text:
Meditators should judge other people?
How can it be proper for a meditator who does not yet see reality as it is...
...to judge other people so easily?
There is so much potential for subtle misuse of power, I mean I know I would be corrupted if it were me. Not grossly corrupted(hopefully) but subtly corrupted because I am unaware of my subtle transgressions.
Even though I do say this out of ego I would hope that I am also saying it out of compassion for our admins.
I am not trying to argue as I was hoping we might agree.
If the admins think this causes too much fuss or arguing then the admins can react and censor this inquiry.
My point is that we need admins, but a practicing admin, that seems like a contradiction but that is just my opinion.
If it is appropriate for a practitioner to behave like some kind of police officer then please enlighten me on the reasons it is appropriate...
...or just take the easy way out and censor this  question.

Are you judging and are you meditator? It's not improper to judge but rather than persons, deed. Like to listen to a talk? http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/y2017/170224_Recognizing_Fools.mp3

Don't forget, this is not a place of dhamma, not a place where people keep precepts. It's a business place, and you are costumer and provider and feed accepting other rules and regime. Thats how costumer have to live.

Everything comes from judgment. Without judgment: nothing. 1: I have no idea. 2:distinction.

The Jews say you should never judge alone, since there is only one who can judge alone.

That's manifold a foolish saying @SimonH

Though I understand the background of ur this question but not all others who commented or wanted to answer understand clearly what ur question pointing to, technically.

Is it? You can only have 'things' from judgment. Or do you mean about the Jews? I think it makes the point that judgment needs to be done but that the judgment of a single individual should not be relied on.

1000 fools would not judge a better, @SimonH , as one fool and such is not a matter of birth, status nor religion. Democracy would only work well if most are wise.

Ok. Two wise men/women, then. Right, how do we pick them?

The way I see it is, anybody who judges another’s practice or meditation, is just advertising their ignorance.  The Way is not “one size fits all.” There is no concept in Buddhism that says “if you do it like this, then this will happen.” Or if there is, it comes from some man’s mind.  Buddhism is a set of guidelines, a road map for the purpose of awakening to the possibility of knowing the truth.  Actually “seeing the waterfall” is very different than continuing to study the map that will take you there.  I see so many people forgetting to first wake up. They seem hung up on the maps and methods.  I’m not saying that the maps are not valid.
We are like fingers on the same hand, all plugged into the hand, but each operating independently.  On the surface, we have species commonality, but that’s about it.  Anyone who judges right and wrong, with regard to practice, no matter what they have personally experienced is acting from ego.  None of us really know what is true for someone else.
Our minds are limited, just as a dog will never be able to grasp the concept of Algebra, even with the eloquence and detail of the explanation.  We can’t know what is true for someone else.  We attribute our “puny” mind to be at the top of the chain.  Not so much, really.  But we rely on it so dearly, giving it the highest honors.  We give it divine properties to say what is true for somebody else.  The truth, as I experience it, is that we are not the mind, or even the body.  The actual truth is something so foreign to us that our mind cannot begin to comprehend it.  I have the “gut or heart” feeling that it is wonderful, but like everybody else, “I don’t know.” It can’t be explained in terms of atoms, which is the substance of this universe.  We can’t get there by thinking, practicing or study.  It seems to me, once you are established, it happens by letting go of those very things.
The concept and precepts laid out in Buddhism, are what worked for some people and because we are all connected species wide, like the finger on the hand, there is some probability they might work for another person to have this awakening, especially if they are drawn to it by their karma.  Again, to me, it is the giving up, letting go and “the ultimate sincerity “ of the practitioner that move him/her along.  It seems to me that at their core, all major religions teach the same concepts.  Don’t lie, cheat or steal, be kind to others, don’t kill, don’t attach, trust, etc.  It isn’t the hours they sit for meditation or whether they are vegetarian or not, but rather the underlying sincerity that they apply the concepts to the way they live their lives.  Seekers keep reminding themselves to “wake up” to what is. We are all connected (fingers) on the same hand (self).  We are all brothers/sisters under the Self.  Judging is foolish.  Only provide help where you can, with the depth of your sincerity.

Uhh... "if you do it like this, then this will happen" that's the whole teachings way. And judging is most importand accept one likes to become endless ignorant so to be able to turn on and on. This judging and of cause many, are indeed foolish, Bob. AN4.83 and AN 4.100 f.E. on the judging matter.

Uuu, interested reader with respect in regard of the Tripple Gems,
Once my person asked Bhikkhu Bodhi on the matter of critism and he gave an answer according to the Dhamma of the Buddha, at the same time confessed that (like most "Bodhisattas") did not investigate much this matter. A good an nice illustation is the Khmer folktale "Great Hermit Saves the Tiger, incl. a detail work about the matter of defilements in judging and whom better not to ask/believe.

"Disprais is not good and praise is good; or is even to praise also bad? Both is good and bad: the fail to do as well as to do it." AN 4.83: Avannaraha Sutta - Dispraise
"Here the Buddha points out to an wandering ascetic that alienation and equanimity are not the higherst virtues in regard of praise and blame." AN 4.100: Potaliya Sutta: Potaliya

That's the problem in general if Dhamma is traded, when ask people trading in Dhamma, they are not really convicted od the Buddhas way, but bound and so bind others as well. And costomers are so intensively trained by their providers to become just fool feeders and "enjoy" that it is hard to transport that the Buddha puts right judgement at the most upper point to have success in liberation.
As for the detail matter in the question, it's good to pressure in a supportive and not ill-willed way as long one is part of a community. That's a duty. But don't forget, people become their leaders, leaders become their folk, according to their deeds, inclination, so change starts within one self and is possible as far as the enviroment and its general objectives gives possible ground and that's the main problem, since all of you are bound here because liking to feed and there is a provider seeking you deeds in return, the seek to increase this business limits "just" enormous and will be always corrupt. Admins and mods, them self consumer, are at fist had obligated to what secures them the food and in such to the provider at secound and maybe after this line obligated to Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha and truthfulness. So plenty of metta and karuna for people bound as you is good placed in such matters, helping each other to trust the way out, again and again.
(Feel free to ask or discuss the matter further and in detail on the linked enviroment without strings.
[Note: This answer is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains]


text:
What is the Buddhist perspective on passively altering your subconcious?
Firstly I'd like to provide some context:
When I first began getting into the Buddhist teachings, specifically that of the Theravada tradition, I'd often do things such as passively play the Dhammapada in my earphones while riding my bike, or keep it on low volume in the background while I did something else. My goal was to be able to gain a basic grasp of the dhamma through forced repeated listening, and to an extent it worked in the sense that I memorized a lot of verses and ideas found in the Dhammapada, and upon hearing a verse quoted, I have an "aha" moment in the sense that It feels familiar. Furthermore, my mind and speaking style had a subtle change as well, with my head being fixated on "illusions" found in everyday physical existence.
Overall, there was definitely a change in my physical being.
In Buddhism, mindfulness is praised and shown as the key to making spiritual progress. While I did employ mindful practices such as watching my mind in everyday life and meditating every once in a while, the practice I used for the longest time was definitely not that of a mindful one.
Yet, it seemed to have occurred to me that reaching a certain point in Buddhist practice, even through mindful meditation, requires a certain degree of destroying the old and replacing with the new, in the sense that old beliefs such as those cultivated through childhood can prevent one from going forward in their spiritual practice, or in that sense any practice, be it learning a skill or whatever (i.e saying to yourself constantly that "I'm this, I'm this kind of person/ I was made to do X").
Whether through the words of Buddha or through the teachings of other Buddhist practices such as those of a tantric origin, what is the Buddhist perspective on knowingly "brainwashing" or "rewiring" yourself via methods of repeated listening, binaural beats, and other various forms of hypnosis and subconcious alterations to make changes to your life and perspective on things?

I can advice you on how to alter your subconscious, but it is an active process. I do not know how one can do this in a passive way. What if you edit / revise the OP & take out the word 'passively'?

@SapthaVisuddhi 'passively' is used in regards to methods such as subliminal messages, hypnosis, forced repetition, etc

I think that all they had that was like that was music or chanting  unless you mean a modern Buddhist development?

@MettaforBullies Personally I was also wondering what the general consensus was in the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions.

Kammattana helps to passively alter your subconcious. During the time of the Buddha, sixty monks realized and attained the fruition of holiness (arahant phala) having received the subjects of meditation or working ground (kammatthāna) from a female lay adherent by the name Matika Matha (mother of Mathika Gama) at the village called Matika in the kingdom of Kosala.
The Buddha said “bhavanaya bahuleekathaya…..”. Bhavana (or meditation) if used frequently, thinking about it and examine it in many different situations as much as possible, then the true meaning starts to “sink in”. Formal recitations are part of this process.
Reciting a phrase repeatedly while contemplating on it is called kammattana in Buddhist Meditation. It is an excellent way to retain and comprehend a given a concept. For this it is good to at least vaguely understand the concept. Pali words tend to condense a lot of meaning. Also Pali words have more than one meaning. One meaning would be of a mundane level, while another would be at a deeper level.
Such recitations help subside the five hindrances that makes the mind agitated and not receptive. This helps at least temporarily subside greedy, hateful, and irrelevant thoughts.  The mind will not be lethargic or agitated as kammattanas help make the mind calm.
A meditation session can be made more effective by calming the mind by listening to or doing some well-planned recitations. The following is one such recitations:

“Ethan santhan ethan paneethan, sabba sankhara samatho, Sabbhupathi patinissaggo, tanhkkhayo, virago, nirodho, Nibbanan ti“
  Etan santan etan paneetan, yadidan sabba sankhara samato, sabbupati patinissaggo, tanhakkhayo virago, nirodho Nibbananti
  Etan santan etan paneetan, yadidan sabba sankhara samato, sabbupati patinissaggo, tanhakkhayo virago, nirodho Nibbananti

[“It is the only peace, the only happiness: prevent sankhara from arising by eliminating tanha and excess greed, and thus stopping the arising of defilements, which is Nibbana“.]

