text:
Is ignorance a sin?
If I do not know the rules of a country, that does not count for that much in a court of law. I will still be punished for breaking the law. Likewise, if I do not know that bad speech results in bad karma will I be punished (in the sense of bad karma in the future )? Or maybe if I don't know what bad speech is will I be punished? To put the most extreme example, if I murder millions of people but I have a brain disorder and don't realize that is wrong, then will I be punished in the future by karma?

If you are ignorant of the cycle of day and night, or the phases of the moon, or even of gravity, your ignorance does not prevent them from happening. Universal laws are just that -- universal -- and they don't change for those who don't know of, understand, or follow them.
There is an element of intention behind all karma/action, and this intention factors into the quality of the actions. A wrong action done with pure intention is certainly less bad than a wrong action done with evil intention, but it's still a wrong action. The "brain disorder" example is interesting, but again, ignorance of universal laws does not halt or change the manifestation of the laws. One can never escape the effects of one's actions, regardless of the circumstances.
Even Angulimala could not escape the accumulation of karma from his time of killing:

Being an arahant, Angulimala remained firm and invulnerable in mind and heart. But his body, the symbol and fruit of previous kamma was still exposed to the effects of his former evil deeds. As an arahant, he needed no words of consolation, but a reminder of the kammic concatenation of cause and effect, which still has to be endured until the end.

It is interesting, because people get involved in karma, so you might be "punished" by a person who decides that what you have done is wrong. But people are not omniscient, so they can be wrong about what happened, or about the proper remedy, or even wrong that it was wrong. Inanimate objects, plants and animals don't have karma because they do not misjudge. (They don't judge.) But karma is supposed to operate even if no one knows what you did wrong (and if you didn't know yourself.) It starts to sound a bit mystical, and the analogy begins to be strained.

Being ignorant of the repercussions is the very reason what we accumulate Karma which will give future experiences which the receiver perceive as unfavourable or painful, hence this this sense it can be considered a sin.

Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge.  You can educate an ignorant person!
So the hickory smoked answer is.  You can fix ignorance buy ya can't fix stupid!

Hey @Timmer welcome to Buddhist S.E. - please try to tie your answer(s) to Buddhism.

"You can't teach height" is a famous quote by a College Basketball coach. Choosing tall players over short ones is not prejudice. Some actions can be blameless even if they would appear to be blameworthy from some perspectives. It is said that wisdom results in the end of creating karma.

I've heard there's a tribe in Africa that speaks using a heavy and chronic form of sarcasm -- at first the academic from some Western university thought they were just messing with him, until he realized it was a cultural thing to prevent people from gaining too much pride.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Bantu#Profile A brief mention....
Let's assume there is a society like this for the sake of argument. Something like Wrong Speech would likely not exist, in the context of being a wrong action that leads to suffering, unless a person's actions were a lie that were to lead to someone dying or there were some other result of speech that could really separate people in a harmful way. As I understand right speech, it's abstention from right action; wrong action could be probably understood in a similar light. (In a society without property, theft would  not really exist, for instance.)
If this kind of action is really universally prohibited against all humans, perhaps birth into life-long ignorance could just be seen as being as a unfortunate rebirth as the result of past karma. But I understand wrong view as meaning those that lead to harmful behaviors and beliefs, first and foremost...


text:
Is fourth precept personal and depends on the individual?
I find it very hard to get a clear understanding what is considered a breach of this precept and what is not. Different perspective offers different answer.
For example:
Some people considered social niceties such as "I'm fine" as an answer to "How are you?" is not lying (when someone is not fine).
Some people do not make such exceptions, when you say something untrue, that means you are lying.
Receiving foods and say "Thank you, it's delicious" is a lie since the food is not eaten yet.
Some people said that is not lying but an expression of gratitude.
One person views others as justifying lying.
The other person views others as being (too) dogmatic, which is not the core of Buddhist teaching.
How can we have a clear cut understanding about this particular precept therefore put them into practice? To what extent it can be considered misrepresenting untruth?

The precept is very clear:

I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.
Musāvādā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

Musāvādā comes from two words: musā, which means neglectfully, falsely, or wrongly; and vadati which means to speak. Musāvādā as a noun simply means "a lie". The language is clear: this precept means not to tell lies.
If you are asked how you are and you respond with "I'm fine" when you're not fine, you've told a lie: it is false speech.
If you say food tastes delicious but it really doesn't, you've told a lie: it is false speech.
Do these "white lies" break the precept? By the simple language of the precept, yes. One might tell these kinds of lies to avoid giving lengthy explanations of our health or moods, or to avoid offending someone when we don't like their cooking. But to lie is to break the fourth precept, regardless of the reason for the lie.
What can we do? Use a skillful approach to responding that does not require telling a lie. "How are you doing?" even if you are miserable can be answered with another truthful statement, such as "Oh, I've been very busy" (assuming you've been very busy). "How is dinner?" could be answered with "I'm enjoying it greatly" if you are in fact enjoying it (which isn't the same thing as liking the taste specifically; it's entirely possible to enjoy a meal without liking the taste if you're enjoying other aspects of the meal, such as the opportunity to be with friends and family, or perhaps the opportunity to eat mindfully and regard the flavors of the food even if they're not your favorite).
To follow this precept is to keep your speech pure. If the precepts were easy to follow, we wouldn't need them! Avoiding false speech requires great skill and thoughtful responses, but we can all do it.

Ok, so I guess it seems depend on the individual. The receiver of the food was not me but a monk who was offered food by someone. I don't know why he wanted to tell a lie when offered food. Regarding "I've been busy", what if the answer you really want to tell is "I'm not fine" but choose to answer "I've been busy", I guess there is a little dishonesty there, is that right?

The question "how are you" is so broad, that to answer it truthfully and throughly would take hours. It's OK to answer with a truthful statement, even if you choose to conceal some other piece of information that you'd rather not discuss. Some people consider concealing information to be a form of dishonesty, but whether that's the case or not is irrelevant in the eyes of the fourth precept, which is squarely focused on speech. So: answering the question truthfully is fine, even if you didn't answer it thoroughly.

I'm starting to think "how are you" can be asked in a different manner as well. Some strangers on the street can ask "how are you" when we passed them by. Some other people such as our family member or best friend can also ask this kind of question but in a serious, caring manner. So I think the same answer can be deceiving in one context but not in the other context. But this is just my thought, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I completely agree. The question is most often asked as a form of greeting; rarely does the asker actually expect a serious reply. Better to just greet people with "hello" or "hi" than to ask a question that needn't be answered!

Wait a minute. If the same answer can be deceiving in one situation but not in other situation that means it depends on the asker rather than the answerer. I think it's possible for the answerer to answer both questions from different people in the same manner, presumably the same intention as well. We can't know what is the purpose behind those questions, we just assume a stranger greets me, a family member greets me, etc., right?

If someone assumed it wrongly, for example, as a greeting then they will reply all those questions as a greeting as well, hence it's not lie. In the end does it really matter whether it's a serious, caring question or not?

I think it's less about the asker/answerer, and more about the context of the question in general. But only the person providing the answer can know for sure if he or she is speaking falsely (and therefore breaking the precept).

Your confusion is due to the fact that you are misconstruing the precepts legalistically as referring to actions rather than intentions. Buddhist precepts are not laws or rules that can be judged externally or objectively. Rather, they are merely guidelines and pointers towards good intention. If you lie with good intention, there is no negative karmic result. The essential karmic factor is not the act but the intention.

But white lie is still a lie in Buddhist precept, whatever the reason is.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Music or ambient sounds for meditation?
My own experience with meditation is that it works best when I'm alone and it's quiet. But in the dharma center they sell lot of cd's and many of them are titled "for meditation".
Is it absolutely and definitely not "Comme il faut" to meditate with music? Is this music they sell for meditation more for rituals etc? Or is there some kinds of music that can be used for meditation? By "music" I don't necessarily mean melodic compositions, but ambient sounds like fex theta waves. Any experiences and/or advice?

If one is using music in order to be able to e.g. concentrate better, then it might not be the best solution. In time it could become a "crutch".
There are many views and discussions about this and ultimately it comes down to personal preference. For some meditators it might be okay to use a crutch in the beginning, which they can later do away with.
For others, they might prefer to learn meditation or to meditate in silence. Their is no definitive answer to this.

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


text:
Is there a generally agreed upon idea of what Buddha nature is?
I often hear and read about Buddha nature.
I wonder, is Buddha nature something common to all varieties of Buddhism? And where in the scriptures can I find out more about this? I'm asking because sometimes when I hear about it, it sounds a bit like the idea of atman as brahman: which I don't understand, because how can that be compatible with anatman and emptiness?

It's sometimes better to wait a couple of days, before accepting an answer: as this says, "A question with an accepted answer isn't as likely to receive further attention as one without an accepted answer".

Agreed, that's how I feel about it too.

