text:
Going from a waking state into the dream state while being conscious
I just listened to a audio dhamma talk by Ajahn Punnadhammo. Its called "Stop thinking" and can be found here.
In the last 5 minutes of the talk Ajahn Punnadhammo mentions some good exercises for learning about reality. He says that a good exercise is to try to be conscious while entering the dream state from waking state because the stages of falling asleep exactly mirror  the stages of dying! He says its like a sneak preview of what happens when one dies.
My question is; if one trains in this and succeeds in being aware and conscious throughout the death process and into the next life will one then be able to remember the previous (this) life?
Thank you for your time.
Lanka

Sri Lanka, I think that if you try hard enough at anything, you can succeed. I would be interested in your reasons for wanting to do so. I used to think that I have some memories of past lives, etc, but at some point I had an experience that made it basically irrelevant. There is so much here right now. Do you need more?

Thank you for your answer. I have actually no interest in remembering past lives. Instead i would like to develop through insight meditation. I would like to become a Buddha at one point in time so when that happens i will know all the past lives. I just asked this question because if one can remember just this 1 life when starting the next life, one would know already from infant what direction one should choose. Imagine that - being able to know that one should practice the dhamma already from 3-4 years old. Other than that i have no interest in past lives.

Also i wanted to train this because of being prepared for when death comes. Being prepared and trained to stay aware in this magnifizent oppertunity for learning!!

From my experience,staying awake while the body falls asleep can lead to Sleep Paralysis.

Thank you for sharing that Orion. I have had that experience too and it was scary. But i think one can work through it by using the noting-technique. I havent tried that yet though. What is your opinion on that?

I'm not sure Lanka,i have never tried noting during sleep.I was just watching the breath that's what kept me awake while the body shut down and then sleep paralysis hit me.

When I was about 12 I used to use self-hypnosis to force myself to go to sleep, but like you, it led to a paradoxical state and frightening paralysis. It is not fatal. Now when I want to get to sleep fast, I just meditate : )

@nocomprende. What kind of meditation method do you use to sleep fast? I find that it take longer for me to fall asleep when i meditate before sleeping. I use the mahasi-method.

Well, my comment about meditating to fall asleep was intended as humor, but is perhaps bordering on disrespect for the knowledge that I was given. As we know, one is not supposed to fall asleep while meditating! However, I was given some methods for caring for my energy body, and when I use those before falling asleep, it helps. I used to live at a retreat center, but have left and do not wish to disclose the name of the group. The meditation I was taught is mantra - a form of Raja-Kriya Yoga.

If one is truly mindful during the process of death, then one of two possibilities exist; either one will pass away into complete liberation as an enlightened being or, if there is still some substratum of clinging, one will be reborn as a deva or brahma and be fully conscious of one's previous life.

Thank you for this teaching Bhante. I really appreciate it. For a long time i have been wondering about what would happen if one were mindful throughout the entire death process. This has certainly given me motivation to practice this so i can prepare myself for when death occurs.


text:
Trouble understanding the path factor of Right Effort
The path factor Right Effort in the noble eight-fold path contains 4 steps which are;

Prevent the unwholesome that has not yet arisen in oneself.
Let go of the unwholesome that has arisen in oneself.
Bring up the wholesome that has not yet arisen in oneself.
Maintain the wholesome that has arisen in oneself.

I understand 1, 3 and 4 but have trouble understanding no 2 - "Let go of unwholesome that has arisen in oneself".
Is that done by using the noting-technique and then observing and noting the phenomena until it disappears?
Or is it that when e.g. anger has arisen and other techniques dont work then one uses Metta meditation as an anti-dote?
Thank you for your time.
Lanka

'Let go' is probably a bad translation. 'Abandon' might be better, or even 'remove'. It's from a root meaning 'in regards to becoming devoid of'.

Thank you for adding substance to that Bhante! Makes it easier to comprehend it. I had trouble understanding it to begin with because i thought that when actively trying to do away with the unwholesome arisen phenomena, one was instead creating/showing aversion towards the unwholesome phenomena.

There're different antidotes to the different unwholesome states that arise. Ven. Bodhi in his "The Noble Eightfold Path"'s Chapter 5 wrote:

For desire a remedy of general application is the meditation on impermanence, which knocks away the underlying prop of clinging, the implicit assumption that the objects clung to are stable and durable. For desire in the specific form of sensual lust the most potent antidote is the contemplation of the unattractive nature of the body, to be dealt with at greater length in the next chapter. Ill will meets its proper remedy in the meditation on loving-kindness (metta), which banishes all traces of hatred and anger through the methodical radiation of the altruistic wish that all beings be well and happy. The dispelling of dullness and drowsiness calls for a special effort to arouse energy, for which several methods are suggested: the visualization of a brilliant ball of light, getting up and doing a period of brisk walking meditation, reflection on death, or simply making a firm determination to continue striving. Restlessness and worry are most effectively countered by turning the mind to a simple object that tends to calm it down; the method usually recommended is mindfulness of breathing, attention to the in-and-out flow of the breath. In the case of doubt the special remedy is investigation: to make inquiries, ask questions, and study the teachings until the obscure points become clear.

Thanks a lot Santa for your answer. I actually have this book but didnt get to the part of Right Effort yet.

Abandoning is through:

application of antidotes to common polarity of perception [Girimanada, 10 perceptions]
abandoning the by being mindful and equanimous towards sensation thus not craving and clinging knowing the impermanence of the sensation, thus not adding fuel to the conditioning process ("normal" Sattipatana method as generally taught)
actively calming the fabrications (calming the breath and bodily functions, anchoring wondering the mind, etc.) while being mindful and equanimous to sensation. Here there is actively calming (fire fighting) than passively observing. (Anapana method)
Eradicating the defilements, influxes, 3 poisons, 10 fetters, etc. see [Sabbasava Sutta]

Also see: The Discourse on the (Four) Exertions

Thank you Suminda for this very detailed answer. I appreciate it. I like especially the link to the Discourse on the (Four) Exertions.

See: http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/30.3-Sabbasava-S-m2-piya.pdf

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Meditating dead monks
I stumbled upon this story about a 200 year old buddhist monk found in Mongolia where its claimed that he is not dead but instead in a very deep state of meditation.
I have heard about dead meditating monks before where its been claimed that they are not really dead but in deep state of meditation.
Here are some quotes from the story:

"Now, an expert has claimed the monk may have been in a rare spiritual state known as "tukdam"."
"When his body was examined by Buddhist monks in 1955 and again in 1973, Itigilov apparently remained in the lotus position and his body did not appear to show signs of decay."
"He said while the salt in the coffin may have played a part in slowing decay, other factors may have included the soil and the coffin's condition, adding the possibility of "some secret process of embalming" could not be ruled out."

