text:
Unconscious Nature of Craving
I understand craving involves a strong preoccupation component. I noticed that somehow, when I either use a dating site or anything similar, I often check whether I received a message or if anything happened. However, I noticed even when I'm not checking the site, there seems to be less virtuous activity, almost as if the preoccupation was unconscious.
Can this be explained by the nature of craving? Does craving tend to occupy space in the mind, even if not consciously aware?
I'm also wondering whether, if craving takes up mental space, it is because the mind takes time to create a craving and because the conscious element is just the surface.
Thank you

Can this be explained by the nature of craving? Does craving tend to occupy space in the mind, even if not consciously aware?
From AN6.63 we understand that:

Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.

If one goes to dating sites looking to acquire, one is practicing greed as "I want this person. I don't want that person." We treat people as things to shop for. We acquire and discard. We become acquired and discarded. We treat each other like plastic bottles of water. Drink and discard.
If one goes to dating sites looking to find good spiritual companions who are generous, kind and ethical, then one may find more friends and perhaps some additional closeness may develop.
Search for good spiritual companions. Dating apps might or might not be the best way to do that. Good spiritual companions often are found doing things that help others. Find a way to help others and you will find good spiritual companions.
The Noble Eight-Fold path starts with Right View. Think about your view as you use that dating app. Is it right?

The world’s pretty things aren’t sensual pleasures.
  Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.
  The world’s pretty things stay just as they are,
  but a wise one removes desire for them.
  ...
The practice that leads to the cessation of suffering is simply this noble eightfold path, that is:
  right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.

OP: ... Can this be explained by the nature of craving?
Craving is the reactive response of the mind to sensations. When one feels one craves:

with feeling as condition, there is craving;

(Paṭicca,samuppada) Vibhanga Sutta
OP: Does craving tend to occupy space in the mind, even if not consciously aware?
For an untrained person, craving is the reflexive response. It does not physically otherwise occupy any space.
When one is aware one can:

note the sensation experienced
know that it is implements in and detached manner

Doing so one does not generate craving.

Does craving tend to occupy space in the mind, even if not consciously aware?
That seems plausible.
I heard that people have done "functional MRI" imaging of the brain during focused activity, and found that when you're successfully concentrating on a task then fewer areas of the brain are active -- i.e. only the areas associated with the task -- I suppose that having other areas active too would only be distracting.
In the case you mentioned, perhaps it could be explained as the difference between seeking (or expecting) something satisfactory (or rewarding) from the outside (i.e. from checking a website) -- contrasted with the reward of virtuous activity.
There's a lot of (non-Buddhist) literature about how social media is addictive -- e.g. because it delivers small doses of satisfaction (e.g. people "liking" what you post, etc.).

If you're checking for messages often on a dating site, that's not just craving (tanha). That's clinging (upadana).
From the question "What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?", I quote this answer:

What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?
To use a traditional example. Say you met a very nice person. Let's
  say that person had a beautiful smile and sweet soft voice. Next day,
  you suddenly get a flash of that person's smile in your mind, and you
  "hear" the sound of voice playing in your head, all this accompanied
  with a desire to see that person again. That's tanha. You also feel
  a somewhat painful sensation in your chest because you're missing that
  person. That's dukkha.
Then, on the basis of that flash, you start obsessively thinking about
  the smile, the voice, the hair, the body, the manner of walking - you
  begin inwardly attending to as many features of the person as you can
  remember. You also start thinking about the place you met the person
  yesterday, hoping that if you go there again, there is a chance you
  will see him or her again. That's upadana.

When you give attention to a theme frequently it becomes an inclination due to that frequent pondering.
What one sees that one thinks about and that theme is explored as basis for happiness, equanimity or distress.
Forms can be based on the eye or they can be a memory or imaginary.
Having direct one's attention to an object one explores it and associated themes according to one's best knowledge of good and bad (discernment faculty).
This is where one needs to pay a lot of attention and not be careless in giving attention, as to condition the mind properly.
What one sees, that one thinks about. What one thinks about that one objectifies. What one objectifies one evaluates. Having directed one's thought and made an evaluation one breaks out into speech; therefore thoughts & evaluation are verbalized.
These six are classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving.
"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal? There being 'I am,' there comes to be 'I am here,' there comes to be 'I am like this' ... 'I am otherwise' ... 'I am bad' ... 'I am good' ... 'I might be' ... 'I might be here' ... 'I might be like this' ... 'I might be otherwise' ... 'May I be' ... 'May I be here' ... 'May I be like this' ... 'May I be otherwise' ... 'I will be' ... 'I will be here' ... 'I will be like this' ... 'I will be otherwise.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal.
"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external? There being 'I am because of this (or: by means of this),' there comes to be 'I am here because of this,' there comes to be 'I am like this because of this' ... 'I am otherwise because of this' ... 'I am bad because of this' ... 'I am good because of this' ... 'I might be because of this' ... 'I might be here because of this' ... 'I might be like this because of this' ... 'I might be otherwise because of this' ... 'May I be because of this' ... 'May I be here because of this' ... 'May I be like this because of this' ... 'May I be otherwise because of this' ... 'I will be because of this' ... 'I will be here because of this' ... 'I will be like this because of this' ... 'I will be otherwise because of this.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.
"Thus there are 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external. These are called the 36 craving-verbalizations. Thus, with 36 craving-verbalizations of this sort in the past, 36 in the future, and 36 in the present, there are 108 craving-verbalizations.
As long as discernment remains undeveloped there will be ignorance on to that extent and on account of that ignorance what one sees and thinks about will be explored as basis for happiness on account of wrong views, and on account of these wrong views there will come into being wrong thoughts and resolves.
Therefore as you can see the discernment is to be developed and it leads to development of the path as it is a condition for right thought and resolves.


text:
Craving vs Interest
Is interest in a topic/concept/thought, a form of craving? Must we rid ourselves of interest too?
If so, how do we approach so many activities in daily life, that rely on interest? These activities include reading. How do you make an activity such as reading wholesome? How can it be made beneficial to the practice?

Interest in a topic can be craving (tanha). One of the six senses is the intellect and ideas are the sense-objects for the intellect. If a certain idea gives you pleasure, then you may be craving and even clinging to it. This is with respect to the craving to sensual pleasures (kama tanha).
Let's say you are an academic, and you take a keen interest in your field of expertise, and try to read more in order to deepen your knowledge, with the goal of becoming a full fledged professor one day. That's also based on craving, but this time the craving of becoming (bhava tanha). You want to become a professor.
Interest in a topic can be desire (chanda). Let's say you intend to learn the Dhamma (teachings of the Buddha) not because it's an intellectually pleasurable philosophy (or metaphysics) and not because you want to become a professor or scholar of it, but because you want to understand the path to the end of suffering. This is a positive desire.
In any case, if your craving or clinging or desire leads to breaking the five precepts, then you must overcome it.
If your craving or clinging or desire leads to emotions that are based on the three poisons, then it is also skillful or wholesome to overcome it, before it causes you to commit bad kamma. For e.g. you like something, but someone prevents you from getting it, and this causes you to become angry and maybe cause you to attack this person. It's skillful to overcome such thoughts.
However, Buddhism doesn't really teach us to forcibly suppress all our cravings. If you are craving to read about history, or craving to eat a slice of cheesecake, go right ahead. The Buddha taught us to overcome craving not through forcible suppression (unless it leads to bad kamma), but through uprooting ignorance, by gaining wisdom and insight.
This answer which introduces the old South Indian monkey trap, explains that to uproot craving, one must first uproot ignorance. However, the cause of the arising of suffering is still the arising of craving.

You can have interest (Chanda) without craving.
It is craving one should abandon. More particularly your reaction to different feeling (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) with unwholesome mental states (craving, aversion, ignorance). See: Pahāna Sutta.
If you like reading do so which delight or aversion to what you read.

Examine the intention/motive behind one's interest to see whether it's wholesome or not, whether it benefits oneself and others, whether it helps alleviate suffering, increase one's virtues, and the cultivation of meditation and wisdom, etc. Regarding craving vs wholesome desire, see the park analogy at SN 51.15

Thanks for your response! My intention is most certainly always for my own pleasure. When I see interest, I see craving for pleasure, in some possibly acquired knowledge. It is hard to let go of that interest, and change that motivation to something wholesome. There is a way to see reading as something wholesome. I could for example see gaining knowledge as a wholesome activity, but then how do I choose to gain this knowledge and not that knowledge. I'm purely driven by what I find pleasurable to read in this regard. In contrast, what would a truly equanimous mind do?

