but i've already included all types of cheating in my answer.

My own experience is that my ex got cheat on after she has cheat on me furthermore now when she got married I heard two days ago that she isn't happy. So there's no hell out of exist life. You'll get what you gave. In this life. Thanks for your question. May Buddha bless you.

Being cheated on in return should be the last thing to worry about according to the SN suttas. In SN 3.9, Ven. Bodhi's note provided the background story to the huge animal sacrifice set up for king Pasenadi of Kosala:

..In brief: The king had become infatuated with a married woman and planned to have her husband killed so that he could take his wife. One night, unable to sleep, he heard eerie cries of inexplicable origin. The next day, when he anxiously asked his brahmin chaplain to explain the meaning, the priest told him that the voices portended his imminent death, which he could avert only by performing a great sacrifice. When the king later inquired from the Buddha about the voices, the Buddha told him these were the cries of adulterers boiling in a cauldron in the great hell.

In SN 19.11, Ven. Moggallana during his alms round in the city of Rajagaha reported seeing a man with head submerged in a pit of dung. The Buddha then explained the reason:

..That being, bhikkhus, used to be an adulterer in this same Rajagaha. Having been tormented in hell for many years, for many hundreds of years, for many thousands of years, for many hundreds of thousands of years as a result of that kamma, as a residual result of that same kamma he is experiencing such a form of individual existence.

I think it is really important to point out a couple of things. First, according to Buddhism, the results of kamma are said to be complex; one does not simply experience a 1 to 1 result as, at least on the face of it, the above quotation of Newton's third law seems to imply. The Lonaphala Sutta, e.g., explains that whether or not one has developed her mind will have a very big impact on how the result of some unwholesome kamma will be experienced and that the belief that one must experience the result in equal proportion to the volitional deed is wrong view. For one who holds such a view, 'there is no living the holy life'.
Second, a kamma is not always productive of a specific rebirth, it can be the case that it produces its result within that 'life's continuance', meaning that it simply causes negative effects in this life. So, one committing sexual misconduct might only result in the 'trivial' result of 'rivalry and hatred' in this life. (Pa Auk Sayadaw, The Workings of Kamma)
Again, the way kamma actually produces results in an individual case is quite complex; in the Acintita Sutta the precise results of an kamma are said to be 'unconjecturable' and conjecturing about them to lead to 'madness and vexation.' If one reads the text cited above, The Workings of Kamma, one might get a sense for why this is said. According to that text and in line with the orthodox Theravadan view as I understand it, there are many kinds of kamma, wholesome and unwholesome, weighty and non-weighty, inferior and superior, there are frustrating kammas (which oppose kammas of the opposite kind, i.e., wholesome or unwholesome), there interceptive kammas, there are numerous mental factors that may make a kamma more or less unwholesome and so on.
Therefore, at last, it is not possible to give a straightforward answer as to what will happen to people who cheat on others in a relationship. We can be sure, however, that if mental states of greed, hatred, and ignorance were active, Buddhism holds the kamma was unwholesome.

I could find lying, stealing and coveting which is close to cheating. Illicit sex can also be considered, if it's with another person's spouse.
From the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta:

The Blessed One said, "Ānanda, there are four kinds of person to be
  found in the world. Which four? There is the case where a certain
  person is one who takes life, takes what is not given (steals),
  engages in illicit sex, lies, speaks divisively, speaks abusively,
  engages in idle chatter; is covetous, malevolent, & holds wrong view.
  With the breakup of the body, after death, he reappears in a plane of
  deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.

I believe Niraya (hell) can found both inside and outside of our bodies, our minds.Let me explain a little bit details,I quote Newton's third law for this explanation.
Newton's third law

When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body
  simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in
  direction on the first body.

Cheating case scenario

You cheat someone intentionally.
You know that is cheating and cause someone gets trouble.
First your feel guilty yourself for this cheating. This is inside Niraya.
When you enter inside Niraya, you never satisfied yourself.You ever blame yourself and the others.You never happy in your life.You do something for someone, you get the same result likes the person you put into trouble.It is very similar likes Newton's law.
Second many Buddhists believe, the sinners will go real Niraya when they die.That is outside Niraya.The Buddhists believe Niraya is the worst place of the universe.You can roughly read so many types of Nirayas in here.

For adulterers, I believe they must face similar destiny as cheaters.