Are these stories ought to be taken as fake or superstition or are there any reliable proof based on facts if such can even exist?
Thank you for your time.
Lanka

I tired to answer that question on another site: see this answer.
In summary I think (based on my reading, not being an expert) that "tukdam" means 'dead and meditating' or 'meditating after death' (so, it doesn't mean, 'not dead' or 'body not dead').
The news article hyperlinked in that question includes a picture of the monk's mummified (dead) body.

Thanks a lot for this answer. Is it possible that we could get your answer from this other site onto Buddhism SE - maybe copy-paste if that is allowed? I think its a great answer that elaborates on the topic and gives a fuller explanation.

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


text:
Would making a video game be considered "business in intoxicants" or "business in poisons"?
Right Livelihood, as stated in the :Vanijja Sutta

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison."

Could I argue that video games are intoxicants that allow players to escape from reality? Could one also say the video game maker is an adrenaline seller?(genre dependent)
If I make a game with simulated weapon usage against other humans, is that business in weapons? Or is it harmless fun?

Can someone who is of better knowledge than me tell me which is the best answer? Pleeeease

It's your question: choose the question that you found most helpful to you (whether or not that's the question that's most up-voted by other people).

Maybe it's more like entertainment: analogous to being an actor or a musician; or telling stories or making pictures.
There are vinaya rules about what constitutes killing: a condition is that there must be "intention to kill". For example if you carelessly knock something off a cliff, which falls on someone underneath and kills them, doesn't count as "killing" because that's an accident, i.e. there's no intention to kill. I'd argue that similarly, when people play a video game there's no "intention to kill".
You could instead argue that playing is intoxicating; but I think there's a more direct analogy, i.e. it's like playing a game. I think there's a sutta which warns that too much game-playing (especially with disreputable companions, perhaps gambling, perhaps spending too much time at it, perhaps becoming 'addicted' to the activity) isn't profitable for a lay-person.
Another direct description of the activity is that it's pursuing sense-impressions: so maybe it's samsaric. I think it's more like the seventh of the eight precepts:

I undertake to abstain from singing, dancing, playing music, attending entertainment performances, wearing perfume, and using cosmetics and garlands (decorative accessories).

It's not the first ("killing") nor the fifth ("intoxicating drinks and drugs, which lead to carelessness").
You could perhaps, possibly, argue that it's the fourth:

I undertake to abstain from wrong speech: telling lies, deceiving others, manipulating others, using hurtful words.

ChrisW i agree. Even if video games weren't around in the Buddha's time, we do have to try to interpret modern things with respect to the Dhamma, and if anything the intoxicants are produced in the brain when the video games are played. Contrast with alcohol where the intoxicant physically travels into your body. But I will also leave it with the thought that the Buddha had to draw the line somewhere, and there was much less technology in his time... alms bowls were new metallurgical technology at the time.

Intoxicants here, I would think of as intoxicating chemical substances such as alcohol and drugs. When drunk or high with these, they may impair your ability to discern between right and wrong, beyond your conscious control.
I'm not sure if nicotine can be considered an intoxicant, as it can be addictive but it does not impair judgment.
Games can be addictive but it certainly does not impair one's judgment. It does not make you drunk or high, beyond your conscious control.
Some might argue that a romantic relationship might make you more drunk or high than games, but that too does not impair your judgment beyond your conscious control.
I'm trying to make a point here that games and entertainment should not be considered "intoxicants" in the context of Right Livelihood and the five professions that are unwholesome. But there is a question on whether actors may go to hell, which discusses the ethics of entertainment. You might find that more relevant to your situation.
In my opinion, games with weapons do not injure anyone, so this would not violate Right Livelihood in the context of the five unwholesome professions. However, this too is subject to the ethical problem of the "actors may go to hell" question.

While I don't believe Buddha's advice here is merely pointed at the physical domain, or a matter of income, it is helpful to look beyond Right Livelihood and at all elements of the Noble Eightfold Path together. Consider the impact of Wisdom (Right View, Right Intention), which, while being a different nature, can still relate strongly to Ethical conduct.
Your questions seem to be more concerned about how real videogames are within Buddha's principles. I don't suggest being light with it as though it is "harmless fun," when in most cases, games are created for a certain kinds of indulgence and gain - their purpose for entertainment. A video game is arguably not much of a physical matter, but overall, it is indeed an astral matter that is capable of absorbing energy from most people (and even forming addictions).
Thus it is not just entertainment, but consider what emotional energy is being entertained. Is it hate? Anger? Pride? Popular games may take on such a quality, but not all games or companies are aligned with this. For example, thatgamecompany has created positive gameplay, with games noted by many as beautiful.
The Videogame industry/market includes both its businesses and its consumers. Whether or not you are producing and selling a game as an form of business, consider that you are also accountable for playing them.
Although I would personally avoid playing such games (involving weapons, killing, etc.), there is great and simple wisdom in The Middle Way, which may suggest that if you play such games ('objects') occasionally, non-attached, perhaps the impact is insignificant, or less significant. When disinterested though, such games lose their appeal anyway, which may contrast with games that are naturally uplifting. For many other reasons, I am unconvinced that playing games is a trivial matter when devoting oneself to a spiritual/religious path.
Following the aforementioned link provided by ruben2020, there is a link to the Talaputa Sutta. A comparison can be made here with Buddha's words on actors, which show how the actor may become an agent - to the extent of becoming "intoxicated and heedless, having made others intoxicated and heedless". This illustrates laws between the being watching and the thing (or actor, game) that is entertaining:

Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound
  by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things
  inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a
  festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who
  are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on
  things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst
  of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin
  with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more
  delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage
  in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated &
  heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup
  of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of
  laughter.

Entertainment itself is for the mind as a form of escape, it is simple enough to ask yourself if Buddha would advise for you to continue what you are doing, due to the level of intentions and mindset are you ascribing to it.

Depends on what game one's making. There're games designed to boost memory and prevent Alzheimer's disease, or math games to help kids learn math, or various educational games to make learning more fun and interesting. On the other hand, there're games with sexual contents or violent contents which only increase one's defilements. There must be some bad kamma if one's involved in creating games for kids to enjoy blowing people's brains out or ripping their heads off (like Mortal Kombat and other fighting games)..

