text:
Which specific process determines where consciousness will alight?
As the title indicates, I don't know how the mind "picks" which sensation to focus on. Considering the huge amount of sense-data being received by the mind each moment, which condition directs consciousness to alight in a specific range of the whole set of sense-data?
I've read that kamma influences where will the "seed" of consciousness grow. But what does this mean, exactly?
In some sources, I've read that "past" namarupa gives to consciousness the content to be known in the present, which allows contact to arise. If that's the case, can we say that where we've placed our attention (as a factor of nama in namarupa) in the past determines where will consciousness will alight in each moment?
EDIT: Some may argue that the intensity of an stimulus might be the main factor in determining where will condition alight. But what will happen when multiple sense-objects have a similar "strength", or when such "strength" is not objectively defined? For instance, what happens when someone is listening to some music? A singer attention might "fall" on the qualities of the singer's voice in the song; a bassist may auomatically pay attention to the bass and the technique behind the player; and a "casual" listener might just hear and pay attention to the overall song.
In sum, I'm asking about the processes that might "filter" the whole range of sense-data input to be processed in the mind, and that determine which portion of that amount of information might be felt as a vedana.
Thanks in advance for your time.
Kind regards!

A general (simplified) response is: this is exactly what is determined by samskaras. Samskaras are factors or tendencies or patterns or imprints that combine together to determine all kinds of outcomes, such as directionality of attention, impulsion, and volition.
A more complete response would be to say, it's a mixture of very "remote" samskaras, "middling-proximity" samskaras, "nearby" samskaras, and "immediate" samskaras. Remote samskaras are innate ignorance and karma performed long time ago. Middling-proximity samskaras are qualities inherent in current configuration of relationships between things and people. Nearby samskaras are imprints of one's own mind such as emotions, memories of past experiences, latent desires, aversions etc. Immediate samskaras are one's state of mind right at that moment.
In general, when we speak about Ultimate Reality, we must recognize that events (such as a turn of attention) don't have anything like a single cause or single process creating them. Instead, identifying a cause of an event is an imputation performed by the interpreting mind, post-factum. Ultimate Reality is continuous, it does not have discrete "events" and "causes". In other words, when we perform analysis of an event, we can trace the causal chains preceding the event and identify some of them as important, but this analysis is up to us, it depends on our chosen perspective. If we limit our perspective to psychology, we can narrow down our focus and say "here are the psychological causes of this mind turning its attention to X". If we limit our perspective to sociology, we can say "here are the sociological causes of this mind turning its attention to X" - etc. But if we want to be truly all-encompassing then we can at best say that every event is always determined by a complex combination of factors, some more immediate and some remote and indirect. These factors are called "samskaras". (BTW, events inheriting subtle influence from very remote and indirect causes is exactly why karma has inertia, and both bad and good karma takes significant time to come to fruition.)
If you want to ignore old karma and analyse attention solely in terms of the five skandhas, then you can think of it as an association loop with feed-back. An external stimulus (rupa) triggers some memories (which are a subset of samskara group) which triggers recognition/classification (samjna), which triggers some memories (samskara) - and all these memories AND the external stimuli continuously feedback into the same process of lookup/recognition/associations. Taken altogether this is called "vijnana" (subjective experience). All of the external stimuli and all the associations they generate constantly "compete" for capacity of this cyclic process. Those stimuli and associations that are related to each other and therefore "help each other" will tend to "crowd out" other stimuli and associations that don't receive as much support from each other. So if for example you see something that triggers a lot of memories and emotions (vedana), whether negative or positive, those memories and emotions will serve as fuel (upadana) that feeds back into perception process and "reinforces" or sustains (upadana) the original stimuli, helping it get more attention compared to the other stimuli that do not trigger such a large amount of memories/emotions/impulses and therefore get outnumbered.

Thank you so much for your answer, Andrei! Insightful, as always. I have a question regarding the definition of vijñana you wrote: I read an autor which seems to propose that our concept of "subjective experience" is better linked to namarupa, and that vijñana is the mental function that gives information to namarupa and that allows contrasting/integration of the new information in relation to our past mental schemes and world-view. What do you think about this idea? Kind regards, and thanks again!

Your author and I agree about the overall scheme. We both say that new information is evaluated against accumulated information. In addition, I say that this process is a partial loop with back-feed. Where your author and I disagree is in our understanding of Buddhist terminology. I say, vijnana is the word for the miraculous effect of being in the world and experiencing everything as if were "from the inside". Some people call this "consciousness", I don't like that word because it  implies something that sits and watches, I prefer to call it "subjective experience"....

But I am pretty convinced that in the Buddha's use, and in the use of Mahayana scholars over hundreds of years, Vijnana stands for the overall emergent experience, the moment by moment "movie unfolding in our heads", to put it simply. Whereas namarupa is a word for information functioning as building material Vijnana is made from.

Thank you so much! I really think this deserves to be an answer on its own. I really appreciate your words. Kind regards!

Here seems to be the answer, according to the following sutta:
SN 12,38 - Cetanā Sutta

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
“If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has a tendency towards something, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
“But, bhikkhus, when one does not intend, and one does not plan, and one does not have a tendency towards anything, no basis exists for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is no basis, there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is unestablished and does not come to growth, there is no production of future renewed existence. When there is no production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”

Also, in AN 3,77 - Dutiyabhava Sutta

"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The intention & aspiration of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future."

Thanks to everyone for your answers so far. I'd appreciate any other answer!
Kind regards!

I think there are three possibilities.
The first is based on the intensity of the stimulus. For example, a sudden loud sound will attract your attention. We can say this is related to your craving of becoming, because you perceive the loud sound as a possible threat. It's your aversive reaction towards an unpleasant sensation.
The second is based on intention. You purposely intend to focus on something. For e.g. you purposely look behind a cupboard for some missing item. If this item was precious to you, for example your wallet, we could say that this is based on an aversive reaction (fear of losing wallet) to an unpleasant sensation (the idea of losing the wallet).
The third is based on latent tendencies. If you have sensual craving towards good looking people, then such a sight may catch your attention. It's your lustful reaction towards a pleasant sensation.

+1 for "latent tendencies"

The question sounds like it might be about "attention" -- for example, "If a focus 'its' butt or breast is an example of 'unwise attention', then what determines whether a person's attention will be wise or unwise?" -- is that what you're asking?
I'm not sure what you're asking about 'specific process' though, and the 'alighting' of consciousness.
I guess some people are inhibited somehow, e.g. they might occasionally become aware that there is something reminiscent of a breast or butt -- which is nearly alighting -- but not "grasp the sign of it" (for which see e.g. this answer) -- and so, not alighting.
The reason or process for that is maybe threefold -- a.k.a. the "threefold training" --  i.e. ethics, concentration, AND wisdom.

Hi Chris! Thanks for your answer. I'm asking about the processes that might "filter" the whole range of sense-data input to be processed in the mind, and that determine which portion of that amount of information might be felt as a vedana. I don't know if that clarifies the question. It's hard for me to put this into words. Kind regards!

I guess the most obvious filter is contact or not-contact, is it, hence a guarding the senses? 'Intensity' and duration (and repetition)? For example if you stare (gaze) at something, then there's more contact, if consciousness doesn't alight there -- if you don't grasp at it -- then contact and sense-consciousness are more fleeting (or more evanescent), maybe literally less "significant". And there's, like, sati -- if you tend to be "mindful" of something, isn't that mental contact.

in the absence of intent to focus on any particular object, intensity determines one's focus
one can use ones attention to direct the attention

The factors one can use to direct attention is vitakka-vicara.

Thanks again, kind sir. In the edited part of the question, I ask what happens when the intensity of the objects present at a certain moment is roughly the same for all of them. In those cases, and if there's no "voluntary" intention of seeking a particular kind of object, what happens then? Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores I believe this was adressed in the second bullet point. Not having attained a proper degree of samadhi - or lacking voluntary intention - would be equal to being in the proverbial  "monkey mind" state.

@Erik Hi! Thanks for your answer. In your opinion, does that "monkey" follow any rule, pattern or condition to "pick" its next branch? Kind regards!