Aniccä vatha sankhärä;    Uppäda vaya dhamminö
  Uuppajjitvä nirujjhanti;   Te san vüpa samö sukhö

This verse tells about the “fleeting nature” of life. It explains why we face sorrow inevitably (because death is inevitable), and how it can be permanently removed to attain the Nibbanic bliss. This verse was uttered by Sakka, the King of the Devas, just after the Parinibbana of the Buddha. A common translation is:

All things are impermanent;   They arise and pass away;
  Having arisen they come to an end;   .   Their coming to peace is bliss

This is a very good kammattana (meditation subject) for cultivating the “anicca sanna“. One could recite the verse and contemplate on its meaning. Think about all those loved ones who passed away and led to much suffering. And one’s own death is also inevitable.
A few other kammattana  examples are:

Itipi so Bhagavâ Arahan Sammâsambuddho Vijjacarana sampanno Sugato Lokavidu Anuttarro purisadammasarathi Sattha devamanussanan Buddho Bhagavati
Svakkhato Bhagavata Dhammo Sanditthiko Akaliko Ehipassiko Opanayiko Paccattam veditabbo Vinnuhiti.
Supatipanno Bhagavato savaka sangho, ujupatipanno Bhagavato savaka sangho. nayapatipanno Bhagavato savaka sangho. Samicipatipanno Bhagavato savaka sangho Yadidam cattari purisa yugani atthapurisapuggala esa Bhagavato savaka sangho. Ahuneyyo, pahuneyyo, dakkhineyyo,anjalikaraniyo, anuttaram punnakkhetan lokassati
Kayena vaca cittena pamadena maya katan, accayam khama me Bhante bhuripanna Tathagata
  Kayena vaca cittena pamadena maya katan, accayam khama me Dhamma sandittika akalika
  Kayena vaca cittena pamadena maya katan, accayam khama me Sangha supatipanna anuttara
ldam me nati nan hotu Sukhita hontu natayo
  ldam vo nati nan hotu Sukhita hontu natayo
May all living beings forgive me for any misdeeds that I have done to them in this long sansara and accept these merits. May I be free of all debts to all living beings.
  May all living beings be free from any debts that they have for me, due to any misdeeds that they have done to me.    May all living beings, including myself, be free of all debts to each other. May all attain Nibbana.

Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!

Sorav,
Interesed, serious and the Tripple Gems respecting readers,
listening to the teachings, if done right, straightens ones Right view. Doing it wrong increases wrong view and primaly respect. Althought even foolish and respectless monks merely even force to make Dhamma simply food for consuming and throw it on the worlds market for short and poor livelihood, one should not follow their way and use the medicine right.
Listen unattentive Dhamma while doing even unwholesome deeds manifest on and on latent disrespect an closes up the door to Dhamma.
Some good advices in this regard are found in "Abidhamma in daily live" (dhammadesana), by Ven. Ashin Janakabhivamsa.
It's not mindful and not conductive to just consume Dhamma, since it requires giving at fist place.
To answer short on "What is the Buddhist perspective on passively altering your subconcious?"
The "Buddhists" perspective here is trade for gain and the world, while this of the Buddha and his following discipeles is letting go and Nibbana. One way is that in the world, another to Nibbana. Knowing this clearly one is not a little after any gain.
(Since detail discussion is not so welcome here, and the enviroment not so proper for Dhamma Desana, feel free to raise question, even audio here.)
[Note: This is agift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains]

It will depend on the individual attentiveness on Dhamma. And what Buddha taught is volition depend on this one will have kusala or akusala. And mind(either kusala or akusala) is occurring once at a specific moment. If it is akusala, it can be called kusala. So in your action of every day activity interspersed every fine moment with dhamma, you will be getting kusala but not uninterrupted ones(sometimes it is better while there is absolutely not). Even animals listening attentively (though not knowingly the meaning), get kusala leading to higher abode. It is not brain washing. With these knowledge, contemplate the arising piti on what has done, will surely lead to higher nana stage. Mind matter most.

Firstly, when something agreeable, disagreeable and neither agreeable or disagreeable arises you should note their impermanence with equanimity.
Secondly, you should see in which direction your mind swings when encountered something agreeable, disagreeable and neither agreeable or disagreeable and develop the opposite perception.
Finally, when something agreeable, disagreeable and neither agreeable or disagreeable arises you should develop a sense of revulsion and try to be fully equanimous and aware.
See Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta
The above will perhaps alter your subconscious so you do not negatively react (create negative roots or craving, aversion and ignorance).
Also there might be different techniques of "altering the subconscious" but not all of them may be wholesome or be tied with the Buddhist goal.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why do Buddhists argue that nirvana is nothing in addition to the skandhas?
Why do Buddhists argue that nirvana is nothing in addition to the skandhas? I found this, and I hope it suffices to demonstrate that's what the Buddha taught:

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in
  form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than
  feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In
  fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?...
  Elsewhere than consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as
  form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without
  feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without
  consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a
  truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to
  declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a
  monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
  annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"

The quote seems to say that the Tathagata is not without form feeling etc..
If nirvana were something in addition to the aggregates, then I'm thinking the Tathagata would be without the aggregates. On the grounds that nirvana is all that the Tathagata is.

What should "saṅkhāra" in cessation? And yes, for a long long time you have been wandering on, is it not time to let go, since "the past" is also now? Present, or what ever one grasps, does not arise for a Tathagata or an Arahat.

@SamanaJohann I'm really rational about things, or try to be. sorry.

I still don't understand the phrase "nothing in addition to the skandhas"; are you saying that "the argument" is that: 1) nirvana exists, and 2) nirvana is nothing, and 3) nirvana is something extra than, something different from, the five aggregates? But I suppose that even if they don't understand that phrase, people can try to answer by explaining what that sutta means.

@ChrisW I explained one reason.

Vexing Question.

In the Yamaka Sutta, Ven. Sariputta, made Yamaka to understand that the five skandas are anicca. If one truly understands this reality the extinction of the process happens in the form of ‘Nibbana’.   If we willingly attach to these five skandas with the nicca sanna, then we suffer. Only in realizing that nothing can be maintained to one’s satisfaction in the long run, can we arrive at Nibbana.
Nibbana is not sunnata or emptiness. The person who attained Nibbana is only empty of the five upadanaskandas. The five skandas remain. It is like this. if we take a water bottle and pour the water out, we say we have an empty bottle. But in reality there is air in the bottle, so the bottle is empty only with regard to water; it is not empty regard to air.
Thus what is meant was that “it is empty of”. There is no absolute “emptiness”. At Nibbana  one is empty of greed (raga), hate (dosa), and ignorance (moha). At Arahanthood, even the slightest bondage to anything material is discarded.
For one who has attained Nibbana, there is only "ditthē dittha mattan bhavissati- sutē suta mattan bhavissati- mutē muta mattan bhavissati” – There is only seeing in the ‘seeing’; only hearing in the ‘hearing’ etc. It is only you and I, that take nimithi & anu nimithi  (impressions of objects) from what we hear or see.
As long as there is greed, ill will & delusion we retain impressions of objects (nimithi anu nimithi) of self & pleasurable things. The impressions stimulate our senses and thus we see people & things around us. Only the minds that are polluted with greed, hatred & delusion associate four elements. The one who sees arising ceasing nature of aggregates sees the emptiness of any inherent meaning & will not retain impressions thereby abandoning the defilements of greed hatred and delusion.

The water bottle analogy is lovely. "Empty with regard to..." We are meant to be empty with regard to views.

As I often have to, I read your answer quite a few times before deciding how to vote. I think when you say that with nirvana there is "only seeing in the seeing" you're saying that nirvana is not something over or above, an entity in addition to, the skandhas

I think that the topic of the sutta you referenced is anatta.
For example the discussion with Sariputta starts with,

"What do you think, my friend Yamaka: Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, my friend."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, my friend."
"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

An important part of Buddhist doctrine is to not identify in this way with form (nor any other skandha).
Another way to phrase this is that we shouldn't become attached (nor try to become attached to) to any specific view of self (the answer to the questions which you quoted was "no", and "no", and "no").
The suttas are full of this: they mention "clinging-aggregates" in the first noble truth of first sutta; "non-self" as the subject of the second sutta; questions involving views-of-self being described as "attending inappropriately" and leading to "a thicket of views" in MN 2; "being" being identified with suffering in SN 5.10, and so on.
Given that anatta is recommended for us, presumably the Buddha has perfected that practice. So in the same way that we should not have some fixed of self (and in particular shouldn't identify it with the skandhas, nor identify it with something other than the skandhas), a similar doctrine is appropriate for a view of the Tathagata (note that the "Tathagata" is a title or a description of the Buddha).
So I think that's a summary, a brief explanation, of the sutta you referenced. People talk about it a lot (there are 60+ topics on this site tagged anatman, and others on the topic of "self" and "identity-view" and so on), but it's kind of fundamental, with not-self being one of the Three marks of existence.
You also quoted, "when you can't pin down the Tathagata" ... for more on a similar topic I recommend Why is the Buddha described as trackless?.