According to the buddhism of Nichiren Daishonin, which is a japanese mahayana tradition, the buddha nature is something we all have, at least in latent form. So I agree with the above poster in the sense that the buddha nature, or buddhahood is a quality intrinsic to all living beings - and even non-living things that are also part of this universe - like the emptiness you mention - which being empty, has the potential to manifest life too. It manifests itself when you're in rhythm with your life and environment and are able to bring out the best in you to change your karma and overcome whatever obstacles you were facing. So basically it's when you're being a "hero of your world", and devote your life to the teachings of the lotus sutra. This sutra, or, the middle volume of it, says all prior teachings were "expedient" ways to get people practicing buddhism according to the time, but that actually you don't need lots of lifetimes to become a buddha but can be one now in your present form.
In this way it might relate to concepts of soul in hinduism although I think wikipedia explains it better.
The mystic law of cause and effect, the way we nichiren buddhists understand it, is basically a pervasive universal vibration or rhythm, a sound, a teaching, working at a fundamental level that we can all tune in to, and I believe it is the collective will that the universe has always had: its wish to grow, learn, flourish and be generally positive. So it's a decentralised vision of "soul" - more like the "force" in star wars (without those new films and their midichlorians, ugh!), or cells in a body. Buddhahood, if seen as something we all have, is something we can all tap into if we have the luck to figure this out ourselves somehow, or hear about it, and we can all try and manifest. I also believe buddhism itself is kind of just common sense, and just wisdom and culture, built up over the ages and continents, which has created a common understanding of the world around us, and a philosophy for how to live it. When we die we see it as drops falling back into the ocean. This is why we live forever: Because we are able to live as long as there is life. We are part of all of it and identify with this concept of unity - as if the first and fundamental mistake even the simplest bugs make, is to think of themselves as separate from what's around them.

I'm asking because sometimes when I hear about it, it sounds a bit like the idea of atman as brahman: which I don't understand, because how can that be compatible with anatman and emptiness?

It can be understood in different ways, dependent on tradition.
It certainly does not mean that there is a soul, an experiencing entity or an inner core. Remember that this is just a word, a convention.
When practicing insight meditation, one will realize that it cannot mean that there is an atman. It is only when such deep doctrines are treated intellectually, that there arises confusion. These profound doctrines cannot be grasped by the intellect. They can only be understood experientially.

Is there a generally agreed upon idea of what Buddha nature is?

One meaning is, that every being has the capacity to win Nibbana.
Nibbana is already there but its covered in thick layers of ignorance (avijja) and has been plastered over with concepts and conventions.
The unconditioned state is an existing reality, that can be experienced when the meditator has done away with ignorance, clinging and attachment and cultivated the paramitas to full maturity.


text:
Buddha Sasana of Ariya Maitreya Buddha
The Sasana of Gautama Buddha will last for 5000 years of which more than 2500 years are over. Ariya Maitreya will be the next Buddha. How long will the Sasana of Ariya Maitreya Buddha last?

I am a Theravada Buddhist and as far as predictions go here's what i was able to find...

The coming of Maitreya will be characterized by a number of physical
  events. The oceans are predicted to decrease in size, allowing
  Maitreya to traverse them freely. Maitreya will then reintroduce true
  dharma to the world.
His arrival will signify the end of the middle time, the time between
  the fourth Buddha, Gautama Buddha, and the fifth Buddha, Maitreya,
  which is viewed as a low point of human existence. According to the
  Cakkavatti Sutta: The Wheel-turning Emperor, Digha Nikaya 26 of the
  Sutta Pitaka of the Pāli Canon), Maitreya Buddha will be born in a
  time when humans will live to an age of eighty thousand years, in the
  city of Ketumatī (present Varanasi), whose king will be the Cakkavattī
  Sankha. Sankha will live in the palace where once dwelt King
  Mahāpanadā, but later he will give the palace away and will himself
  become a follower of Maitreya Buddha.[15]
The scriptures say that Maitreya will attain bodhi in seven days
  (which is the minimum period), by virtue of his many lives of
  preparation for buddhahood similar to those reported in the Jataka
  tales.
At this time a notable teaching he will start giving is that of the
  ten non-virtuous deeds (killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying,
  divisive speech, abusive speech, idle speech, covetousness, harmful
  intent and wrong views) and the ten virtuous deeds (the abandonment
  of: killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, divisive speech,
  abusive speech, idle speech, covetousness, harmful intent and wrong
  views).
The Arya Maitreya Mandala, founded by Anagarika Govinda is based on
  the idea of the future coming of Maitreya.
Pali sources say that beings in Maitreya's time will be much bigger
  than during the time of Sakyamuni. In one prophecy his disciples are
  contemptuous of Mahakasyapa, whose head is no larger than an insect to
  them. Buddhas robe barely covers two fingers making them wonder how
  tiny Buddha was. Mahākāśyapa is said to be small enough in comparison
  to cremate in the palm of Maitreya's hand.[16]

~Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya
Here's the thing about the periods of time in different Sasanas of Buddhas. It is a matter of how long the humans live.In the time of our Lord Buddha maximum human life expectancy was 120-125 years.But in next Lord Buddha's era it will be way longer, Therefore that Lord Buddha's Sasana will hold on for a long time.


text:
Are dreams good or bad?
I normally do not dream and if i dream those are very long and mixed when it comes to content (Both calming and provoking). So what is the Buddhist point of view on dreams.

Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera:

According to Buddhist psychology dreams are ideational processes which occur as activities of the mind.

And:

Dreams are mind-created phenomena and they are activities of the mind. All human beings dream, although some people cannot remember. Buddhism teaches that some dreams have psychological significance.

Finally:

The significance and the cause of dreams were the subject of discussion in the famous book 'Milinda Panha' or 'The Questions of King Milinda', in which Ven. Nagasena has stated that there are six causes of dreams, three of them being organic, wind, bile and phlegm. The fourth is due to the intervention of supernatural forces, fifth, revival of past experience and sixth, the influence of future events. It is categorically stated that dreams occur only in light slumber which is said to be like the sleep of the monkey. Of the six causes given Ven. Nagasena has stated positively that the last, namely prophetic dreams are the only important ones and the others are relatively insignificant.

The full text on Ven. Thera's explanation of dreams and their significance is available at http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/321.htm.


text:
Jhanas and past lives
I always thought that the remembrance of the past lives and the vision of the mechanism of the kamma were the fruits of the jhanas.
BUT, it is said that the Tathagata learnt the (8) jhanas from two teachers. it is also said that he remembered his past lives during  the famous seven days, after he decided to gain what he would call nibbana.
Do we know whether the Tathagata had access to his previous lives or to the karmic mechanism before the week of accessing nibbana ?
if no, does this mean that only the dhamma --- instead of the practice from hinduism,  jainism and perhaps others doctrines --- permits to see the past lives, or the karmic mechanism ?

I think that past life remembrance qualifies as a Siddhi: something that could happen, which is a sign of progress, but which becomes a distraction if pursued. Everyone can "happen upon" different siddhis in the course of their development. It is said that someone not familiar with the Dharma can become enlightened, so there must be no necessary connection between attainments and knowledge conveyed by Buddhism. This keeps Buddhists from asserting the "only one way" idea.

I don't think the Buddha knew his past lives long before he attained nirvana -- the descriptions I know of him accessing his past lives were during his final struggle.
To the best of my knowledge, past lives recollection is about concentration -- not necessarily samma samadhi as known in the sutras. The sutras imply that yogis could and have obtained such abilities and that it is not something the Buddha introduced.
The Buddha is said to have learned specific concentration practices (aka the arupa jhanas) from previous teachers before reaching nirvana, but it's not clear if he (or his teachers) knew any of the actual 4 jhana (as described in the sutras, with their factors and all). The interesting passage is the one he describes remembering reaching the 1st jhana state when he was a kid and that is when he "gets back on track" towards nirvana -- and that happened after training with his teachers. This suggests that his teachers did not teach or knew how to reach the 1st (and arguably any of the four) jhanas, and thus, opens up the possibility that samma samadhi could have been an original practice introduced or at least systematized by the Buddha.
Knowlege of previous lives is not unlocked with nirvana according to the sutras as such a person can still be bound to wrong view / ignorance (which nirvana is supposed to end). But it is presented as part of a path towards nirvana.

Ajahn Brahm also thinks that the Buddha discovered the jhanas which he taught. I agree the story as told doesn't quite make sense if his teachers taught him jhana.

Jhana comes from dhyan a sanskrit word which is meditative state. You guys are talking about techniques which are are few thousands in India/china. Nothing is original in spiritual world. Millions of people have contributed to meditation techniques world over. Be a Buddhist but do not glorify Buddha. That is pride.

@ShashankKhare I'm sorry if you were lead to think the above is glorification -- or pride.

According to the Brahmajala sutta, those who have not seen Dhamma can recollect past lives:

"There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are eternalists,
  and who on four grounds proclaim the self and the world to be eternal.
  And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses
  and brahmins proclaim their views?
"In the first case, bhikkhus, some recluse or a brahmin, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and right reflection,
  attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind
  thus concentrated, [purified, clarified, unblemished, devoid of
  corruptions],[5] he recollects his numerous past lives: that is, (he
  recollects) one birth, two, three, four, or five births; ten, twenty,
  thirty, forty, or fifty births; a hundred, a thousand, or a hundred
  thousand births; many hundreds of births, many thousands of births,
  many hundreds of thousands of births. (He recalls:) 'Then I had such a
  name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance; such was my
  food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my span of life.
  Passing away thence, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name,
  belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance; such was my food,
  such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my span of life. Passing
  away thence, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his numerous past
  lives in their modes and their details.
"He speaks thus: 'The self and the world are eternal, barren,
  steadfast as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. And though
  these beings roam and wander (through the round of existence), pass
  away and re-arise, yet the self and the world remain the same just
  like eternity itself. What is the reason? Because I, by means of
  ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and right reflection, attain
  to such a degree of mental concentration that with my mind thus
  concentrated, I recollect my numerous past lives in their modes and
  their details. For this reason I know this: the self and the world are
  eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, standing firm like a
  pillar. And though these beings roam and wander (through the round of
  existence), pass away and re-arise, yet the self and the world remain
  the same just like eternity itself.'
"This, bhikkhus, is the first case.

According to the Maha-Saccaka Sutta, which tells the story of his enlightenment, the Buddha first examined his past lives, then later(soon after) achieved liberating knowledge.