Obviously the content of the knowledge is something you can tell right away whether it's good or bad. Furthermore, think about how you're gonna apply the new knowledge that you've just gained, and for what purpose? Are you gonna apply it for the good of other people and yourself, etc...

If so, how do we approach so many activities in daily life, that rely on interest?
Interests skew awareness--an interest in following Instagram influencers easily leads to craving Photoshop delusions.
Interests lead to biases. Interests lead to favorites. And that leads to prejudices:

Making decisions prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity, and cowardice. AN4.19

Relinquishing favorites, one approaches activities in daily life with equanimity:

They live without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves. MN51

Consider reading. It is natural to subscribe to news feeds according to interest. When doing so, simply subscribe to news feeds that collectively represent opposing views of the topic of interest. This provides a basis for practicing equanimity.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the differences between joy (piti), bliss (sukha) and peace (santi) and how do the qualities relate to Nibbana?
This is a follow-on to this question
What's the connection or difference between joy (piti), and the "bliss" (sukha) and peace (santi) of Nibbana?
Is one required to seek joy to attain Nibbana? Why? Should one seek sukha, peace, or Nibbana (to attain Nibbana)? If Nibbana and joy are different then why is (or what's meant by saying that) joy is one of the path factors?
It seems to me the meaning of the English words "bliss" or "happiness" is synonymous with "joy" so why does it seem like Nibbana has been described as "bliss" or "happiness"?
In my opinion if there is no element of "joy", "pleasure", "delight" etc. to the attainment of Nibbana then it  is wrong to refer to it as "happiness" or "bliss".
I don't understand how it could be possible for there to be an unconditioned happiness or bliss.

Explanining these terms in a couple paragraphs definitely won't do them justice. Refer to the Visuddhimagga for detailed description on each term (ref: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf )

Here again the many kind of experiance, mentioned as sukha by the Buddha. And as further info, nobody in traditional sphere translates piti as joy. Better: satis-faction, or full, no more hunger ("satt" german). May it lead to piti.

OP: What's the connection or difference between joy (piti), and the so-called "bliss" (sukha) and peace (santi) of Nibbana?
Piti and Suka are encountered along the path arising due to the practice of concentration.

(Ekādasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan

(Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan
OP: Is one required to seek joy to attain Nibbana? Why? Should one seek sukha, peace, or nibbana? If nibbana and joy are different then why is (or what's meant by saying that) joy is one of the path factors?
These are milestones along the path. One does not seek them but you naturally pass them when practising, similar to when going on a road trip to a city you pass many mileposts.
OP: It seems to me the meaning of the English words "bliss" or "happiness" is synonymous with "joy" so why does it seem like Nibbana has been described as "bliss" or "happiness"?
When translating authors choose English words to map Pali terms into. Many of the English words are no perfect matches. So one must try to understand the actual meaning in the disclosure's context.
OP: In my opinion if there is no element of "joy", "pleasure", "delight" etc. to the attainment of Nibbana then it is wrong to refer to it as "happiness" or "bliss".
Feelings of pleasantness, unpleasantness and neutral feeling are not entirely satisfactory.
Also, also bliss or joy born from meditation also changes when one loses concentration hence they are not satisfactory.
Nibbana is happiness or bliss, not dependent sensations or any other form of support. Nibbana is beyond space and time (cosmology) and psychological phenomena.

For the sake of discussion, we can imagine—since we have not attained nirvana—that the first paragraph [§4] addresses nirvana’s freedom from space and the second paragraph [§5] its freedom from
  time.

Nibbāna Paṭisaṁyutta Sutta 1 Introduction by Piya Tan

I don't understand how there could be happiness or bliss independent of consciousness (?).

[eye, ear, ...]-consciousness feels pleasantness, unpleasantness, and neutral feeling. Elaborated here. In Nibbana, bliss is independent of any feeling or consciousness.

It is Sukha in a millisecond you're touching the fur doll, without any Pīti, but after that it always arise with Pīti.
And this is apparent Pīti, even it comes with Sukha but Pīpi is very apparent.
Santi is Nibbāna, the perfectly and completely stopping of all aggregates. It's something like there are uncountable bombs in a room and a person in a room feel so worry and scary every second, but one day that person can destroy all bombs perfectly and completely. It's Santi in the room after that and that person can feel that Santi in that room.

Nibbana is the absence of craving & attachment rather than a feeling.

Monks, among things conditioned and unconditioned, dispassion is reckoned to be the best of them all: the crushing of all infatuation, the removal of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the cutting off of the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion, Nibbāna. Those who have faith in the Dhamma of dispassion have faith in the best; and for those who have faith in the best, the best result will be theirs.
AN 4.34

However, while Nibbana is not a feeling, it not only feels pleasant to the mind but is the most pleasant thing the mind can experience. Thus the Dhammapada 204 says:

Nibbānaṃ paramaṃsukhaṃ: Nibbana the highest bliss

For example, the warmth of the sun is "heat". It is not a feeling. Yet the warm sun upon the skin on a cool morning feels pleasant. Similarly, Nibbana feels pleasant, even though Nibbana itself is not a feeling.
For example, if there is the experience of painful feelings (such as when the Buddha was sick or old), Nibbana still feels pleasant even when painful feelings are being simultaneously experienced.

I think this is asking, "Why is 'joy' called a 'path factor', if 'nibbana' is 'peaceful' rather 'joyful'?"
So.
I think there are elements which support the (practice of the) path, though they are not the goal.
One (other) example is 'conceit', which is defined here (defined as "comparing yourself with another person"), and which is included in AN 4.159 ...

'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

... which I read as saying, "If I practice like he did then I too will attain etc.". So that's an example of conceit supporting the practice, though it's not the goal (conceit is even antithetical, it's one of the fetters, ultimately uprooted).
Now about 'joy'.
One sutta that's mentioned in is AN 11.1 ...

"Thus in this way, Ananda, skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.
"In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship."

... where 'rapture` is a translation of Pīti and 'joy' is a translation of Pāmojja.
I think that's because:

It wants to say that joy can be unconditioned -- or actually not, because it is conditioned -- but not conditioned by e.g. the pursuit of sensuality. In other words, there's another basis for joy which isn't related to pursuit of sensuality.

MN 10 implies that mindfulness of the 'seven factors for Awakening' is a "purification" and means of overcoming the 'five hindrances'.

It's associated with meditation -- or with one of the meditative states -- for example here:

Having given up covetousness [i.e., sensual desire] with regard to the world, he dwells with a heart free of covetousness; he cleanses his mind from covetousness. Having given up the blemish of ill will, he dwells without ill will; friendly and compassionate towards all living beings, he cleanses his mind from the blemishes of ill will. Having given up sloth and torpor, he dwells free from sloth and torpor, in the perception of light; mindful and clearly comprehending, he cleanses his mind from sloth and torpor. Having given up restlessness and worry, he dwells without restlessness; his mind being calmed within, he cleanses it from restlessness and worry. Having given up doubt, he dwells as one who has passed beyond doubt; being free from uncertainty about wholesome things, he cleanses his mind from doubt...
And when he sees himself free of these five hindrances, joy arises; in him who is joyful, rapture arises; in him whose mind is enraptured, the body is stilled; the body being stilled, he feels happiness; and a happy mind finds concentration. Then, quite secluded from sense pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states of mind, he enters and dwells in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied thought and sustained thought, with rapture and happiness born of seclusion.