The last sentence of the question is, "On the grounds that nirvana is all that the Tathagata is".
I'm not sure it's right to identify the Tathagata with nirvana i.e. to say that the Tathagata is nirvana, nor than nirvana is the Tathagata.
Nirvana is commonly described by what it isn't, especially "not born", i.e. it's unconditioned (also "deathless" and so on), or perhaps more positively as liberation or as the end of stress.
There are suttas and essays about what nirvana is (e.g. here and here and here)

hmm i found the last part intriguing. i agree with your lead sentence, but would add that it's saying the tathagata is not a self, at least of that sort

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


text:
What's the "wise" answer when the epistemic distance is important?
When someone needs my help, I try to answer their questions as best as I can. Sometimes, the questions make no sense (from my perspective) and from there I struggle. For some things, the person is just too far away to get it.
Sometimes I come up with great metaphors, simple explanations for complex situations, but unfortunately this doesn't always happen. What am I supposed to do when it does not happen, when I know what to reply, but that would be too much for the person to understand? Should I just ignore them?

Are you asking about what might be "wise behaviour" on this site, or person-to-person in real life? For what reason or in what way is the person "too far way to get it"? Also "I know what to reply, but that would be too much for the person to understand" is a contradiction in terms, isn't it (because if an answer is too much to understand then perhaps it isn't the right reply)?  It might clarify this question if you'd illustrate it with a specific example (of a question that you can't answer, and what you think the answer is that wouldn't be understood).

@ChrisW Yes it wouldn't be the correct reply. No, it would be the correct reply and also neither is the correct reply.

Refer them to a wise person, or a relevant sutta. But don't intervene if a wise person has answered them. Know when to stop answering someone.

It is for this reason that upaya, skillful means, exists. Sometimes you have to trick people onto the right path by appealing to what makes sense in their subjective universe. Perception is subjective (~illusory), so creating the right perception can be very effective. This is the true meaning of the "rainbow body".

Not even the Buddha was able to do so in every case, how could others? How could you possible create my perception? Such is not possible and not Dhamma, Andrei. If there is a will, another could guide "take this as minds object, take that..."

Not in every case, and we never have full control - but we can try. It all depends on how much compassion you have - and how clever you can be operating inside other person's mental universe.

to add to @Andrej 's comment: if you extend the interaction between asker and answerer over the current and single situation of the asking-of-the-question towards a line of longer interaction (in compassion) you might be able to positively change perception - this is also the well known case with education given by the parents to the child. For the single situation between an adult person and a teacher this might appear too in the talk when the teacher is able to (understandably) reflect to given knowledge at the person and to thinkable perspectives, opening this way access to understanding

(...continued) One can see such discourses with the Buddha in many sutras in the PK when he opens his explanations with questions about some prerequisite in the memory of the asker and asks for yes or no before he really tells how the buddha's dharma itself is related to the question/reflects it and provides an answer.

If really knowing, Cosmicmath, the teaching about the three kinds of sick people might give good advice.
And, you have neither a need or duty to answer, so good to think about, "Why I am so desiring to answer" :-) What "trick" keeps me caught in this kind of livelihood (entertaining the mind for some amount of pleasure feelings to survive).
[Note: this answer is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains.]


text:
Why do Buddhism monk hits people in the head?
i saw this video on facebook and youtube ,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHDp1GbzE4o
and they're writing on it in arabic
"الرقية الشرعية عند البوذيين "
witch means "the buddhism's Exorcism"
i want to know if this is really a buddhism exorcism . if not , what is it ?

I don't think it's a usual practice. I found this explanation online:

A monk who was seen forcefully hitting temple-goers' heads with a bundle of dried grass has defended the unorthodox practice, calling it his unique way of blessing the faithful.
Phra Jirapan Analyo, the 53-year-old abbot of Pha Sadej monastery in Saraburi, admitted that the practice may look violent in a video that went viral this week, but insisted that it does not hurt.
"The knocking of heads is a way to cure diseases and illness for the faithful," Phra Jirapan said. "And the knocking may look violent, but it didn't hurt anyone."
...
Phra Benja Papassaro, a monk who oversees temples in Saraburi province, told reporters that he watched the video and believes "his action does not violate the holy doctrines, though it does look excessive." He said he and other senior monks are discussing the issue to find a formal conclusion on the matter.

A more usual form of Thai "blessing" would be "sprinkling" water (see for example here).

No, they are neither Disciples of the Buddha nor do they care about the conducts of the Noble ones (Althought not having looked the movie), if socializing in such ways and touch even lay people.
Touching a living being in aversion, beating, is a violation of the precepts. Touching a living being out of lust, for socialising purpose is a violation of the precepts.
Touching the head of others is very respectless, it migh be out of this, that people show in this way there respect, a cultural costum.
For Tibetans for example very usual, but again, it's not the costum of the Noble Ones and has nothing to do with Brahmacaria (holly life)
And to do such as "Exorcism", if that was the case, that is not only simply betray but called "livelyhood like animals" and not allowed to do for laypeople generally like a "doctor".
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains]

Nope, this monk is Not practicing correctly irrespectively of whether he defend his action. Even you can chase evil out it is not Buddha practice, try find the chapter to convince me.


text:
What's the Buddhist view of fostering pets?
What's the Buddhist view of fostering a pet?

It is good karma to save a living being's life, which is what you do when you take care of one.
Fostering is better than buying one, because when you foster a pet, you don't encourage inbreeding and other abuses that happen in pet-breeding.

Monks often look after animals similar to having pets.

The difficulty that a practicing Buddhist faces if s/he is a pet owner and a time comes when the pet falls ill and the person decides to “put to sleep” this pet. This is in conflict with the vow of abstaining from killing. After all, animal euthanasia means one is deliberately killing and therefore breaking one of the five precepts. This is creating the karmic cause for one to be born in the hell realm. Even though in the present day we have come to accept the belief that killing with a motivation that is “totally pure” becomes a virtue, it is not so. To take life — one's own or someone else's — is wrong no matter what, something outlined in the first precept which guides us to abstain from killing living beings. So this is the difficulty that a practicing Buddhist faces.

I heard Lord Buddha didn't accede foster a pet.Buddha taught it's a way of clinging.At the present lot of monks(at Mahayana)practice fostering pet.But according to Theravada it's a  fault.

Please provide a reference about what you have posted; that looking after an animal is prohibited in the Vinaya. Thank you

I'm sorry.Did you mean fostering and clinging are two.I can understand.

Fostering is not clinging.


text:
Do we reincarnate into similar or polar-opposite lives
I've read several reports of people remembering past lives. In many cases, in their current life they tend to have a very similar personality, repeat many of the same life patterns and often have many of the same interests they had in their previous life. This would suggest that we incarnate into lives which were similar to our past life, repeating similar karmic patterns.
However, I have also read many sources which claim that we incarnate into life situations which are the complete reverse of our previous life in order to experience the karma 'from the other side' of the situation. For instance, if you were an abuser in a previous life, many claim that in this life you would be the victim of an abuser who was your victim in your past life.
The two paradigms seem rather mutually exclusive. I was wondering if Buddhism could help shed some light on to this.

No matter how you slice it, Buddha said we have been in every situation many times over.  In one sutta said when seeing a wealthy man indulging in all fine things in life and in another sutta crippled man lying in the gutter, we have all been there.  For this reason, it is enough to be tired of samsara.
It is reasonably to assume we have been in every situation and every world many times (except for world of sutavassa-world for non-returners.)

Do we reincarnate into similar or polar-opposite lives

In MN 41 - Saleyyaka Sutta: The Brahmans of Sala, the Buddha is wandering in the Kosalan country with a large group of monks when he arrives at a village named Sala. Here a brahmin householder from the village hears about the Buddha being in Sala and want to ask him about why beings fare as they do after death. The brahmin householder asks the Buddha:

"... Master Gotama, what is the cause and condition why some beings here, on
  the breakup of the body, after death, are reborn in a state of misery, in
  a bad destination, in the lower world, in hell? And what is the cause
  and condition why some beings here, on the breakup of the body, after
  death, are reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world? ...”.

The Buddha then answers:

“... Householders, it is by reason of unrighteous conduct, conduct
  not in accordance with the Dhamma, that some beings here, on the breakup of the body, after death, are reborn in a state of misery, in a
  bad destination, in the lower world, in hell. It is by reason of righteous
  conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, that some beings
  here, on the breakup of the body, after death, are reborn in a good destination,
  in a heavenly world ...”.

The brahmin householders explain that they do not understand the phrase "unrighteous / righteous conduct and conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma" and ask the Buddha to further expound on his teaching.
The Buddha then explains in details what unrighteous and righteous conduct in accordance with the Dhamma is:

"... Householders, there are three kinds of unrighteous bodily conduct,
  conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma. "
"There are four kinds of unrighteous verbal conduct, conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma. "
"There are three kinds of unrighteous mental conduct,
  conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma ..."