I just thought of saying this: As far as I have read the texts of Hinduism, there are no Brahmins or Yogis or recluses, who seem to claim that this world is eternal. According to Hinduism, the world is just considered as a Maya (Illusion). Though I don't deny that they say Atman is eternal.

Past lives are seen only when 6th chakra is fully active. In tibet there are people who activate your 6th chakra directly. But its not Nirbana. Nirbana is blooming of thousand petal lotus which is a metaphor for opening of final 7 th chakra. If you concentrate on center of your two eye brows you can have glimpse of your past lives. It will be not permanent though. Only when you are pure you should attempt to open it.
It is not a siddhi i.e. psychic power. Siddhis can be obtained by activating lower chakras but they are considered a distraction.
If you are at 6th 7th is not far off.


text:
Are Teachings developed "after the fact"?
This might be a poor question, for which I apologize but I am trying to gain some insight on this idea I have had for a long time... It seems that paths and practices are taught to people with the intent that they have the same results that the teacher did by doing that. But the teacher might have come across the practice by accident, and the teaching is simply their experience, not a principle.
When I read suttas, interviews, articles, different sects' explanations and so on, there is an almost infinite variety of statements and interpretations, and people seem to get lost in words. If a practice was really "true" absolutely, then there could be no difference of explanation or understanding, right? It certainly is not like Physics, where everyone would get the same results of a clear experiment.
If a Teacher was so wise that they came up with the practice before they had used it, that would be a miracle indeed. Is it not the case that all that is taught about spiritual development is basically experiential? Even the Buddha had to learn by doing. We are just following what he said.

I think these are the questions which you're asking: a) Do teachers "come up with" a practice before they use it?
b) Is a practice taught to a student intended to have the same result as when the teacher practiced it?
c) Might a given teacher's practice be simply their own experience, not a generalizable principle?
d) Why (unlike Physics) are there almost infinitely many different ("lost in words") explanations and interpretations in the suttas, and why isn't it a clear experiment where everyone gets the same results?

@ChrisW: Thank you for asking for or attempting to clarify. I think: a) is false, b) is true by definition, c) is what I am asserting, d) is what I am asking about. So, people can speak to c) while commenting on d).

You're welcome. I was trying to clarify what you'e asking, partly because it's a mixture of questions plus assumptions.

Also, did I capture all of your question? I might have failed to understand/summarize the last of your explicit question, i.e. "Is all that is taught basically experiential?" ... You're asking about "experiential" as opposed to what, what else might it be, apart from "experiential"?

@ChrisW: You said, "What might it be, apart from 'experiential'?" Wow. The question just died right there. Silly me. You are amazing.

... It seems that paths and practices are taught to people with the intent that they have the same results that the teacher did by doing that. But the teacher might have come across the practice by accident, and the teaching is simply their experience, not a principle.
When I read suttas, interviews, articles, different sects' explanations and so on, there is an almost infinite variety of statements and interpretations, and people seem to get lost in words. If a practice was really "true" absolutely, then there could be no difference of explanation or understanding, right? It certainly is not like Physics, where everyone would get the same results of a clear experiment.

If you as about a long path, then the land marks different people describe about the path would be different. Thus there are many description of the same road but different land marks. E.g. The middle path is described within these two Suttas abide the different landmarks. Samma,ditthi Sutta, (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta. Also by nature of the practitioner certain landmarks on the road would be of more significance than others. This will result in different descriptions. Also Buddha having the ability to discern what would register in the mind of the practitioner, gave most appropriate "directions and land marks".
Another this there are multiple variations and techniques which give certain spiritual or "out of the world" experiences which the practitioner may mistake to have achived the final goal or mistakenly believe is the path when in fact it does not take you to the final goal. (Somewhat related is Brahma,jala Sutta also as introduction on it which highlights how wrong view arise.) Since you have some uncommon experience you hold that the method and techniques you practised has got you or will get you to the final goal. This give arise to different descriptions and variation and debates about the technique.
Some times these variation can be from people who have gone to the final goal. Some people have had only some imperfections or uncommon imperfections and would have done a practice to remedy that. Having achived the final goal he would teach from his experience which would result in an uncommon description of the method, which might not always work for everyone.

If a Teacher was so wise that they came up with the practice before they had used it, that would be a miracle indeed. Is it not the case that all that is taught about spiritual development is basically experiential? Even the Buddha had to learn by doing. We are just following what he said.

The Buddha as well as many disciples had to do countless lifetimes of experimentation before crossing. So the part descried with what worked out the countless techniques that have been tried and tested.
Even with imperfect techniques which that you to an intermediate station, you need some experience which you describe and when the students practice it and gain some experience they believe. So some experience which can be replicated by a practice is the for runner of teaching a successful meditation technique.


text:
Was buddha aware of future or future way of living?
I need a suggestion. I raised up as an aspirant on my side. As per my family (attached people) i was a sign of glory to them. In India, i did completed my education with good grades. I started my career on a positive note. 3 years back i was earning 1 lakhs plus every three months. Then i joined psychedelics and also started learning about religion/science related people and their thoughts. I came along buddhism. I managed to buy our own home. Now i am earning less than 1 lakhs a year. My family's financial earning was always like hand to mouth, same is mine now a days. This situation is so bad to us. To me its like i am all negative right now. I want to know 'what is the right way of earning life, when i don't want to hurt anyone else including me 'as i don't like any corporate?

Change in circumstances

This is a fact of life. You have your ups and downs. Worrying or resentment towards the situation will not change it. You have to accept it with grace and then do what is wihtin your control to improve your situation.

Use of psychedelics

This interferes with your mindfulness. So best is to sop using them. If it is difficult perhaps you can use professional help. This might also help in solving your changed circumstances.

Right way to earn a living

The right way to earn a living is a way which does not harm yourself or others and have a moral basis. Avoid ways to earn a living without lies, deceit, killing, debauchery, etc.

Sir, i am in sales & marketing. May be you won't believe it but it is all about a thief act in all ways, here now a days. People know that they are selling slow toxic but they try sell it like anything. I am sorry to be a part of it from last 5 years. But now its getting worse. For a fair today 'we are killing our chances to be a tomorrow'. Its getting almost insane as sales-rush is growing. Over all i blame corporations for all this insanity. What i should do ,so that i can earn fair enough to give to my family ?

I am in pharmaceuticals sales.

@jitin Look at it with the right motivation. People do need meditation. Approach your job as a service to humanity than pill pushing.

Sir, my email id is jitinkhanna16@gmail.com. I'd appreciate it you will counsel me regarding the same (i am afraid of contacting psycho doctors).

They just want to fullfil the commitements they had made with mnc's & local medicine companies.

When i do not do pill-push kinda working then i lose my job/earning/health of my family. in past 5 years i have changed 6 mnc's.

my email is sirinath1978m at gmail dot com. I am not sure if I can counsel you.

Sir, i am feeling like an animal chained on my neck with their obligations to see myself as a LIVING being. But i feel dead.

Okay, then thank you. I don't know why you do not have enough positive confidence to counsel me, when i am ready to speak the truth of me in whole to you!

Why don't you try a couple of courses at: http://dhamma.org/. This might help calming your anguish but will not solve it. When you have a clearer mind then you can approach your problem systematically.

Send me a email with your problem. I am not a professional through.


text:
How to differentiate between a spiritual experience and a mental disorder or delusion?
Many spiritual teachings ask the followers to develop detachment towards worldly objects and events. Certain meditation techniques ask the followers to be a mere spectator to one's thoughts and get emotionally detached. Few spiritual people report having spiritual experiences like out-of-body or having seen a deity in their dreams or in daylight.
My question is, how do a follower of spiritual practice differentiate between a spiritual experience and a mental or neurotic disorder like ' dissociative disorder'?

I would say if the experience is not a sign abandonment (of any object of abandonment such as manifest anger, laziness, etc) or a sign of realization (such as the development of effortless compassion) then it is not a "spiritual experience". (but this is not a basis for an answer other than a comment)

@gaj - My view is that every person on a particular path will have a different experience whether spiritual or neurotic. These are labels. A person who is neurotic will also portray behaviors generally not seen with someone who is not and the same applies with someone you have gained spiritual experience. The funny thing is that if a person of faith e.g. priest says he/she has seen God, this is generally accepted as truth however should someone of another order e.g. lay person says he/she has seen God, he/she is generally deemed a madman.

@Tenzin Dorje Could you please elaborate, especially based on HH Dalai Lama's teachings? I wonder, in your comment, can there be 'and' instead of 'or' sign of realization?

If you suffer and make others suffer, that's a disorder. If you are happy and make others happy, that's a good result. Although sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better.

Could you please elaborate?

This does not answer the question.

@cMk Why do you say this doesn't answer the question? The question was "how can you tell whether something is a disorder" and it seems to me this tries to answer that, by saying "you can tell it's a disorder if it makes people suffer". It's similar to my answer but shorter.

@ChrisW I don't think it's logical to assume that all disorders make a person suffer nor that all spiritual experiences make one feel happy. I may have taken this out of context, however.
I suppose my thinking may have been too vague for such a specific question, if so I apologise.

@cMk I suppose someone could write a Ph. D. dissertation on the topic if you approach this from the medical field perspective - but if you are a Buddhist practitioner seeking a rule of thumb to aid your practice, I have provided one.

@Andrei Volkov Why there is a caveat like "Although sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better". This invalidates the whole answer, because, how can one be sure that it's the worse before something good to come. Besides, I believe, in Buddhism, the goal is bliss and not the happiness. Bliss can be attained by not feeling pain for the self as well as others, by some way or the other. Hope you get my point.