@If anything, that would probably be the law of least resistance/immediate gratification. Our minds are hardwired for that, because it's helped us survive throughout the species evolution.

@BrianDíazFlores Looking into it, i'd guess a buddhist would say that the rule/pattern/conditions would be anusaya.

Its a great question .I've been struggling to understand that myself.
I currently think that conditioning of the mind as well as held beliefs filter the raw information coming to you.There are multiple threads of information coming to you live right now from all your senses ,including the mind .Your consciousness alights due to certain parameters ,say you have food in your mouth and there is attention there ,thus taste consciousness arises.If any of these parameters is missing then it will not rise.Its expressed well here in the connected discourses SN 35:234
If you successfully direct your attention .It will watch a certain thread of information and consciousness of that thread arises .If you aren't directing attention to anything in particular ,then attention will be centered on the main thread where you can be conscious of multiple data.

Consciousness will 'alight' on the strongest sense object.
For example, if a very loud explosion occurs, consciousness will alight there.

I edited the question to change the example. Thanks!

As the title indicates, I don't know how the mind "picks" which sensation to focus on. Considering the huge amount of sense-data being received by the mind each moment, which condition directs consciousness to alight in a specific range of the whole set of sense-data?

What i make of it:
You seem to be asking for one specific factor, but from what i understand of buddhist teachings all five skandhas are considered coming into play in the process of sensing, being attentive to, and cognizing a specific stimulus.

I've read that kamma influences where will the "seed" of consciousness grow. But what does this mean, exactly?

Put simply, it means that our experiences/past actions shapes the way we perceive the present.

In some sources, I've read that "past" namarupa gives to consciousness the content to be known in the present, which allows contact to arise. If that's the case, can we say that where we've placed our attention (as a factor of nama in namarupa) in the past determines where will consciousness will alight in each moment?

Apologies for speculation, but i'm wondering if you are equating/mixing up attention and consciousness interchangeably? The way i understand it is that:

one needs to discern the skandhas on one hand, meaning that you need to look at attention (manasikara) as attention, and consciousness (vinnana) as consciousness (and the same for the remaining skandhas), as an alternative to identifying with the phenomenas.

(Edit: my bad, attention would be manasikara, a mental factor and an aspect of sankhara)

On the other hand one also needs to realize that the skandhas interplay in conjunction, as a basis for perceived phenomenas, and the emergent sense of self.

EDIT: Some may argue that the intensity of an stimulus might be the main factor in determining where will condition alight. But what will happen when multiple sense-objects have a similar "strength", or when such "strength" is not objectively defined? For instance, what happens when someone is listening to some music? A singer attention might "fall" on the qualities of the singer's voice in the song; a bassist may auomatically pay attention to the bass and the technique behind the player; and a "casual" listener might just hear and pay attention to the overall song.
In sum, I'm asking about the processes that might "filter" the whole range of sense-data input to be processed in the mind, and that determine which portion of that amount of information might be felt as a vedana.

We aren't blank slates, just as your examples implies. Again, past experiences, karma, the accumulated effect of the skandhas, and not least our dhamma training will affect how we perceive external stimuli.
In a broader perspective, the concept of skandhas and dependent origination, and well... the entire noble eightfold path details the relevant processes involved. I understand you are familiar with these, my point is that you are asking a huge question, and studying the finer details of dharma (vicara), may give you more than the more coarse general ideas dealt with here.


text:
Mental Release from Breath Versus Metta
I asked a friend who is a meditator about my practice of compassion, and he suggested I do breathing meditation because it helps liberate the mind from overthinking, as well as relaxes the person. However, I'm slightly skeptical because metta typically is also considered a concentrative meditation. Wouldn't compassion meditation also relax the mind because of this?
Thank you

Hi Eggman! Here's a video with  Ven. Sujato speaking about this topic. The revelant part for this question starts at 14:34. Kind regards!

Someone practising metta meditation can make one's mind concentrated easily but metta meditation does not in itself result in deep absorption as the object of concentration is changing and vittaka vicara is needed think "so and so be happy", etc.
Breath meditation, on the other hand, helps develop concentration and studies ones mind from overthinking.
Breath meditation with a bit of metta meditation will help deepen the concentration.

According to at least the Visudhimagga (chapter 9), you can reach jhana when practicing the Brahmaviharas of which compassion is one.  Yeah, good luck with that.  Practically speaking, it is far, far more difficult to develop concentration to the point of absorption when using a complex, abstract concept as the object of meditation.  The mind is just too easily given to vacillation.  In a Brahmavihara meditation, you are imagining people, their mental state, your feelings for them, and so forth.  There's a ton of potentially moving parts.  Samatha meditation requires stability.  Think of dropping a hunk of uncooked meat on a table.  Hear that slap, feel the weight of it, see that piece of roast beef kinda relax as it settles.  It ain't going anywhere.  Your attention has to drop on it's object in much the same way (at least initially...eventually you ease up on the gravity).  You can do that with compassion meditation, but man, if you're looking to develop the same amount of relaxation and absorption as say, breath medtiation, you are setting yourself up for a pretty rough go of things.

Wouldn't compassion meditation also relax the mind because of this?
Yes. Absolutely.
If you could meditate about walking to the gallows after being unjustly convicted and do so spreading a heart full of love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity limitless in all directions, then your metta meditation is rock solid and well developed.
That would be the painful practice with swift insight discussed in AN4.163:

And what’s the painful practice with swift insight?
  It’s when a mendicant meditates observing the ugliness of the body, perceives the repulsiveness of food, perceives dissatisfaction with the whole world, observes the impermanence of all conditions,
  and has well established the perception of their own death.

You might prefer instead the pleasant practice with swift insight meditating on the breath:

And what’s the pleasant practice with swift insight?
  It’s when a mendicant … enters and remains in the first absorption … second absorption … third absorption … fourth absorption …

Both are effective.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why a Buddhist prays at Hindu temple which is situated in another country and prays for the betterment of his own country?

Namo Buddhaya,
I am a student of Buddhism from India, trying to learn more about the Buddhist values and more. My inspiration is Dr B R Ambedkar the great Indian Scholar and social reformer. I have a doubt about the Buddhist lifestyle and custom once I read a news very recently .
The news is quoted as below .

Sri Lanka Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and wife Maitree Wickremesinghe reached Kasaragod on a private visit and offered prayers at the Kumaramangalam temple at Bela, near Kumbla, here on Saturday.

Reports quoting temple priest Ramachandra Adiga said Mr. Wickremesinghe and wife prayed for the prosperity of their nation and welfare of their family.

They had offered prayers at the Sri Mookambika temple in Kollur in neighbouring Udupi district in Karnataka on July 26.

Special pujas

The Sri Lanka premier and wife were reported to have taken part in special pujas at the temple at Bela. Though Mr. Wickremesinghe had offered pujas at the temple at Kollur during an earlier visit, it was for the first time he was visiting the temple here, the priest is quoted as saying "

Sri Lanka PM prays at Kasaragod temple

Now my doubt is why a Buddhist follower prays in a Hindu temple ? BabaSaheb Dr B R Ambedkar taught us that Buddhism is a philosophy of logic, reasoning. There is no space for superstitious beliefs or a Supreme GOD who provide virtues due to the prayers . I think it's the general idea of Buddhism and that's in its core .
But why then a prime minister of One country goes to another country and do pooja in another religion and prays for the betterment of his own country ??
Thank you

Maybe it's a politic and skilful thing to do -- analogous to the Prime Minister of New Zealand wearing a headscarf after the Christchurch mosque attack.
New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern, wearing hijab, meets Christchurch terror attack victims' families
Perhaps it helps to represent that (the population of) Sri Lanka is Buddhist and Hindu too, and that populations (within countries and between) can co-exist peacefully.
That's just a guess though, I haven't read any publicity about his motive.

Thanks for the comments, but if many of here don't know about the Brahmanism and it's cancerous product of Caste Social system in India ; we learn Buddhism as a remedy for that . This is how Dr B R Ambedkar taught us about Buddhism, only then we get these kond of doubts whenever we see illogical superstitious actions from Buddhist leaders , followers .