The Buddha continues to explain unrighteous bodily conduct:

“... And how, householders, are there three kinds of unrighteous
  bodily conduct, conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma? Here
  someone kills living beings; he is murderous, bloody-handed, given
  to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. He takes what is not
  given; he takes by way of theft the wealth and property of others in
  the village or forest. He commits sexual misconduct; he has intercourse
  with women who are protected by their mother, father, mother and
  father, brother, sister, or relatives, who have a husband, who are protected
  by law, and even with those already engaged. That is how there
  are three kinds of unrighteous bodily conduct, conduct not in accordance
  with the Dhamma ...".

Then unrighteous verbal conduct:

“And how, householders, are there four kinds of unrighteous verbal
  conduct, conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma? Here
  someone speaks falsehood; when summoned to a court, or to a meeting,
  or to his relatives’ presence, or to his guild, or to the royal family’s
  presence, and questioned as a witness thus: ‘So, good man, tell what
  you know,’ not knowing, he says, ‘I know,’ or knowing, he says, ‘I do
  not know’; not seeing, he says, ‘I see,’ or seeing, he says, ‘I do not see’;
  in full awareness he speaks falsehood for his own ends, or for
  another’s ends, or for some trifling worldly end. He speaks maliciously;
  he repeats elsewhere what he has heard here in order to divide [those people] from these, or he repeats to these people what
  he has heard elsewhere in order to divide [these people] from those;
  thus he is one who divides those who are united, a creator of divisions,
  who enjoys discord, rejoices in discord, delights in discord, a speaker
  of words that create discord. He speaks harshly; he utters such words
  as are rough, hard, hurtful to others, offensive to others, bordering on
  anger, not conducive to concentration. He engages in idle chatter; he
  speaks at the wrong time, speaks what is not fact, speaks what is useless,
  speaks contrary to the Dhamma and the Discipline; at the wrong
  time he speaks such words as are worthless, unreasonable, immoderate,
  and unbeneficial. That is how there are four kinds of unrighteous
  verbal conduct, conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma.

Then unrighteous mental conduct:

“... And how, householders, are there three kinds of unrighteous
  mental conduct, conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma? Here
  someone is covetous; he covets the wealth and property of others thus:
  ‘Oh, may what belongs to another be mine!’ Or he has a mind of ill
  will and intentions of hate thus: ‘May these beings be slain and slaughtered,
  may they be cut off, perish, or be annihilated!’ Or he has wrong
  view, distorted vision, thus: ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered,
  nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this
  world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn
  spontaneously; no good and virtuous ascetics and brahmins in the
  world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare
  this world and the other world. That is how there are three kinds of
  unrighteous mental conduct, conduct not in accordance with the
  Dhamma ..."

The Buddha finishes expounding on these unrighteous types of conduct by saying:

"... So, householders, it is by reason of such unrighteous conduct,
  such conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, that some
  beings here on the breakup of the body, after death, are reborn in a
  state of misery, in a bad destination, in the lower world, in hell ...".

The Buddha then continues to expound upon the three kinds of righteous bodily conduct, conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma. I will not refer to them here as they are opposites of the above mentioned Dhamma and can be found in the sutta. The Buddha then ends these three types of righteous conduct by saying:

"... So, householders, it is by reason of such righteous conduct, such conduct in
  accordance with the Dhamma that some beings here, on the breakup
  of the body, after death, are reborn in a good destination, even in a
  heavenly world ...".

So to sum up on your question, the Buddha teaches that it is our actions done by body, speech or mind that play a part in the rebirth destination. The Buddha teaches what to do in order to be reborn both in the lower realms and in the heavenly realms. This is of course only one sutta there are other suttas as well. I chose this sutta as I think the Buddha here gives a very clear and detailed exposition on conduct in relation to the Dhamma and rebirth destination.
Hope this helps. If you have any questions to what I wrote feel free to ask.

“Yo paticcasamuppadam passati, so Dhammam passati.
  Yo Dhammam passati, so paticcasamuppadam passati”
  -Majjhima-nikaya I

One who sees paticcasamuppada sees the Dhamma. One who sees the Dhamma sees paticcasamuppada.
The answer to your question is found in the paticcasamuppada. It explains how causes lead to effects. Also the answer is found within the word itself. The word “Paticcasamuppada“ can be broken down into “Pati+ichcha”+”Sama+uppäda”. Here “pati” is bonding, and “icca”  is liking. Thus paticca is “bonding to something willingly”. In breaking down the second part of the phrase: “sama” (same or similar) + “uppäda” (generation), i.e.,  an existence (bhava) of similar quality or kind. Thus samuppada means leading to an existence or experience with similar defilements that used to drive the bondage in the first place.
Take for example a person having mindset of an animal. With feelings of hatred this person can act like an animal, hitting and clawing at anotherif things really get out of hand. Thus in that moment this person would generate a “bhava” or existence similar to an animal in his mind, which in turn leads to a corresponding “bhava“, which in turn gives rise to a corresponding birth. Thus a person with animal tendencies will be reborm in the animal realm and likewise.

These are not the paradigm. All these are karmic results. Karmic results depend on the degree of intention while doing such good or bad deed. And those bhava after bhava (not reincarnation) depend on the suti mind(seven stages in detail) just before dying. If one know such dreadful samsara, one should better focus only at insight meditation to get liberated.


text:
Does anyone have High resolution Buddha wallpapers for computer?
Please feel free to delete this question if not relevant.
I want to find peaceful Buddha statue wallpaper (Drawing or Statue). I wish to see lockscreen and my desktop with a spiritual wallpaper of lord Buddha. I feel peace in mind whenever I see lord Buddha. But across the google, etc. search engines point me to commercial sites. If any of you have good high resolution wallpaper, please share the location to download. much appreciated. Thanks.

There are some pictures dedicated for the Sangha and a monastery. Try btw .how it feels and gives peace following this.

Have you tried Google Images, DeviantArt, Pinterest?

Have you tried these links pinterest, guoguiyan, desktop-screens


text:
Seeing things as they are
There's a lot of emphasis within the insight tradition on "seeing things as they are" , "turning towards difficult emotions" etc etc.   But in my experience it's not always the best advise. For example if I'm feeling sad,lonely, depressed etc,  I find  it's not helpful to sit there and look at it at all. I end up feeling worse. Going for a walk or swim and getting into my body seems to be far more helpful. I end up feeling happier.  Why is there so much focus on this kind of passive acceptance? Sure I can accept that right now I feel sad but ifs it's within my power to change that then why wouldn't I?

I think u actually have the correct answer already: "seeing things as they are". If u still feel bad feelings because u didn't 'see things they are' but "wanting things to be as such" - what your desired. Thus distracting yourself from where u stuck by going for a walk or such is perfect. In the right time with right mind u may be able really "seeing things as they are". Likely those strange teachings "turning towards difficult emotions" etc etc were advocated by amateur-dhamma-teachers who pretended to be transmitting Budhha's teachings.

What you are saying, about seeing things as they are, is not very accurate. You're not supposed to passively accept your negative mind states, neuroses, pathological emotions, traditionally known as "evil, unskillful qualities of the mind". Otherwise, why would it be called the path of liberation, if it did not lead to abandonment of the above bad qualities and cessation of suffering that they bring?
From Tri-Yana perspective, the method varies depending on the practitioner's style:
If you are a Hinayana-style student, you're supposed to confront and overcome your negative emotions - through either direct willful effort, or as you say, through deliberate self-distraction.
If you are a Mahayana-style student, you're supposed to look inside until you see which egoistic attachment has given rise to the emotion, and by letting go of attachment, dismiss the emotion.
If you are a Vajrayana-style student, you're supposed to get in direct contact with the psychosomatic energy of the emotion and by going through the emotion transmute it into pure energy.
What you're referring to as "seeing things as they are" reminds me of one of the methods that Buddha taught back in the Pali Canon, that kinda spans all the three styles above:
In this method you look at your emotion analytically, objectively - so instead of replaying the thoughts/events that feed the emotion (which is bad), you philosophically/phenomenologically/scientifically analyze the emotion: see it's source in the attachment, see it's psychosomatic projection in the body - and this analysis itself (this will sound like a joke but it's not!) actually serves as a distraction that switches your mind away from the emotion to the skillful mind quality known as "analysis of dharmas". Makes sense?
So you don't just passively accept your negative mind states, you work with them, but this work does not always have to be as crude as suppression or distraction - there are more subtle methods, and this is one of them.

I read something like this which said: when one focuses intently on pain, it ceases to be pain. This has limits, but is a useful principle. Another way of putting it is, "don't resist."

Thank you for answering, but I have a question. I don't understand the difference between "Hinayana-style" and "Mahayana-style". Why is "seeing which egoistic attachment has given rise to the emotion" considered Mahayana not Hinayana? And how is "confront and overcome your negative emotions" not identical to "seeing which egoistic attachment"?

I doubt your broad summaries of the 3 schools, they are rough and inaccurate, excuse me if I'm too direct. It's OK for someone who has certain solid knowledge with discern but it's harmful for raw and green student who has limited understanding. "Switches your mind away" can only be applied if one achieved the Samadhi able to switch off physical pain, for example, else its harmful for the practitioner he/she may develop split-personality, psycho/emotional illness or such - the famous Goenka product.