What can I say, life is not always straightforward.... BTW the goal is not bliss nor happiness, the goal is liberation, completion, nirvana. But on intermediate stages happiness (very good mood) is a decent approximation.

Giving too much importance or attachment to any experience either actual or delusional will lead to metal instability and perhaps delusion. So if you experience something then congratulations, this is great, but leaving it aside continue your practice. Reason being distinguishing real and delusional experiences is very difficult can can be futile in some instance, hence not worth giving too much importance to. I would personally err in the side of caution can consider many of such experiences as just mind playing tricks. When you stop paying attention after some time then these experiences may pass away. Best is you continue the practice giving less importance of trying not to read into too much on what you experience.

Thanks for the reply. But again, if it is difficult to distinguishing between real and delusional experiences it could be the high time to pay attention to such experiences as it could be some kind of mental illness. Is it not better to stop the practice and consult a psychiatrist?

Added more information.

What if the experiences persist for longer and longer time and become more frequent.

It is difficult to give a definitive answer. You can keep up your practice and also seek professional help.

Conventionally, the people who are concerned (for example a family member or doctor) may consider a mental state to be "disordered" if:

It's persistent
You're unable (not to mention "unwilling") to behave conventionally or skillfully

Wikipedia - Mental disorder (definition) says,

For a mental state to classify as a disorder, it generally needs to cause dysfunction.
According to DSM-IV, a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern, which occurs in an individual, and causes distress via a painful symptom or disability, or increases the risk of death, pain, or disability; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual.[

So, for example, if instead you continue to ...

Have friends
Talk lucidly
Obey the law
Do your work (e.g. pay your bills)
Take normal care of your physical health

... then you're less likely to be considered as having a "mental disorder".

I think that this description of the 'two truths' doctrine implies that the two extremes, "conventional reality" and "ultimate reality" (which can seem like a dichotomy) might be better understood as "skillful means" and "wisdom" ... i.e. ideally a person might be able to manifest either and/or both (not just one or the other).

In the book Saints and Madmen, David Lukov puts it this way - "The mystic swims in the same waters where the madman drowns."  I think that's a pretty good barometer.  When the types of things you mention happen to people engaged in spiritual practice, there is [usually] a sense that they have some sort of control over the experience.  At the very least, they know that what they are doing is the product of their practice and can be attributed to rational cause.  For the insane, I don't think there is the same sense of control or causality.

It is a good question you ask but there is a certain sector that might Blur the line between spiritual experience and a disorder.
Here is an ancient story of a real monk...
Once there was a monk in srilanka (about 2000 years ago) he used to practice "Attika Sanna". It is a form of meditation that focus on the bone structure of a being.He was on his way from "Anuradhapura" ancient city where he met with a beautiful woman. She was actually going to her parents place after a fight with her husband. She saw the monk and smiled. But the monk did not saw her as a person, He only saw her skeleton. Her husband was coming to take her back home but he was far behind. The monk went on his way and met the husband on the way, He asked "did you saw a woman going this way?". The monk replied "I didn't saw any woman but i saw a skeleton walking that way.".

It is good to take a look at what a disorder is...

Mental illness refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors. Many people have mental health concerns from time to time.

What science see as a disorder is something that is a bit far from what is normally accepted.But as Buddhists we try to change our mindset with meditation.It actually changes the brain structure.
Mindfulness Can Literally Change Your Brain
So a changed brain will not work like a normal one. It will most certainly behave in different set of rules.This would justify stories like the one above.

So how to recognize something gone wrong?
Buddhism's advice on that is to have a well experienced teacher who can understand and help. I must say that this person must be a Monk because a lot of times people who advice their friends on meditation get carried away by their ego and give misguided advice.

Down voter, please leave a reason why


text:
What is the role of thinking in Buddhism?
Practitioners and scholars from various schools of Buddhism differ a lot on how they view (conceptual) thinking.
For example Tsongkhapa/Gelug put a lot of emphasis on thinking because it is vitally important to “identify the object of negation”, as Tsongkhapa would put it. (The object of negation Tibetan: dgag bya, eg. inherent existence, self-existence).
On the other hand, Zen scholars and practitioners I have asked are more explicit in making the point that conceptual thinking is in itself a hindrance and “part of the problem”.

If there is a "goal" or "point" of conceptual thinking in Buddhism, what is that "goal/point"?
What are the biggest problems of either too much or too little   thinking?

I am a Gelug and could answer from a Gelug viewpoint, but this would not be answer to "what is the role of thinking in Buddhism?", since it is too broad a question.

I'd be very interested in hearing your Gelug answer

It is my understanding that because people vary in their tendency to "think" intently, for some it is best to minimize it, but for others it cannot be defeated, so use it as a tool to get underneath delusions. This is called Jnana Yoga, as best I know. Like Judo, you go with what the student presents. Use their energy for good purpose.

Zen is not thought, the path has no achievement; yet if not thought it is not Zen, and without achievement, it is not the path - Huai t'ang

There are 3 forms of fabrication out of which Thinking and Pondering (verbal fabrication) is one. (Culavedalla Sutta). You have to clam verbal fabrications by anchoring your mind on an object like you breath, i.e., cut out Thinking and Pondering thus stopping Verbal Fabrications.

This is a question related to Lo-Rig, the study on valid cognition, 'epistemology'. An authoritative and simple text on the topic is Mind in Tibetan Buddhism, by Lati Rinpoche.
To answer in a practice-oriented fashion: when one is subject to anger (a conceptual consciousness that is also a wrong consciousness in that it engages its object erroneously), one comes to tell himself stories about the object. For instance, one comes to think “This person is detestable; how could have I been fooled and even like her? How could anyone love her? If they knew her for who she is, they would understand; she really wronged me...”. Finding all the more reasons, if not to be angry, at least to justify one's anger. As practitioners we engage in analytical meditation on impermanence & death, karma, refuge, precious human rebirth, and so forth, on a daily basis. It is called “Meditation on the Lam Rim”. We do it for two reasons:

So as to tell ourselves factually concordant “stories” in order to generate, for instance, patience and dwell in there, familiarizing with being patient, and so forth
So as to be able to pay attention to facts that we are so often blind to. For instance, after meditating a great deal on buddha-nature, it will be easier to find / see reasons not to despise any sentient beings.

Even when engaging in Calm Abiding, one needs to alternate between (1) analytical meditation and (2) placement, because one has to analyze the object he means to achieve Calm Abiding with in order to (1) familiarize with the object and (2) cultivate the clarity factor with regard to it.
Once our eyes are fully open, once we see reality, there is no need for these anymore. But in our (Geluk, Madhyamika-Prasangika) presentation, only a buddha is free from [the need for] conceptual consciousnesses, and is therefore called 'a valid person'. Also, since even direct perceivers in the continuum of a sentient being are not free from the appearance of true existence, abandoning conception [even the conception of true existence] is not sufficient. That is a unique Tenet of the Prasangika school, though.
To answer in a more technical fashion: a conceptual consciousnesses apprehends its object by way of a mental image (also called 'meaning-generality' or 'generally characterized phenomena'). All conceptual consciousnesses are mistaken [with regard to their appearing object, a mental image] in that they mistake the appearing object for the object of engagement. However, a conceptual  consciousness, even mistaken, can be valid. For instance, an inferential cognizer (which is a conceptual) is always valid because it necessarily arises in dependence upon a correct sign that has been realized [and which pervasion in relation to the predicate as well]. This accords with Purbuchok's presentation (in Explanation of the Presentation of Objects and Object-Possessors as well as Awarenesses and Knowers).
We often present the gradual process of generating valid consciousness as follows: Having doubts turning away from the factual [in relation to a slightly hidden phenomena, such as for instance subtle impermanence], one listens to the teachings – listening also comprehends reading – and comes to generate equal doubt. He keeps on listening to the teachings and comes to generate doubt tending towards the factual. He keeps on listening to the teachings, gives it a thought, and comes to generate a correct assumption. Most positions we hold as true without being able to establish by way of reasoning are such. Doubt and correct assumptions are not 'realizing consciousnesses'. Therefore, strictly speaking, someone having generated a correct assumption with regard to a slightly hidden phenomena has not 'realized' anything yet. From there, he engages in reflection and/or in meditation in an analytical fashion and, in dependence on a correct reason, comes to generate an inferential cognizer. That is why we engage so much in debates, familiarizing with reasoning itself, but also with reasons and their pervading such and such predicates (and therefore establishing thesis). An inferential cognizer i is the first realizing (and valid) consciousness in this scenario. It is valid because it engages its object correctly, but it is mistaken with regard to its appearing object, a mental image, because it is a conceptual consciousness. Although a buddha is free from inferential cognition, [valid] inferential cognizers realizing the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths, and so forth are to be cultivated on all the path of learning. It is taught that a slightly hidden phenomena – such as subtle impermanence, and so forth – can be realized directly after having familiarized realizing it inferentially. For instance, subtle impermanence or emptiness are directly realized for the first time in the context of a meditative equipoise (which is a union of calm abiding and special insight) on the path of seeing. Such a realization is preceded by several instances of inferential realization, that is conceptual cognition, also being unions of calm abiding and special insight. A wisdom directly realizing emptiness is not conceptual but is analytical because it is a union of calm abiding and special insight, and special insight has the function of analysis. Only a buddha is free from conceptual consciousnesses.
Wrong consciousnesses (ex.: doubt turning away from the fact, afflictions, etc.), non-realizing conscioussnesses (such as wrong consciousnesses, all types of doubts, inattentive awarenesses, etc.) mistaken consciousnesses (conceptual consciousnesses, including [valid] inferential cognizers) are objects of abandonment. However, they are not to be abandoned by any practitioner. The process of abandonment is gradual... and that which is to be cultivated by one is to be abandoned by another. For instance, inferential cognizers are not to be abandoned by those who still have afflictive obscurations.