There's a whole series of suttas about the factors, which you might like to read -- Bojjhaṅga Saṃyutta (SN 46)

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


text:
AN 4.233 what exactly is the relation between kamma, saṅkhārā?
AN 4.233 sutta passage here, in Pali, with my translation into English:
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/08/an-4233-what-exactly-is-relation.html
questions:

what exactly are those 3 sankharas (bodily, voice, mind)? If they're the same ones from MN 44, it would be strange that in breath and out breath would cause karmic consequence, or if unvocalized thoughts (vitakka & vicara) cause the same karma as vaci-carena (vocal conduct).

is citta sankhara the same as mano-sankhara?

looking at bodhi's translation, what is actually being 'performed' (abhi-sankharoti)?
Is the bodily-volitional-activity mean he just sets an intention to do a bodily action, such as hit someone. Or he actualizes the intention to hit someone, and actually hits someone?
Now the fact that the sutta shows kamma being done, being reborn in hell, must mean it wasn't just a volition or intention to do harm, he actually did harm with the body. But the pali abhi-san-kharoti, and kaya-sankhara, it's hard to actually read and understand what is happening.

'Abhisaṅkharoti' refers to 'generating', 'constructing' or 'concocting' using thought, as follows:

And why do you call them sankhara (mental formations)? Kiñca, bhikkhave, saṅkhāre vadetha?
Sankhara construct conditioned phenomena (sankhatam); that’s why they’re called ‘sankhara’. Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā
‘saṅkhārā’ti  vuccati.
SN 22.79

In AN 4.233, the word 'sankhara' most likely refers to 'sankhara' as the mental formation of 'intention', as follows:

And what are choices?
Katame ca, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā?
There are these six classes of intention:
Chayime, bhikkhave, cetanākāyā—
intention regarding sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and thoughts.
rūpasañcetanā, saddasañcetanā, gandhasañcetanā, rasasañcetanā, phoṭṭhabbasañcetanā, dhammasañcetanā.
These are called choices.
Ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā.
SN 22.56

The above is supported by SN 12.25, which refers to "intention" ("cetana") together with the same genre of terminology, including 'manosankhara':

Ānanda, as long as there’s a body, the intention that gives rise to bodily action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself.
Kāye vā hānanda, sati kāyasañcetanāhetu uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ.
As long as there’s a voice, the intention that gives rise to verbal action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. By oneself one instigates the choice that gives rise to bodily, verbal, and mental action, conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself. Sāmaṃ vā taṃ, ānanda, kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti, yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. SN 12.25

Therefore, AN 4.233 most likely refers to constructing (abhisaṅkharontī) intentions (saṅkhāraṃ) related to the body (kaya), speech (vaci) or thought (mano).
Also, AN 4.233 looks like 'puthujjana dharma'; not to be mixed up with Noble MN 44 Dhamma.
The word 'mano' is about 'thinking', as found in the term 'manokey mind'. Where as 'citta' refers to 'the heart', which is something directly felt & observed in Satipatthana; similar to how kaya-sankhara is an object of Satipatthana.
In the lofty Dependent Origination, the Buddha taught about 'citta sankhara' rather than 'mano sankhara'. The Noble Disciple takes an interest in 'citta sankhara' rather than grasps the banana of 'mano sankhara'.
In conclusion, kaya-vaci-citta sankhara are internal objects of deep Noble meditators. Where as kaya-vaci-mano sankhara are external kammic behaviours of puthujjana. AN 3.233 & MN 44 are as far apart as hell from heaven. MN 117 says:

And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions?.... There are fruits & results of good & bad actions (kamma).
And what is the right resolve that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The thinking, directed thinking, resolve, mental fixity, mental transfixion, focused awareness & verbal fabricators (vaci sankhara) in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path.

Therefore, the Noble Kaya Sankhara is breathing (MN 44; MN 117; MN 118; SN 12.2) and the puthujjana kaya sankhara is physical behaviour.
Since physical behaviour is a form of 'becoming' or 'kamma-ripening' (AN 3.76), obviously the kaya sankhara of AN 4.233 is not the kaya sankhara of Dependent Origination because craving or intention in Dependent Origination is required before physical kamma can occur. SN 14.12 clearly explains this:

Mendicants, sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts arise for a reason, not without reason.
And how do sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts arise for a reason, not without reason?
The element of sensuality gives rise to sensual perceptions. Sensual perceptions give rise to sensual thoughts. Sensual thoughts give rise
to sensual desires. Sensual desires give rise to sensual passions.
Sensual passions give rise to searches for sensual pleasures.
An uneducated ordinary person on a search for sensual pleasures behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.
The element of malice gives rise to malicious perceptions. Malicious perceptions give rise to malicious thoughts. … malicious desires …
malicious passions … malicious searches …
An uneducated ordinary person on a malicious search behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.
The element of cruelty gives rise to cruel perceptions. Cruel perceptions give rise to cruel thoughts. … cruel desires … cruel
passions … cruel searches …
An uneducated ordinary person on a cruel search behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.
SN 14.12

1) The sankhara (kaya, vaci, mano) in AN4.233 is different from MN44, SN12.2 (kaya, vaci citta). When sankhara is used for kamma (intentional action), the 3rd sankhara is always ‘mano’. When used as 2nd link of Dependent Origination (ie: fabrication, activation, formation), the 3rd sankhara is always ‘citta’.
Kaya sankhara in the context of kamma is deeds through bodily action. Kaya sankhara in Dependent Origination is in-and-out breathing. This is why an Arahant who does not create kamma anymore can still breathe. The sankhara of 2nd link of Dependent Origination of an Arahant is not conditioned by ignorance and craving, whereas for the rest of beings, they are conditioned by ignorance and craving.
2) They are different. Mano sankhara refers to mental kamma (ie planning, scheming). Citta sankhara refers to perceptions and feelings.
3) When one plans to hit someone, that’s “mano sankhara” or mental intention. When one actually hits someone (carry out the plan), that’s “kaya sankhara” or bodily intentional action. Note that this mano/kaya set which describes kamma (intention) is not the same as citta/kaya set that is used in MN44/SN12.2 (Dependent Origination).
Please read the Conditioned Arising of Suffering article below by Ven Dhammavuddho. It focuses on clarifying the exact questions you asked, which is related to sankhara. I am very sure it will help clear your doubt as it has done for me.
https://www.vbgnet.org/Articles/Conditioned-Arising-of-Suffering-2018.pdf

OP: what exactly is the relation between kamma, saṅkhārā?
Sankhara is the seed which germinates into karmic effects. Sankhara conditions future experience for karma to give results.
OP: what exactly are those 3 sankharas (bodily, voice, mind)? If they're the same ones from MN 44, it would be strange that in breath and out breath would cause karmic consequence, or if unvocalized thoughts (vitakka & vicara) cause the same karma as vaci-carena (vocal conduct).

But what, ayya, is bodily formation, what is verbal formation, what is thought formation?
Visākha,

The in-and-out breaths, are bodily formation.

Thinking and pondering are verbal formation.

Perception and feeling are thought formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
The breath maintains the body. Thought component of what is vocalised or what remains unvocalised is the karmic component.

But, ayya,

why are the in-and-out-breaths bodily formation;
why are thinking and pondering verbal formation;
why are perception and feeling thought formation?

The in-and-out-breaths, avuso Visākha—these are states bound up with the body.

Therefore, they are bodily formation.

Avuso Visākha, one, having first thought and pondered, then breaks out into speech.

Therefore, thinking and pondering are verbal formation.

Perception and feeling—these are mentally-connected states, bound up with the mind.

Therefore, perception and feeling are thought formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
See my answer here for more details.
OP: is citta sankhara the same as mano-sankhara?
Yes.

As the 2nd link of the formula of dependent origination, (paticcasamuppāda), sankhāra has the active aspect, 'forming, and signifies karma, i.e. wholesome or unwholesome volitional activity (cetanā) of body (kāya-sankhāra), speech (vacī-sankhāra) or mind (citta- or mano-sankhāra). This definition occurs, e.g. at S.XII.2, 27.

Sankhara
OP: looking at bodhi's translation, what is actually being 'performed' (abhi-sankharoti)? Is the bodily-volitional-activity mean he just sets an intention to do a bodily action, such as hit someone. Or he actualizes the intention to hit someone, and actually hits someone? Now the fact that the sutta shows kamma being done, being reborn in hell, must mean it wasn't just a volition or intention to do harm, he actually did harm with the body. But the pali abhi-san-kharoti, and kaya-sankhara, it's hard to actually read and understand what is happening.