@Bhumishu米殊 in my view, the yanas or "styles" are not schools but theoretical constructs meant to illustrate the different ways to see the same dharma. Hinayana-style is by definition direct, forceful, and superficial, it has clear boundaries and clear goals: this is good / this is bad - Mahayana-style is by definition centered around emptiness, egolessness, groundlessness, nonattachment, and Vajrayana esp. tantra utilizes the phenomenology of subtle energies and imaginary constructs as a skillful mean.

Thx. Again, your further forced intrepretations of the 3 schools are rather blunt, it doesn't help the students but added unnecessary hindrances, they may well be just your personal understanding, at this moment of all you've learnt so far, as a handle for u to have encompassing view of Buddhism - OK; as a truth/teaching applicable to others - NIL. Though I share your view abt the Yanas/styles are devices for different temperaments of the students - 根器 a Chinese Buddhist term to refer to the temperament. Thus I'm also against those ill-willed critique even deliberate belittling of any schools.

For e.g. Your "dismiss the emotion" abt Mahayana is incorrect description. Mahayana teaches 煩惱即菩提/轉識成智, fetter is Bodhi (wisdom)/ change the vijnanas (inputs from the senses thus caused alienation from the Ultimate Truth) to wisdom (as the Gates open to Ultimate Truth). I think general view is that Vajrayana one division of Mahayana (according to 索達吉 Rinpoche I read his writing), but Tantra is only within Vajrayana for those traditional Chinese Classical Sutras teachings are open to all practitioners whilst Tantra teachings only passed from Lama/Guru to his students; i.e. Open or Secrecy.

You have to confront the sensation / feeling while trying to be equanimous. When sad and you develop aversion towards the sad feeling you become sadder. If you become equanimous it will linger for a while and pass away.
Avoiding a sensation you are not solving the problem.

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings

Pahāna Sutta

I agree fully with this answer and make this comment so this answer by Suminda complements my answer.

The purpose of acceptance is change.
But often, this is a question of degree.
Negative emotions can be of a greater degree that accepting them can make things worse.
However, there is also a lesser degree when accepting negative emotions will cause the negative emotion to dissolve.
Ultimately, the five hindrances are overcome by being aware of them in order to dissolve & thus change them.
An example of this purification process is when drug addicts enter into cold turkey. Cold turkey forces the drug addict to accept the negative emotion of withdrawal but, eventually, with lots of patient endurance, the body & mind purifies itself of the negative emotion.

Seeing things as they are

The phrase "seeing things as they are" is rather uninformative for the untrained mind or when expressed without at the same time giving proper meditational instructions on how to actually see the true nature of things. Seeing phenomena as they are means to see the Three Marks of Existence, i.e. the Impermanence, Unsatisfactoriness and Uncontrollability of all conditioned phenomena.
This can be seen by correctly practicing insight meditation. When sadness is present it is watched with an objective and non-inferential approach meaning that one does not grasp at or cling to the sadness. Instead one just observes it until it ceases on its own accord.
By doing so one trains the mind to not react. The untrained mind reacts by liking or disliking phenomena. That is how it has been working for a long time. You could say that it is the habitual state for the untrained mind. In insight meditation we train the mind to not do that anymore.
Sadness is just a phenomena. It arises on its own accord and ceases when its causes has been exhausted. But if aversion towards that sadness arises then we are dealing with an unwholesome state of mind. Aversion is one of the three unwholesome roots. Actions done by body, speech or mind, that are based in the unwholesome roots, can only lead to unwholesome future resultants.
Said in another way - if one reacts with aversion towards the sadness one is setting oneself up for future suffering.
That is made very clear by the Buddha in AN 4:232 - Four Kinds of Kamma:

“... And what, monks, is dark kamma with dark results? Here, monks, someone generates an afflictive volitional formation of body, speech, or mind. Having done so, he is reborn in an afflictive world. When he is reborn in an afflictive world, afflictive contacts touch him. Being touched by afflictive contacts, he experiences an afflictive feeling, extremely painful, as for example the beings in hell experience. This is called dark kamma with dark results ...".

This leads us to your next question regarding pacificity towards formations.

Sure I can accept that right now I feel sad but ifs it's within my power to change that then why wouldn't I?

As mentioned before aversion is one of the three unwholesome roots. They should be dealt with in order to purify the mind and to move closer to Nibbana. The Buddha teaches us to deal with evil, unwholesome states of mind by practicing the factor of Right Effort in the Noble Eightfold Path.
The Buddha explains how to do that in SN 45.8 - Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path:

“... And what, bhikkhus, is right effort? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu generates desire for the nonarising of unarisen evil unwholesome states; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. He generates desire for the abandoning of arisen evil unwholesome states…. He generates desire for the arising of unarisen wholesome states…. He generates desire for the maintenance of arisen wholesome states, for their nondecay, increase, expansion, and fulfilment by development; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. This is called right effort ...".

So as the Buddha teaches one needs to:
a) abandon or dispel already arisen unwholesome states of mind and
b) to guard against or prevent unarisen unwholesome states of mind from arising.
The latter is done by guarding the sense-doors. The former is done by administering the antidote for the 5 hindrances.
One can deal with each of the 5 hindrances in 5 ways, i.e. the following 5 methods works for all of the hindrances.
Methods are found in The Noble Eightfold Path, p. 63-66, by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.

Replacing the hindrance with its opposite, e.g. replacing hatred with thoughts of loving-kindness.
Contemplating the arisen hindrance as vile and ignoble since it has entered the mind without permission or any control.
Shifting attention away from the hindrance.
Shifting attention onto the hindrance and thoroughly contemplating it by investigating its causes and conditions for arising and its characteristics.
Removing the hindrance with force, just as a strong man would pin a weaker man to the ground.

No. 5 should only be used if method 1-4 does not work.
I hope this gave a more thorough approach to your question. If you have any questions to what I wrote feel free to ask.

I doubt if our Buddha did really taught something now in general media called "Insight Meditation". In any form of meditation Insight & calm-the-mind (Vipassana & Samatha) should go hand in hand.  Insight without calmed mind is like a legless man trying to walk through a doorway; calmed mind no Insight is like a blind man to try to. How can true Vipassana happened if one is disturbed/ distracted by feelings/emotions?

Just because the almost all the books in the present day say to, you should not accept anything that is related to Dhamma as true. You should always verify that it is so by comparing the statement to the doctrine/scriptures. Even here lies a problem. It is because of Acariya Buddhaghosa’s strong influence on Theravada Buddhism for the past 1500 years. Almost all of present day translations in keeping with his intepritations of Dhamma as found in a thesis that he wrote, the Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification). To come to the point, you should ask whoever that told you so, as to where it is said in the scriptures that your main focus should be on "seeing things as they are".
When it comes to the insight tradition, what you should know first of all is that ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, nothing can be maintained to one’s satisfaction. Thus Dukkha arises. We cannot maintain anything to our satisfaction (including “our” own body) in the long run. Dukkha is becoming distraught because of that. And since we are truly helpless in preventing this sequence of events, we are truly helpless in the long run, and nothing is with any real substance in the end.
It is this that you have to remember ALWAYS. Only in being aware of this truth will you comprehend the true nature of “this world”.  This is "seeing things as they are".  This is all about the bad consequences that “mind-made pleasures” inevitably bring. If you could learn to willingly give up these, in comprehending their bad outcomes, this will lead to achieving a peace of mind.

Yes. Even such a simple statement as "seeing things as they are" is not an experience, and it is possible to misunderstand or misapply the words. This is why it is not really possible to learn only using books and the rational mind: experience makes it real, and guidance makes it reachable.

From Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism by Chogyam Trungpa  page 242

Milarepa was tremendously involved with the process of transmutation of energies and emotions. In fact, when we read The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa, the whole first part of the book is dealing with Milarepa's experience of this process. In "The Tale of Red Rock Jewel Valley" Milarepa had only recently left Marpa to go off and meditate alone. This might be called his "adolescent stage," because he was still involved with reliance upon a personal guru. Marpa was still his "daddy." Having opened and surrendered to Marpa, Milarepa still had to learn to transmute the emotions. He was still clinging to the notions of "good" and "bad," and so the world was still appearing to him in the guise of gods and demons.
In "The Tale of Red Rock Jewel Valley," when Milarepa went back into his cave after having a comforting vision of Marpa, he was confronted with a gang of demons. He tried every way he could think of to get rid of them, all kinds of tactics. He threatened them, cajoled them, he even preached the Dharma to them. But they would not leave until he ceased regarding them as "bad" and opened to them, saw them as they were. This was the beginning of Milarepa's period of learning how to subjugate the demons, which is the same thing as transmuting the emotions. It is with our emotions that we create demons and gods: those things which we don't want in our lives and world are the demons; those things which we would draw to us are the gods and goddesses. The rest is just scenery. By being willing to accept the demons and gods and goddesses as they are, Milarepa transmuted them. They became dakinis, or the energies of life.
The whole first part of The Hundred Thousand Songs deals with Milarepa's mastery of transmutation, his growing ability to open to the world as it is, until he finally conquered all the demons in the chapter "The Goddess Tserinma's Attack." In this chapter thousands of demons assemble to terrify and attack Milarepa while he is meditating, but he preaches to them, is open and accepting, willing to offer them his whole being, and they are subjugated. At one point five demonesses, beginning to realize that they cannot frighten Milarepa, sing to him,
If the thought of demons
  Never rises in your mind,
  You need not fear the demon hosts around you.
  It is most important to tame your mind within ...
On the steep path of fear and hope
  They lie in ambush ...
And later Milarepa himself says, "Insofar as the Ultimate, or the true nature of being is concerned, there are neither Buddhas nor demons. He who frees himself from fear and hope, evil and virtue, will realize the insubstantial and groundless nature of confusion. Samsara will then appear to be the Mahamudra itself ... "
The rest of The Hundred Thousand Songs deals with Milarepa's development as a teacher and his relationships with his students. Toward the end of his life he had completely perfected the transmutation process to the point where he could be called the Vidyadhara or "Holder of the Crazy Wisdom." No longer could he be swayed by the winds of hope and fear. The gods and goddesses and demons, his passions and their external projections, had been completely subjugated and transformed. Now his life was a continual dance with the dakinis.
Finally Milarepa reached the "old dog" stage, his highest attainment. People could tread on him, use him as a road, as earth; he would always be there. He transcended his own individual existence so that, as we read his last teachings, there is a sense of the universality of Milarepa, the example of enlightenment.