Again, not speaking for the whole of Buddhism, but from the perspective of Rinzai Zen, conceptual thinking isn't so much of a problem in that it gets in the way.  It's more of an impediment because it can result in a case of mistaken identity.
Imagine you walk into an antique store with all of the lights turned off.  In the pitch black, you are asked to get a sense of all the items in the room.  You walk up to each shelf and pick up each item one by one.  You feel their weight, their delicacy.  You become intimately familiar with the materials they are made of, their structure, whether they feel warm to the touch or cold.  If you were to walk into the the same antique store with all of the lights turned on, your inclination would be to rely exclusively on your sense of sight.  You probably wouldn't even bother to pick anything up at all!
In Zen, the antiques are koans and the darkness is the calm and empty mind of mushin.  If you were to rely on your discursive mind - your sense of sight in the metaphor above - any conclusions you arrive at would be superficial.  All of your spiritual senses just aren't engaged in the same way as they are when you are in mushin.  All too often, people think that they understand a koan simply because it makes intellectual sense.  They don't push themselves past that point because they think that sort of understanding is all that's required.  Instead, what they really should be doing in exploring that koan thoroughly - not just with their minds but even with their whole bodies.
Zen is about developing intimacy with the world through a mind marked by emptiness.  Conceptual thought can sometimes distance us from what is really going on in the universe.  We all too quickly assume that what we see, hear, or learn is the end of the story.  It's not.  For true understanding to occur, we need to get our hands dirty.

This is, as you say, a hot topic of debate, but based on my study of the Pali suttas and the original writings of Padmasambhava, my own view is that the Buddha's teaching is that wisdom is the essental salvific principle, and that thinking is part of this process. The Buddha definitely taught that one can think about dharma, while at the same time denying that thinking about dharma alone is sufficient for emancipation. Rather, thinking ultimately leads to its own transcendence, but this can only be achieved as a result of thinking. The Zen view can lead to error and even delusion, especially in a non-Buddhist society. Remember that Zen appeared in societies that were already steeped in dharma. Also, I think that the view that Zen eschews thinking is facile. For example, the Sutra of Perfect Enlighenment is a Zen text, and is clearly deeply philosophical.

You make a good point.  There are Zen texts that are philosophical. I will say, though, every teacher I've met has spouted basically the same message - study them after awakening!  ;-)  I do wonder about your point regarding the necessity of dharma study in Zen practice, however.  Zen really is a transmission outside the sutras.  Now, there are many ways to take that, but mundanely, Zen really does function as it's own self contained system.  It has it's own canon, which is often oral, and full of it's own distinct, highly technical jargon.  It's approach to awakening is also highly unique.

To put this another way, handing the dharma (i.e. the Pali sutras, abhidharma, and even later Mahayana sutras, etc.) off to a Zen student would be like giving racing tires to a sailor.  The tires are a part of an entirely different system of transportation.  They just don't make sense in the sailor's system.

When you say "awakening" here are you making a distinction between awakening and enlightenment?

Let me use the Zen term - dai kensho.  That doesn't necessarily connote total and complete enlightenment, but it is more than just a fleeting kensho experience.

I think this is the experience that some of the Buddha's disciples had while listening to the Buddha, which preceded their going into seclusion for a period of meditation, followed by arhantship. In my exegeses of the Pali literature I have termed this "awakening," distinct from enlightenment or Buddhahood.

I generally find it to be a futile exercise to make comparisons between what appears in the Pali canon and what Zen literature teaches, but yeah, I think you are probably right.  :-)

I don't see that it is futile. In fact, it is exactly what the Buddha encourages us to do. To investigate, inquire, compare, and criticize, and thus come to the truth of dharma that transcends all sects and ideologies. Dharma is not sectarian.


text:
Is eating meat compatible with the training rule to abstain from killing?
The first lay precept says “I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.” (The formulation is from Wikipedia.) As I understand it, this rule pertains to all kinds of sentient beings.
Is eating meat compatible with this precept? Is it possible to say I am following this precept when the rule I’m following in fact is “I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing but I get someone else to do the killing for me”?

I think this question has been asked (and answered) already.

If you are looking for resources that make the case for vegetarianism, go here: http://www.shabkar.org/references/index.htm If you want to find people making the case against Buddhist vegetarianism, at the moment, it's the top 100 google hits. For the most part, this is a sectarian issue, i.e. you can get the answer you want by picking your sect.


text:
What is Inner and Outer Peace and how can I achieve them?
I am bit Confused about Inner and Outer Peace.
If they exist, how can I know and how can I achieve them?

What do you mean by outer peace?

Can you give a reference on where you saw this?

Using Buddhist vocabulary, what you call "inner peace" might be "tranquility" (i.e. Passaddhi); and what you call "Outer Peace" might be a consequence of ethical/virtuous/moral behaviour (i.e. Sīla).

Viveka nissita (peace from solitude):

Outer - seclusion or detachment from the sense doors, i.e., you do not delight any sensations or feelings born from external objects coming in contact with the respective faculties. Outer peace is achieve through the being eqaunimous and realising the impermanent nature of sensual experience. Avijja Pahana Sutta 2
Inner - Absence of 5 hindrances. Overcoming the 5 hindrances is rather a long topic but the essay Nīvaraṇa by Piya Tan might give you the right pointer.

Peace can be lost due to inner or outer reasons.
so, keep mindful on inner or outer obstacles.
when we feel inner weakness like anger, greed, hate etc. we lost our peace. We think these are due to outer reasons, but they are due to our (inner )weakness.

Peace can only be achieved in two states.

In a Dhyana
In the state of an arahant

In a Dhyana
Dhyana means the peace you achieve through meditation.In this state of mind you are free from the chaos of the world and the mind. But this is temporary,when you loose Dhyana you will face chaos again.
In the state of an arahant
An arahant is a person who has gone beyond greed,lust,anger,They have achieved Nirvana. Their peace is permanent.

Other than in Hollywood movies we have not heard of peace having two sides.
In Buddhist reality there is no outside and inside. There is only the processes of the mind.
Simply put it,
MIND IS THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE. To have peace one must have peace within, Once you have it there is no reason to worry about an Outer peace.
Here is a link to a book, It is free and you can read it online or save it to your device.Take your time and Read this.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khema/allofus.html#ch1


text:
Wearing a bracelet to remind me to be mindful
Wearing a bracelet to remind me to be mindful  ... is it a good idea ?
from previous attempt it seemed useful for a day maybe two but than i get used to wearing the bracelet and i dont notice im wearing it
What are your thoughts about doing this practice - is it useful ? are there other ways to remind yourself to be mindful ?
anything someone wants to add about this subject is appreciated

Wearing a bracelet to remind me to be mindful ... is it a good idea ?
from previous attempt it seemed useful for a day maybe two but than i get used to wearing the bracelet and i dont notice im wearing it

I guess your past experience shows this is not very useful

What are your thoughts about doing this practice - is it useful ? are there other ways to remind yourself to be mindful ?

Relying on external tools may not be the most optimal but if it helps why not.

anything someone wants to add about this subject is appreciated

When your mind wonders away be extra mindful when you bring your attention back. Look at a few breaths with sustained attention. Do a few body scans with sustained attention.
When your mind goes you bring your mind back to an object. Similarly even when your mind is on the chosen object you can repeal the re direction of the mind to the object continuously as if when initially brining the mind to the object.
This practice will help make your mindfulness stick to the chosen object.
Also as a mode of preliminary practice you can:

scan you body zig zag quickly alternating the side.
quickly alternating at the base of each nostril

This helps you redirect your attention to an chosen object like the breath continuously after initially brining to attention to it. Once you have some reasonable practice just target a chosen object repeatedly, even though you mind is not wondering away. One your mind get "sticky" with the object you an stop the continuous redirection.

Take what I'm about to write with a grain of salt, as I have never tried either the practice you ask about or the one I am about to recommend.
Modern psychology recognizes a phenomenon called sensory adaptation wherein unchanging sensory stimuli gradually lose their intensity to the organism.  For this reason, I'd say it makes sense that you stop noticing your bracelet after a time.
Thich Nhat Hanh, whose advice I often find quite useful, recommends using bells as a reminder to be mindful I believe.  For example, you could find a bell alarm for your smartphone and have it ring at various times throughout the day and at those times you could mindfully breath in and out three times as per Thich Nhat Hanh's advice.  I'd think this latter practice would not be subject to the same degree of adaptation induced loss of noticeability given that the corresponding stimulus is not constantly present.


text:
Where in the Tripitaka completion of the formation of Karmic result is mentioned?
For Karma to be complete a certain set of conditions need to be present. What are the Suttas / Abhi Dhamma in this these sets of conditions presented in? Do Suttas / Abhi Dhamma mention what happens if some of the conditions are not met (but volition is present)? What are the instances where the completion of the Karmaic result or fomation is mentioned regarding morality and precepts, i.e., the necessary and sufficient conditions to transgress each or the 5 or higher precepts on which the Karmic result become complete?

I think that the "conditions to transgress precepts" are spelled out in the Vinaya in great detail. For example, in The Buddhist Monastic Code I: The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained,

Pages 245 through 247 define what "a lie" is
Pages 54 through 74 define "stealing"
Pages 75 through 85 defining "killing"

And similarly for other (monastic) precepts.

+1 this was what I was looking for but I am keeping the question open for the time in case there other citation in the Suttas and Abhi Dhamma.