Yes I'm kind of aware of what you're saying: I read some about society in India, and about Dr. Ambedkar's Navayana,though not personally. I think Andrei's answer was good, I suppose that action can be intended as a symbolic act of communication for other people, especially because he's the PM. I don't know if you know that there has been some violence in the past between Hindu and Buddhist, in Sri Lanka; but a public "prayer for peace" -- friendship, not disdain, non-hatred -- with other people's form of worship, seems to me appropriate symbolic action from a political leader, it's "skilful".

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Our actions often have symbolic value. For example, when you say "good morning" to your neighbor - the morning may not be very good, it may be too hot or heavy raining, or your neighbor may be in bad mood - but we make this gesture for its symbolic value. We say good morning as a way to create positive emotional energy for the entire day. We are sending a message of hope and optimism to each other. We are wishing that good morning will lead to good day.
Or we shake hands. It may seem like a useless act, but in fact it's a symbol of peaceful contact. We use this gesture for its symbolic value. We are sending a message of trust and no-hate, no-fear to each other.
Similarly, some activities performed by the public figures are done as symbolic acts that create certain emotional energy in the people who participates, watches, or hears about them. They may send a message of respect, or compassion, or friendship etc. Just like good morning or hand-shaking, except it works at the national and international level.
Public prayers are just like that, they are symbolic actions that send a message of peace, hope, compassion or whatever the topic of the prayers. In Buddhism, many schools like Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan Vajrayana - use the ceremony of offering, ceremony of puja, and public prayers - as a way to send a positive public message, that will create a certain positive mindset in the people. It may shift the mood of every single person very slightly, but on the overall scale it may have a pretty noticeable positive effect.

Also the purpose of a stupa in DN 16: "'This is the stupa of a disciple of that Tathagata, Arahant, Fully Enlightened One!' or 'This is the stupa of that righteous monarch who ruled according to Dhamma!' — the hearts of many people are calmed and made happy; and so calmed and with their minds established in faith therein, at the breaking up of the body, after death, they will be reborn in a realm of heavenly happiness. And it is because of this, Ananda, that these four persons are worthy of a stupa."

Firstly, as ChrisW mentioned, a person might do this to please others. For example, in this case, a Buddhist politician may partake in a ceremony in another religion's place of worship to make other people happy. For example, here is a news article on Indian PM Narendra Modi visiting a Hindu temple, a Buddhist temple and a mosque in Singapore. I'm not sure if he participated in any religious ceremonies.
Secondly, a person might do this to fit in. For example, a member of Buddhism.SE who is a practising lay Buddhist from a Muslim background, wrote an answer here (which I think I won't provide the link for), stating that he did not openly declare himself to be a Buddhist and instead lives an outward life appearing to be a Muslim, whenever he meets his relatives. I'm only paraphrasing the answer, according to my understanding of it.
Thirdly, lay Buddhists and even some monks may participate in what appears to be superstitious rituals, even if the Buddha discouraged this. Just because some people identify themselves as Buddhist, doesn't mean that they are aware of the Dhamma (teachings).
For example, from this article:

This leads to the highlight of the day - chanting and blessings by
  monks and ending the short session (which lasts no more than 5
  minutes) with a shower of "holy water".
The monks softly chants a Thai variety of the Ti-Ratana Vandana
  (homage to the Triple Gem), five precepts and punnanumodana (sharing
  of merits). For most however, these chants are exotic and spiritual,
  and are perceived to have "supra mundane" powers. It is no wonder
  then that many devotees place their personal belongings - amulets,
  religious icons and even car keys - onto a tray held by the monk who
  performs the chanting.
Their belief - mistaken or otherwise - is that these chants contain "spiritual powers" which are then transcended into their items, which
  when worn or used, protects them from harm or danger. The ceremony
  ends with the tying of yellow coloured strings on the wrist, a
  symbolic notion of the presence of the Sangha in the laity. Of course,
  if one wishes, they can also make a donation to the monk concerned for
  his service by putting money into a metal box.

Lastly, to answer your question:

OP: Is Buddhism free from all superstitious blind beliefs or it is just an simple offshoot of Hinduism / Brahmanism ?

If by Buddhism, you are referring to what the Buddha taught, then the following passage from DN 2 would be self-explanatory. You might also be interested in "Is Buddhism just Hinduism stripped for export?".

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
  signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
  interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
  reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
  oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
  ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
  blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
  geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a
  cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and
  gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
  bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
  charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: determining lucky and unlucky gems, staffs, garments, swords,
  arrows, bows, and other weapons; women, men, boys, girls, male slaves,
  female slaves; elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams,
  fowl, quails, lizards, rabbits, tortoises, and other animals — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
  march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
  their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
  triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
  triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
  triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be a lunar eclipse; there will be a solar
  eclipse; there will be an occultation of [a conjunction of the moon or
  a planet with] an asterism; the sun and moon will be favorable; the
  sun and moon will be unfavorable; the asterisms will be favorable; the
  asterisms will be unfavorable; there will be a meteor shower; there
  will be a flickering light on the horizon [an aurora?]; there will be
  an earthquake; there will be thunder coming from dry clouds; there
  will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the sun,
  moon, and asterisms; such will be the result of the lunar eclipse ...
  the rising, setting, darkening, brightening of the sun, moon, and
  asterisms — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such
  as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
  drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
  rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
  will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
  counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
  and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
  the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
  calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
  collecting debts or making investments and loans; reciting charms to
  make people attractive or unattractive; curing women who have
  undergone miscarriages or abortions; reciting spells to bind a man's
  tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands,
  or to bring on deafness; getting oracular answers to questions
  addressed to a spirit in a mirror, in a young girl, or to a spirit
  medium; worshipping the sun, worshipping the Great Brahmā, bringing
  forth flames from the mouth, invoking the goddess of luck — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
  promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
  skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
  construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
  mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
  administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
  head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
  ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
  extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
  root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
  his virtue."
"A monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger anywhere from his
  restraint through virtue. Just as a head-anointed noble warrior king
  who has defeated his enemies sees no danger anywhere from his enemies,
  in the same way the monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger
  anywhere from his restraint through virtue. Endowed with this noble
  aggregate of virtue, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being
  blameless. This is how a monk is consummate in virtue.

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


text:
Splitting Up Meditation Time
I'm wondering simply whether there is a difference between two thirty minute sits daily and an hour long sit daily? Which is more advantageous?
Thank you

The single, one hour sit.  The other option is far inferior.  There's some apocryphal story going around...I think Ajahn Brahm might have talked about it.  Or maybe it was Thich Nhat Hanh.  Essentially, imagine yourself sitting beside a forest pool.  You sit there in stillness, quietly.  At first, there's a horde of mosquitoes buzzing and biting.  But yet you remain motionless.  Eventually, they get bored with you and fly off to trouble, I don't know, a water buffalo or something.  Yet you remain, still and quiet.  Next, some sort of song bird lands in the tree next to you.  At first, he was a little shy.  You came in making all this booming racket and you scared the bejesus out of him.  But now that you've been quiet, he lands nearby and starts singing his song.  After a time, he leaves.  Next, a deer comes and starts drinking at that forest pool.  Deer are skittish and there is no bloody way this animal would have gotten within 50 yards of you in the state you were in when you first arrived at the pool.  The damn thing could feel your agitated energy from across the forest.  But now, as you sit still and quiet, he barely notices your presence.  And now you wonder...what other creatures are still waiting in the forest, undiscovered, that might emerge as you continue to sit, still and quiet?
This actually works in the woods, by the way.  If you've ever gone hunting, there is a spectrum of creatures that you will see dependent on how much of a disturbance you're making.  Once you pick your spot and sit down, it takes about a half hour for animals to start ignoring you.  The same goes for meditation.  The first thirty minutes is just a warm up.  Nothing interesting happens during that time.  The next 30 minutes, productive things start to occur.  But really, it's not until you've sat for 90+ minutes that the real meditation happens.

Since for now I kinda lose concentration after 30 min, would I ideally then just sit for 1h again and again, even if the quality subsides, until I manage to have a stable attention the whole 1 hour?