To me seeing things as they are means, practicing four Satipathana.
You should contemplate on four Satipatthana in terms of Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta.

It’s because of ignorance, because you don’t see things as they really are, that you are sad.
You may as you suggest take a walk, swim or do some calming meditations to avoid your sadness and calm your mind, but this will not remove the core problem “Your ignorance”.
You can only root out your ignorance by wisdom. So you have to meditate, contemplate, and investigate the root cause, but this can only be done when you have a calm mind.
You should also remember that even with calm mind you may fail to root out you ignorance, only the Buddha can remove all ignorance without a guide, so you should seek a guide a monk / nun  to point you on right direction.

Due to not knowing the true dhamma, those ordinary people are submerged in this rounds of birth and rebirth. To get to know the true Dhamma, one need to see things as they are, how these things come and go naturally. If you feel sad, you have to know it is so. All our deeds, bodily action, verbal or mental all should be clear of akusala but should be full of kusala. If once at a time if no kusala surely it is akusala. If you feel sad and you cannot get rid of this mental akusala as it is, then if you try to divert to other means which also lead to akusala will end in no good. So if you feel sad and you cannot concentrate on your meditation, then you can divert to the true nature of kamma result or focus on your attention on true characteristics of triple gems which will lead to your great relief and even more concentration leading to higher steps towards insight knowledge.

Looking at whatever sorrowful or joyful things in life and being stuck over those feelings is not seeing things as they are. That is Moha, which would lead to Lobha or Dwesha.
Remember: seeing things as they are is the effect (not the cause) of learning and practicing Dhamma. Which means seeing things as they are is part of the end result you are striving to achieve. It is at the destination of your journey. To reach that destination you have to make the journey. For an example, you want to visit the Himalayan peak. You have to prepare yourself for the journey and actually make the journey before you can stand on the peak and admire the view.
Alternatively, you can stand anywhere and imagine that you are on the Himalayan Peak. But, no matter how much you imagine, you are not really there unless you take the trouble of actually making the journey yourself.
How can I get there?
Learning Buddhism is like learning physics. Yes, the physics of the mind. Buddhism teaches us how the minds works and how it behaves. What are the perils of Sankhara and Wigngnaana (the illusion), and how it enslaves us through either making us attach to things/feelings (Lobha) and/or how it makes us fight with those we deem as threats/not good for us.
Things happen in the world that we live in. Sometimes they are affected by our actions, and some of them affects us. We evaluate them based on our bias, practices, perceptions and rate them as Good-for-me (Lobha), or Bad-for-me (Dwesha), or it-does-not affect me. If it's deemed as good, then we chase it, with the hope of 'making-them-mine'. Striving to obtain/achieve it. If its deemed as bad, then we take the effort to desist from it, destroy it. Both of those are attachments.
The more we attach ourselves to, the burden is on ourselves. Sadly most of us do not see it. I would like to quote a beautiful simile from the movie 'Up In the Air'. The dialogue is as follows:

How much does your life weigh?
Imagine for a second that you’re carrying a backpack... I want you to feel the straps on your shoulders... You feel them?
Now, I want you to pack it with all the stuff you have in your life. Start with the little things. The stuff in drawers and on shelves. The collectables and knick-knacks. Feel the weight as it adds up. Now, start adding the larger stuff. Your clothes, table top appliances, lamps, linens, your TV. That backpack should be getting pretty heavy at this point - Go Bigger. Your couch, your bed, your kitchen table. Stuff it all in... Your car, get it in there... Your home, whether you have a studio apartment or a two story house, I want you to stuff it into that backpack.
Now try to walk.

Until we stop, look back and see what we have collected, what we have tried to make ours, and all the sadness, sorrow and disappointment it has brought us, we are blind to the fact that happiness has always eluded us. Why oh why?
Happiness has eluded us because we have failed to see the world as is. We cannot bend to world to our will. We cannot change it to suit our need. Even if we did, it will be for a limited time. When the world is not the way we want it (Anichcha) it brings us sadness, anger and disappointment. When the world works according to our will, it brings us happiness and joy. Both these ends are the effects of failing to see the world as is. To see the world as is, one needs to start seeing beyond the attachments (Lobha, Dwesha) the effects of Moha (not seeing the reality). Search for the reason why you are happy or sad. How did your mind give birth to that feeling? Before this feeling overwhelmed you, what did you feel? how did your mind translate from that state to this? You will find that a value you have given as good/bad to something. Take that value and look for the reason as to why did you value it as good or bad.
Haven't you tried to change to world? bend it to your will and failed/succeeded? (most of the time we forget to look at the moments we consider as 'happy' ones). Things happen in the world around us. We do not have absolute control over them. That is how the world works. So, why are you trying to change it and feel sad when it didn't or feel happy when it does for a little while?

"Things happen in the world around us. We do not have absolute control over them. That is how the world works. So, why are you trying to change it and feel sad when it didn't or feel happy when it does for a little while?"          Because I am human and there are some conditions which are conducive towards misery.


text:
Sutta Question - Three Ways of Making Merit
In AN 8.36: Ways of Meritorious Action, the Buddha speaks about different ways of making merit.
He teaches that one can make merit by Giving, by practicing Virtue (Morality) and by developing Meditation. He also mentions in what sphere of existence a being will be reborn according to which meritorious deeds are practiced and to what degree (small, high, very high).
In the sutta the Buddha only mentions Giving in combination with Virtue. Making merit by practicing Meditation is not mentioned.

Why is that?
What are the merits made by practicing Meditation in combination with Giving and Virtue?

Below is the quoted sutta.
Thank you for your time.

WAYS OF MERITORIOUS ACTION
"There are, monks, three ways of making merit. What three?
"There are ways of making merit by giving, by (practicing) virtue and by meditation.
"There is a person who, only to a small degree, has practiced the making of merit by giving; and, likewise to a small degree, he has practiced the making of merit by virtue; but the making of merit by meditation he has not undertaken. This one, after death, when his body breaks up, will be reborn among humans in an ill-favored condition.
"Another person has practiced to a high degree the making of merit by giving as well as by virtue; but the making of merit by meditation he has not undertaken. Such a one, after death, when his body breaks up, will be reborn among humans in favorable conditions.
"Or he will be reborn in the company of the deities of the Four Great Divine Kings. And there, the Four Great Divine Kings, who had practiced to a very high degree the making of merit by giving and by virtue, surpass the deities of their realm in ten things: in divine life span, divine beauty, divine happiness, divine power, divine sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and touches.
"Or he will be reborn in the company of the Thirty-three gods. And there, Sakka king of gods, who had practiced to a very high degree the making of merit by giving and virtue, surpasses...
(The same statements are made for rebirth among the Yaama gods, Tusita gods, the gods of creative joy, the gods controlling others' creations, and for the respective rulers of these realms.)
"These, monks, are the three ways of making merit."
— AN 8.36

AN8.36 is mainly dealing with giving as it comes under the category of Dana Vagga.
https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.36

AN 8.36 is for puthujjana (ordinary people), who have cravings & lusts for worldly pleasures, power & status. It is bribing puthujjana with promises of worldly rewards if they do good, as stated:

surpass... in divine life span, divine beauty, divine happiness, divine power, divine sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touches.

For those who doubt my explanation, MN 75 makes it clear what divine sensual pleasures are:

Having conducted himself well in body, speech and mind, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he might reappear in a happy
  destination, in the heavenly world in the retinue of the gods of the
  Thirty-three; and there, surrounded by a group of nymphs in the
  Nandana Grove, he would enjoy himself, provided and endowed with the
  five cords of divine sensual pleasure.

Meditation is not for puthujjana, i.e., not for those unwilling & unable to abandon craving. This is why meditation is not mentioned in the sutta.
This sutta is unrelated to the core essence (heartwood) of Buddhism but is a peripheral subject.
This sutta is similar to Islam, where a man doing good receives a reward of 72 virgins in heaven.

Has the news of the.. Resurrection...reached you?... Some faces on that Day shall be joyful, well-pleased with their endeavors, in a
  lofty Garden; there they shall hear no idle talk. In it there will be
  running springs; in it there will be raised couches, goblets set
  forth, cushions ranged in rows and fine carpets spread out.
Koran Surah 88

I can't imagine why a Buddha would bribe lay people. I don't have enough knowledge of the Suttas (or Islam) to comfortably comment on the content of your answer. Thanks for your time and effort though.

The sutta is clearly stating that generous & moral people will acquire a life of material & sensual luxury; namely, the five cords of divine sensual pleasure. It is not only about doing merit. It is about the results of that merit.