Upasaka Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena,
The simply Sila section (or point of view), especially the Vinaya section does not answer this question in a valid way, since it is a "Abhidhamma" question. Vinaya does not always "judge" on the level of cause and effect on that level, but has also certain "will to exist" as its perceptive (one is to maintain a long life for the Sangha). Atma guesses that this matter was actually the reason for your question, now finding that Upasaka is brought back to where he actually came from.
If one looks into Vinaya more deeply one would find many occasions where such as intentions does not seem to play a rule at all. Also the factor of "deliberate" is not well explained and gives a lot of place for hypocrisy and in-honesty.
Classical Abhidhamma, where such things like factors are taken from, do also easily misguide since they give a lot of anchors for defilement to seek for justification as long as ones mind is not really trained and able to be most up-right in matters of judgement.
Atma guesses, that "simple" and profound Suttas like those
dealing with the matter of "Accepting = instigate = doing by one self" shows why the matter is not so easy to be carried, by those who like to put Dhamma into ones way of life and not vici versa. ( 6. Acelakavaggo AN03.157-163, , (17) 7. Kammapathapeyyālaṃ, translated by Ven. Sister Uppalavanna (For examples please see links)
Another often appearing mistake is to make inversions of arguments. Most famous are sayings like "but this does not matter for laypeople", when certain thinks have been taught as fault for a Bhikkhu. Such is in now way generally valid. Cause and effect, at the end, do not really care about your current assumed livelihood and knowledge.
So it needs good investigations of which has certain impacts in your current relations (generally called fault or transgression) and what is actually kusala or akusala, meaning that it has impact beyond your current relation and will ripe anyhow somewhere.
Since the question was on the level of Abhidhamma, or real higher virtue, Atma suggests Upasaka Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena, to leave this question open for a long time, since it is a straight line to insight and most beneficial to investigate.
So actually totally misleading interpretations, comings from inversions of the original sources.
The missing of a confession, if one does a miss-deed, might be founded on the famous Instruction to Rahula
Against verbal and bodily action, a misdeed here, in the sphere of
mental actions does obliviously not require the direct support of a
kalyanamitta.
One can see here that in the case of bodily and verbal actions, it has always direct impact on ones society and with it, endangers the current possibility of practice and support for it enormously. That is why there are also certain punishments in the Vinaya, to do all possible that one sticks on the good road. As for mental actions only, it would be not possible to get them worked out. So here one is left alone. But that is the reason why especially here should be a lot of explaining, since the actually impact is not different.
So one should remember this if somebody cleans your room from vermins, if it is a good idea to feel "Thanks" or what ever kind of acceptance with it. To guide an potential executor to them or opening the door... such are already certain mixes of bodily verbal and mental actions.


text:
Is Buddha immortal? (in Mahayana)
As I know Buddhism, it says 'Nothing is permament'
I just came across this in Wikipedia:

...a Buddha is immortal. Even though he descends in the samsara to
  preach Dharma and save sentient beings from suffering, his original body remains in a transcendent realm. That body will not die upon the death of the physical body of Buddha, and hence a Buddha is beyond arising and passing away...

It is given as a Mahayana Perspective of the Lotus Sutta.
So, what does this really mean?
Is it that there exists something even after Parinirvana?
Or have I understood it wrong?

First, there are permanent phenomena and impermanent phenomena. All products are impermanent, whereas all negative phenomena are permanent. For instance, space, emptiness, mental images are permanent due to not being products, that is not arising due to causes and conditions.
Second, the meaning of permanent is that of not being subject to change. There are permanent phenomena that are not eternal but occasional: for instance, the emptiness of the cup no longer abides if you break the cup.
Then, there are various bodies. The Dharmakaya has two parts (bodies) :

The wisdom truth body, which is the omniscient mind of a buddha. As it is a mind, it is impermanent, it is compounded
The nature truth body, which is the emptiness of the omniscient mind of a buddha. As it is an emptiness - suchness without defilement - it is permanent and uncompounded

The Dharmakaya is endowed with four aspects:

Permanent, in the sense of not being subject to birth [not taking even a mental body, as opposed to an arya bodhisattva who takes a menal body due to uncontaminated karma and knowledge obscurations]
Constant, in the sense of not being subject to the inconceivable transformation of death [of a mental body] and therefore his enlightened deeds are un-interrupted
Peace, in the sense of being free from all harm
Unalterable, in the sense of being free from aging [contrary to even the arya bodhisattva on a pure ground]

Most Mahayana traditions consider Shakyamuni Buddha's body - the one ordinary being could see - as an emanation body (not a mental body), emanating from the pure dharmakaya.
For more information, See Maitreya / Asanga's Sublime Continuum and commentaries, such as Gyaltsabe Je's.

In summary, the "nature truth body" is permanent, because it's unconditioned, because it's empty. That seems to me the same as the reasoning which says that "nirvana" is unconditioned.

The 'nature truth body' is permanent because it is an emptiness, not because it is empty (although it is empty, just like everything else). You are right to relate it to the reasoning which says nirvana is unconditioned. Usually, we say "but its achieving is conditioned; achieving it is conditioned".

In Tien Tai, Tendai and Nichiren Buddhism, the historical Buddha is a manifestation of the immortal Buddha. The Long Life chapter explains that the Buddha's life is stupendously long, or for all practical purposes infinite. The Expedient means chapter explains that the historical Buddha faked his death as a pedagogical device, a white lie of sorts. These are the two most chanted chapters of the Lotus Sutra in Nichiren Buddhism.
This is in keeping with Bodhisattva-yana thinking, where it is assumed that as people progress, they will inevitably switch to the Bodhisattva path, so teaching a variety of paths is just expedient means towards the goal of getting everyone on the Bodhisattva path. Once on the Bodhisattva path, Bodhisattvas progress until they almost reach nirvana, but do not pass into nirvana, instead they stay in the world to lead all sentient beings out of samsara.
The goal of this line of reasoning was to solve the problem in early Buddhism of why the Buddha, who is our compassionate teacher, would see fit to pass into parinirvana and leave us to fend for ourselves.
Sources, Mahayana by Paul Williams and various SGI books.


text:
Is causing death to a person breaking any monastic rule?
In the Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta:

There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty, if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he does know, he says, 'I know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I have seen.' Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world.

For example, a monk witnesses a murder and asks by a police for information. The monk knows his information/testimony will cause the murderer got murdered. Is giving this testimony break any vinaya rules or correspond to the rules?
As explained previously on another thread:
Enlightened Lies - Can lying be the correct action in certain situations?
Skillful means can be used to deal with this situation or lying with the intention to save others. But the same thing can be true as well, for example, when someone is asked by the police, his intention is to tell the truth, it's not his decision to take the murderer life away.
Is truth telling in this case is right or wrong and why?

this question has been posed here, but phrased differently, many different times: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9518/enlightened-lies-can-lying-be-the-correct-action-in-certain-situations
http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/12093/should-a-person-never-lie

I've edited the post above.


text:
Alternatives to the terms 'Hinayana' and 'Mahayana'?
Where does the terms 'Hinayana' and 'Mahayana' come from? Who made them up?
They are often translated as "lesser vehicle" and "greater vehicle". I wonder about this translation. Is it correct? I think it sounds a bit degrading, as if Mahayana is somehow greater or better than Hinayana.
Are there better terms with which to speak about what is generally called 'Hinayana' and 'Mahayana'?

This question could be on-topic here, but there's already a topic Is there a better term than Hinayana that we should be using? on meta.

Maybe re-title it to "Where does the terms 'Hinayana' and 'Mahayana' come from?" -- do we have this question answered here?


text:
How does Buddhism perceive swearing or vulgarities?
Swearing and the use of everyday vulgarity is often part of a conversation whether it be in jest or seriousness e.g. confrontation, frustration,etc
How is swearing or the use of vulgarities perceived in the context of Buddhism?

If you speak words which are (at the foundations) offensive to others, you are not practicing Right Speech very well. However, should you be around friends or alone, the words are just words.

"One should speak only that word by which one would not torment
  oneself nor harm others. That word is indeed well spoken.
"One should speak only pleasant words, words which are acceptable (to
  others). What one speaks without bringing evils to others is
  pleasant."

— Thag 21

Here's a whole page about 'Right Speech' on Access to Insight.


text:
Do thoughts create karma?
This question is about a very specific situation, but there might hopefully be a more general answer.
We've had conflicts at work, to the extent that we had to get a psychologist help us! There are many reasons for the conflicts, but for me the problem is that many of my co-workers are kind of lazy, not very competent and spend their time not doing their job but knitting, chit-chatting, complaining about everything etc. This situation leads to conflict and I have spent too much time being annoyed and tried to change the situation.
Still, I sometimes think negative thoughts about these people. When I catch myself thinking negative ("lazy, incompetent people") I try to take a look at myself and see what causes the thoughts and what I really am thinking. This strategy also helps me to not take it out on them.
But the question is, does the thoughts in themselves create bad karma?

Are you sure that you mean 'do they create bad karma', rather than 'do they create bad karmic imprints' ?

I think maybe that's what I was trying to ask. I'm not really sure about the difference, though. Can you elaborate?

Your work space is very good for practicing patience, acceptance of how things are, letting go of wanting, compassion, forbearance :) you are lucky!

I agree and I also find the job itself very satisfying. It is a help service for people with alcohol and drug problems, and their friends and relatives. So it is in addition to being a place to practice patience also many opportunities to help people in need.

There is karma that is intention (an omnipresent mental factor) and karma that is intended actions.
Intended actions are defined by Je Tsongkhapa as:

The actions of body and speech that are motivated by that intention.