The results for cheating and adulterating are

Having to go trough a Transsexual phase (Shemale)
Being born in hell
Even many lives after not being able to live a happy married life
Even many lives after the partner losing interest in this person
Being born with a mutation in the gender defining area
Being born among animals who kill other males to have dominance over
the  females                (Example -Monkeys)
Being born with a character that does not fit the gender (Men who act
like women,Crossdressing)

The person that cheats maliciously not only creates the long-term bad karma but also loses the opportunity to learn and develop skills--as in cheating on a midterm and failing the proctered final.
This applies analogically to all situations, even non-malicious cheating.
Playing by Rules of Reality, a.k.a. Hard Work, is not just a virtue: there is often the reward of becoming more free from ignorance, hatred, and delusion--a main objective of Buddhism.

Nobody Knows, is the answer to all of this !!
Forgiveness and compassion nullify negative effects of bad choices.
All karma can be overcome with genuine remorse and forgiveness.


text:
Are there any vampires?
Are there any vampires in any living or dead (hah!) buddhist tradition?
I read that there were kinda vampires in Tibetan Bon?
Not sure why I'm asking, probably spiritual ressentiment :)
Peace...

This is the closes thing i could find on Vampires. VETALA (Skt.): Corpse revived by a bad spirit, zombie.http://viewonbuddhism.org/glossary_az.html

Why not the reverse question, e.g. something that suggests Vampires, Zombies and ever other western monster myth derive from rakshas, yakshas, hungry ghosts, etc. Sometimes there really are connections, e.g. Thor and Indra are based on the same story because the story traveled with the indoeuropean religion in many directions.

Strangely there is a site about this. Check out Buddhism for Vampires. Like Orion says in her comments the tantric beings Vetala could be thought of as vampires or zombies. Certainly they seems to do a lot of hanging around in burial grounds and a bit of drinking of blood. If it looks like a vampire, drinks blood like a vampire then perhaps it is a vampire.

The author of that site claims on the about page, "As it happens, I also have no credentials when it comes to vampires. I don’t like scary movies, and I haven't really read much vampire fiction.
Given that, how I came to be writing a Buddhist vampire romance is one of those inexplicable confluences. Nevertheless, I find the intersection of Buddhism and vampires emotionally gripping and intellectually fascinating. I hope you will too."

@ChrisW A Buddhist vampire romance might be one for the book club - http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/1500/157. Perhaps?? (perhaps not) :-)

The 'Genesis of this site' suggests he wrote it to bring Buddhism to ... Twilight fans, is it? Goths? Maybe this other book instead, which is something like 'Buddhism for Punks'...

i am worried about the reliability of this site hehe


text:
Should you meditate with a timer?
I currently do 15 minutes of meditation every morning. I use a stop watch. I see some people do more like 30 minutes. I was wondering how they kept track of time. Or is it roughly 30 minutes? I find that if I don't use a timer, I find myself thinking to myself during meditation, "I wonder if it has been about 15 minutes" and it seems distracting. I've tried meditation without a timer, but I guess the question is when do you feel you should cut it off?

See previous discussion on this topic: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/1698/5

It really isn't clear what you are asking here... and the diversity of answers makes this whole page clear as mud :) can you try to clarify what information you are looking for, apart from just opinions?

I've changed the question. The answers are great I got what I need out of it. There is probably no definitive answer to this question. Opinions are what I'm looking for.  By the way, I've watched a few of your YouTube videos and love them. I'm really happy to see you comment on my question.

Use a timer for the following reasons.

Worrying about whether your session is done is a distraction.  A timer will free you from this.
A resolution to sit for X minutes may not work.
Even if the resolution does work, you could end up mistaking that for progress.  Don't laugh -- people mistake side effects of practice for the goals of practice. They'll ask if meditation can improve their grades, lead to particular hallucinations, etc...
There's no harm to using a timer. After all, group meditations also use a timer, it just happens to be a human who hits a chime.  There's nothing magical about people that makes chimes hit by them any less disruptive than those generated by an electronic device.

Meditate with timer is very rare in Theravada Buddhism. During meditation period, you might only need to focus on breath in and breath out. This time you do not need to hear, you do not feel pain, you do not need to be happy, you do not need to think about something, you do not need to think about the timer. This time you can feel everything is neutral. You only know the breath in and breath out. Meditation with a timer does not calm your mind. You worry when the time is finished, you worry you will miss the alert sound. Something you worry or something in your mind is not a good practice of meditation. So I personally suggest, do meditation when you have enough time.