Abhisaṅkharoti, (& °khāreti in Pot.) (abhi + saṅkharoti) to prepare, do, perform, work, get up Vin.I, 16 (iddh’âbhisaṅkhāraṃ °khāreyya); D.I, 184 (id.); S.II, 40; III, 87, 92; IV, 132, 290; V, 449; A.I, 201; Sn.984 (ger. °itvā: having got up this curse, cp. SnA 582); PvA.56 (iddh’âbhisaṃkhāraṃ), 172 (id.), 212 (id.). — pp. abhisaṅkhata (q. v.). (Page 70)

Abhisankharoti
From the above definition, I believe born in hell is the consequence of accumulating bodily, verbal or mental conditioning/karma through the respective door, by means of action. In the context of AN 4.233 all actions are performed actions through the 3 doors. The doors and the type of karma are given below:

(Sappurisa) Sikkhā,pada Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan
Intention to do bodily or verbal action has much weaker karmic consequence than performing it.

There are 2 kinds of Saṅkhāra word in the Tipitaka, Saṅkhāra which is used before the Buddha enlightened (Saṅkhāra in Samatha context), such as in MN44, and Saṅkhāra which is used  after the Buddha enlightened (Saṅkhāra in Vipassanā context), such as in Paṭiccasamuppāda and Pañcupādānakkhandha.
So, Saṅkhāra in MN44 and AN 4.233 are not same.
The practitioner in MN44 is trying to stop Saṅkhāra, breath vitakavicāra vedanāsaññā, for the higher Samāpatti which happening only a period, but The practitioner in AN 4.233 is trying to stop Saṅkhāra, Cetanā (Karmma), for Nibbāna which having nothing anymore.
These both 2 kinds of Saṅkhāra are also appearing in MahāSatipaṭṭhānaSutta in the same context as well.

The kāyasaṅkhāra, vacīsaṅkhāra and cittasaṅkhāra of MN 44 are processes:

kāyasaṅkhāra are physical processes such as breathing
vacīsaṅkhāra are mental processes where the mind is able to express itself through physical, verbal and mental actions or effects - these are  mental output processes
cittasaṅkhāra are mental processes where the mind perceives and feels, receiving input from the six senses - these are mental input processes

The kāyasaṅkhāra, vacīsaṅkhāra and manosaṅkhāra of AN 4.233 are expressed or manifested actions or effects, which is essentially kamma. These are thoughts, words and deeds.
I could say that when the vacīsaṅkhāra mental process of MN 44 expresses itself, it becomes the kāyasaṅkhāra, vacīsaṅkhāra and manosaṅkhāra of AN 4.233.
For your other question, cittasaṅkhāra is not the same as manosaṅkhāra - this is explained above.


text:
While body is not me or mine what is a wise response to those claiming various degrees of ownerships on body?
What are some kind, wholesome, skillful, wise and helpful responses and views to the following various claims of body ownership:
“The United States government claims 100% ownership over all your DNA and reproductive rights. This astonishing revelation has emerged from the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office claims the power to assign ownership of your DNA to private companies and universities who apply for patents on your genes.
To date, more than 4,000 genes have been assigned ownership to corporations and universities by the U.S. patent office. Such an assignment of ownership proves that the government believes it owns 100% of all human genes -- you cannot transfer ownership of something unless you first own it yourself.
To date, 20 percent of your genetic code is owned by someone else. About two-thirds of these patents belong to private companies, and one-third belong to universities. The company that owns the most patents is called Incyte, a drug company based in California which "owns" the patents on 2,000 human genes.” Via https://www.naturalnews.com/040400_gene_patents_genetic_slavery_human_DNA.html
And from 2012 via http://anh-usa.org/fda-new-claim-body-is-a-drug/ :
...[The] FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states!
We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-C™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells.
The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Medical Clinic for two reasons:
1) Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!)
2) The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would “depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by FDA.”
[note: full articles linked here link to source documents]

If the building & coming totalitarianism can be discerned, this is a cause for developing disenchantment towards the whole world, as the Buddha taught. Like they did in Russia in 1917, these asura can rip you to shreds. Thus, the requisite Dhamma is the refuge of abandoning self-view.

The government could put the human body in prison too, or tax it, or kill it, assign it a birth certificate and a nationality, and so on. But what is the question here -- what is the question about Buddhism? There's no question mark in the body of the text. The title is asking "how about other claims?" and I don't understand what that means -- what is that asking?

It, the householders question, is asking whether any kind of sakkāyadiṭṭhi is worthwhile to hold on, and if which, of which is not a foolish and unclear question at all, althought the sample might lead easy astray between those holding on "on-group-holding-identification". Sangha, group of those headed to go beyound, vatta (tradition), the boot, body, is importand to hold on to be able to cross.

rephrased the question header and posed a question in the body. please notify if still not up to snuff and/or if the question becomes open ((or un-closed) if the automated system doesn't do a tray notification then delete this comment please)

Maybe taking the sample away and ask generally, in what way it is healthy to see "ones" body as ones own or others identification as owned by them.

I'm still don't understand what the question is -- "What is a wise response?" -- I guess an example of a "response" might be, like, writing a letter to the US government or something, to the US patent office or to the FDA. But surely you're not asking what to put in that letter ... so what are you asking? I can just about see how copyright law affects the publishing of dhamma, I don't see what this (i.e. FDA's regulation of medicines, and its use of the US courts) has to do with "Buddhist doctrine or practice".

Hey Chris. Imagine government officials or prominent celebrity social activists seeking advice from a Buddhist worldview on these social issues. There's an answer and several comments addressing this question so it seems some have had some kind of understanding pertaining to this question. Thanks for your time and consideration

Can you edit it to make it clearer? I read what you posted as saying, "I read this article which says that the government does this thing, which is scandalous" -- but that's not a question, and it seems like more to do with law or politics than Buddhism.

I can definitely see how this question can easily be upsetting and controversial. It seems there are no clear immediate responses so it is understandable that folks could get freaked out about it at least until maybe a Buddhist authority weighs in on it because it seems many folks want someone else to do their thinking and then be able to agree or disagree with it. (Including me on this topic. Ha.) May sit with this and get back to it. Who knows.

Bhante Sujato weighed in on this topic [on minute mp3]: https://integratingpresence.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/on-genetic-ownership-attempts-day-1-cloud-recording-vesak-poya-week-life-of-the-buddha-by-ajahn-sujato-28th-may.mp3

The body is considered not mine since one cannot maintain it as one wisher. The fact that others may store certain genetic information without one's liking is a good example that the body is not completely in one's control, hence not-self/non-self.

Imho a wise reply to someone expressing aclaimof ownership is a good old; 'but to what extent is it ownership and why it is called ownership?. More often than not i imagine that the ownership there is a reference to the judical system and relative rights and agreements


text:
Is understanding a "bring-debt" or "gain-debt"?
Having read "...is an ethical duty to acquire knowledge in order to improve our understanding", my person thought to investigate the matter in frame of the Dhamma. Against this sentence stands the common public idea and advertising of "knowledge, info, is a common right".
What does the Buddha say, right view accounts, in relation whether understanding is a "bring-duty, debt" (Bringschuld, [Jura] debt to be discharged at creditor's domicile, duty to inform the colleagues)  or a "gain duty, debt" (Holschuld, [JURA] debt to be discharged at the domicile of the debtor /obligation to be performed at the place of business of the debtor)?
Does one with right view think "I have/would have a right for knowledge and understanding" or "I have/would have to make sacrifices to gain knowledge and understanding?
Of course one can use google to help investigating.
[Of course not at all given for trade and exchange, but as means for liberation from this corrupt wheel]

Please provide some support (evidence, reference, quote) for this generalizing assertion:  "stands the common public idea and advertising of "knowledge, info, is a common right"" - where does this idea stand? Is it really common?

I guess it's crossed wires -- in context, Peter might have been saying "we have a duty to understand" in order to avoid being harmful -- whereas the OP's idea when posting that topic was maybe about, something like, its being blameworthy to post answers which are merely well-intentioned but ignorant.

This means knowning the things that relate to the issues people are facing to get along.

If not knowing that "one gains what one gives" yes, householder @Yvain . Beings are not aware of their dependency, not aware of goodness and foolishness is the cause of suffering, may one be pride as one likes. Giving downward tends downwardly.