Afflictions such as anger, jealousy, covetousness, and so forth are not the intention mental factor - but have their own entity as mental factors - therefore they are not karma. Anger manifests from a seed of anger and that seed is not a karmic seed, because it was "deposited" by a previous instance of anger (not by a previous karma - that is intention or intended action).
However, some qualify the afflictions as 'karmic path' or 'paths of actions' because they are likely to lead one to engage in negative actions (karma).

Anger, jealousy, covetousness etc. are Mano Kamma. If speech gets involved, it becomes Vaci Kamma. If body gets involved, it becomes Kaya Kamma. Intention is not omnipresent. Intention comes in only at the 8th thought moment of the 17 thought moments in a single experience.

@SankhaKulathantille According to Mahayana Abidharma, the mental factor 'intention' is one of five omnipresent mental factors in that it accompany any 'main consciousness'. A main mind is divided into 64 moments, and the last moment is an instance of 'mental consciousness' which is an inattentive awareness in the continuum of an ordinary being. 'Mano kamma' is intention, and anger is not intention [that it has in its retinue, although they are one entity].

In other words, according to Mahayana, people can get angry/jealous/lustful without Karmic consequences :)

It doesn't follow. 1. The main mind associated with anger, as well as the other mental factors in its retinue, become 'afflicted' due to anger being an affliction. Intention is one of them. It's jut not afflicted by its own power. 2. Anger arising produces seeds of anger that will act very much like karmic seeds in that they will determine a tendency.

Lord Buddha got headaches due to a past Karma of just being happy seeing the fish on the beach struggling for their lives. How does Mahayana explain that? :)

We usually claim that Shakyamuni Buddhi was already enlightened, and that it was merely an emanation body. There is no fault in asserting that en enlightened being can show the aspect of being wrathful, or showing the aspect of having a headache, a heart attack, and so forth. However, I fail to see the relation between your last question and our discussion before that point.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@Tenzin Dorje - I would be very keen to pick-up on the conversation with had last since i have so many questions.

Dear @Motivated, I created a room for this purpose.

I also unfroze this room in case you'd prefer to use that instead (it doesn't matter much which one you use). You're also welcome to use the main Buddhism room any time ... I think that one never freezes.

@Tenzin Dorje - Thanks.I attempted to use the room ChrisW unfroze however it seems to have been frozen again.

@ChrisW - Hi Chris, the rooms seems to have frozen again.

@Motivated I unfroze this one again. The other two ('here' and 'here') were already/still unfrozen. Are you unable to see the messages in these rooms, do you see a message which says "This room has been automatically frozen for inactivity", and/or are you unable to post in the room?

@ChrisW - Thanks and apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I'm able to access the first room again.

Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto writes:

But according to the teachings of Buddhism, all actions and
  speech, all thoughts, no matter how fleeting, and the responses
  of the mind to sensations received through eye, ear, nose,
  tongue, body, and mind, without exception, contain elements of
  intention. Intention is thus the mind’s volitional choosing of objects
  of awareness; it is the factor which leads the mind to turn
  towards, or be repelled from, various objects of awareness, or
  to proceed in any particular direction; it is the guide or the governor
  of how the mind responds to stimuli; it is the force which
  plans and organizes the movements of the mind, and ultimately
  it is that which determines the states experienced by the mind.
One instance of intention is one instance of kamma. When there
  is kamma there is immediate result. Even just one little thought,
  although not particularly important, is nevertheless not void of
  consequence. It will be at the least a “tiny speck” of kamma,
  added to the stream of conditions which shape mental activity.
  With repeated practice, through repeated proliferation by the
  mind, or through expression as external activity, the result becomes
  stronger in the form of character traits, physical features
  or repercussions from external sources.
-- Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's teachings

As there are physical movements that are devoid of intention (e.g. convulsions), some mental images might be understood to surface unintentionally. While the quote above asserts all thoughts to have intention, it can be argued if these are understood to be karma or not. Dreams would be in this gray area, I think.
But, while awake, any sophisticated thought, anything more than a flash of an image or a sound or taste or smell, any and all imagination containing full sentences, dialogues and motions, etc, have an active element in them which nurtures and develops them: underneath, there's the intention to imagine these things, and these imaginations are actions -- which is the meaning of karma in Buddhism.

Karma is caused by will or intention, expressed in thoughts, words, and deeds (body, speech, and mind) but thoughts in themselves are epiphenomenal.


text:
Does mankind evolve or devolve spiritually?
Some philosophers have the idea that humanity is undergoing a spiritual evolution. The most famous representative of this idea is G. W. F. Hegel (whose ideas Marx used and later Communism tried to put into practice). There are also many, more esoteric and religious thinkers, with ideas like that. Rudolf Steiner is one of them; he thinks humanity is evolving spiritually. The common idea between them is that we are in a better position to become acquainted with ourselves as spirit (this idea does not pertain to Marx’ materialist view, though).
One of my teachers, a Plato researcher, said: “we understand Plato better than Plato could understand himself”? How is this in Buddhism? Is mankind now, 2500 years after the historical Buddha, in a better position to make use of the Dharma? Are we better “equipped for enlightenment”? Is the understanding and insights growing as time goes by?
Or perhaps it is the other way around? Maybe the distance in time since the start of the spreading of the Dharma makes it more and more difficult for us? Could talk about a spiritual devolution?
Or is it not changing at all, neither spiritual evolution nor devolution of mankind?

This note is not really true in the context of Buddhism. Buddhism, including Pali Buddhism, has specific teachings concerning the topic of this question, so while it may seem to you that it is primarily opinion based, it can be addressed from a  sutta perspective accurately and objectively.

@AlexanderDuncan Theoretically you (or the OP or anyone) could edit the question (or ask a different question) so that it asks what you're talking about, i.e. ask what are the orthodox/scriptural doctrines on that subject. I don't want to do that myself, however, because it's my feeling that that's not what the OP wanted to ask: I like to make edits which clarify the OP's question, and don't like to make edits which contradict the OP's intent.

You could also try posting that answer by suggesting it as an edit/addition to @JoseB's existing answer.

According to Mahayana Buddhism there are Three Ages of Buddhism:

The Former Day of the Law, also known as the Age of the Right Dharma, which lasts between 500-1000 years during which the Buddha's disciples are able to uphold the Buddha's teachings.
The Middle Day of the Law, also known as the Age of Semblance Dharma, (second 1,000 years) during which the teaching only resembles the right Dharma.
The Latter Day of the Law, during which the Dharma declines.

So, according to this, there is devolution in the sense that the Dharma declines over time until it disappears and then the true Dharma will only be re-established by the next Buddha.


text:
Does the degree of the victim's sentience correlate with the kamma associated with killing it?

"One should not kill a living being,
  nor cause it to be killed,
  nor should one incite another to kill.
  Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.
Sutta Nipāta 2.396"

Is there more negative kamma associated with killing a biting insect than with killing a more sentient animal like a sparrow or mole?
For instance, do I incur more negative kamma by swatting a mosquito that is sucking my blood than if I kill a more sentient and less troublesome squirrel that is raiding my garden?

Yes, killing a human generates far more karma then crushing an ant.
However the size of the seed does not determine the outcome of the seed.
One teacher once noted that the karma of swatting a fly grows exponentially.
That after a few days, especially if it is a repeated action, it can be grown to the size of the initial seed of killing a human.
However the initial human killing seed grows similarly as fast.
The thing is we have all these seeds or "karmic imprints" if you will, that are all maturing and ripening. Both good an bad, and they are coming in at a rate of around 60 imprints a second.
I once let a mosquito eat its fill from my arm back when I was more seriously into Buddhism, the thought process was along the lines of sure, I have plenty of blood... eat up. The bite was magnificently itchy, and I will never do such again.
Now I crush mosquitoes, I don't enjoy killing them, I don't seek it out, but if one is buzzing around in my apartment it is off to the bardo with it.
However, squirrels raiding your garden, that is a slightly different scenario. Have you researched other options? Is there another way to protect your garden? It would be worth it to explore these questions from a karmic standpoint.
Better to plant as few of those kinds of seeds as possible, or plant the opposite kind of seed... maybe out of compassion put out some food that squirrels eat and enjoy nearby, if the squirrel is hungry you will get the karma of feeding a being of lesser sentience. A full squirrel is less likely to raid your garden.
Another thing to consider is the attachment to the garden, and the outcome of the harvest. If you lose one or two tomatoes, but harvest 12, really I'd say let the squirrel do its thing. I don't know the full extent of the raiding though, perhaps this squirrel ate all of your tomatoes. It still is not after your blood though, so there is that.


text:
What is the process that creates "Saṅkhāra"
Is it right if i say the origin of Saṅkhāra is not by a natural process of the mind but it is a byproduct of Avidyā which dominates the non-arahant mind?

I think, you are right.

Is it right if I say the origin of Saṅkhāra is not by a natural process of the mind

It is a natural process that when we get feeling born from contact of the faculty with an external object which you react with craving and clinging for a worldly person. You do have control over the process as this point there you can be just see the airing and passing of the feeling born of contact of the faculty with an external object, (phenomena what is felt or known) and be completely be equanimous towards the feeling without clinging and craving. The latter is going against the stream and requires effort. This is going against the natural process this happens.

... but it is a byproduct of Avidyā which dominates the non-arahant mind?

This is a by product of Avidya. It is in short reaction to sensations / feelings with craving and clinging.
The way to overcome this is given in the Pahana Suttas (or the way to let go): Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2. There are times that this process is formalised as understanding 4 Noble Truths.