Creating a video game doesn't fall into any of the 5 specific wrong livelihoods for lay people. A video game does allow people to escape from reality but so do fiction books, music, delicious food, beautiful scenery, daydreams and countless other things. Our world is filled with things that can be "intoxicating" if we choose not to guard our sense gates.
But a more straightforward concern might be that playing video games can create negative karma for the player because of the competitive "win at all costs" mind state you need to be in to play most games well. You can get blood thirsty due to the excitement of competition and greed for loot and status within the game can be overwhelming. And it seems unlikely a game developer would not play games along with developing them. :)
So though it may not be one of the 5 specific wrong livelihoods for lay people, it certainly comes with some karmic concerns.

@ChrisW, no I didn't mean to imply killing in game leads to killing IRL. By blood thirsty I mean having bursts of greed for in game status and rewards and bursts of anger when things don't go as planned and even revenge and retaliation and so on and so forth. All in a game environment, but all affecting your very real mind state. Perhaps it's different in single player, but in MMO things get very ugly. :/

I'm of the view that if the question, "is this wrong?", is worth asking, then it is wrong, at least for you. Your conscience has spoken.
If my shoe hurts my feet, I don't continue to wear it merely because it's a brand name shoe that others wear without consequence. If my feet hurt, that should be enough. Of course I can still become a fashion victim and continue to wear it because it's cool or because I paid too much for it.
Similarly, people often stay in careers they know is wrong for them because they've invested too many years in it, they are good at it or because they like the money or prestige or something else.
Inner peace comes from listening to what goes on inside and reacting appropriately.
You seem to think games are addictive, which they are designed to be of course, and I recall studies have showed this objectively, especially in teen populations.
VC success metrics for game companies include statistics like duration of uninterrupted play for their titles. Comments by top gamers on steam, show they've logged thousands of hours on a game. I recall one comment went like this, 'my girlfriend has left me, I've lost my job, my friends don't speak to me anymore, but I can't stop playing and I love it'. It's almost like Vegas. Sadly, this outcome is not unusual for really hard core players.
Yet, interviews with competition players, who stand to win millions of dollars in matches always indicate that these players somehow have mastered emotional independence from the outcome of the game, and this is what makes them better at matches.
I think you have to respect your feelings rather than try to measure it across some universal standard.
Edit: I want to add, please be smart about this. Most  people can't quit big parts of their life, like a career straight away, but eventually over several years they can taper it down to the point where they can quit. The idea isn't to become homeless. I say this as someone who's quit his job to focus on a richer spiritual life.


text:
What is Meant by Inner and Outer Meditation?
I am attending a class in Vipassana meditation.  It's a series of three courses.  The second course is almost over.  The third course starts May 5.  The instructor says the third course will teach "Inner meditation" and "Outer meditation".  He won't say what that means yet.
The instructor told me he learned meditation from taking the Sarah Powers course.   I noticed you have a video called 'Insight Yoga with Sarah Powers".  A reviewer on Amazon says you explain  "Inner meditation" and "Outer meditation"
Can you give me at least  a brief explanation of what that means as I am trying to decide whether or not I want to move on with the next course

"You have a video ...", "A reviewer on Amazon says you explain ..." - who do you mean by "you"?

Perhaps it means, "there is a video". I didn't find any reviewer on Amazon, nor using Google, who says that something explains "Inner meditation" and "Outer meditation"?

Could inner meditation be about internal phenomena e.g. thoughts and feelings? And outer meditation about external phenomena such as sounds, sights etc.?

Frames of Reference

'The mind inside' refers to a state exclusively in the heart unrelated to any outer preoccupations.
'The mind outside' refers to its interaction with such outer preoccupations as sights, sounds, etc.

"The mind inside" consists of the mental states of desire, aversion and ignorance.
"The mind outside" consists of these same mental states but now they have attached to something outside of ourselves.
For example, being angry would be an internal mind state. Being angry at something would be an external mind state.

In meditation instruction the following words occur frequently: ajjhattam, bahiddha, ajjhatta-bahiddha.
This corresponds to internal, external, internally and externally. The traditional outlook on this is to meditate on ones body and another's body. (The Way of Mindfulness - Soma Thera)
But some traditions interpret this as differently:

These are the Buddha’s words. Certain commentaries or subcommentaries have been written on them, some 1,000 to 1,500 years after the Buddha, and some even more recently. They give many good explanations of the Buddha’s words, and also descriptions of a whole spectrum of life and society at that time—political, social, educational, and economic aspects. However they give certain interpretations which this tradition of meditation cannot accept. For instance, here a commentary takes ajjhattaṃ as the meditator’s body—which is acceptable—but bahiddhā as the body of someone else, even though no one else is there. It explains that the meditator can simply think of someone else, and how all beings similarly breathe in and out. We cannot agree with this because this is imagination, and in this tradition vipassanā or anupassanā is to observe within your own body (kāye). Therefore for us bahiddhā is the surface of the body, but still within its framework.
Ajjhatta-bahiddhā can also be understood in relation to the five sense doors. When an outside object comes into contact with the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, or body surface, it is felt within the framework of the body, but on the surface of the body. Even the mind is within the framework of the body, although its object may be outside. The Sutta still does not intend you to start thinking of or seeing another body.

....

Another tradition interprets ajjhattaṃ as the feeling on one’s own body, bahiddhā as the feeling on someone else’s body, and ajjhatta-bahiddhā as switching between the two. As before, our tradition does not accept this. The meditator is working alone, whether in the forest, under a tree, or in a cell. It is argued that when begging for food the monk encounters others and has this opportunity to feel their breath or sensations. However the eyes of serious meditators are downcast (okkhitta-cakkhu) and at most they might see someone else’s legs as they walk: so this interpretation seems illogical. Of course, at a very high stage of observation the meditator becomes very sensitive to the sensations of others also, and to the vibrations of the surrounding atmosphere and of animate and inanimate objects. Possibly it could be understood in this way.

(Source: Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta - S. N. Goenka)


text:
Was the Buddha harsh?

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."
-- Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, MN 38

There are many suttas in the canon where the Buddha admonishes monks, and the above is a notable example.
The translations, at least to my eyes, come as particularly harsh: "worthless" (in Nanamoli/Bodhi, we read "misguided" instead of "worthless". I've also read "foolish" elsewhere) -- there was another reprimand from the Buddha, almost mean as I recall how I felt while reading it, but which I could not find again.
I've constantly felt troubled with these passages. I also look with very suspicious eyes the dribbling with "The buddha was harsh for their own good" (unless, if it is the Buddha himself justifying his harsh words, not we trying to excuse him and spare the texts). I find it troubling specially in light of:

the very explicit right speech teachings, promoting the abandonment of harsh words.
the difficulty of reconcile harsh "formations" in a mind free of defilements.