Just edited to correct grammar. Hope that is OK. Please roll back if not.

You can train the mind to know when time's up.
You make the resolution "I will sit 30 minutes" and then you sit and when you feel 30 minutes are up you get up, go in another room and check how much you sat.
Let's say you sat 24 minutes today. Almost the goal and the mind registers this.
The next day you make the same resolution "I will sit 30 minutes" and then when you feel the time is up you get up, go in another room and check how much you sat. Again, the mind register this and makes adjustments.
After some days of training the mind will know by itself when it is the time to get up.

But why not just use a timer? Is there any benefit from training the mind to know when 30 minutes is up?

Of course you can just use a timer. Don't let this issue of using or not a timer transform into restlesness and worry. Use what suits you best.There may be benefits  but they are minor compared to the benefits of meditation.

Use a timer.  It's one less thing your mind has to concern itself with.  I find it utterly distracting to look at my watch to see if a session has elapsed.  Eventually, when you start sitting for an hour or more, that break in concentration becomes significantly distracting and disruptive.  Usually deep samadhi is the only thing keeping leg pain (for example) at bay.  It also fragments the concentration you've worked so hard to establish!
You can just use an egg timer (preferably the non-ticking type).  There are also a bunch of smartphone apps.  I prefer the former as there are no guarantees that someone isn't going to text you twenty minutes in!

I have been using a meditation timer with great success (There are a number of meditation APPs you can leverage).  I actually started with a 5 minute timer (every morning) and since have added a minute each week as I build up to 30 minutes.  To me, it feels like slowly incrementing the length of meditation has kept me from internally  clock watching.
I'll echo other peoples comments by saying that trying to peek at a watch or think about the time would be pretty distracting and take away from the actual meditating.

You should meditate as much as possible. I session is ideally 1 hour.
Having said this, the best way to do this is by strong resolution.
You make a strong resolution as I will to this for 15 minutes. As you go on you will notice that the time you take is as much as you make the resolution. But be realistic when you start doing this.

when do you feel you should cut it off?

when it is not useful. For example, when you decide to sit for an unplanned period of time, and you find the noise of the alarm becomes a distraction.


text:
Why is Thich Nhat Hanh called Thay?
I have noticed that Thich Nhat Hanh refers to himself in the third person as "Thay". Why is this, and what is its meaning?

I grabbed this quote from the wiki, in the section "Names applied to him":

"Thich Nhat Hanh is often referred to as "Thay" (Vietnamese: Thầy, "master; teacher") or Thay Nhat Hanh by his followers. On the Vietnamese version of the Plum Village website, he is also referred to as Thiền Sư Nhất Hạnh which can be translated as "Zen Master", or "Dhyana Master".[37] Any Vietnamese monk or nun in the Mahayana tradition can be addressed as "Thầy" ("teacher"). Vietnamese Buddhist monks are addressed "Thầy tu" ("monk") and nuns are addressed "Sư Cô" ("Sister") or "Sư Bà" ("Elder Sister")".

Here is a quote from a website named "Thich Nhat Hanh Foundation:

"Thich Nhat Hanh – affectionately referred to as Thay (means teacher in Vietnamese) by his students – brings the art of mindful living and engaged Buddhism to the world, transforming suffering and bringing peace to millions. Now, in this moment, we each have a joyful opportunity to support Thayʼs teachings".

Here is a quote from a website named Buddhism Guide:

"Thích Nhất Hạnh is often referred to as "Thầy" ("master; teacher") or Thầy Nhất Hạnh by his followers. Any Vietnamese monk or nun can be referred to and are often addressed as "Thầy" or "Thầy tu" ("priest; monk")".

Here is a quote from Dharma Folk:

"But I’m not done! Now what about the name Thầy?**
Many people refer to the Venerable Thích Nhất Hạnh as Thầy. Indeed, this is what most Vietnamese speakers use when we speak about him in Vietnamese. It is also the term we use when we talk about or to any monk or male teacher. After all, thầy is simply a title. Thầy means “teacher,” and in Vietnamese it’s also used like a pronoun with reference to teachers. When talking to a monk, thầy means “you,” and when a monk talks to you, then thầy means “me.”
Regardless, thầy has crossed linguistic barriers and has found a home of its own in the English language Buddhist community as Thay — a direct reference to Venerable Thầy Thích Nhất Hạnh. In this case, no matter how much it confuses me, Thay has become his English nickname, as used by hundreds (if not thousands) of English speakers worldwide".