@Samana Johann your answer is really innapropriate. Not to say wrong. You call me a housekeeper and you just don't know. I have no time for this go and seek the ones you lost back in the days, i'm too far away from your misconceptions.

Householder are busy,  householder @Yvain . No problem and however he likes to perceive things. Else is a "gain-duty".

i'm on 'health program' that means take in babylon drugs that are raping my mind, if I don't do so they take me away and put me in a cell where they make a game of my games. My mother calls me a monster, I have cancerous and leucemic attacks by attack I mean that it goes back and forth and that I allways beat it untill now. My father treats me like a little girl despite of this and what I see is only justice and love forever, I'm not a housekeeper. Bless you.

There is no better medicine then goodwill, forgiveness and the healing power of precepts, householder @Yvain . Feel always welcome here if possible to leave.

In some cases it seems like a Bringschuld -- e.g. the "debt" (of gratitude) which you owe to your parents is apparently to be repaid "to" your parents (so, by analogy, "at the creditor's domicile").
I think that when the Buddha taught, it was out of compassion -- and the way to "repay" that was by practising properly and benefiting -- so for example the Buddha requested or advised (in MN 103) that the monks should not quarrel amongst themselves. Perhaps you'd call that a Holschuld, i.e. an action performed by the monks in their own place and time.
Finally, assuming that Rahula gained understanding as a result of "reflecting" on his actions as described in MN 61 -- I'm not sure I see any "debt", at all, associated with that.

The Buddha and his generations of noble disciples gave out of compassion would be a great and protective observation, indeed. No duty at all did they have.

'Sacrifices' is puthujjana dharma, as follows:

And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? ‘There is meaning
  in giving, sacrifice, and offerings...' MN 117
'Householders, if wife and husband want to see each other in both this life and the next, they should be equals in faith, ethical
  conduct, sacrifice (caga) and
  wisdom...' AN 4.55

'Sacrifice' is, for example, what a husband does so he can win the sexual favour of his wife.
If we think we are 'sacrificing' something, this means we still value the object of sacrifice.
Where as the Path is from dispassion. When there is dispassion & disenchantment towards all of the world (as the Buddha taught), there is nothing of value to sacrifice.
For example, Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son Issac to please his worldly God. Where as the Buddha left his son to attain Nibbana (freedom from the world).

I'm not sure that the caga in that context means giving to each other, i.e. trading among themselves for each other's sexual favour. I interpreted it as, a married couple or family being generous towards others in (and outside of) society. The "sacrifice" meaning of caga is more Hindu, isn't it, i.e. "offerings" to a God?

"ethical duty to acquire knowledge in order to improve our understanding" means, if we stay stupid, we will create bad karma (trouble) for everyone , therefore we must learn, in order to understand what to do.
"Must learn" - there is no debt here.
"Must learn" - there is no common right.
If we don't learn, we will keep getting everyone in trouble.
That's what this means.

"Acquire" means "get", not "share".


text:
Handling Poisons?
Please help with these questions! :)

What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is angry?
What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is deluded?
What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is greedy?
And what is the most skillful way to handle the Poisons within me as
well?

Metta to all!

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

Part of a definition of "skilful" might be "adapted to specific features of the actual situation", so perhaps this isn't a question which can be answered in general.
Speaking of "handling poison", in case you didn't know, there's a verse about that in the Dhammapada:

If on the hand there is no wound, one may carry even poison in it. Poison does not affect one who is free from wounds. For him who does no evil, there is no ill.

I think there's a detailed example of how to do that in Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2).

In honesty though you might find your ability to "carry poison" like that is existent, but temporary or finite. I for example used to find that if someone would trap me in a room and shout at me angrily then after about half an hour I'd begin to get upset (perhaps caused by ears being hurt by the sound pressure) and seek to escape. And at the time I wasn't skilful at alleviating their 'poisons'.

If sone one is ______, then there is so much you can do. Best is one some look inwards and if the situation is creating sensations (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) know the sensation and note it's implemented. If you get perceptions, thoughts and view that that is subjected to Vipallasa raise thoughts respective thoughts of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, non/not-self, lack of beauty.
Also, if one can tactfully bring the person to Dhamma then one can try that also. 1st you are to make him receptive to learn the Dhamma.

Relevant Unbiased Influence = Natural Order/Dharma/Tao
Influence (education) is one of the best methods to pass on teachings, however... As the saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".
Unbiased influences are the ones that make the most sense - why? Science is unbiased, Mathematics are unbiased and True Unadulterated Law is unbiased. Logic is what encourages appropriate action in those affected by the poisons.
Relevance should speak for itself as much as education and logic. Relevance is the appropriate application of unbiased influence with the right timing.
Here is an insight from Gautama Buddha that explains further:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn07/sn07.002.than.html

OK, bear with me a moment... When we say "This person is angry; that person is deluded; that other person is greedy" we are expressing a craving: that these people should not be that way, and we don't want to deal with them because they are that way.
Each of these people is suffering under an illusion that that world should be different from what it is:

One, that the world should respect them
Another, that the world should conform to their fantasies
A third, that the world should give them its riches

And we are suffering under an illusion that the world should protect us from the illusions of all these people. See the mental tangle?
The only way to untangle that is to realize that illusions themselves are the problem, and that we cannot counter one illusion by opposing it with a different one. If we have one attitude towards every person — that every person is a buddha-in-the-making, warts and all — then we can start developing the compassion that might ultimately change the way the world is.

Well you don't have to be around other people and you can destroy your own taints by following ie https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html


text:
Forced suppression of all cravings including harmless ones
Let's say a person has a craving to eat a slice of cheesecake. This is obviously a sensual craving (kama tanha). The mental defilement (kilesa) to get a slice of cheesecake and eat it, is greed (lobha).
However, eating a slice of cheesecake (that was not stolen) does not break any of the five precepts. It also does not violate Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood, to the best of my understanding.
Questions:

Are there any karmic consequences from the harmless consumption of a slice of cheesecake? And why?
Should lay people forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? And why?
Should monks forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? And why?
For questions #2 and/or #3 above, if your answer was "no" to forcibly suppressing all cravings, then I guess entertaining and fulfilling such a craving (to eat a slice of cheesecake) is ok. Is that so?
Are there any negative consequences with respect to forced suppression of all cravings (including harmless ones)?

Modern psychology confirms that suppressing thoughts or cravings make them worse. This phenomenon is called "Ironic Process Theory". If you want to deal better with disturbing thoughts you can use many thinking & behaving techniques, such as seeing the pros & cons of a particular way of thinking, challenging thoughts by their veracity, accepting them patiently & curiously, distracting yourself sensibly, trying to change your environment if you can...  etc. etc.

Are there any karmic consequences from the harmless consumption of a slice of cheesecake? And why?
Cheesecake is just food. All sentient beings are sustained by food. Sentient beings are not sustained by wishes. Suffering is sustained by wishes. So don't wish for the cheesecake, just eat it if it's there, sharing it kindly with others.
Should ... forcibly suppress all their cravings
Generally speaking, suppressing a craving just makes it stronger.
But you can restrain or relinquish. Just observe the rise and fall in the five grasping aggregates: form, feeling, perception, choices and consciousness.  That craving is impermanent and is not your self, it is not yours, it is not you.
...however...
If you cannot muster any skillful thought, then desperate measures are called for as described in MN20:

With teeth clenched and tongue pressed against the roof of the mouth, they should squeeze, squash, and torture mind with mind.

Perhaps that would be overkill with...cheesecake?

Are there any karmic consequences from the harmless consumption of a slice of cheesecake? And why?

It depends on what the karmic intention is. Eating cheesecake can be interpreted as indulgence in pleasure, and is likely to prolong further craving as it's vipaka. As such it will also risk reinforcing the notion of self, maintaining samsara.

Should lay people forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? And why?

By definition, lay people are not required to do anything "forcibly", let alone suppress cravings. The suttas merely suggests the layman precepts as a way of life and an entryway into dhamma.

Should monks forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? And why?

Arguably, any precept is not intended to be forcibly followed. They are voluntarily made wovs - if anything - as far as i understand. A monk would then follow the additional three or five precepts along with the five initial ones.