Whenever Buddha taught, nibbana is the aim, without nibbana, it is not Buddha teaching. For ordinary people, to achieve nibbana, attachment for worldly goods must be reduced, after that observing good virtue and only after that developing insight meditation, i.e, step by step approach for some but not all people. And also whoever prefer dana, talking about dana would lead to piti feeling based on this concentration and insight toward nibbana. The same applies to sila. It is not bribing the ordinary people. Some said ordinary people are bribed by celestial abodes and frightened by hell, it is totally wrong. All the dhamma talk aimed at some person to achieve nibbana. If somebody would achieve nibbana, in some instances, Buddha knowingly did give such dhamma   even some other people would turn against Him. Regarding insight meditation, noting rupa(matter),50 million merit occurring in a wink of time, while noting nama(mind), one billion merit in a wink of time, topmost dana, unsurpassable dana, dhamma dana, Buddha and arahant used to praise such dana because by insight meditation, one is just giving away, not taking for himself with delusion for all these mind and matter that come and go unnoticeably, it is the highest dana of all only with such dana one will definitely lead to  nibbana.


text:
In the future how many Buddhas will be born?
In our world, (Earth) there were 28 Buddha born with Gautama Buddha. Some people say that Maitreya Buddha is the 29th & last Buddha. My question is, in the future how many Buddhas will born.

There are infinite number into the past and infinite number to the future.
28 are the immediate preceding our Buddha. Maitreya will be the next.

@Bhumishu米殊 I recommend you post that as a separate/new answer, instead of as a comment.

I recomment ur editing it's Theravadist teaching. Mahayana teaches there will be in total for this Great Kalpa called 賢劫 (Noble Kalpa?) 1000 Buddhas, Maitreya is the 5th after our Buddha Shkyamuni. The last one, 1000th is 樓至佛 (presently cultivating as Bodhisattva Veda [?]). These Buddhas' accounts were recorded in 《千佛因緣經》, translated by Kumarajiva. Also, the OP's "Earth" connotation is of question. Buddhist cosmology allowed the beings to live is encompassing beyond Earth.

Thx @ChrisW am not interested to answer but concerned Suminda didn't state its Theravadist. However to backup my editing recommendation I hv to state what I learnt from different School. Suminda may incl. in his answer if he finds fitted.

@Bhumishu米殊 I expect that Suminda's answer is based on the doctrine that he knows/has read. I don't think you should expect him to answer based on Mahayana doctrine (if that's different); if you think this question should be answered based on Mahayana doctrine too, perhaps you could post your comment as an answer (and even say that you're posting it to distinguish Theravada and Mahayana doctrine)..

@ChrisW I may consider ur suggestion however the OP is asking from a Theravadist perspective obviously - 28th/ 29th Buddha. I think an answerer should at least knows there are different schools to begin with, though the OP is acceptable to have no such knowledge excused as a questioner - because he doesn't know so he asked.

This is just my personal idea , I believe if the time is infinite, and there  is no starting or ending to the universe, there can be infinite number of Buddhas .
For your information::,According to teravada they say its 28 buddhas , In mahayana , they say 1000 buddhas .

In the Mahapadana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, the Buddha explained some natural laws (dhammata) pertaining to the Bodhisatta Vipassi who arose in the world ninety one aeons ago. In the last 91 Kalpa (Aeons) only 7 Buddha’s have come. After Vipassi Buddha, the other six Buddhas who came were Sikhi, Vessabhu, Kakusanda, Konagamana, Kassapa and the Gautama Buddha.
A Kalpa is like Eternity. So just imagine what 91 kalpa is like. In the Anamatagga-samyutta — The unimaginable beginnings of samsara. In Samyutta ii, Chapter XV, the Buddha used the parables of the hill and mustard-seed for comparison:

Suppose there was a solid mass, of rock or hill, one yojana (eight miles) wide, one yojana across and one yojana high and every hundred years, a man was to stroke it once with a piece of silk. That mass of rock would be worn away and ended sooner than would an aeon.
Suppose there was a city of iron walls, one yojana in length, one yojana in width, one yojana high and filled with mustard-seeds to the brim. There-from a man was to take out every hundred years a mustard-seed. That great pile of mustard-seed would be emptied and ended sooner than would an aeon.

At the time of the next Buddha, the average lifespan of a human is going to be eighty thousand years. (In the present day it is around 60 -80 years). There will not be any more Buddhas for many a aeon, after the next, as per the scriptures.
There are 28 Buddhas described in the Buddhavamsa.  Our Gautama Buddha first obtained “niyata vivarana” that he will definitely become a Buddha in the future, from Buddha Dipankara, who was the 24th Buddha preceding Buddha Gotama.


text:
What are the consequences of a monk eating meat?
This is not a question about being a vegetarian. My question is since the Buddha didn't prohibit monks from eating meat, and since monks are supposed to be easy to maintain and take what is offered, how should/would a monk who has chosen to be a vegetarian handle being offered meat by a lay person?
If they chose to refuse the meal would that make them high maintenance, proud or unappreciative? If they ate it, how would they reconcile that with their personal practice?
I'm particularly interested in an answer from any monastic on how they have handled or would handle this.

There's an answer from one monastic quoted/referenced in this topic: Ajahn Brahm stated that he ate snakes and frogs during his training

Sure looks like a question about vegetarianism to me. Nothing wrong with that, and this is a new novel question.

As far as the theory of monastics eating meat is concerned, here are two enlightening videos/articles on the subject:

Ask A Monk: Mark Zuckerberg, Vegetarianism and Killing
The Bhikkhus' Rules
A Guide for Laypeople -- Meat Eating

In Buddhism, the problem with eating meat is in many ways as much about the craving that meat promotes as it is about the non-violence and killing aspect. For a monastic, the rules regarding eating and alms are very much about not giving in to either greed or hatred for a specific food; a monastic should be totally content with what little or lot he has. Thus, if a monastic were offered meat, to decline would represent preference and "pickiness", which is in many ways much worse than simply being grateful for what one has. This is true even if you may oppose how your food was made/grown/processed/ etc.
Anecdotally, I'll note that I've found food in particular to have a tremendous emotional resonance with people -- we've all seen people become literally angry when confronted with to little or too much or too different a food. Buddhism is all about overcoming this emotional attachment to something that should only matter insofar as it is absolutely necessary to survive.

Buddha didn't prohibit monks from eating meat

Yes.

monks are supposed to be easy to maintain and take what is offered

Yes.

how should/would a monk who has chosen to be a vegetarian handle being offered meat by a lay person?

A monk shouldn't choose. The monk should accept the food (in his alms bowl) and can choose to not eat the non-vegetarian part later. If a monk always uses his bowl, including when invited to a meal in a home, then the offerers cannot see what he eats. The monk can pick & choose in his bowl, although there will be meat substances polluting his vegetarian choice.

If they chose to refuse the meal would that make them high maintenance, proud or unappreciative?

They should not refuse. To refuse would be extremely evil & Satanic.

If they ate it, how would they reconcile that with their personal practice?

If the monks is practising Buddhism (rather than Hinduism), eating meat should not affect their practise since the practise of Buddhism is non-attachment, including towards food.
In summary, eating meat is not a sin that needs to be reconciled. Instead, any idea of 'reconciliation' is a personal delusion. Attachment to vegetarianism is a grave & fatal fetter because it most likely prohibits reaching non-returner & arahantship.

I'm particularly interested in an answer from any monastic on how they have or would handle this.

I have lived in a remote monastery before with forest monks. All of the alms food, including the fruit & curries, were emptied into a bowl, mixed up, and then spooned out individually.
A real monks does not pick & choose alms food. That is a disgrace.
You can find an answer from a Theravada monk, here:

Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Vinaya doesn't actually oblige a bhikkhu to ever accept any offering from anybody.
  And so in theory a bhikkhu could walk on almsround ignoring all the
  requests to stop from donors who offer food that he doesn't like. In
  so doing he wouldn't be breaking any Vinaya rule. Socially, however,
  this would be quite a serious faux pas in Asian Buddhist countries. As
  a bhikkhu one is expected to be encouraging and facilitating dāna on
  the part of householders, not obstructing it, and so a bhikkhu's
  rejection of a householder's allowable offering would be viewed as
  perverse and mean-spirited.
If he's living alone and has a sensitive digestive system, he should accept whatever he's offered but eat only what agrees with him. If
  he's living in a monastery, then he can make arrangements with his
  fellow monks after notifying them of his condition. In either case, if
  he's seriously ill then the Vinaya allows him to request special
  foods.