Lanka

Very good answer. Just to add he'd be informally he'd be addressed as "Thầy Hạnh" which literally is "Teacher Happy" but is thought of as "Brother Happy" and as a nun it would be "Cô Hạnh" or "Sister Happy."

Thanks for the additional info Pho Minh:) I watched an interview with Thich Nhat Hanh and he told that in his community they spend a lot of time being happy and smiling so i think the name "brother happy" fits him well. He has a very gentle and loving mind. I have great respect for him.

I don't want to ruin the happiness in here, but as a Vietnamese, I would never interpret  "Thầy Hạnh" as "Teacher Happy"


text:
Being "Present" with the help of body sensations then how to proceed?
**
Practice Mindfulness of Body
**
I'm trying to being present with the help of body sensations.
As I'm a beginner . I place my hand over my chest to feel that I'm live and presence. This is to ensure that I do not "think" that I'm being present but as a fact I'm .
After few minutes , I do feel tightness of my heart , breathing rhythm. Then starts to feel energy flow (tingling) inside my legs and Torso .This is like being my attention expanded beyond the chest .  When thoughts come I bring my attention back to chest .
Of course I feel a calm state but it is again a temporary state . The moment I release my attention to include whole environment again it keeps going to whatever it "wishes" to be with .
Could anyone help me with the next step that could help me to keep my attention where I wish it to be ? to ensure I would not identify with unnecessary feelings , emotions etc.

I'm trying to being present with the help of body sensations.

When you are with a sense input you are always in the present moment. The way to be in the present moment or bring your attention to the present moment is to look at sensations. So you are doing the right thing here.

As I'm a beginner . I place my hand over my chest to feel that I'm live and presence. This is to ensure that I do not "think" that I'm being present but as a fact I'm .

This might involve thinking or perceptions which can be building verbal fabrications (chattering mind). If possible avoid this.

After few minutes , I do feel tightness of my heart , breathing rhythm. Then starts to feel energy flow (tingling) inside my legs and Torso .This is like being my attention expanded beyond the chest . When thoughts come I bring my attention back to chest .

In our body there a lot of sensations we are not aware of. In doing meditation you have to reach Sabbakayapatisamvedi stage. This is where your attention spreads through out your body and you are aware of everything in your body. At a higher stage, bodily processors like breathing, arising and pass of all sensations. (Samudaya-dhammanupassi .. Vayadhammanupassi .. Samudaya-vaya-dhammanupassi)
So keep spreading your attention and be mindful to the subtlest of:

sensation in your body
other bodily function like breathing

and if possible (all this coming through contact with the sense doors thus tied to sensations)

heartbeat
perspiration process
excretion and urination (Uccara passavakamme)
etc.

Of course I feel a calm state but it is again a temporary state . The moment I release my attention to include whole environment again it keeps going to what ever it "wishes" to be with .

You have to reach where your bodily fabrications are calmed (Passambhayam kayasamkharam). At this stage you feel calm and your breath becomes shorter.
As with all senses this arises and passes with rapid succession. You have to keep looking at even that calm feeling until you see this.
The calm sensations can be:

pleasant, blissful - Patrice equanimity towards it and try to eliminate all fabrication of craving and clinging towards pleasant sensations.
painful - Patrice equanimity towards it and try to eliminate all fabrication of aversion
neutral - Patrice equanimity towards it and try to eliminate all fabrication of ignorance, i.e., even in this stage you see arising and passing, contacts creates sensation which you cling and crave, your perception creates a response to what you recognise, etc. As sensations are subtle you can try investigating these at a more subtler level.

Sensation are the mind conditioner. Buy using sensation to eliminate fabrication creation you calm your metal fabrication.
Also this sensation can be used to calm your metal chattering. Generally your mind wonders away then there is an overwhelming sensation coming from a sense door. If the sensation are generally pleasant or neutral your mind does not stray from your meditation object.

Could anyone help me with the next step that could help me to keep my attention where I wish it to be ?

To keep you attention where it needs to be you can do the following:

realise your mind wonders away to from your anchor object
experience the sensation this object creates
due to thought proliferation and perceptional reaction this creates sensation in your body. Generally it dominates around the head. See if you can see these sensations in your body.
at advance stages when you notice the sensations they just dispensary
if not just stay with them for a few seconds and come back to your chosen object
when doing this smiling also might help, look at the sensations off the libs touching also. Smiling releases the tension in the facial mussels.