Honestly, when people are just starting out, I don't even recommend that they try to meditate.  It's better just just to sit.  Simply the act of getting your butt on the cushion (even if that's a couch cushion) and not moving is going to be far more productive than any gross, volitional attempt to concentrate your mind.  Do this consistently over time and concentration will start to occur automatically.  So to answer your question, yep!  Don't worry about quality.  In fact, I can assure you that your judgments on what constitutes "quality sitting" are probably off any way.  ;-)

For longer session:

when practising for longer hours one can get more concentration. Also, initial few minutes one might be struggling will take a while for the mind before one starts in earnest, therefore, longer hours are better.

For 2 sessions:

where are times the mind is restless. So on of the session may not be as productive. Dividing the session into 2 ensure at least one session is more productive than the other in case one struggles through one of the sessions.

Now 2 half-hour session vs 1 one hour session is difficult to say, but generally, a half-hour is not long enough to be productive and with only one session, on the other hand, it is difficult to say if there will be a productive session during the day.
The best is to organise one's session as:

5 minutes after waking up
1 hour in the morning
1 hour in the afternoon, evening or night
5 minute before going to sleep


text:
What is the cause of Muṣitasmṛtitā?
I have read the causes of anger, lust, etc. but I haven't yet encountered the cause of Muṣitasmṛtitā. I am sure, most of us have had issues with this ailment.
What is the root cause of it?

If you read my answer to question about attention, you will see how I explain the process of attending, which is exactly what you're asking about.
From this explanation it becomes clear and almost obvious, that the cause of losing attention is that some other stimulus creates more active associations in you than the object you're trying to attend to. So those new associations crowd out perceptions and thoughts about the original object, and so you switch the focus.
The root of the problem is, you have more interest in other topics than in the object you're trying to focus on.
Maybe you have inner resistance/aversion to this object. Maybe you are lazy because you don't believe in success of your exercise. Maybe you are simply not familiar with the object of meditation and so you have nothing to think about it. Either way the object is not creating enough reaction in you to remain engaging.
One way to fix all this, instead of forcing your attention to stay there by force, is to do active investigation of the object you're attending to - to examine it, look at it from all sides, compare it, analyze it, research it, examine your attitude to the object, - and this way you will generate a lot of associations leading back to the same object, and so your attention will remain with it.

The root cause(s) would be lack of mindfulness (which, incidentally translates to right recollection in english), and lack of concentration (samadhi).
Going deeper in analyzing the root causes(s) one could argue that the three poisons greed, ill will and ignorance plays a significant part. On the other hand, they are perhaps a bit more distal causes.


text:
Why Lankavatara Sutra was replaced with Diamond Sutra by 5th patriarch?
As far as I know, Lankavatara Sutra was held in high esteem by both Bodhidharma & his disciple Huiko to the extent both based their way of enlightenment on this Sutra. But what it is seen that 5th patriarch Hunjeng recommended his disciple Diamond Sutra. From there onwards, Diamond Sutra took the central position in Zen.
What was the reason for this gradual replacement of Lankavatara with Diamond Sutra?

Many of the early Chinese patriarchs and their works are partially or completely shrowded in mystery. For example, it was probably not Hui-Neng, but his disciple Fahai who recorded the teachings and dialogues of his master. The work most closesly associated with the 5th patriarch is the East_Mountain_Teaching, the first "really Chinese" collection of teachings not based on translations of Sanskrit texts.
The Diamond Sutra you are referring to is just a section of the works of Hongren and Hui-Neng, the latter is called the Platform Sutra, referring to the platform on which the master would sit during his discourses. The Platform Sutra actually contains discourses on the Diamond and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as many other Sutras. So does the East Mountain Teaching collection of the 4th and 5th Patriarch.
It's indeed true the popularity of the Lankavatara Sutra declined, but this evolution started long before Hongren and Hui-Neng. Early masters of the Chan tradition were referred to as "Laṅkāvatāra masters", as this is one of the texts that Bodhidharma supposedly brought with him from India. This sutra was probably written around 350 CE, but in China this is not the most copied edition. Two subsequent editions with many commentaries and additions were made between 500 CE and 700 in collective volumes called the Taisho Tripitaka. Scholars nowadays think that the Lavankatara Sutra declined in popularity because of certain chapters that were based on Theravada values, such as eating meat and the "Thrice Clean" practice.
The first Chinese translation of the Diamond Sutra dates to the early 5th Century, but the version that supposedly caused Hui-Neng's enlightenment experience was brought to China in the 7th century by a monk called Xuanzang. Also consider that the printing press in China was invented in the first half of the 9th century. The oldest surviving printed text we actually have is a version of the Diamond Sutra from Dunhuang. This would certainly have been a major factor in its distribution and therefore its popularity.
So, in conlusion, the popularity of the Lavankatara Sutra in China was set in motion long before Hongren and Hui-Neng. The subsequent (heavily edited and commented) editions of this sutra were both created by imperial edict, which would have had considerably more influence on Chinese Buddhhism as a whole in stead of just the Chan school.


text:
Difference between mundane concerns of praise and honour/fame
I am struggling to understand the difference between two of the four pairs of the mundane/worldy concerns, namely between seeking praise and seeking honour/fame.
They seem to me not to have much of a difference, consisting both of seeking the admiration and valuing of others.
I'll be grateful for any explanation!

Praise and blame is whether what you're doing is right or wrong, according to someone.
Fame and insignificance is whether a lot of people consider you special or not.
For example, if you have a Buddhist teacher, and your teacher tells you that worrying about fame is wrong, then you may completely abandon all concerns about being popular, but you may still be attached to receiving praise from your teacher and not receiving blame.
Or, if you so much want to deserve popularity, that you don't mind doing a crime like killing the Queen of England. You know you will get a lot of blame, but you still like the fame it gives you.
So the two issues are orthogonal, independent of each other.


text:
How can there be knowledge of unconditioned phenomenon without any knower?
It's strongly maintained by almost all Buddhists that there is no ultimate permanent knower. They maintain Nirvana is unconditioned phenomenon. My question is then, who knows there is an existence of such a phenomenon? One has to know or experience such a phenomenon to know about its existence. For instance, Gautama Buddha said -

There is, bhikkhus, that base (ayatana) where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering. Ud 8.1

Now, how Gautama Buddha knew there is such base/ayantana with those qualities of negations? To claim so one has to either experience so or accept the authority of someone, right? or I am missing something? Moreover, What is 'it' in 'it has no support'? It seems some existing substance to me which has been experienced/known thus proving the existence of some known entity.

The sutta quoted says Nibbana is an "ayatana" or "base". Therefore, it is a sense object.
The "knower" of Nibbana is mind-consciousness rather than a "self". This "knower" is a "nama-dhamma", "mental element" or "conditioned element".
Nibbana itself is the "unconditioned element" ("asankhata dhatu" - MN 115) therefore the Nibbana Element is "unsupported" by any condition.
"Consciousness" or the "knower" only "knows" Nibbana. The "knower" does not "support" Nibbana.
In short, the enlightened conditioned consciousness, while living, knows the unconditioned Nibbana.
When the conditioned consciousness ceases to exist, the unconditioned Nibbana, as an element (rather than as a known sense object) continues to exist.
The element of Nibbana is eternal & permanent. Knowing consciousness is impermanent & conditioned.