For questions #2 and/or #3 above, if your answer was "no" to forcibly suppressing all cravings, then I guess entertaining and fulfilling such a craving (to eat a slice of cheesecake) is ok. Is that so?

The way i understand it the purpose of the precepts is not based on permission or prohibition as much as it is offered as a self chosen, volitional effort to end cravings/the notion of a self/samsara.

5 Are there any negative consequences with respect to forced suppression of all cravings (including harmless ones)?

If one emphasises "forced", there is a risk one reproduces new craving in terms of vibhava-tanha (craving elimination) or silabbatupadana (clinging to blind doctrines). Proper knowledge will be a better motivation for further honing skillful karma, not forcing yourself.

Yes, there are kammic consequences to any volitional act because as the name implies, it entails volition, or more precisely, it has an intention. In simple terms: If you give into a craving, it's temporarily stilled, but comes back afterwards due to it being reinforcing.
Buddhist principles are not commandments. Lay people in this regard are adviced to restrain themselves in the realm of the five precepts, and if they want, they can undertake 8 precepts (which includes celibacy), but this is not mandatory.

If you come up with idealistic ideas of surpressing any desire, you will be full of guilt. The arising of craving of sense objects is determined by the degree of the sensual element. The more you feed it, the more the sensuality element grows. It's only with Vipassana that you can ultimately uproot all "evil" tendencies.

With monks it's a bit different. If they're genuinely practise the Buddhist path & experienced some bliss (Samadhi for example), it's easier to let go of cravings. Since monk's goal is Nibbana, it  makes sense to overcome all cravings that exist. That's why they renounced the world & material things, to make it at least easier for craving not to arise. Environment is very important, but by no means that means that monks have little craving.

With regards to your last question, it's impossible to surpress all cravings. Once the five hindrances are active there will be craving & attachment. If you haven't experienced the higher happiness of the path, you will inevitably cling to sense pleasures. It's the same as with eating a delicious meal & an ordinary meal.


text:
I'm fascinated by 'death': what would Dogen say?
I'm fascinated by 'death': what would Dogen say? What about Rinzai zen?
I don't have any questions about it, but I'm sure there's answers I haven't contemplated at all.
Quotes would be necessary.

just for clarity: imvho when we die birth is over, and both our small and buddha self are aligned to whatever extent. that's probably a heresy, but i'm here to learn new things!

Possibly you could add some content to your question by reading these links: link 1: https://tricycle.org/magazine/birth-and-death/
link 2:  https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/fundamentals-of-dogens-thoughts/

thanks @Dhammadhatu a worthy starting point!!

Dogen quotes from Goodreads on the internet

Life and death are of supreme importance. Time swiftly passes by and opportunity is lost. Each of us should strive to awaken. Awaken! Take heed, do not squander your life.
This dew-like life will fade away; avoid involvement in superfluous things.
There is a simple way to become buddha: When you refrain from unwholesome actions, are not attached to birth and death, and are compassionate toward all sentient beings, respectful to seniors and kind to juniors, not excluding or desiring anything, with no designing thoughts or worries, you will be called a buddha. Do not seek anything else.
One must be deeply aware of the impermanence of the world.
It's too late to be ready.


text:
Right Effort: Approach Versus Avoidance
Is there a difference in practice between approaching positive states and abandoning negative states?
I have tried for a long time to abandon the negative, which in my case is not  too severe (e.g. not drugs, nor physical violence, etc.), but seemingly the focus on abandoning seems less efficient than actually approaching constructive states, such as doing meditation or exercising. If one's problems are not too severe, should one prioritize doing virtuous behaviours (e.g. meditation) above trying to limit the negative?
I had read in psychological texts that an attitude based on approach can be superior to one based on avoidance. Is such a distinction made in Buddhism in any way?

They shouldn't be done in isolation. It should be a comprehensive approach which is exactly why the Buddha taught the Four Right Exertions:

There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent:
  1. for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen...
  2. for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen...
  3. for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and)
  4. for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. ~~ MN 78 ~~

The problem with santa100s explanation is that the definition of: "generating desire, endeavor, persistence, etc for the sake of the arising of skillful things" is the abandoning of unskillful things through not-doing.
Unskilful Things: lies, harming living beings, taking the ungiven.
Skillful Things: the abstention from lies, harming living beings, taking the ungiven.
One way of stating the goal of the Dhamma is that it is the ending of kamma. Kamma is intentional action.
Ending kamma is accomplished by abstention from the creation of new kamma while wearing away old kamma by intentional not-doings. E.g., faced with the desire to get that which can only be got by a lie, one abstains from the lie thereby bringing an old stream of kamma (the stream that resulted in the sensations that gave rise to the desire) to an end.
In the same way as we explain using desire to end desire, one uses intentional action to end kamma to end kamma.
There is here also a matter of stages. A very beginner would be well advised to intentionally create some good kamma as this will foster self-confidence. But it should be kept in mind that:
"The best course does not have a gains-honour-reputation-core,
nor an accomplishment-in-ethics-core,
nor a accomplishment-in-serenity-core,
nor a knowledge-vision-core.
But there is beggars, unshakable heart-release —
here, beggars the best course is for attainment of this.
This is it's hardwood.
This is it's encompassing end.
MN 29
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/mn/idx_majjhima_nikaya_1.htm#p29
MN 30
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/mn/idx_majjhima_nikaya_1.htm#p30
Another way to describe the goal which also points to not-doing, is:
This is it!
This is the culmination!
That is, the calming of all own-making,
the resolution of all involvements,
the withering away of thirst,
dispassion,
extinction,
Nibbāna.'
-AN 11.7:
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/an/11_elevens/an11.007.olds.bd.htm#p4


text:
Arahants, Precepts, Monasticism, & Worldly Things
Namo Buddhaya!
I had four questions pertaining to conduct & the Buddha:
(I am Theravāda Buddhist)

How could the Buddha have been on this Earth as an Arahant if Arahants can only be reborn in a higher plane (A Heavenly plane) of existences as according to the 4 Stages of Enlightenment?
Is using items within the same familial household without permission (such as a pencil, laptop, or a clothing item from a brothers room) considered a breach of the 2nd Precept?
How is (with all respect) Venerable Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu able to be in the presence of a nun or the nun in his presence if it breaks the monastic rules?
(For example (to name one of many): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkmLYAl1p7w )
"Sitting or lying down with a woman or women in a private, secluded place with no other man present is [an offense of Confession.]"(Summarized Paac. 44; BMC p.385)
Source: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#alone
How do monks and nuns get their Tipitaka materials, monastic dwellings, and other worldly things while at the same time not being involved with any medium of exchange? Do they ask lay people to do so? Wouldn’t that be requesting for something, which I’m assuming is prohibited too in terms that they accept & don’t request for thing?

Please help! Metta to all!!!

These are four separate questions. Also, if you came here to discuss Yuttadhamo's dirty laundry, this is not the best place.

@AndreiVolkov fair enough, I'll try to split up the questions better next time. :) Metta!

How could the Buddha have been on this Earth as an Arahant if Arahants[-To-Be] can only be reborn in a higher plane (A Heavenly plane) of existences as according to the 4 Stages of Enlightenment?

The earliest scriptures depict a 'hearer' (such as Kondanna or Upatissa/Sariputta) attaining stream-entry and soon after attaining Arahantship.
The one or two suttas (such as AN 3.87) that more strongly infer a stream-enterer has at most seven more lifetimes appear to be illogical; given they infer a "same self", which is contrary to the stream-enterers destruction of "sakkaya ditthi" ("view of real self"). For me, these suttas appear to be later Abhidhamma, inputed into the suttas.
The most well-known sutta about stream-entry, namely, SN 13.1, is often falsely translated as including the phrase "seven more lifetimes at most" but the Pali actually does not include the words "lifetimes". SN 13.1 appears to say a stream-enterer has "seven more fetters at most to breakthrough".
Also, the phrase below about Non-Returners might also be questionable in its translations and interpretations. For example, two different translations and interpretations below:

Santi, bhikkhave, bhikkhū imasmiṃ bhikkhusaṃghe pañcannaṃ orambhāgiyānaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā opapātikā tattha parinibbāyino anāvattidhammā tasmā lokā—
In this Saṅgha there are mendicants who, with the ending of the five lower fetters are reborn spontaneously. They are extinguished there, and are not liable to return from that world.
vs
Bhikkhus, living in this community there are bhikkhus who are Non-Returners through having ended the five lower fetters, who are spontaneously arisen,7 who will realize perfect coolness in that existence and by nature will never return from that world. Bhikkhus such as these are living in this community of bhikkhus.
7. Oppatika, born instantly and fully mature without going through the process of  conception, gestation, infancy, and childhood-that is, instantaneous mental birth (not necessarily "re-birth").