By looking at the sensation, in advance stages your are effectively dissolving the fabrication they have created. Since fabrications giving grosser sensation are dissolves your are left with more pleasantness and this helps with concentration as mentioned before.
Also this can be used to eradicate mental defilements as mentioned above.

... to ensure I would not identify with unnecessary feelings , emotions etc.

What you have to see is:

Feeling and sensation as just feeling and sensations
Also scrutinise the feeling and sensation, dividing and dissecting until you come to more and more subtler sensations

The above goes for body, feeling / sensations, mind and Dhamma.
Ultimately you have to:

Keep equanimity (do not cling or crave) to any sensation
Be aware of the arising and passing of the sensation

Also pay attention to sensations as this is proxy to experiencing anything regarding your mind matter process and the other foundations of mindfulness. Even if you take the elements, we you one of our senses doors to sense it hence the primary characteristics and secondary characteristics based on a particular sense door like colour.
Based on: Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta, Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Pahāna Sutta, Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta

I do not understand below line:
"neutral - Patrice equanimity towards it and try to eliminate all fabrication of ignorance".
I thought neutral is thing i was looking for, can you please explain

This is found in the Pahāna Sutta in detail. Also a lot of my answers on this site Pahana and Pahāna have more details.

@Ritesh updated with the references.

This essay on A Guided Meditation by Thanissaro Bhikku can help you.
I include a quote here:

If your mind wanders off, gently bring it right back. If it wanders
  off ten times, a hundred times, bring it back ten times, a hundred
  times. Don't give in. This quality is called ardency. In other words,
  as soon as you realize that the mind has slipped away, you bring it
  right back. You don't spend time aimlessly sniffing at the flowers,
  looking at the sky, or listening to the birds. You've got work to do:
  work in learning how to breathe comfortably, how to let the mind
  settle down in a good space here in the present moment.
When the breath starts feeling comfortable, you can start exploring it
  in other areas of the body. If you simply stay with the comfortable
  breath in a narrow range, you'll tend to doze off. So consciously
  expand your awareness. A good place to focus first is right around the
  navel. Locate that part of the body in your awareness: where is it
  right now? Then notice: how does it feel there as you breathe in? How
  does it feel when you breathe out? Watch it for a couple of breaths,
  and notice if there's any sense of tension or tightness in that part
  of the body, either with the in-breath or with the out-breath. Is it
  tensing up as you breathe in? Are you holding onto the tension as you
  breathe out? Are you putting too much force on the out-breath? If you
  catch yourself doing any of these things, just relax. Think of that
  tension dissolving away in the sensation of the in-breath, the
  sensation of the out-breath. If you want, you can think of the breath
  energy coming into the body right there at the navel, working through
  any tension or tightness that you might feel there ...

One thing you might not realize about being present is that it means standing in the river as the water goes by... meaning you can't cling to any one phenomenon or even type of phenomenon. You have to let it go by.
So when you say,

Of course I feel a calm state but it is again a temporary state.

We say, of course it is a temporary state... they all are. You have to let them go by.

The moment I release my attention to include whole environment again it keeps going to what ever it "wishes" to be with .

This is the nature of the present moment. Not reacting with desire, aversion, or delusion is the only goal.

Could anyone help me with the next step that could help me to keep my attention where I wish it to be? to ensure I would not identify with unnecessary feelings , emotions etc.

This is an self-defeating... you are asking how to control and get what you want to ensure that you don't give rise to the identification. They are opposite goals and you have to choose one; trying to control and get what you want, or letting go of identification.
The Buddha taught four foundations of mindfulness, one of which was on the body. I would suggest you study them all, and learn to incorporate them all into your meditation. Then it doesn't matter where your mind goes, you can meditate and stay present in the middle of the river of experience. Here's a good theoretical background on the four foundations:
Way of Mindfulness
If you would like a practical guide on implementing them all, here is a booklet I wrote, available in many different languages:
How to Meditate: A Beginner's Guide to Peace

My personal opinion, Being on Present is the hardest part of Buddhism. When your take meditation first time, the hardest thing is controlling your mind. Your mind are running like a wind.I think there are many techniques  of meditation.I use breath in and breath out technique.First you choose the suitable place for meditation (calm and silent place, not cold not hot). After that you can sit as you like then close your eyes.Then you breath normally means not too fast not too slow.And you concentrate breath in and breath out, don't feel anything. After a few minutes, your mind will calm.Your feeling only know breath in and breath out and you feel very calm in your mind. I could not explain using words about that feeling. You can do as much as you can before your mind is running out of your control.