This question crops up regularly, and I suspect it's the cause of a lot of worry for those just getting to know the teachings. It was for me at one time. The confusion is caused by the ultimate non-duality of knower and known, experience and experiencer.
Once these distinctions are transcended then we cannot talk about experiencing and knowing in the usual way. Both processes are inherently dualistic.
Hence at profound level of Consciousness and Reality all talk is of Identity, Being and Pristine Awareness. The Upanishads tell us there is no intentional consciousness after death. What there would be is something that probably can never make sense to a person who has spent no time exploring the roots of consciousness.
The crucial point is that Buddhism is not epistemological nihilism. This is a kind of nihilism that is also omniscience. By going beyond the knower-known distinction we would acquire a knowledge of knowledge and experience that is of all knowing and all experiencing, not just of some particular knowledge or experience. Hence the Upanishads also say, 'The voidness of one thing is the voidness of all'. That is, when we understand the nature of one thing we understand the nature of all. In the same way, when we understand the nature of knowing and experiencing we do so for all knowledge and all experience.
Bernardo Kastrup has a highly relevant poem on youtube called 'Legacy of a Truth-Seeker'. This is not really an explanation of anything but it covers a lot of the ground. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgiwVYZM5A8
I feel your opening statement is not quite right. It is the Perennial view that what is fundamental and original is knowing. This is what distinguishes or characterises consciousness. But this would not be a knowing that requires a division into knower and known. It is not what we usually call knowing but Being, the simple fact of 'I Am' that Descartes spotted was not relative and could not be doubted. This 'knowledge by identity' would be the basis for all knowing for the knower would be the identity, the knowledge the knower. There would be nothing to know except the knower.
Theists capture something like this idea when they speak of God spending eternity basking in His own glory or contemplating on His own nature. The connection to Buddhism can be made by way of the idea of 'Godhead', not a God but a state or 'hypostase' of Consciousness and Reality.
This is about 'pure knowing'. Rupert Spira gives a talk on the topic here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhCcYU_vzIM
He doesn't rush so you may need to make a brew and settle in.
In the end all you can do is test the teachings in your own practice, but it would be important to avoid the idea they are pessimistic.

If we ask who is the one experiencing the end of suffering, that is like asking how a photon knows to go in a straight line. Both questions result in a tangle of confusion around the concept of identity and knowing. The conventional meaning of "knows" presupposes identity and without identity view, conventional meaning comes up empty. If we step away from the assumption of an identity or an entity who knows, then we can deal with answerable questions. Let's talk about:
"What is 'it' in 'it has no support?'"
Since Buddhism deals with the end of suffering, the "it" is non-suffering. Suffering is supported by craving. When desire is relinquished, suffering has no support and vanishes.
MN121 illustrates a progression for relinquishing supports and details what happens as the supports are relinquished, one by one:

That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.

As you quoted:

Just this is the end of suffering.

who knows there is an existence of such a phenomenon?

Buddhism says there is not permanent, everlasting, controlling self or a core.
Also, Buddhism says any doctrine about self results in misery
The person who experiences the phenomenon knows it. But having said that there is nothing in the person which can be identified as a permanent core, a part which is everlasting, a part of the person which one can exercise absolute control.
A being in Buddhism is considered dependently arisen from moment to moment. There are billion of such rising and passing which created what is know are a being. A being is not worth being identified as atman as this leads to misery.

how Gautama Buddha knew there is such base/ayantana with those qualities of negations?

This was known through direct experience.

To claim so one has to either experience so or accept the authority of someone, right?

Ultimately this has to be empirically verified.
In order to be motivated to experience, this one has to have some belief in it, to strive towards achieving it.

What is 'it' in 'it has no support'?

This does not depend or supported by another condition. If it was supported by something else if the support break this also falls apart. This does not depend nor is supported by anything else.

It seems some existing substance to me which has been experienced/known thus proving the existence of some known entity.

Since this has been experienced by only a few there is no vocabulary describe it. There is nothing to draw parallels or analogies. What we can say is what we certain this we know are not present. For that is there in the experience there is no language to describe.

Its only emphasized that there is nothing fixed and no abiding self who knows.That doesn't mean that the knowing factor isn't there .There is knowing ,and that knowing has the capacity to reflect even on itself. Thats all no abiding knower ,just knowing exists.


text:
Subjectivity Along the Buddhist Path
I noticed that when I meditate on breathing, which I've done about as long as the four immeasurables, I tend to nevertheless hear sounds such as a television or sounds outside my house. When I meditate on the four immeasurables, I don't hear the sounds in the environment. I'm not distracted at all unless I get quite tired.
And is it possible that for me personally, metta provides more concentration?
I'm especially curious of this subjectivity aspect in Buddhism. Given the focus on empirical evidence promoted by the Buddha, how does one know / deal with aspects of the path that may be different because of one's own mental disposition? More specifically, how would I ascertain if perhaps some aspects of the path are more difficult to me personally, and whether another way of proceeding would be more beneficial? How do I know what is essential, and what is peripheral?

And is it possible that for me personally, metta provides more concentration?

When doing breath meditation your mind is relatively more passive where you watch the breath. When doing the four immeasurables your mind is more active contemplating.
Therefore you can maintain your concentration and blocks out distraction as you refocus on different being.

I'm especially curious of this subjectivity aspect in Buddhism. Given the focus on empirical evidence promoted by the Buddha, how does one know / deal with aspects of the path that may be different because of one's own mental disposition? More specifically, how would I ascertain if perhaps some aspects of the path are more difficult to me personally, and whether another way of proceeding would be more beneficial? How do I know what is essential, and what is peripheral?

This knowledge is only available to the Buddha. But through trial and error, one may find practices hard and some more easy and fruitful.

The Tathagatha Buddha has realized in the exact way how a person’s abilities develop, how they deteriorate, and accordingly their potential to realize the Dhamma. This is His Sixth power.

Source: The Supreme Buddha with His Ten Powers
Also one can use the following as a guide:

The Pali commentaries further provide guidelines for suggesting meditation subjects based on one's general temperament:

Greedy: the ten foulness meditations; or, body contemplation.
Hating: the four brahma-viharas; or, the four color kasinas.
Deluded: mindfulness of breath.
Faithful: the first six recollections.
Intelligent: recollection of marana or Nibbana; the perception of disgust of food; or, the analysis of the four elements.
Speculative: mindfulness of breath.

The six non-color kasinas and the four formless states are suitable for all temperaments.

Kammaṭṭhāna

How do I know what is essential, and what is peripheral?

The dhamma preached by the Buddha does not need anything to be added or taken out. (Svakkhato) Therefore, there is nothing peripheral of not important.

The meditation where you are hearing the sounds is actually better.  Meditation isn't a removal from the world, it's an openness to it.  Sounds don't disappear, at least not until you've reached an extremely refined state of concentration (think 10+ years of practice, day eight of a ten day retreat where you've sat for 10 hours a day).  For much of our practice, rather than sound disappearing, we are simple less affected by them...or affected by them in a entirely novel way.  What it sounds like to me is that you are ruminating, not meditating.  You are probably getting caught up in a cycle of thoughts that is actually alienating you from the outside world, your breath, even your very self.  It's kind of like driving.  I think we've all experienced those times where get caught up in this kind revelry.  Minutes and miles fly by without us being aware of them.  The same thing can happen on the cushion if we are not careful.
Concentration practice is concentration practice.  It doesn't matter if you are using a kasina, a koan, or a brahmavihara.  Believe it or not, when it comes to concentration, our personal obstacles are nearly as unimportant as the object we take up.  Just keeping bringing your mind back to that object.  Every distraction you recover from is one more repetition that builds your meditation muscles.  The reps are what matter - not your individual temperament.


text:
What is the perspective of the western buddhist cannon websites?
In the eastern perspective, Tipitaka is memorized and studied by Atthakatha-teachers from generation to generation and still going on nowadays, so it is weird to study Tipitaka without Atthakatha.
But I look at the western Buddhist canon website and they look like "these words are from his disciple's mouth, but I don't want to hear his disciple's explanation because it's not actually his."
For the example, https://suttacentral.net/ protects 84000.org to show suttacentral's page on its iframe directly after this function opened ere long.
I requested this function to 84000.org webmaster because I need to use tipitaka, atthakatha, and tika in pali thai, pali roman, siamrattha thai translation, mahamakutta thai university translation, MCU translation, and english translation. (I don't know why 84000.org chose iframe instead of the real source from inside, but I think the webmaster may avoid the license problem).
Actually, that protection is not the main idea, however it means suttacentral webmasters already knew the problem that suttacentral has not enough canons for the reference, no Atthakatha-pali and no Tika. It's ok for that protection, but it makes the questions that why don't suttacentral and the other western buddhist canon websites put the losing resources into their website, although they already knew there were demands?
So,

What is the perspective of the western Buddhist canon website to protect the Buddhist people from Atthakatha study?
Why the western Buddhist canon website acts like  "these words are from his disciple's mouth, but I don't want to hear his disciple's explanation because it's not actually his"?