Are the other/older versions (say, chinese, pali and tibetan) of these passages evoking somewhat equivalent harsh emotions on a reader? Or is it a particularity of the english translations? (Or is it just me?)
Otherwise, were these harsh reprimands ever discussed (in books, commentaries, etc)?

The literal translation is indeed 'worthless man'.

Seemingly harsh words don't go against right speech unless the intention is to hurt the individual. Most Asian parents use harsh words to straighten up their kids.

This question is addressed in the Abhaya Sutta from the Buddha himself, on the topic of Right Speech.
Your question should fall under "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them." (Abhaya Sutta).
From your same link on the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, you can read the commentary by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

The Buddha calls Sāti into his presence, and after ascertaining that
  Sāti will not abandon his view even when reprimanded by the Buddha
  himself, he abandons Sāti as too recalcitrant to teach, and turns to
  cross-question the monks as to the relevant right view of how
  consciousness functions in the process leading to repeated birth.
The Buddha's treatment of Sāti might seem harsh, but he is actually
  acting out of compassion for the monks in the assembly, in case any of
  them might be swayed by Sāti's position. Seeing Sāti as a lost cause,
  the Buddha doesn't want this lost cause to cause further losses among
  the other monks. We have to remember that during the Buddha's lifetime
  there were no written accounts of his teachings; the monks and nuns
  all had to rely on their memory of what they had heard directly from
  him or through word-of-mouth from fellow members of the Saṅgha. Thus
  the Buddha saw the need to establish orthodoxy whenever a member of
  the Saṅgha was espousing false interpretations of his teaching.

The Buddha also discusses this in the Kesi Sutta which is summarized here by Thanissaro Bhikku:

Once, when a horse trainer came to see the Buddha, the Buddha
  asked him how he trained his horses. The trainer said that some horses
  responded to gentle training, others to harsh training, others
  required both harsh and gentle training, but if a horse didn't respond
  to either type of training, he'd kill the horse to maintain the
  reputation of his teachers' lineage. Then the trainer asked the Buddha
  how he trained his students, and the Buddha replied, "In the same
  way." Some students responded to gentle criticism, others to harsh
  criticism, others to a mixture of the two, but if a student didn't
  respond to either type of criticism, he'd kill the student. This
  shocked the horse trainer, but then the Buddha explained what he meant
  by "killing": He wouldn't train the student any further, which
  essentially killed the student's opportunity to grow in the practice.

Abhaya Sutta did not seem to fully address this to me, but Kesi sutta is spot on, thanks!

Just something I recently noted about this sutta: the Buddha explained what is the "gentle method" as "such is bodily good conduct ...such are devas, ...", the "stern method" as "such is bodily misconduct, ..., such is hell, ...", and the "gentle and stern method as the combination of the two ("such is bodily good conduct, ..., such is bodily misconduct"). So, while I think Thanissaro's interpretation might be a good and representative one, it seems it could also be at risk of being a stretch from what the texts actually say?

Here is a case of the Buddha himself justifying his speaking harsh words with a for-their-own-good type explanation from the Abhaya Sutta:

Just yesterday, lord, I went to Nigantha Nataputta and... he said to
  me...'Come now, prince. Go to Gotama the contemplative and on arrival
  say this: "Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing &
  disagreeable to others?"... Just as if a two-horned chestnut were
  stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or
  spit it up. In the same way, when Gotama the contemplative is asked
  this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down
  or spit it up.'
Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince's lap. So
  the Blessed One said to the prince, "What do you think, prince: If
  this young boy, through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were
  to take a stick or a piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you
  do?"
"I would take it out, lord. If I couldn't get it out right away, then
  holding its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I
  would take it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that?
  Because I have sympathy for the young boy."
"In the same way, prince:
(1) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
(2) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
(3) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.
(4) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.
(5) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
(6) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings.1


text:
Is modern capitalism inherently opposed to Buddhism?
In the Dhammapada in the chapter 20 - The Path it says

"I will make this my winter home have another house for the monsoon
  and dwell in a third for during the summer". Lost in such fancies, one
  forgets his final destination.

(translation by Eknath Easwaran)
Although it clearly can't have been written with this intent - to me this reads like very pertinent critique of modern consumerism and capitalism. A lot of us find ourselves practicing in societies where this is the prevalent ethos so this feels relevant.
Is there something about modern capitalism that inherently conflicts with Buddhism? Or is it possible to find quotes from texts or established teachers that are more supportive of the kind of capitalism//consumerism that we find ourselves in now?

+1 for source that easily relates to capitalism

Maybe, capitalism as a theory isn't inherently opposed to Buddhism. Now, there are many problems when we take its practice in account. But I think it's not a problem of capitalism itself, even if we could change economic system or the mode of production, people would create other problems. (Probably this is not the answer you are looking for?)

'Capitalism' is something to do with 'capital', which I think implies,

Ability to accumulate millions of dollars in order to build a new factory, a new ship, a new road, a new hospital (and/or one dollar to buy some butter, etc.)
Ability to use such 'dollars' to rent labour (i.e. to pay wages)

I don't see that as inherently anti-Buddhist: IMO it can fit into the 'Right Livelihood' category.
A commentary to the Dhammapada Verse 286 which you quoted above says,

"Ananda, do you see that merchant? He is thinking that he would stay here and sell his goods the whole year. He is not aware that he would die here in seven days' time. What should be done should be done today. Who would know that one would die tomorrow? We have no date fixed with the King of Death. For one who is mindful by day or by night, who is not disturbed by moral defilements and is energetic, to live for just one night is a well-spent life."

I think the verse you quoted is not a critique of consumerism: rather it's a critique of believing that life is permanent or predictable, perhaps more especially of 'living in the future' instead of "What should be done should be done today".
By the way, lay-people (monks having no money) are supposed to be generous, aren't they? I think it's not anti-Buddhist to become rich (even as a successful capitalist) and generous.
Maybe capitalism can explain where money comes from, and Buddhism explain how to spend it!
I think that mentioning three houses (in the OP) isn't meant as a metaphor for "too much money" because instead I think that:

In India it might be normal to live in different places at different seasons -- even the monks did?

For a travelling merchant (who is the subect of the story in that verse), being in different places at different times is also normal

The fact of being in different places at different times is, perhaps etymologically, a metaphor or description for time itself -- see this description of 'time' (and/or immediacy) in Buddhism:

Also (etymologically) the track of scat left by an animal (one week old, two days old, one day old, etc.)