Also the suttas (eg. MN 123) about the Bodhisatta coming to earth from heaven seem mythological because in these suttas the Baby Bodhisatta walks and talks about 'himself' from childbirth, which is contrary to suttas such as MN 64, which say a new born child has no conceptions of self.

Is using items within the same familial household without permission (such as a pencil, laptop, or a clothing item from a brothers room) considered a breach of the 2nd Precept?

If there is an explicit understanding in the family these items are to be used for the whole family then it does not break the precept. But, yes, if you take your brother's things without permission, it is a breach of the precept. The precept is for the purpose of developing respect for the property & feelings of others.

How is (with all respect) Venerable Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu able to be in the presence of a nun or the nun in his presence if it breaks the monastic rules?

Many of the Vinaya rules are about monks avoiding giving bad impressions to laypeople. Without knowing the specific rules exactly, in my opinion, there is a breach of the Vinaya because the videos looks like the monk & nun are together in a private place. Also, their posture & dress looks sloppy & undisciplined. Undisciplined looking monks & nuns will only attract similar undisciplined people to Buddhism, which is pointless when these converts cannot practise Buddhism due to their sexual obsessions and lack of sexual boundaries. Keep in mind sexual desire is the 1st hindrance to entering the Noble Path.

How do monks and nuns get their Tipitaka materials, monastic dwellings, and other worldly things while at the same time not being involved with any medium of exchange? Do they ask lay people to do so? Wouldn’t that be requesting for something, which I’m assuming is prohibited too in terms that they accept & don’t request for thing?

Lay people offer them. If lay people don't understand, I imagine the monk explains. For example, if a monk is on alms round in a non-Buddhist country, people, out of curiosity, will ask the monk: "What are you? What are you doing?". I imagine the monk would reply: "I am a Buddhist monk. I have vows of not using money. I go on alms round to collect food to feed myself for my spiritual practise. I place my trust & faith in the goodness of people to offer me food. In return, I teach them Dhamma, if they ask".
This famously happened to Ajahn Sumedho in England, who was offered land for a monastery by a non-Buddhist stranger. Read below:

In the spring of 1978, one of those small miracles happened that stop the mind's rational expectations. Keeping to the apparently pointless routine of going out for alms every day, as prescribed by Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho encountered a lone jogger on Hampstead Heath whose attention was arrested by the bhikkhus' appearance. This jogger had acquired an overgrown forest in West Sussex called Hammer Wood, out of the wish to restore it to its former glory – but he also understood that this was work for more than one man and one lifetime. Although not a Buddhist, he had the openness of mind to appreciate that an order of forest monks might be the perfect wardens for his woodland. Subsequently, he attended one of the ten-day meditation retreats that Ajahn Sumedho held at the Oaken Holt Buddhist Centre near Oxford, and later made an outright gift of the forest to the Sangha. This marvellous act of generosity...
How The Buddha Came to Sussex


text:
Help to identify origin/history of a statuette of the Buddha?
Can anyone help me identify this please? I can not find one the same, and would love a bit of history on him.
Small buddha bought on eBay -- stated "possibly from China", he was not sure

I'm looking to try and age or authenticate my Buddha. This is on bottom -- again I can not find one the same, only full circle ones.

Any ideas? Any help appreciated greatly in my search of his history.

Looking at the way the robe is set, It does not look like a Mahayana Buddha's statue. It seems it is Theravada Buddha. It is possible from Sri Lanka or Myanmar. I may be wrong. By the way, it is a good choice.

Sorry I don't know now to add new pics new here x

You could add new pictures by editing the original question -- immediately under the question there should be a link which says "edit".


text:
How to handle torpor?
I've been practicing concentration for a while, trying to reach access concentrataion. In the beginning of my practice my mind was very noisy (as I guess anyone else), after a while I began to calm down and thoughts began to slow down enough for me to see the way to concentration. I experienced how tracking the breath and taking in all the texture really changes the state of my consciousness and feels like plunging to a deep water. It seems that this is a window to a wide world I really want to explore.
In recent sittings I've been finding myself calming down very much to the point of not focusing on anything at all. No thoughts, no breath. I guess there's still thoughts and activity but my mind is not in tune to any of them in particular. While this can fell quite good, I think its retarding my practice.
I notice that its now hard to track the breath in the same way, its like the mind is being lazy and wants to slip into the comfort of being dull. There's no texture to the breath and it now feels more distant.
What can I do to overcome this state of torpor and inject some clarity into the practice?

Take your finger off the trigger. Take your foot off the accelerator.
Just sit but with a quiet still silent mind.
Don't attempt to watch the breathing.
The Buddha did not teach to watch breathing.
The Buddha taught to abandon craving.
Every impulse to watch breathing is craving. When this impulse arises, abandon it, realise it, drop it, let it go.
When you stop trying or craving to watch breath and have a silent mind, Anapanasati (which means 'mindfulness with breathing' rather than 'mindfulness of breathing') can naturally take its natural course. 'Mindfulness' means 'to remember to keep the mind' free from craving.
When the mind stops trying to watch breathing, the mind will be free from the thought of 'trying'. Not trying actually makes the silent mind more clear, more sensitive.
Do we need to make an effort to hear a sound, to smell a smell or to see an object? if not, why does an effort need to be made to know/feel the breathing, when the mind is naturally silent?

Well, without effort attention will not stay with the breath. It will wander away or in my case disappear.

This comment is false. Since your mind suffering from sloth, how would you know? The Buddha taught meditation as follows: "There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to LET GO, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters & remains in the first jhana... " https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.010.than.html

Well, yes I know I'm in torpor, there's still some hope haha, but I feel that I could also blur that knowledge away and be lost in a vagueness similar to falling asleep but not quite so.

That is still okay .Meditate on the vagueness if it arises .There is simply always a feeling .

From Ajahn Brahm's essay on the five hindrances:

Sloth and torpor refers to that heaviness of body and dullness of mind which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression.
  The Lord Buddha compared it to being imprisoned in a cramped, dark
  cell, unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside. In
  meditation, it causes weak and intermittent mindfulness which can even
  lead to falling asleep in meditation without even realising it!
Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always
  available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were. Setting
  a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate
  energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at hand. A
  young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy, because its
  world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's life, or
  one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see ever new angles
  and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from sloth and torpor,
  alive and energetic. Similarly, one can develop delight in whatever
  one is doing by training one's perception to see the beautiful in the
  ordinary, thereby generating the interest which avoids the half-death
  that is sloth and torpor.
The mind has two main functions, 'doing' and 'knowing'. The way of
  meditation is to calm the 'doing' to complete tranquillity while
  maintaining the 'knowing'. Sloth and torpor occur when one carelessly
  calms both the 'doing' and the 'knowing', unable to distinguish
  between them.
Sloth and torpor is a common problem which can creep up and smother
  one slowly. A skilful meditator keeps a sharp look-out for the first
  signs of sloth and torpor and is thus able to spot its approach and
  take evasive action before it's too late. Like coming to a fork in a
  road, one can take that mental path leading away from sloth and
  torpor. Sloth and torpor is an unpleasant state of body and mind, too
  stiff to leap into the bliss of Jhana and too blinded to spot any
  insights. In short, it is a complete waste of precious time.