Another, why don't the western Buddhist canon websites make the function for easier reference such as highlight function?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

OP: It's ok for that protection, but it makes the questions that why don't suttacentral and the other western buddhist canon websites
  put the losing resources into their website, although they already
  knew there were demands?
OP: Another, why don't the western Buddhist canon websites make the function for easier reference such as highlight function?

SuttaCentral for example, has a discussion forum here. If you want new features. You can ask them directly. I'm sure other "western" buddhist canon websites have similarly reachable community or administrators. If they lack manpower, maybe they will focus on the canon first, which is itself huge.
Apart from the suttas, there's also translation of the Visuddhimagga online and also summaries of the Abhidhamma.

OP: What is the perspective of the western Buddhist canon website to protect the Buddhist people from Atthakatha study?

I think this is largely due a lack of manpower, so they focus on what they think people need the most.
For example, you can see that not all of the Sutta Pitaka is available on AccessToInsight. Only the ones judged by the admin to be the most useful are there. Similarly with Piya Tan's collection at The Minding Centre.
On the other hand, SuttaCentral has grown to contain a far bigger collection of the suttas, perhaps hoping to cover the whole Sutta Pitaka one day. This is by itself a huge effort.
Comparatively, the Atthakatha is seen as secondary to the Suttas and less important.
But nevertheless you can read parts of the Atthakatha indirectly quoted by Piya Tan at The Minding Centre and other translators like Thanissaro Bhikkhu on AccessToInsight.

OP: Why the western Buddhist canon website acts like "these words are from his disciple's mouth, but I don't want to hear his disciple's
  explanation because it's not actually his"?

I don't think this is the attitude. I think it's more like "I want to listen to the master's words first. That's more important to me. But if there is a disciple explaining it, I can refer to it, but it's less important or secondary."

Almost all Buddhist sects orally recited&memorized tipitaka for at least 145+ years, so all of Buddhist canons are secondary because all of them come from the disciples' mouth, right?
I understand you and the good mind of the webmasters and I know how hard it is to maintain a website, but the dhamma looks like downgrade when I add a link from 84000.org, however I have no other choices to use. The link is very important for the readers because if I don't make a link, it is my fault when the reader doesn't understand what I written, but I do my best by the link. And they don't like quotation

I think it's almost the same question as to why some people reject Mahayana, which is the teaching passed by students of Buddha, just like Atthakatha.
Or why some people reject Visuddhimagga.
Or why some people reject Abhidharma.
I guess some people just don't trust anything expect The Canon.
And why do they not trust it? I think, it's because they don't really understand Dharma, so they can't see for themselves which teaching is correct and which is not. Because they can't see the deep meaning and can't understand connection of topics to one another and to real life. So they don't have any way of knowing which teaching to trust - which leaves them with nothing but The Canon.

Your last paragraph seems to say something extremely important. It leads to a sort of scriptural dogmatism and divides Buddhism (or whichever 'ism' it happens to be) from the rest of mysticism and even sometimes from major areas of Buddhist teaching. I appreciate that this is probably a touchy topic.  .  .

I think I put this question in the canon section, not practice. Some practitioner often shows their ego over the canon-keeper, but both of them come together in Buddhist culture, nothing is better. In the canon section, the justice of canon comes from the evidence, history, and witness. No trust. It's same in the cort, archeology, etc. The trust and judgement comes after the consideration of the fact from  the evidence, history, and witness. What whe western website doing, in my eyes, is hidding   the evidence, history, and witness from the students and the practitioners.

Q. Why the western Buddhist canon website acts like "these words are from his disciple's mouth, but I don't want to hear his disciple's
  explanation because it's not actually his"?

A Western Buddhist website is https://www.accesstoinsight.org. On this website is the Ani Sutta: The Peg SN 20.7, where the Lord Buddha told us to not follow the "words of disciples", as follows:

In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when
  discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
  meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
  They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
  regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will
  listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets,
  elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of
  disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on
  knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping &
  mastering.
In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the
  Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with
  emptiness — will come about.
Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that
  are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning,
  transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will
  lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these
  teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train
  yourselves.

Aṭṭhakathā (Pali for explanation, commentary) refers to Pali-language Theravadin Buddhist commentaries to the canonical Theravadin Tipitaka.
Aṭṭhakathā is the words of (heretic) disciples (with wrong view).
Aṭṭhakathā leads to 'rebirth' in the 'animal kingdom' and, eventually, to 'hell'.
Some examples of 'rebirth' in the fire of 'hell' is below:

You're answering that "Aṭṭhakathā is wrong view" is "the perspective of the western buddhist cannon websites"? Which cannon websites is that true of -- is there evidence that the authors or editors of those websites have that view?

This website for starters: https://dhammadhatu.wordpress.com/ and any other website I posted on. Kind regards

I don't think this is an answer -- it implies that the "perspective of western canon websites" is defined or motivated by your own opinion (assuming that what you posted is your own opinion). The OP asked about "canon websites", I think that means the sites which collect and publish (translated) anthologies of the canon, i.e. suttacentral and so on -- not blogs and forums and so on.

I have Right View.


text:
What exactly is the difference between Mindfulness and Concentration
What exactly is the difference between Mindfulness and Concentration (I have seen different views on this topic so I would be happy if you could help me understand it)

This is very broad. Are you asking about English words? Or about Pali terms "sati" and "samadhi"? Do you have any texts in mind, when asking this? Focus on Theravada or Mahayana, or all schools? Are you asking this in context of some kind of practice you're attempting to do? etc.

Let's add more details before people jump to answers, and then will reopen.

Mindfulness ('sati'; literally 'to remember'; 'not be forgetful') means to "bring to mind & keep in mind' the task you must do. 'Samadhi' means 'collectedness' or 'to gather together' and refers to the mind in one-focused or non-distracted on its talk. The role of mindfulness in Buddhist meditation is to remember to keep the mind free from unwholesome mental states & wrong views. When mindfulness performs its  role, the result is "samadhi", namely, the mind unified with mental purity & the meditation objects (such as breathing) that naturally come into awareness when the mind is pure.

I would say mindfulness is all encompassing, while concentration implies a narrowing of focus.  .


text:
Applied Meditation
I noticed that in the case of metta bhavana, I seem to generate a lot of compassion while sitting, but as soon as I am in the real world I sometimes react impatiently or with irritation. The same goes for mindful breathing, where I act in daily life without much mindfulness despite effective sessions.
What is the best way to bring the benefits of meditation into every day experience?

The purpose of a sitting meditation session is that one continues the practice for the rest of the day.
Following 4 factors, though used in a slightly different context in the quoted text, may help in trying to extend your practice to daily session:

Concern (ābhoga): you pay initial attention to the breath, you apprehend the breath, you advert the mind towards the breath, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’
Reaction (samannāhāra): you continue to do so, i.e. you pay sustained
  attention to the breath that way, do it again and again, keep the
  breath in the mind, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’
Attention (manasikāra): literally ‘deciding to make the breath tranquil’.
  Attention is the mental factor that makes the mind advert towards
  the object. Attention makes the mind conscious of the breath and
  know the breath.
Reviewing (paccavekkhaBa): you review (vīmamsa) the breath, make it
  clear to the mind, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’

p35/36 Knowing and Seeing by Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw
In the context of your question:

Concern - one should be concerned to retain the object of meditation may it be breath or metta
Reaction - one should see if one's mind is with the object and if not bring it back. Even if not periodically are apply your mind to the objects by trying to see the meditation object (in the case of breath / ) or be with the meditation object.
Attention - one should pay attention to what the mind is doing, i.e., wandering off or staying in focus
Reviewing - periodically are checking if you are at it

Also, you can try extending to other Brahmavihara meditation to remove impatient reaction and irritation as they can be not only due to ill will but due to other factors like cruelty, discontent and aversion. E.g. one sees someone with a better car which might be irritating. Something being better than mine give arise to discontent.