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


text:
Why is the first lines of the Dhammapada twin verses sometimes translated using the word 'heart'?
In most of the translations of the Dhammapada I have read the first lines of the Twin Verses (first chapter) are rendered using the words mind or thoughts. For instance this translation by Buddharakkhita

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all
  mind-wrought.

However I recently read a translation by Thanissaro (in this book) that renders the lines as

Phenomena are preceded by heart, ruled by heart, made of heart

I found the variation from mind (or thoughts) to heart quite striking. What is the original Pali phrasing and which words are able to be translated freely between mind and heart? What is the overall sense of the Pali words used i.e. what are the nuances or subtleties to the original Pali?

Mind in English connotes something more like intellect.   The meaning of the Pali (or Sanskrit) is a bit more encompassing including not just intellect but also our emotional responses that in English we feel are more the domain of the heart.  Mano certainly doesn't mean "heart" as in the physical organ.  But it captures the emotional content of our psychological states as well which we render with heart.

Thanissaro's translations are... unique. The word being used, as others have pointed out, is "mano", the leader of an irregular group of nouns called the "manogana" - "the group with mano as its leader".
The PED has a huge article on mano, worth reading in full if you're interested. I've copied the gist of it below, but as you should see, it is probably misleading to translate it as "heart". There is a word for that, "hadaya", which is sometimes used as a synonym of mano, viññāṇa, etc., but also refers to the physical heart organ.
It is fair to say he is within his right to use poetic license in this case; it is, after all, poetry, and the mind and the heart are much the same in Buddhism. As you can see below, though, manas generally refers more to the thinking side of things, than the emotive or the substantial entity of "the heart" or "the mind".

Mano & Mana(s); (nt.) [Vedic manaḥ, see etym. under maññati]

...

II. Meaning: mind, thought

...

Mano represents the intellectual functioning of consciousness, while viñnāṇa represents the field of sense and sense -- reaction ("perception"), and citta the subjective aspect of consciousness (cp. Mrs. Rh. D. Buddhist Psychology p. 19) -- The rendering with "mind" covers most of the connotation; sometimes it may be translated "thought. As "mind" it embodies the rational faculty of man which, as the subjective side in our relation to the objective world, may be regarded as a special sense, acting on the world, a sense adapted to the rationality (reasonableness, dhamma) of the phenomena, as our eye is adapted to the visibility of the latter.

...

As regards the relation of manas to citta, it may be stated that citta is more substantial (as indicated by translation "heart"), more elemental as the seat of emotion, whereas manas is the finer element, a subtler feeling or thinking as such. See also citta2 I., and on rel. to viññāṇa & citta see citta;2 IV. 2b. In the more popular opinion and general phraseology however manas is almost synonymous with citta as opposed to body, cittaŋ iti pi mano iti pi S ii.94.

As to your ancillary questions:
What is the original Pali phrasing?
As others have pointed out, the original is:

manopubbaṅgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā.
  manasā ce paduṭṭhena, bhāsati vā karoti vā.
  tato naṃ dukkhamanveti, cakkaṃva vahato padaṃ.

Which words are able to be translated freely between mind and heart?
Some words used more or less interchangeably are citta, viññāṇa, mano, hadaya, ceto and nāma. Any one of these could ostensibly be translated as either "heart" or "mind". The only one that literally means "heart", as mentioned, is hadaya. The rest have colloquial connotations and are derived from various roots, e.g. √cit = to think, √ñā = to know, √man = to consider, or not from roots at all (hadaya = heart, nāma = mentality).

What is the overall sense of the Pali words used i.e. what are the nuances or subtleties to the original Pali?
The technical meaning of the verse is that wholesome and unwholesome deeds come from wholesome or unwholesome mind states, not mere physical acts. In this, Thanissaro's translation is misleading. The emphasis should be on the fact that it is the mind as opposed to the body, not the heart as opposed to the mind.
The origin story about the elder Cakkhupala makes this clear; during his walking meditation, many insects were killed because he was blind. The Buddha spoke this verse to show that Cakkhupala was innocent.
To get an understanding of the colloquial meaning of this verse is a bit involved, but reading the PED's article on how mano is generally used might help. Its usage here does seem to be to emphasise the mental nature of guilt and innocence. Otherwise, citta is a more common word. The word for heart, hadaya, is used when talking about emotion, e.g. hadayaṅgamā - going to one's heart (i.e. heartwarming), and doesn't seem appropriate in this context.