FWIW, capitalism has more to do with controlling and owning the means of production; currency or dollars aren't necessarily needed for a description of capitalism.

I guess I meant that capitalism is a way of organizing or balancing the distribution of goods and labour in an economy. It's meant to be efficient, decentralized, beneficial. A capitalist can (at least in theory) be productive and altruistic. Capitalism and (wasteful, selfish) consumerism are sometimes used as synonyms, but are not necessarily, imo.

Also the question of who owned the means of production was I think a preoccupation of Marx. Instead I think of it (the 'invisible hand') as organizing the means of production.

-1 The question specifies 'modern capitalism'. Given the grossly unfair way wealth is distributed today, the hardship faced by millions, and the greed and corruption of politicians and businessmen, I think this desrves more than "it's not bad per se".

@GavinSerra It's easy to point fingers but I don't see the point in complaining (about capitalism) unless there's a better alternative. SFAIK capitalism is relatively "fair" compared to (for example) pre-revolutionary feudalism, colonialist slavery, even communism-as-practised, etc. See also @ruben2020's answer which implies Buddhist approval for a system in which lay people have or control privately-owned (individual and/or family) wealth. And corruption by politicians isn't peculiar to capitalism (I think it it has historically been pandemic to every system of economy and/or government).

What makes it relatively fair, I think, is a free market in labour -- competing for employees, choosing your employer -- but I'm no political scientist, and I think I'm getting off-topic here unless related to Buddhism.

I agree with @ChrisW. In addition to his answer:
Here is a quote from the Sigalovada Sutta that supports investment in business.

The wise endowed with virtue Shine forth like a burning fire,
  Gathering wealth as bees do honey And heaping it up like an ant hill.
  Once wealth is accumulated, Family and household life may follow. By
  dividing wealth into four parts, True friendships are bound; One part
  should be enjoyed; Two parts invested in business; And the fourth set
  aside Against future misfortunes."

The Adiya Sutta discusses the five benefits that can be obtained from wealth.
The Dighajanu Sutta discusses how to maintain one's livelihood in tune:

"And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
  wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
  penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
  my outflow will not exceed my income.' Just as when a weigher or his
  apprentice, when holding the scales, knows, 'It has tipped down so
  much or has tipped up so much,' in the same way, the lay person,
  knowing the income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood
  in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus
  will my income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my
  income.'
"These are the four drains on one's store of wealth: debauchery in sex; debauchery in drink; debauchery in gambling; and evil friendship,
  evil companionship, evil camaraderie. Just as if there were a great
  reservoir with four inlets and four drains, and a man were to close
  the inlets and open the drains, and the sky were not to pour down
  proper showers, the depletion of that great reservoir could be
  expected, not its increase.

Considering your quote, I would say your question is primarily about consumerism, in which case your initial interpretation is obviously correct: a way of life focused on the acquisition of material wealth and the consumption of sense-pleasures by the illusory "individual self" is obviously opposed to the Buddhist way of thinking, which rather aims to discard such attachments.
But since you decided to expand the actual question to "modern capitalism", I will refer to that as well:
Firstly, in its essence, capitalism (modern or not) promotes the individualization of capital ownership and usage/decision-making, based on the idea of "individuals" that can satisfy their desires better in separation than having to subject themselves (and their capital) to the desires of "others". It's an obviously ego-based worldview, clearly opposed to the Buddhist direction, which more closely resembles (doctrinal!) communism, where all capital is to be owned by everyone together and is to be put to use for the benefit of all, as it would be if administered by people who have realized the "ego" is illusory and that there is exactly zero difference between "my" interests and the interests of "others".
Secondly, modern capitalism is strongly intertwined with the idea of the free market (or competitive market), where individual capital owners compete against eachother to get as much as possible of the money the public is willing to spend on products and services. This is even more obviously an egotistical type of system, one that not only reinforces the illusory and detrimental notion of separate individual interests, it even explicitly pits these interests against eachother, maintaining an environment of unending competition/conflict, which is pretty much guaranteed to continually generate suffering in all those on the losing side of the conflict (and if we look at today's statistics on income inequality we can see that it's actually the greater part of humanity that's on the losing side at this time).
So I'd say modern capitalism is without a doubt opposed to Buddhist thinking because it's a fundamentally individualist and conflict-based system, and furthermore because of how tightly it's coupled with consumerism and the advertising/marketing machine that's keeping so many trapped in the sense-desire gratification cycle and implicitly in dogmatic ego-belief and in the cycle of suffering.
LE:
Since my interpretation was challenged in the comments I will add some supporting reference, and since Marxist thought didn't exist in the time of the suttas of course I will have to use more modern sources, in this case an article from the Access to Insight library:

The writings of some Buddhists from Sri Lanka, Burma and elsewhere offer interesting examples of attempts to relate Buddhism to nationalism and Marxism (not to be confused with communism). Earlier in the century Anagarika Dharmapala stressed the social teaching of the Buddha and its value in liberating people from materialistic preoccupations. U Nu, the eminent Burmese Buddhist statesman, argued that socialism follows naturally from the ethical and social teachings of the Buddha, and another Burmese leader, U Ba Swe, held that Marxism is relative truth, Buddhism absolute truth. This theme has been explored more recently in Trevor Ling's book "Buddha, Marx and God," (2nd ed., Macmillan, London 1979) and Michal Edwarde's "In the Blowing out of a Flame" (Allen & Unwin 1976). Both are stimulating and controversial books. E.F. Schumacher's celebrated book "Small is Beautiful" (Blond & Briggs, London 1973) has introduced what he terms "Buddhist economics" and its urgent relevance to the modern world to many thousand of non-Buddhists.

-- Buddhism and Social Action - An Exploration, by Ken Jones
To this I would only add that the author seems to be making the same distinction I emphasized above when I said "doctrinal Communism" by calling the doctrine Marxism instead, to distinguish it from all the historical complications and deviations of (nominally) Communist practice.

I don't see why you say that the Buddhist direction resembles doctrinal communism. Buddhism condemns "talking what's not given" and there's advice to laypeople in the suttas (famously here) about the proper use of (private and/or family) wealth.