(1) Rāhula, practise the cultivation of lovingkindness. For when you cultivate lovingkindness, any
  ill will will be abandoned.
(2) Rāhula, practise cultivation of compassion. For, when you cultivate compassion, any cruelty
  will be abandoned.
(3) Rāhula, practise the cultivation of gladness. For, when you cultivate gladness, any discontent
  will be abandoned.
(4) Rāhula, practise the cultivation of equanimity. For, when you cultivate equanimity, any
  aversion will be abandoned.

Mahā Rāhul’ovāda Sutta

One can think of any sitting practice as though it were preparation for using those skills in daily life. One way of translating Mindfulness is "to remember", so practice remembering to return to the present throughout the day, via a chosen object of attention.
Some set a clock to remind them once an hour, others put little notes around the house to remind them. Certain activities lend themselves to easy extensions of your sitting practice, like walking to your car, washing dishes, walking the dog, exercise, etc. - all can be done with mindful awareness. Just be with the sensations of whatever you're doing fully, without letting the mind wander. Be aware of the mind and things you know will trigger unwholesome formations, like getting cut off in traffic. You know it will happen, be ready for it and arm yourself with a mindful and compassionate response beforehand.
It's a habit, and takes time and effort to develop. Every little bit helps, and don't be discouraged at first if you forget. Don't make it stressful, keep it light and rewarding. Relax and release.
Maintaining this mindfulness or compassion throughout your day will increase the benefits of your practice many-fold, and you'll find your sitting practice reflecting that by having deeper sessions with sharper mindfulness.
Good luck!

The following chapter from Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's book "How to Meditate" should answer your question very well. It applies to lay people.
TL;DR
I will summarize it below:

Practise the five precepts heedfully
Eat in moderation
Consume entertainment in moderation
Social networking and socializing should be done in moderation
Sleep in moderation
Avoid any kind of addiction
Practise some amount of mindfulness in daily routine activities and motions
Practise some amount of mindfulness of sensations i.e. acknowledgement of sensations

Quote:

Chapter Six: Daily Life
At this point, instruction in the basic technique of formal meditation
  practice is complete. The teachings in the previous chapters is enough
  for a new-comer to begin on the path towards understanding reality as
  it is. In this final chapter, I will discuss some of the ways in which
  the meditation practice can be incorporated into daily life, so that
  even when one is not formally meditating one can still maintain a
  basic level of mindfulness and clear awareness.
First, it is necessary to discuss activities that are harmful to one’s
  mental clarity; activities one must avoid in order for the meditation
  to bring about sustained positive results.
As I explained in the first chapter, “meditation” is the mental
  equivalent to “medicine”. When taking medicine, there are certain
  substances one must avoid; substances that will either nullify the
  positive effects of the medicine or, worse, combine with the medicine
  to create poison. Likewise, with meditation there are certain
  activities that, due to their tendency to cloud the mind, have the
  potential to nullify the effects of the meditation or, worse, pervert
  one’s understanding of the meditation, causing one to cultivate
  unwholesome mind states instead of wholesome ones.
Meditation is meant to cultivate clarity and understanding, free from
  addiction, aversion, and delusion, and therefore free from suffering.
  Since certain bodily and verbal acts are intrinsically tied to
  negative qualities of mind, they are considered ‘contraindicative’ to
  the meditation practice; they have an effect opposite to what is
  desired, cultivating defilement instead of purity. Meditators who
  insist on engaging in such behaviour will face great difficulty in
  their practice, developing habits that are detrimental to both
  meditation practice and personal well-being. To ensure the mind is
  perfectly clear and capable of understanding reality, certain
  behaviours must be taken out of one’s “diet”, so to speak.
First, there are five kinds of action from which one must refrain
  completely, as they are inherently unwholesome: [Note1]

One must refrain from killing living beings. In order to cultivate one’s own well-being, one must be dedicated to well-being as a
  principle, refraining from killing any living being, even ants,
  mosquitoes and other living beings.
One must refrain from theft. In order to find peace of mind, we must grant it to others as well; stealing is a denial of this basic
  right to security. Further, if we wish to be free from addiction, we
  must be able to control our desires to the extent of respecting the
  possessions of others.
One must abstain from committing adultery or sexual misconduct. Romantic relationships that are emotionally or spiritually damaging to
  others, due to existing commitments of the parties involved, are a
  cause for stress and suffering and based on perversion of the mind.
One must refrain from telling lies. If one wishes to find truth, one must avoid falsehood; intentionally leading others away from the
  truth is harmful both to oneself and others and incompatible with the
  goals of meditation.
One must refrain from taking drugs or alcohol. Any substance that intoxicates the mind is obviously contraindicative to meditation
  practice, as it is the antithesis of a natural, clear state of being.

Complete abstention from these activities is necessary if one wishes
  for meditation practice to be successful, due to their inherently
  unwholesome nature and the invariably negative effect they have on the
  mind.
Further, there are certain activities that must be moderated or they
  will interfere with meditation practice. These are activities that are
  not necessarily unwholesome in and of themselves but will nonetheless
  inhibit clarity of mind and lessen the benefit of the meditation
  practice when undertaken in excess. [Note2]
One such activity is eating; if one wishes to truly progress in the
  meditation practice, one must be careful not to eat too much or too
  little. If one is constantly obsessed with food, it can be a great
  hindrance to progress in meditation since not only does it cloud the
  mind, over-eating leads to drowsiness, both in the body and mind. One
  should eat to stay alive rather than stay alive simply to eat. During
  intensive meditation courses, meditators eat one main meal per day and
  suffer no negative physical consequences as a result; whereas the
  positive effects of such moderation are clarity of mind and freedom
  from obsession over food.
Another activity that interferes with meditation practice is
  entertainment – watching movies, listening to music, and so on. These
  occupations are not inherently unwholesome but can easily create
  states of addiction when undertaken in excess.
Addiction is a form of insobriety in a sense, since it involves
  chemical processes in the brain that inhibit clear thought and clarity
  of mind. Since the pleasure that comes from entertainment is momentary
  and unsatisfying while the addiction and obsession carry over into
  one’s life, a serious meditator should determine to make the best use
  of their short time in this life by cultivating peace and contentment,
  rather than wasting it on meaningless activities that don’t lead to
  long term happiness and peace. If one wishes to find true happiness,
  one must therefore moderate one’s engagement in entertainment.
  Socializing on the Internet and similar activities should be
  undertaken in moderation as well.
The third activity one must moderate is that of sleeping. Sleeping is
  an addiction that is often overlooked; most people don’t realize how
  attached they are to sleep as a means of escape from reality. Still
  others become insomniac, obsessed with the thought that they are not
  getting “enough” sleep, leading to increased stress levels and further
  difficulty in falling asleep.
Through the meditation practice, one will find that one needs less
  sleep than before since one’s mind will become calmer. Insomnia is not
  a problem for meditators since they are able to meditate even in the
  lying position and keep their minds free from stress. People who have
  difficulty falling asleep should train themselves to watch the stomach
  rise and fall, noting “rising”, “falling”, all night if necessary.
  Even if they are not able to fall asleep (which is unlikely, given the
  calm state of mind while meditating) they will find themselves as
  rested as if they had slept soundly through the night.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that to truly gain results in the
  meditation practice, a meditator should set aside at least a period of
  time to remain entirely celibate, not just avoiding immoral sexual
  activity, since all sexual activity is invariably intoxicating and
  will be a hindrance towards attainment of mental clarity and peace.
Once one has put aside activities that interfere with clarity of mind,
  one can begin to incorporate meditative awareness into ordinary life.
  There are two ways in which one can meditate on ordinary experience,
  and they should be practiced together, as follows.
The first method is to focus one’s attention on the body, since it is
  the most clearly evident aspect of experience. As in formal
  meditation, the body is always available for observation, and thus
  serves as a convenient means of creating clear awareness of reality in
  daily life. Since the body is generally in one of four postures –
  walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, one can simply become aware
  of one’s posture as a meditation object to bring about clarity of
  mind.
When walking, for example, one can note either “walking, walking,
  walking, walking” or “left, right, left, right” as one moves each
  foot. When standing still, one can focus on the standing position and
  note “standing, standing”; when sitting, “sitting, sitting” and when
  lying down, “lying, lying”. In this way, one can develop clarity of
  mind at any time even when not practicing formal meditation.
Further, one can apply the same technique to any small movement of the
  body – for instance when bending or stretching the limbs, one can note
  “bending” or “stretching”. When moving the limbs, “moving”. When
  turning, “turning”, and so on. Every activity can become a meditation
  practice in this way; when brushing one’s teeth, “brushing”; when
  chewing or swallowing food, “chewing, chewing”, “swallowing,
  swallowing” and so on.
When cooking, cleaning, exercising, showering, changing clothes, even
  on the toilet, one can be mindful of the movements of the body
  involved, creating clear awareness of reality at all times. This is
  the first method by which one can and should incorporate the
  meditation practice directly into ordinary life.
The second method is the acknowledgement of the senses – seeing,
  hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. Ordinary sensory experience
  tends to give rise to either liking or disliking; it therefore becomes
  a cause for addiction or aversion and ultimately suffering when it is
  not in line with one’s partialities. In order to keep the mind clear
  and impartial, one should always try to create clear awareness at the
  moment of sensory experience, rather than allowing the mind to judge
  the experience according to its habitual tendencies. When seeing,
  therefore, one should know it simply as seeing, reminding oneself
  “seeing, seeing”.
When hearing a sound, one should likewise note “hearing, hearing”.
  When smelling pleasant or unpleasant odours, “smelling, smelling”.
  When tasting food or drink, instead of becoming addicted to or
  repulsed by the taste, one should note “tasting, tasting”. When
  feelings arise in the body, hot or cold, hard or soft, and so on, one
  should note “feeling, feeling” or “hot”, “cold”, and so on.
Practicing in this way, one will be able to receive the full spectrum
  of experience without compartmentalizing reality into categories of
  “good”, “bad”, “me”, “mine”, “us”, “them”, and so on. As a result,
  true peace, happiness and freedom from suffering is possible at all
  times, in all situations. Once one understands the true nature of
  reality, the mind will cease to react to the objects of the sense as
  other than what they truly are and be free from all addiction and
  aversion, just as a flying bird is free from any need for a perch on
  which to cling.
This then is a basic guide to practice meditation in daily life,
  incorporating the meditation practice directly into one’s life even
  when not formally meditating. Beyond these two methods, one can also
  apply any of the objects discussed in the first chapter – pain,
  thoughts, or the emotions. The techniques discussed in this chapter
  should be thought of as an additional means of making the meditation
  practice a continuous experience whereby one is learning about oneself
  and about reality at all times.
This concludes the basic instruction on how to meditate. Remember that
  no book, no matter how detailed it may be, can substitute sincere and
  ardent practice of the teaching itself. One may learn by heart all
  wise books ever written and still be no better off than a cowherd
  guarding the cattle of others, should one not practice accordingly.
If, on the other hand, one accepts the basic tenets included in a book
  like this as sufficient theoretical knowledge and practices sincerely
  in accordance with them, one is surely guaranteed to attain the same
  results as countless others have likewise attained – peace, happiness
  and true freedom from suffering.
Notes:
[Note1] These five behaviours correspond with the five Buddhist moral
  precepts.
[Note2] The following is in accordance with the eight meditator
  precepts normally taken by Buddhist meditators on holidays or during
  intensive meditation courses, adding the three precepts below to the
  five above and undertaking total celibacy.