Great answer. Thank you very much. When you say 'Thanissaro's translations are... unique' do you mean that he is wrong basically - or at least his translations are misleading?

@CrabBucket sometimes I feel he uses wrong words... often his English is just weird... like "Mind Like A Fire Unbound", "Wings to Awakening", "Frames of Reference", "Obscurations", etc. He's a nice enough guy though, and clearly knows a lot about Buddhism and Pali.

"What is the original Pali phrasing?"
Verse I

Manopubbangamā dhammā manosetthā manomayā,
manasā che padutthena bhāsati vā karoti vā
tato nan dukkha manveti chakkan va vahato padan.

Verse II

Manopubbangamā dhammā manosetthā manomayā,
manasā che pasannena bhāsati vā karoti vā
tato nan sukhamanveti chāyā va anapāyinī.

"and which words are able to be translated freely between mind and heart?"
I'm not sure (see @yuttadhammo's answer), but Thanissaro is using "heart" to translate manas.
"What is the overall sense of the Pali words used i.e. what are the nuances or subtleties to the original Pali?"
Sue Hamilton [1] discusses these passages:

In the Dhammapada however, both terms [manas and dhammā] are being used in their generic sense [not as sense and sense object, as elsewhere in the pali canon]: manas is being used as 'mind' in general, and dhammā is being used as it is in the tilakkhana [2] formula [...].
When these terms are used generically, the precise meaning of the passage has to be determined from context. The [first line of both verses] literally means something like: "Phenomena are the result of mind (or are preceeded by mind), have mind as their best, are mind-made". In isolation, this sentence might be construed as positing an idealistic ontology, that the phenomena which comprise the world as we know it, dhammā, are nothing but the mind: the external world is magically created by the mind and consist of mind. There is an alternative way of interpreting this line, however, which is, in my opinion, the accurate one.

Then she offers a full translation of the rest of the passage. Excluding the first lines:

"If a man speaks or acts with a wicked mind, sorrow follows him as wheel follows the foot of a draught [animal]...if a man speaks or acts with a pure mind, happiness follows him as a shadow always follows [him]."

Then she points out that:

The point of these sentences is that one reaps the consequences of one's actions [...]. This corresponds to the Buddha's definition of karma [volition] [...]. The whole of the first chapter in Dhammapada is concerned with this teaching: that one reaps as one sows, and that sowing is qualitatively determined by intention.

With the above in mind, and in the same vein as @ChrisW answer , "heart" could've been a choice for someone's inclination. Perhaps to avoid giving the impression of an ontological statement.
Finally:

I mentioned in chapter IV that when used in a non-technical sense, 'mind' (whatever term is being used) indicates general mental activity. So the first lines of the two verses in fact have the following meaning:
dhammā are an individual's experiences -- everything, in fact, that is a part of the individual's life. And qualitatively those experiences follow from one's mental activity: manopubbangamā, it is mental activity which principally governs the nature of life: manosetthā, and it is in mental activity that what follows originates: manomaya.
To interpret this sentence ontologically is completely to ignore the context in which it is found and to divorce it from the subject matter of the entire chapter. To convey the meaning of manas in this context accurately, it is better to translate it as a verbal noun, denoting the activity or process of the mind: 'thinking'. In english, this gives us a less ambiguous sentence:
"The individual's experiences are preceded by thinking, have thinking as their best, originate in thinking".
It is the reification of manas as 'mind' which tends to mislead here

[1] Identity and Experience: The Constitution of the Human Being According to Early Buddhism, pg 140ff
[2] The Three marks of existence: "sabbe saṅkhāra aniccā. sabbe saṅkhāra dukkhā. sabbe dhammā anattā"

does this really answer the question of why it is translated as "heart"?

Hum, not really. I was going for the last bit of the question "What is the overall sense of the Pali words used i.e. what are the nuances or subtleties to the original Pali?" --admittedly assuming the OP is more interested in an elaboration of interpretation choices than why specifically someone used "heart".