If we go into this based on such vague expressions as "taking what's not given" the discussion will never end, as both the Left and the Right can argue that the opposing side supports "theft" of some kind. I based my judgement rather on principles closer to the core of Buddhism, in this case what the attitude is toward the "individual ego". In this respect I find that (original) Communism opposes the anti-social excesses and abuses typically borne of strong belief in the "individual ego" while Capitalism champions the interests of the "individual ego" and seeks to strengthen it without limit.


text:
Zen koans, is there any point in thinking about them?
Or must we just count our breaths and repeat the phrase?
I was asked I think "what is your original face" - and I think it's the way / tao, but that's just something that occurred to me, I wrote down on a computer and it seemed alright.
It's not that I want to be a part of some tradition or church, really. But all I got out of counting breaths was a lot of leg pain, somewhat (but not completely) offset with some nice feelings and lots of stuff like this /<<<^^^^^

That type of koan is called a breakthrough koan. It is meant to lead to a sudden, initial insight that is direct awareness.
I have heard practice of breakthrough koans described as, "becoming one with the koan", which implies concentrating on it like a mantra.
The insight it leads to is beyond concepts. So by becoming one with the koan, in a flash, you will actually experience "Mu"/tao/the way. As opposed to just conceptualizing it.
Wuzu Fayan said, “It is like an Ox that passes through a latticed window. Its head, horns, and four legs all pass through. So, why can’t its tail also pass through?”
The ox, being conceptual thought, has been transcended; "Mu"

I think it's the way

Don't think. Transcend thinking. That is the way.
edit: Venerable Chong An Sunim explains there are different ways to approach koans. His suggestion is to do regular meditation (e.g., mindfulness of breathing). Sometime later, either while meditating, or just in everyday life, you will have an epiphany in regards to the true meaning of the koan.

If the ox is conceptual thought and Zen is the passing beyond it, why can't the tail get through?  ;-)

I don't teach koans nor do I work with a koan teacher. With that said, the ox is not real. It represents illusion. The lattice window represents insight. When enough insight happens, illusion is destroyed and the ox transcended. Similar to when people say, "meditate enough and meditation starts to do you." If you visit the link in my comment, Chong An Sunim has a video series explaining the Ox Herding Pictures.

Say you're learning some complex kind of science, maths, or something, and at the end of the chapter there are some questions. In something like history there might be an essay or something. There's no test, or anything, the problems aren't very realistic. Actually, the causes of World War Two are pretty well known and Pythagoras' theorem well and truly proved for some Millennia, not only is an eighth-grader from rural Colorado unlikely to add anything to that body of knowledge, it's unlikely to be of any use to the eighth-grader in later life, either.
But the authors always tell you how really important it is to do them, and not to cheat, and the students never believe them. The teachers, they say that there's something which isn't the direct object of the exercise which happens if you do them. Not only can you recite bits of important texts for the test, but you really get the idea. You can tell the difference between a kid who's memorised a textbook and one who just gets it, right?
Don't treat them like an Agatha Christie novel, though, nor something with a one sentence answer, or a single number. Don't break them into parts or analyse them: just constantly bear the problem in mind -- sleep on them.

I apologize: I'm gong to try to answer this even though I have not been taught zen.
I read a collection of zen koans a long time ago and I thought that they were cool (i.e. like an attractive puzzle) but kind of slippery (difficult to grasp or solve, difficult to get inside a koan and understand it).
In summary my answer is going to be that, maybe koans are good but they're not enough?
I say that because, since the time when I read those koans, I had more experience of life, and I learned (read, thought about, tried to learn some basic vocabulary of) a bit more Buddhist dharma. So now perhaps there's a bit of Buddhist dharma in me (or "in my understanding / vocabulary / mind").
Now when I read a koan, instead of trying to get into it, instead of finding myself being able to get into it, my experience is that it gets into me. When I attempting to parse (make sense of) the koan's words, they connect with bits of dharma that are already in me. One koan is like a ball with several spikes, that sticks inside me, and each spike connects to or activates a different bit of dharma, and joins them together or, I don't know what (because I'm not practising that).

If you really want to pass this barrier, you should feel like drinking a hot iron ball that you can neither swallow nor spit out.

For example, "what is your original face" makes me think of what I've learned about what Buddhist dharma says about "self", gets me thinking about that, and wondering "if I understood this koan (and understood Buddhist dharma about 'self') then how would that affect 'me', would it change my behaviour or outlook or the way people see me, etc."
So again, in summary: maybe they (koans) are good but not enough.
If you're learning (or being taught) Zen, I've no idea what other Buddhist Dharma (sources of dharma, suttas, teachers, lectures maybe, vocabulary) you're exposed to; perhaps the koan combines with these somehow?


text:
is nirvana - just whatever a Buddha wants?
Suppose Dave is a Buddha.
Does he want to be a Buddha?
Will he get what he wants - forever ?
Does it matter ?

Maybe there was more to this question than I thought.

1.Suppose Dave is a Buddha
Ok.
2.Does he want to be a Buddha?
Well his already a Buddha isn't he.If he didn't want to be a Buddha he wouldn't have worked so hard for it.
3.Will he get what he wants - forever ?
Like you said Dave is Already a Buddha.So there's no mystery,we know he got what he wanted.Forever? No. Only until his Parinibanna.
4.Does it matter ?
I think so yes.Becoming a Buddha means a lot to the person aspiring for Buddhahood.And it means a lot to the rest of us.So I think of course it would matter.

there's more to the question than being r dismissive. what is nirvana ?

though in fairness you answered what i was getting at - point 3 - he / she doesn't. i accept the answer as an answer, unless anyone disagrees ?

Does he want to be a Buddha?

I think it's usually expressed as a negative:

Life (or the experience of life) is unsatisfactory when you're not a Buddha; many examples of its being unsatisfactory include poverty, illness, death, separation from people and things you love, inability to have what you want, inability to keep what you have, failure to do what you want to, etc. (sorry for all that bad news! :-) That's the so-called "first noble truth".
This dissatisfaction is caused by desire: I want to live forever! I want all my friends and family, and everything I like, to live forever! I want no pain, no sickness, for anyone! Lots of money! Endless paradise! Never anything unpleasant! But I can't have any of these things and so life is unsatisfactory. That's the so-called "second noble truth".
This dissatisfaction (and desire) can end. If I stop wanting things that are unreal, stop wanting to keep things that are impermanent, then I'll stop finding life unsatisfactory. That's the so-called "third noble truth".

So I think that the Buddha knows (and teaches) that wanting (thirsting for) the wrong things (e.g. impermanent things) causes unhappiness. Dave no longer wants those things and is, consequently, no longer unhappy.

Will he get what he wants - forever ?