My answer is based on the Chinese Classical Sutras I read, there are three situations:
A) A Bhikkhu should NOT eat meat because he is on the path of liberation cultivating the Caturapramāṇāḥ/四無量心 (Four All-encompassing Hearts), due to Maitr/Compassion he should not kill so eating meat is participating indirectly or encouraging killing.
B) A Bhikkhu should practice equanimity he should accept whatever he offered. If in his meal there is meat, he should wash it with water until it has no taste, eat it as if eating the meat cut from his own son in the time of famine. That is the Buddha's true teaching.
C) If the offer is all meat or mainly meat. A Bhikkhu should choose not to accept.
The main reason for obstaining from eating meat is it hindering cultivating Maitr/compassion, meat eating promotes craving of taste. To a subtle level, meat eating the smell of meat left after eating attracts Rākṣasa/羅刹 those blood-flesh thirsting Monsters; sending away the Celestial Beings those who are repellent to meat eating, Suangama Sutra. The Celestial Beings seeing human eating meat the repellent is the same as human seeing dogs eating feces (though modern day dogs eating beef or canned dog food different from the pre-modern time).
The mentioning of Celestial Beings and Monsters for modern day Buddhism is like terms from sci-fictions, but even the Theravadist modernized Pali Canon still maintains verses about the Bhikkhus encountering Beings of higher realms at this moment, I read from the quotes of this forum. A Bhikkhu with correct practice should be able to open his perceiving faculties to sense, if not seeing, realms different from the human and animal's. A Bhikkhu once on The Path he will be guarded by the Beings those vowed to the Buddha to uphold his Dharma these guarding Beings may leave him when repelt by the smell of his meat eating. However, those who have the robes on are not necessarily a Bhikkhu on The Path there were no guarding Beings around him either. It's like there are many discussions or even debate on Anatta, we write, speak, even graffiti-ing this word but we don't really know, not to say have a taste of, Anatta.
Last, there a situation a Bhikkhu is allowed by the Buddha to eat meat, when he is practicing Dhyana of a practicular type related to White Skeleton Visualization of the Mahayana (Chinese) method, else he will be going mad. In this particular situation he must eat meat but when he does, he has to do B), wash the meat to no taste, eat it as if eating meat from his own son.
These are the teachings about meat eating addressed solely to the Bhikkhus, not laity.

since the Buddha didn't prohibit monks from eating meat

Therefore this is of dispute, it should be only the modern Theravadist understanding, or maybe with some schools like the Tibetan Buddhism. By what I studied in the Chinese Classical Sutras the principle is Buddha taught Bhikkhus NOT to eat meat, but with flexibility to accommodate the different circumstances. Buddha himself didn't eat meat, even the Brahmins of modern day India don't - I personally has an acquaintance. For Tibetans, Buddha had once addressed certain Brahmins at that time due to their geological condition crops didn't grow there they were allowed but with certain conditioning to eat, that may apply, or do it as B).

how should/would a monk who has chosen to be a vegetarian handle being offered meat by a lay person?

Therefore, a Bhikkhus has chosen to be a vegetarian is, from the principle about meat eating taught by the Buddha, also an unwholesome or unnecessary practice. If this for whatever reason he has to keep to be a vegetarian he may do B) + C). Or, consider the Chinese Sangha. The Chinese Sangha, due to the historical cultural background, they evolve to a Farming-Ch'an/農禪 style practice they farmed their own food instead of going for alms everyday, farming labouring is a form of Dhyana. Sometimes in times of war or famine they may even offer shelters or food to the people, in accord with Mahayana's Bodhisattva vow. Recently there is also a monastery reviving the practice of alms going.

actually, i've been wondering about the Chinese Mahayana's school. is there any relation between Chinese Mahayana and Devadatta?

@LomX I invite u to elaborate ur question. Is this question because u believed [what Ajahn Brahm wrote]http://urbandharma.org/udharma3/meat.html ? Buddha taught to have discern on whoever told u. If u are interested, u may spend some time to read my comments under ChrisW answer on his link above, found the truth urself.

@LomX not an offence but just an intellectual exercise: if Devadatta could really have given rise of Mahayana school as u suggested he was truly superb even surpassed Buddha Shakyamuni. If u read my answer carefully u should see the thorough logic in these rules, strict, equant, reasonable: Theravadist monks can eat meat (just not sure if they wash it :D). Yet for practicing compassion, shouldn't.

A Monk can't be a strict Vegetarian
If a monk follows real Buddhism, he can't be a strict vegetarian and refuse what has given. Many vegans see a living animal when they see meat. One who follows the path of Buddha doesn't see a living animal when they see meat . So they don't know/see a difference between a vegetable and a meat . Just some food in the bowl to keep the life going. If they identify food in their bowl as , this is delicious, this is not delicious, this is expensive, this is cheap , this is meat , this is vegetable, that's not real practice. And if they see a living animal in a dead meat, that means they take "Ruupa" (what we see through eyes ) as a permanent thing . The impermanence of "Ruupa" is what we/monks should practice to see . Thus a monk can't be a strict vegetarian if they practice what the Buddha has taught .

What one grasp with his hand from his bowl and puts into ones mouth is the last in line of ones decisions. If one thinks he needs to act discriminatory there, there is all, possible lesser other annoying possibility there. That should satisfy good householders concerns for going on.

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


text:
How do Buddhists handle mental illness such as depression or bipolar disorder?
How is mental health dealt with by Bhuddists? Is it believed to be a tangible issue e.g. imbalances of chemicals in the brain? Or an issue of the spirit (not sure if spirit is the right word)?
Is treatment with western medicine (i.e. antidepressants/mood stabilizers, talk therapy) condemned or accepted?
Is there stigma surrounding these illnesses like in the western culture?
Is depression thought of an extreme form of dukkha or similar?
How are hypomania/major depressive episodes handled?

I hope this makes sense, thanks :)

I'd find it difficult to explain what "stigma" means. How can people tell whether there is or isn't stigma?

@ChrisW for example, I know that if a person in my friend group had depression and/ or bipolar disorder, the rest of the group would treat them differently because of it even if it had no effect on day to day life because this person was medicated. The friends would still feel that they have to be "careful" around them

Bipolar and depression are both very serious mental illnesses and should be treated accordingly. Too often dharma teachers who are unprepared try to resolve what are true clinical issues. As I was once told "sometimes meditation is the answer sometimes medication is the answer." That of course does not mean that practice can not help with these problems but the appropriate tools should be used at the appropriate time and instance.

Although the term 'mental illness' is generally used in the world, imbalances of chemicals or neural structures in the brain are really forms of physical illness. It has been said:

In the time of the Buddha, "mental disease" referred to an illness of view or desire. These days, however, it refers to ordinary mental
ailments that have their base in the body and are mixed up with
physical disease.
Bhikkhu Buddhadasa

Therefore, the Buddhist approach would be to treat physical (brain) illness with physical medicine, which is why Buddhist meditation is generally not recommended for strong forms of these illnesses.
However, visiting, talking to & socialising with monks & nuns who are highly developed in loving-kindness (metta) can help people with such illnesses feel more emotionally secure, loved & balanced.
In other words, there is no stigma in Buddhism surrounding these illnesses. Buddhism teaches every component of the body & mind can be subjected to injury, disease &/or illness due to decay, natural imperfection & impermanence.

Thanks, this helped me understand the stigma portion of the question :)

The sentence, "However, visiting, talking to etc.": is that statement based on theory, on practical experience, or on scripture?

If we have mental illness, we go see a psychiatrist and take medication. It is like when we have a flu, we see a doctor, take medication and rest.

I take 10 mg of Buspirone and 25 mg of Citalopram daily.

I use methylated xanthines daily (coffee, tea and chocolate).

@xxxx It's an answer to the question (from personal experience), which asks "how do Buddhists handle illness?" -- this answer says that he takes medications.

I get a little antsy whenever anyone supplies medical advice.  I think it's dangerous and I don't think that's within the scope of this forum.   I also don't think the answer addresses the question specifically regarding stigma, whether it is a form of dukkha, whether treatment is condoned by Buddhist scripture, or even the causal reasons of mental illness.  I also think the question is looking for a Buddhist approach to hypermania and depressive episodes rather than a pharmacological one.

I didn't read it as advice ("you should take this medication"); I read it as an answer ("I take this medication, Buddhists attitude is to take medication if they're prescribed it by a doctor"). I agree it shouldn't be taken as a prescription ("You should take Buspirone and Citalopram"). If you think that a Buddhist approach is "as opposed to" a pharmacological approach then perhaps you @xxxx should post that as a separate/competing answer. But I'd be inclined to condemn (as dangerous medical advice) an answer which seems to imply that you shouldn't take a prescription.

IDK.  The answer as it stands now just seems a non sequitir given the context of the question.  Just my two cents.


text:
Are attachment, aversion, ignorance Kamma?
Are attachment, aversion, ignorance Kamma?
Are they leading to a bad destination?
If they are not Kamma how do they lead you to a bad destination?

There are three types of kamma, namely, bodily, verbal & mental (refer to AN 6.63).
As soon as intention & attachment arise in the mind, this is mental kamma & such mental kamma will have a result or destination.
For example, by mere thinking alone, a neurotic person may have a psychiatric hospital as their destination.
Therefore, as soon as ignorance & aversion result in intention & attachment, this is kamma.

Well kamma is basically "action", so your attachment, aversion and ignorance certainly can lead to actions. If the actions are bad they have the potential to lead you to bad destinations.

Ignorance is the root cause for immoral/unfruitful actions and thoughts, forming fresh kamma in the process. The worst of its kind are immoral acts like killing, stealing, etc that are responsible for the worst outcomes, the worst kinds of future suffering; these are the worst forms of sankhara.
Attachment and its opposite, aversion, too generate akusala kamma, and one can see the results of such in this very life. For example, when we get attached to things or people via strong attachments or strong dislikes, that leads to mental suffering in this very life. One can even commit murder due to anger that is done with aversion. Thus these three are akusala kamma, and it is mainly caused by cravings for sense pleasures.  Such akusala kamma will only lead one to Apayas – birth in the lower realms.

Thanks, I found the following sutta to support above.https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.69