I found this:
Sankhara Origin eBook

Consciousness is the product of the physiological processes of our body in general, and of the functions of the senses in particular. Or, to speak in the spirit of Schopenhauer: Consciousness is a secondary phenomenom, conditioned by the functions of the cerebral nervous system, based upon the somatic life of the individual: "Only by means of organic life is consciousness possible".

I hope this helps.

Thnak you cMk, You are right Biologically but what do you think about the Buddhist point of view?

I've reread your question after seeing your comment and it seems I appear to have misread it. My apologies. In regards to your question, I have to agree.

It is OK what matters is that good friends here take time to answer questions and help others. Keep it up.Thank you : )


text:
Advice for a young person living in a western city
I've read here about sensual pleasure and music and I agree with what I've read: that boredom breeds states of unwholesome pleasure and that when we give up our thoughts to entertainment we do just that; that we should instead focus on the teachings and right employment.
However, do you believe there is anything wrong with actually playing an instrument? It is a skill, surely: can musicianship in any sense be thought of as an example of right employment? Is there a Buddhist approach to music? Or to photography and film and etc.? I am maybe generally a little confused on what right employment can be, I am a student and want to consider carefully what I will do for work. While becoming a monk is here out of the question, do you think it is possible to find good employment in an economic system which fundamentally values consumption as a positive value, or will this not create unwholesome pleasure necessarily by contributing to it?
Maybe another question I have which is not wholly separate is how can a young person living in a western city separate themselves from pop cultural influences without withdrawing from society? For instance, it seems like withdrawing from my life would hurt and confuse more people (family, friends) than it would cause happiness, and since there is not even a temple here it is hard for me to accept Buddhism itself as a religion in the strict sense since it would be a profoundly personal study for me to undertake (as opposed to one I could practice with others).
I'm sorry if these questions are too personal, but they are problems that bother me about this path that I have trouble reconciling with my day to day life. The economic world seems geared in a very different direction to the wisdom of the teachings, and it frightens me. Thank you for reading and replying and I hope you are well. And please, point out where I am going astray, because I am in no small need of guidance. If this is an inappropriate place to post this, I am sorry.

Bear in mind that a lot of teachings are directed to ascetics: those who are willing to dedicate their life to the greatest spiritual attainment. It's required more of them because these attainments require more. One way of put it is that the Buddha taught "cessation of suffering" to those willing to go for it, and "less suffering" to everyone else.

Hi Amby and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might find useful.

The most hard-core interpretations of the suttas would probably make anyone feel as though their chosen career doesn't jive with Buddhist doctrine. Fortunately we're all encouraged to take a middle-way approach in all things, so we needn't be tied to the strictest way of thinking about our careers.
Right livelihood, the fifth element on the Noble Eightfold Path, is actually fairly easy to summarize:

Right livelihood means that practitioners ought not to engage in trades or occupations which, either directly or indirectly, result in harm for other living beings. (Source)

I think a musician would need to go out of their way to harm other living beings. The career is inherently peaceful in nature, and does a lot of good. Buddhism isn't about avoiding all sense pleasure and completely eschewing anything "fun"; it's more about following a middle way that makes sense for the practitioner.
On a personal level, I have a profound appreciation for musicians. Music helps me relax, and I really enjoy opportunities to listen mindfully. Back when my children were babies, there were some nights when being able to tune into the classical radio station meant the difference between complete peace and total discord within the household. Music does wonders for people, and musicians make it possible for people to benefit from it.
So, music as a career: no problem. Go for it, and don't look back. Your other concern, about economics driven by consumption, could have an entire book written in response. But, simply put, there is nothing wrong with providing a service and charging a fair price for it. This basic practice of trade transcends all modern economic theory, all "-isms", and all other ways of thinking about money, goods, and services. Charging money for the consumption of music is no different than charging money for the preparation of food; both are perfectly valid ways to make a living in the world. Both provide something of value to a consumer. It's all good.
Finally, you needn't withdraw completely from life to be a good practicing Buddhist. Again, it's easy to get caught up in the strict interpretations of precepts and rules, and to let that push us into thinking that the only way to live the "right" kind of life is to put on robes and meditate all day, but it's important to unwind a bit and always remember the Middle Way. You also don't need access to a temple, a Dharma center, or anything else. You can simply read Buddha's words and apply them to your life; you can accept the Four Noble Truths; you can follow the Noble Eightfold Path. You can do all of this within the context of your current life, being who you are, with school, work, friends, and family. If you would change your life in any radical way in the pursuit of Buddhism, and if such changes would result in suffering for you, then what would be the point? The principal teaching of Buddhism is suffering and its elimination; no one's practice should ever cause suffering.

Thank you, I appreciate the sincere response. I come from a Catholic family originally so I find myself drifting towards the more ego-driven sense of sin found in their doctrines sometimes, but this has reminded me that the other thing I appreciate about Buddhism so much aside from it's wisdom is it's ability to be so down-to-earth. I hope you have a good day.

boredom breeds states of unwholesome pleasure

Boredom already is an unwholesome state. It is a form of aversion. It is caused due to paying unwise attention.

However, do you believe there is anything wrong with actually playing
  an instrument?

One plays or listens to music because of the wanting to please the ears. That is indeed unwholesome. But this does not break any of the five precepts or go against the right livelihood. So playing music for entertainment/money is allowed for a layman.

do you think it is possible to find good employment...

Yes, there are plenty of options for Buddhists. You just need to avoid wrong livelihood. ex: teacher, doctor, mason, engineer, farmer etc.

how can a young person living in a western city separate themselves
  from pop cultural influences without withdrawing from society

Buddhists need not separate themselves from pop culture. They just need to avoid breaking precepts.

it seems like withdrawing from my life would hurt and confuse more
  people

If prince Siddhartha thought like that, we wouldn't even have Buddhism today.
Trying to satisfy the clinging of others is never a good reason to stay away from the Dhamma. As long as they have clinging, you can't stop them from getting hurt, no matter what you do. But usually it's our own clinging that keeps us in lay life or away from the Dhamma. That clinging can conceal itself as caring for others. Defilements can be very tricky. When you disallow them in their raw form, they try to get in by taking the form of the things you allow.

since there is not even a temple here it is hard for me to accept
  Buddhism itself as a religion in the strict sense

You don't need a temple to be a Buddhist. You just need to take refuge(spiritual) in the Triple Gem. You can do it privately. There are lot of free Dhamma books/videos available online. If you can't meet a monk face to face, there's a community of online Sangha.

Thank you for the response, this is very good advice. I wonder if you could elaborate on what you said about "unwise attention" or recommend where I could read more myself on the subject?

Welcome! Read the Yoniso Manasikara Sampada sutta


text:
Is a Daruma doll a good motivation to meditate ?
Is using a Daruma doll as a means to motivation to meditate a good idea ?   or is it counter productive ?

They're great but I feel that if you can do it with a Daruma Doll you can do it with any other object.
Anything bright, cosntantly changing or unusual that you're never going to get used to will prompt you to meditate, once you have made that association.
If you're more traditional, set phone wallpapers and/or alarms.


text:
Secularized Buddhism
I've been reading some of Stephen Batchelor's ideas, and find them quite interesting. Does anyone have references to further reading of secularized Buddhist ideas and literature?

This is similar to (maybe not a duplicate of) Are there canonical texts for secular Buddhism? That one asks for "canonical" texts (if there is such a thing), this one asks more generally for (any) further reading.

I think one of the major proponents of 'Secular Buddhism' was S.N.Goenka, although I doubt if he himself would call his lineage that.
First, let me give a brief idea of the tradition. S.N.Goenka's lineage could be traced back to Ven. Ledi Sayadaw, a Buddhist monk who was instrumental in reviving the practice of Vipassana. In his retreats, S.N.Goenka emphasizes on how the pain and suffering we face is universal irrespective of one's religion. And hence, he stresses, that the path of liberation from this suffering is also universal and not based on one's religion. He famously said at the UN's Millennium World Peace Summit that the only conversion involved in Vipassana is from misery to happiness, from bondage to liberation and from cruelty to compassion. You can also watch him introduce meditation to an audience at the Harvard Business Club here.
A very primary book on Vipassana written by William Hart, one of his students is 'The Art of Living'. In this, he talks about basic Buddhist ideas like suffering, its cause and the path of coming out of it in a very secular fashion. You may look at some other books and CDs here.
At his 10 day retreat, he gives discourses which are also very secular in nature. You can register for the retreat here.

Also Meditation En Masse by Erik Braun also might be of interest.

Could I recommend Zen and the Art of Consciousness by Susan Blackmore. It is a personal account of a wholehearted Buddhist practice but framed very much from a secular perspective. Sue Blackmore her self does not identify as a Buddhist at all but this is very much an account of a dedicated Buddhist practitioner albeit with a scientific approach.
It's so secular it refuses to identify even as secular Buddhism at all. That said it is an excellent account in how Buddhist practice is without any identification with supernatural phenomena or any religious overtones and I found it quite inspiring. Just my opinion of course.

OK, cool, I didn't know she had written specifically on Zen. But I did enjoy her "Consciousness" in the Oxford Very Short Introduction series (https://global.oup.com/academic/content/series/v/very-short-introductions-vsi/?cc=no&lang=en&)

@Mr.Concept she is very interesting in that book. She does talk about consciousness research and figures like Daniel Dennet as well as Buddhist practice. She does practice in a Zen context but there is bits of Tibetan influence as well in some of the Mahamudra stuff she talks about. I really enjoyed it

Yeah, she did give Daniel Dennet a lot of discussion in the above mentioned book. After your mentioning "Zen context but there is bits of Tibetan influence as well in some of the Mahamudra stuff", I'm surely going to get a hold of "Zen and the Art of Consciousness"!