Well, yes: for as long as he's alive. It's assumed that once he became fully enlightened then he will no longer (or not again) become unenlightened. Because being unenlightened means wanting the wrong thing, wanting the kind of impermanent thing that will cause unhappiness: and the Buddha knows better (is wiser and has more discipline) than to do that.
There is a bit in the literature where people asked what happens to a Buddha after he dies, and the Buddha says that's one of the questions that not worth asking.

is nirvana - just whatever a Buddha wants?

I think it can be described as being liberated (freed) from the dissatisfaction which is caused by wanting or clinging to impermanent things.

So I started to answer: what the Buddha taught might be summarized as "the four noble truths" or as "causes of suffering, and his path or way to end suffering".
And I started this answer by saying it's expressed as a negative ("end of suffering").
But there's more to the teaching than that: joy; serenity; loving-kindness. Removing causes for suffering allows room for other, better experiences, more like the "getting what he wants" which you asked about. For example the Kimattha Sutta mentions words like 'reward', 'joy', 'serenity', etc.
I think that the Buddha also decided that a cause of dissatisfaction (which, he freed himself from) was views about 'self': views like "me" and "mine" etc.
According to the biography, once he became enlightened he felt compassion for other people who were still suffering, and decided to try to teach to them (in case, with the help of his teaching, some of them too could free themselves from suffering). And so he began to teach.
I guess we can say that that (i.e. helping to enlighten other people, other people becoming free and safe) was what he 'wanted'.

I liked this answer because it managed to teach something useful from an apparently unpromising question.

@Dan Sheppard I thought the question was apparently unpromising also but perhaps this question is more than it looks.

No, nirvana is not omnipotence and complete control of the universe.
Nirvana is understanding and embracing the true nature of ones mind.
Any state of getting whatever you want is impermanent.
The ultimate goal is ending suffering, I think this matters, I'd like to reduce suffering, it seems a fair task.
Some schools teach only the reduction of your own suffering.
Others the reduction of all suffering held by any sentient being.

I know the Theravada school teaches the reduction of all suffering.

Does he want to be a Buddha?
He doesn't want and doesn't
not want to be a Buddha.
Will he get what he wants - forever ? Being a Buddha,  Dave would want nothing. He gets what he wants(nothing) forever until the concept of time ceases in Parinibanna.
Does it matter?
It doesn't matter until someone makes it matter.
Is nirvana - just whatever a Buddha wants?
This question assumes that a Buddha would want something.


text:
Buddhist holy water
I have seen it on Buddhist temples in Thailand, I would like to understand more about this tradition: Where does it come from, if it dates from the time of the Buddha etc
thanks!

The answer to this question contains a reference to water in temples. Not a full explanation though. http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/7255/significance-of-three-customs-involving-string

This is the basic mindset of theravada buddhism. We donate flowers, water, food,etc. for Buddha then we believe these things are holy things.Because these are for Buddha.We pray Buddha statue is not praying the statue that created by someone.We pray Buddha statue is represent our respect for Buddha knowledge and teachings.The holy water is not come from Buddha's age but we donate this water for Buddha(in Buddhist temple) and we believe this water is holy.It's only mindset.

Sorry this is not what I was referring to. Holy water was given to lay people by the monks, I'm not asking about the offerings


text:
Transfering merits
This is a tradition I have heard in Thailand: Many men become monk for a few months in order to transfer merits to his parents and so they can go to heaven. If I'm not mistaken the Buddha said you could only transfer merits for ghosts (according to teacher Dhammavvuddho Thero), it is not possible to transfer merits from man to man. Is it? Any text to help? I may be wrong so I appreciate the explanations.

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. Later on esp in Mahayana, merit transfer works more like magic-- any meritous activity is done for the goal of transferring the merit to others, which to me also sounds like disclaiming it with the goal of staying humble.

Not sure about humans, but definitely beings other than peta.  See http://www.basicbuddhism.org/index.cfm?GPID=65&Print=1 for example.

According to What Buddhists Believe by Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera, it is possible to transfer merit to living persons as well as deceased persons.

According to Buddhism, good deeds or 'acts of merit' bring happiness to the doer both in this world and in the hereafter. Acts of merit are also believed to lead towards the final goal of everlasting happiness. The acts of merit can be performed through body, speech or mind. Every good deed produces 'merit' which accumulates to the 'credit' of the doer. Buddhism also teaches that the acquired merit can be transferred to others' it can be shared vicariously with others. In other words, the merit is 'reversible' and so can be shared with other persons. The persons who receive the merit can be either living or departed ones.
The method for transferring merits is quite simple. First some good deeds are performed. The doer of the good deeds has merely to wish that the merit he has gained accrues to someone in particular, or to 'all beings'. This wish can be purely mental or it can accompanied by an expression of words.
This wish could be made with the beneficiary being aware of it. When the beneficiary is aware of the act or wish, then a mutual 'rejoicing in' merit takes place. Here the beneficiary becomes a participant of the original deed by associating himself with the deed done. If the beneficiary identifies himself with both the deed and the doer, he can sometimes acquire even greater merit than the original doer, either because his elation is greater or because his appreciation of the value of the deed is based on his understanding of Dhamma and, hence, more meritorious, Buddhist texts contain several stories of such instances.
The 'joy of transference of merits' can also take place with or without the knowledge of the doer of the meritorious act. All that is necessary is for the beneficiary to feel gladness in his heart when he becomes aware of the good deed. If he wishes, he can express his joy by saying 'sadhu' which means 'well done'. What he is doing is creating a kind of mental or verbal applause. In order to share the good deed done by another, what is important is that there must be actual approval of the deed and joy arising in the beneficiary's heart.

I encourage you to read the whole page devoted to this (linked above). It has some interesting supplemental information that is related to, but a little outside of, what you had asked about.
The author refers to the Tirokudda Kanda sutta which you may find interesting.

You can dedicate merit for anyone.
Check out some articles that can help on understanding it more intuitively.
http://blog.vajrapani.org/featured/featured-authors-articles/item/407-gettin-our-merit-on.html

Hi vaso vookohteach and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some useful information to help you get started here.

You cannot transfer merit from man to man but others can have appreciative joy at some good deed you have done and also make merit.
You can transfer merit to certain type of beings on sensing this develops appreciative joy for the deeds you have done and gain the merit.
Tiro,kudda Sutta: The Outside-the-Wall Discourse covers some interesting point on merit transfer. (In section 4)

Any other link for this? The link's not working now

Updated the link.