text:
Social Media and Right Speech
I seem to have a lot of consideration for others in person, but on social media -- where non-verbal cues are lacking -- I react more easily with irritation and impatience. Since such communication was not existent in the Buddha's time, I wonder:
Are there Buddhist tips or remedies specifically linked with such online types of communication? Karmically speaking, would online communication be a lesser consequence than actual in person wrong speech?
Thank you

The conditioning main component of speech is thinking and pondering.

Thinking and pondering are verbal formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
So I believe regardless of if you speak it or write it the results are the same.
If you just think it and do not follow through with the communication then the effects will be less as this is purely mental karma. If one follows through, more people come in contact with what you have said and comprehends what has been said more the karma. E.g. if you lie and 2 people get deceived this is worse than 1 person. If you lie and nobody understands this is less bad than one person understanding what you said.
The guidelines would be the same for both online and non-online interactions, namely. abstaining

from lying,
from divisive speech,
from abusive speech, and
from idle chatter.

See: Sacca Vibhanga Sutta
For further guidelines see: Right Speech

So are you saying that even only the mental act has karmic consequences?

Physical and verbal action which is followed through has more karmic consequences as doing something requires a lot more mental activity. Ultimately volition is what decides karma.

In the Buddha's time, people would still have communicated remotely through envoys. Social media is much like writing a letter to someone, except that receiving the information is instantaneous (hence, "instant messaging").
This should be reason to make careful consideration regarding the words you use, since you have plenty of opportunity to correct errors, grammatically and ethically, before sending information. Unfortunately, in an age with people born into an expectation of instant gratification, this is not so common. Emotion can run rampant and a single keystroke can send a barrage of letters that may invoke hate, lust, ignorance, etc. I would imagine that the karma for unethical writing is similar to wrong speech. The time it takes to communicate those words may vary among persons, allowing wholesome or unwholesome mental states to fester.
In the digital world, what you write has a higher chance of being kept on record, and used against you. The ways in which karma comes to fruition may be what has changed in the present age, which makes it even more important to be heedful and mindful of your choice of words. The best you can do is keep trying to improve your mode of communication.

You might like to read Ekamsena Sutta (AN 2.18), on the consequences of good and bad conduct.
There's a famous (non-Buddhist) saying, in English, for children

"If You Can't Say Something Nice About Someone, Don't Say Anything at All!"

Following that advice that might be even easier on social media, because you have time to think before you post.
Is there a good way to use "reputation", too?

Given that I have declared, Ananda, that bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct should not be done, these are the drawbacks one can expect when doing what should not be done: One can fault oneself; observant people, on close examination, criticize one; one's bad reputation gets spread about; one dies confused; and — on the break-up of the body, after death — one reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. Given that I have declared, Ananda, that bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct should not be done, these are the drawbacks one can expect when doing what should not be done.

I've been conversing online since the earliest 1990s. I don't remember being mean to people but there were times I got into silly (friendly) chats and conversations with people, using a pseudonym.
Since then I tend to post, instead, with a username that's more-or-less identifiable as a real person
I'm not saying that you need to investigate which person I am -- but, "I" recognise what I post as being "my" username and "my" post and so on -- maybe you don't want to post stuff that you ought to feel ashamed of ...

Given that I have declared, Ananda, that good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct should be done, these are the rewards one can expect when doing what should be done: One doesn't fault oneself; observant people, etc.

... so adopting some kind of "identity" -- as if this were in public, not in private -- might help to "take responsibility".
And since you asked for Buddhist advice, how about No Attachment to Dust:

Even though alone in a dark room, be as if you were facing a noble guest

Karmically speaking, would online communication be a lesser consequence than actual in person wrong speech?
Perhaps it's greater consequence:

Read by more people
Remembered for longer
Less immediate consequence

If you're talking in person and (for example) you offend, there's immediate consequence -- they reply -- and you might correct was said and why you said it.
Whereas with fewer immediate "consequences" to what you post online, there's less feedback or correction -- and maybe what you do, say, and think are more likely to become "habitual".

The best thing to do is re-read the comment you typed to post at least twice before sending. While doing this your mind will calm down & bring you to right mindfulness. This way you can minimize the amount of wrong speech you perform. Continually practicing, you'll be able to stop thinking the sentence as soon as it starts coming up to your mind.
Always remember that what you post on social media has much greater influence than what you say in actual speech. What you type in is read by millions of people around the world. All the people reading it will get the same emotion you got while typing it. This will emit a large amount of hated rays to the universe which will have bad impacts. This is the scientific reason why Lord Buddha chanted us to always be mindful about our speech & speak only productive & nice things.
You've done a great work by identifying that you are impatient while using social media. Now it's only the easy part left. Wish you luck in accomplishing it. May the noble triple gem bless you!