Actually, it kind of suggests a possible reason....I edited to make the guess more explicit

Here is what I found:

Manopubbangama dhamma
  manosettha manomaya
  manasa ce padutthena

There's translation and commentary on the page above.
The associated story ("The Story of Thera Cakkhupala") suggests it might be 'intention'.
That's kind of compatible with the poetic use of heart: "he had a change of heart", "his heart wasn't in it", "he did it with all his heart", etc.
The root syllable in each line is "mano" and/or "mana": which can also be found here associated with "mental consciousness"; but see also this says that it's used for "mental action" i.e. kamma.
My guess is that:

Pali is constructed using short syllables like 'man'
The syllables have an approximate meaning
The suffix changes depending on grammar
The syllables are aggregated into larger compound words and/or used with other words in a sentence
There may be a basic or root meaning (perhaps from the root's etymology) but the specific/precise  meaning (of a syllable) depends on context
The original specific meaning is non-trivial for Pali scholars to render using single English words (for example the several words used to translate dukkha)
You might find it useful to know at least the approximate/root meaning
You might also find it useful to know that the meaning is a bit approximate!

An example of one word in English which has many specific meanings is, just to give an example, "run": you can run a race, run a horse, run an engine, run a bath, run a business, let things run their course, run away, run the printing presses, run for President, etc. as described in a dictionary.

Nice guess work :) Pali words are often formed from a "root", like "man", which means "in regards to thinking". Not all words are so formed, but most are. Roots aren't aggregated, they are added to by suffixes, prefixes, augments and declensions (the "o" here).

Root syllables seem to be aggregated into compound/composite words like in German: for example Manopubbangama which I think combines "mind", "before", and "going".

Sometimes... But usually it is complete words in compounds, as in this case.


text:
Is self enlightenment achieved through contemplation of impermanence?
Not asking for a friend, or as a plan... I started doing this some 11-14 years ago, and wondered if it was over - in any significant sense. Not that it matters - I might take the bodhisattva vows, now :)
THanks.
My question is: is self enlightenment achieved through contemplation of impermanence :) ?

Yes............

No.............

It really depends who you ask, and what you mean by "contemplate". The Buddha said:

When one sees with wisdom that 'all formations are impermanent', this is the path of purification.
(Dhp. 277)

So the actual path is through "seeing" impermanence. One might correct your question to say that self-enlightenment can be achieved through seeing impermanence.
It can also be achieved through seeing suffering, or non-self.
One could also adjust and say that self-enlightenment is achieved through contemplating the impermanent, i.e. the five aggregates, since contemplating them - or observing objectively, rather - is what leads one to see impermanence, suffering, and non-self.

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
-- SN 22.59 (Nyanamoli, trans)

ok as with Suminda: the aggregates, not the world and death :) ?

The aggregates are the world and they are death :)

Are you saying that enlightenment is achieved (finished) by seeing any one of the three characteristics? Or, is it started by seeing... ? Is this seeing necessary but not sufficient (i.e. more is needed too)? Are there other, single ways (other than seeing one of the three characteristics): for example, metta? Is the eight-fold way ... optional?

@user3293056 When Suminda said "see the phenomena arising and passing" I assume that the phenomena meant 'everything' i.e. 'all compound and/or conditioned things' and/or perhaps all 'mental fabrications' -- apparently the Buddha taught that the three marks of existence are characteristics of "Saṅkhāra".

@ChrisW any one of the three is sufficient. One of the three is necessary.

Contemplating will not take you all the way as there will be a perception or notional residue.
You can start with it and make efforts to see the phenomena relating to the aggregates arising and passing.
This will get you to the final goal as long as you do this with equanimity and non clinging and craving.
For further details see Girinananda Sutta. Here the flow of instructions starts with various contemporary practice to reduce polarity of perception but finally switch to Anapana for the lasting or final solution which is to eradicate any residual perception and the aggregates.

phenomena - such as, ?

@User. Mental and physical phenomena.

but not - e.g. death and the world ?

@User. "Death and the world" falls under mental and physical phenomena.

You need to also recognize that what is impermanent is stressful and what is stressful and impermanent is not self.

Walking upon this path you will make an end of suffering.

. . .

"All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
"All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
"All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

-The Dhammapada Ch. 20(275-279)

is that all - tho?

@user3293056 Knowing it through concepts, as words on a screen, is one thing. Knowing it through insight and being (un)molded by it, is another.

ok - i didn't mean it frivolously - but i think it's an anti depressant thing in my case - peace :)