There is disagreement on this between schools, in the Tibetan tradition merit cannot be transferred to others, but can be offered / dedicated to achieving virtuous goals : IE dedicating all my merit to the goal of freeing all beings from suffering.
This however is borderline transferring... so it is unclear where the line is drawn.

the 165th verse of the Dhammapada, the 9th verse of its Attavagga, says

Attanā hi kataṃ pāpaṃ,
  attanā saṅkilissati;
  Attanā akataṃ pāpaṃ,
attanāva visujjhati;
  Suddhī asuddhi paccattaṃ,
  nāñño aññaṃ visodhaye.
By oneself is evil done;
  by oneself is one defiled.
  By oneself is evil left undone;
by oneself is one made pure.
  Purity and impurity depend on oneself;
  no one can purify another.

the Kaladana sutta (AN 5.36) says

At the proper time, those wise,
  charitable, and generous folk
  give a timely gift to the noble ones,
  who are stable and upright;
  given with a clear mind,
  one’s offering is vast.
Those who rejoice in such deeds
  or who provide other service
  do not miss out on the offering;
  they too partake of the merit.
Therefore, with a non-regressing mind,
  one should give a gift where it yields great fruit.
  Merits are the support of living beings
  when they arise in the other world.

these passages indicate impossibility of merit transfer or sharing, but recognize the possibility of taking part in other's merit making by rejoicing of their wholesome deeds or providing assistance in them.
but neither of the passages is attributed directly to the Buddha
here's what the Buddha says according to the suttas
in the Culakammavibhanga sutta (MN 135)

beings are owners of their actions, heirs of their actions; they originate from their actions, are bound to their actions, have their actions as their refuge. It is action that distinguishes beings as inferior and superior.

in the recount of a parable in the Devaduta sutta (MN 130, AN 3.36)

that evil kamma of yours was neither done by your mother, nor done by your father, nor done by your brother, nor done by your sister, nor done by your friends & companions, nor done by your kinsmen & relatives, nor done by the devas. That evil kamma was done by you yourself, and you yourself will experience its result.

these seem to indicate that kamma is only personal which in turn implies that one cannot acquire a wholesome kamma without ever performing a wholesome act and making conscious effort at spiritual development as in case of unbeknownst reception of merit from somebody. otherwise it would mean undermining the concept of the Noble Eightfold Path as a way to awakening by dint of purely personal effort.

Even some Buddhists are skeptical that merits can be “transferred” to other beings: It does not appear to be “scientific”. However, Buddha Dhamma is far ahead of science, and this is another example. Even though the vocabulary is different, mechanisms of “energy transfer” (mental energy) has been described in Dhamma.

Not only the merits of a good deed, but also many other versions of “mental energy” can be transferred, as we discuss below.
The basic idea can be thought of as follows: If one has an oil lamp that is lit, and if others have oil lamps that are not lit and they do not have a way to light them, wouldn’t it be better for everyone to let others use one’s lamp’s flame to light their lamps?
Thus while it is not possible to “create” many oil lamps starting with one, it is possible to make thousand other lamps to become useful by sharing the light. In the same way, the receiving person needs to have a basic ingredients to reap the benefits, as explained below. But since all those lamps will be useless without a way to light them, the person providing the light is doing a great service.
2. First of all transfer of merits is the correct phrase, but “punna anumodana” is not. Anumodana means the receiving mind becoming joyful with the merits it received (“anu” + “mödanä”). The giver is giving (“däna”) the “paccayä” or the auxiliary causes. (The common word is “pratyaya” but that is the incorrect Sanskrit word; the correct Pali word is paccaya). It is paccaya that represents “patti” in “pattidana” (pronounced, “paththidäna“).
Other than in direct giving (see below) the giver cannot make the receiving party “receive what is intended” unless the person receiving has a mindset that is attuned to receiving.
It is the receiving person that is doing the “punna anumödanä”, i.e., gladly receiving the pattidana of the giver and becoming joyful with the merits received. This is also called “pattanumodana”.
3. Giving and receiving can be done in many ways:
The direct way of giving/receiving is when one gives money or something material. It is deducted from the giver’s ledger and is added to the receiver’s: it is fully transferred.
When a teacher teaches a classroom full of kids, he/she is teaching the same way to all the kids. But how much a particular kid “receives” or comprehends depends on that particular kid’s ability to receive.
A radio/television station is broadcasting a program. But the reception of the program by a radio/TV depends on the quality of that device and also whether it has been “tuned” to the correct station.
This transfer can happen instantaneously or with a time lag, because that mental energy is in the “nama loka” and is accessible at any time; see, “Memory, Brain, Mind, Nama Loka, Kamma Bhava, Kamma Vipaka” , “What are Dhamma? – A Deeper Analysis“, and “Our Two Worlds : Material and Mental“.
4. Therefore, only in “direct giving”, the amount received is the same as given. The amount received in the other other two “indirect giving” methods depends on the receiver. A similar mechanism is at work when one does a good deed and “transfers merits” to another person who may be far away.
All intentions have kammic energy. You may remember that the Buddha said, “Cetana ham bhikkave kamman vadami”, or “Bhikkhus, I say intention is kamma”. And kamma is the fundamental potential energy for everything in this world.
People very much underestimate the power of the human mind. Those who have experienced at least anariya jhanas can sense at least a little bit about the power of the mind; see, “Power of the Human Mind – Introduction” and the two follow-up posts.
Direct giving is “däna“; indirect giving is “pattidäna“. These are two of the ten meritorious deeds (punna kamma); see, “Ten Moral Actions (Dasa Kusala) and Ten Meritorious Actions (Punna Kriya)“.
5. One such mechanism is the annantara-samanantara paccaya; see “Annantara and Samanantara Paccaya”. This is a universal law governing the kamma niyama. Many people pronounce “niyama” as “niyaama”, but “niyama” is the Pali or Sinhala word for “principle”. Thus kamma niyama is the universal principle of kamma (like the law of gravitation).

When one is “transferring merits” by sincerely saying that “May so and so receive merits from this good deed that I have done”, or doing metta bhavana by saying, “May all beings be free from the suffering in the apayas” or some version of it, one is BROADCASTING one’s intention.

However, just because one is doing such a “giving”, the intended recipient may not receive the benefits UNLESS the receiver has a matching mindset; it is just like the case of a radio/TV, where the receiving device need to be set to the “right frequency” to receive the signal.
This is explained in the post, “Annantara and Samanantara Paccaya”. Don’t be discouraged by those Pali words; sometimes, as in the case of paticca samuppada, it is best to use the Pali words, because it is not possible to find an English word that can convey the same meaning.
From Puredhamma.net