Keep up the good work, sadhu! Think of meditation like a rocket ship on its way to the moon. At first, you will need great concentration to achieve lift off, and the ride will be rough. Then, upon reaching the stillness of outer space, the booster rockets are discarded, and the 2nd stage rockets are then used, gliding smoothly through the void. Finally, approaching the moon, various thrusters are used to slightly adjust trajectory and moderate the descent.
Your breath can be thought of like the booster rockets. It is helpful, but eventually you will need a new object of concentration if it gets too subtle to observe. The secondary stage rockets can be varied - the 'knowing' aspect of the breath (observe what it's like to be aware of the breath or lack thereof), the perception of stillness itself, the wondering if what to do next can be an object, whatever wandering thoughts enter, your current mood or joyous state. Observe through the lense of Impermanence, Dukkha, and Not-Self. Find whatever is actually there to observe. Is there anything that you are doing or holding onto? If so, let them go, relax them. It is a process of subtraction. Find things to observe and let go of, until nothing remains.
Alternatively, you can fabricate an object for concentration. Go to the center of whatever is there. If you are in a still space, go to it's center, and the center of that center, ad infinitum. If there is a sense of joy or peace, go to the center of that. If there is a bright light, go to the brightest point at the center, and so on. Then, relax into this centering, let go of the idea, and allow the momentum to pull you in.
Most of all, relax and enjoy the ride. In the end, it is truly simple.

I find standing while meditating to be helpful

Six things are conducive to the abandonment of sloth and torpor:
Knowing that overeating is a cause of it;
Changing the bodily posture;
Thinking of the perception of light;
Staying in the open air;
Noble friendship;
Suitable conversation.
For detailed discussion please read.https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html#sloth

Thinking that you need to HANDLE sloth and torpor or do something about it ,indicates that there is an attitude towards having sloth and torpor .When sloth and torpor arise then that is your existential phenomenon just meditate on it.Its not good nor bad its just sloth and torpor you don't have to fight it ,flow with it ,its simply is the reality for your being.And if you felt bad about sloth and torpor then meditate on that feeling.
Meditation is not about concentrating on certain feelings and handling the rest .It acknowledges existence as it is.
Also take notice not to fall in the rapture coming from exploring the breath.Maybe you got attached to a good feeling when watching the breath and you wanted to repeat it .Existence is impermanent and does not repeat itself .Meditating on that can also be helpful. Meditating on impermenace


text:
Can there be an action free from the taint of desire? If there can be, what is the nature of that action?
There must be a desire to even bring a glass of water to drink. Without desire, no movement is possible. First, there is a sensation of thirst; out of that thirst, there is the desire for drinking water.
So, when desire is the fuel to carry out normal daily activities, what does it mean that Buddha didn't have desires?
My guess is When there was a sensation of thirst, Buddha used to not identify himself with the sensation. In other words, there was an absence ego-identity with the thirst. But again, the desire to drink water, eat, move, etc. was arising. From where it was arising?
Generalizing it better, the question turns up, Can there be an action free from the taint of desire? Because desires seem to be driving force of any action. Doesn't it? If there can be, what is the nature of that action?

actions based on alobha, adosa, amoha. See also right action based on right effort.

Desire is a normal feeling thats why Buddha chose the middle way ,if you don't eat the desire to eat will definitely arise, its the identification with desire that poisons it as well as identification with any feeling or more accurately the attachment
Explained well here
Root of all things
.Thus effortless action is free from identification with desire .Its simple spontaneous and according to what the moment brings ,its not forced on oneself because with forcing the desire becomes identified with a person who wants to fulfill it, thus the attachment and suffering .When the desire arises and is simply known ,doing works on its own level.You can think of it in terms that desire is necessary just for action to  take place and not as a possessive mental state.
Notion of skillful desire
Also check this answer
Attainment of enlightenment without desire

Desire, in itself, is a general type of phenomena. Any volitional action is fueled by desire of some kind. The Buddha tells us that certain kinds of desire are conditions for the arising of dukkha; what are those kinds? Kama Tanha, Bhava Tanha, and Vibhava Tanha.
The main feature of these three kinds of desire is that they are rooted in ignorance and cognitive distorsions; they are based on wrong expectations and interpretations about our subjective experience and reality. The interpretation behind those three kinds of desires makes us see conditioned phenomena as self, as completely satisfactory, as permanent, and as inherently beautiful.
As Arahants continue thinking, speaking and executing bodily actions, we can see that some kind of desire remains; namely, all of those that are not born out of ignorance.
In sum, desire is not a taint in itself; ignorant desire (tanha, in pali) is a taint and a condition for the continuation of dukkha.
Kind regards!

Wise desire vs ignorant desire.
The problem the Buddha identified is ignorance desire, called 'tanha'.


text:
Thought-sending in Tibetan Buddhism and other traditions
In this speech, actor Richard Gere, in the capacity of an award presenter, made a speech at the Oscar's of 1993, asking all viewers to send out their thoughts to the Chinese government leaders and the Chinese people, to persuade them to end the Chinese occupation of Tibet and let Tibetans return to their previous independent and autonomous state.
Richard Gere made hand gestures while speaking (at time 1:33), as though thoughts can be somehow broadcasted to the minds of people far away.
I take it that this has something to do with Tibetan Buddhism, and Richard Gere is a well known follower of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. Apparently, he was banned from becoming an Oscar presenter in future Oscar's, due to this speech.
How does this thought-sending work in Tibetan Buddhism? If more people send out their thoughts, is the effect stronger?
Does it have a name?
Does it also appear in other Buddhist traditions? For e.g. like sending out metta or sending out merit?

The closest I can think is the "Satya Kriya" in Theravada Buddhism.
You contemplate on your virtues and extend that power for good cause such as a person to relieve from her suffering.
Anguli Mala Sutta:
"In that case, Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her, 'Sister, since I was born I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.'"
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html


text:
Resolving right action & intention in a white lie
I know that lying is unskillful in general but in the case where saying the truth could hurt someone and its necessary to lie in order to heal that person but you cannot fake the lying in front of him/her since it would be obvious you are lying rendering the method ineffective.So in accord with right action and intention how can this be resolved?
I read this question
Does any/every form of lying violate the precept of “not-lying”?
which justifies white lies.
However Iam concerned with saying it genuinely,if you are going to say a series of lies one after another and you don't believe they actually happened it can be hard not only to genuinly say them but to have a conversation about facts .

There are 4 conditions which need to be met for something being classified as a lie:

FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA)
So if you are mentioning the white lie with the intention to deceive then it is false speech.

How do you know they aren't strong enough to handle truth? You feel you can handle it so why can't they? Not telling someone something because you feel they can't deal with it seems like you're the one who is having the hard time. So where is the truth. "A white lie" is a way of saying I feel shameful because if I explained this to them they wouldn't understand or except this may make you look bad but the thing is that doesn't matter- because that is not you. Just ego. Harm, ignorance and understanding are difficult things. But pain is essential to the Nobel truths. People can careful remove thorns they find but a person who is unaware will find truth there is truth. Personally follow the eightfold.  Many parents softn truth to try to protect their children. But when a child finds out for themselves they might choose to see that parent as unreliable or as a lier a betrayal and or shame can result. It's ok to not know what to do. It's far better then lying because there's less chance to judge it wrong or lie to yourself. Meditation should be used to determine what your deeply feeling and why. If you're too invested it's because the attachment is unnatural and you'll probably do the wrong thing either way. Don't worry too much about the lie or truth because things are temporary. If you understand that on a very deep level then telling the truth is easier.

I understand that but the thing is that you felt deep within you that there will be more harm than good to say the truth .Like if  Nazis ask you about  where the Jews are hiding ,if you tell them lie after another they can catch it and you cannot tell truth because its harmful .See what I mean .


text:
Can homosexual monks or nuns ordain, if not WHY?
Namo Buddhaya!
(I am a Theravada Buddhist)
The Vinaya says monks & nuns cannot be together in private (it would be an offense).

But what if someone is a homosexual, how would they go about
  ordaining, as they would not be able to technically be with men then (similar to nuns)?

I would have a hard time believing the Buddha would discriminate against someone who is a homosexual.
IF they cannot ordain,

what is the reason that they can't ordain as according to the Buddha? ( WITH SOURCE)

The Buddha chose to ordain woman, and homosexuals for sure can overcome their sexual urges just as a woman can towards men AS WELL, so why can't homosexuals ordain?
(Please, if possible, cite sources!)
Metta!

Possible duplicate of What is a pandaka?

@ruben2020 I am not asking what the debatable pandaka is, I altered my query to ask how homosexuals can ordain and if not, why explicitly can they not. I hope this helped clarify. :) Metta

Homosexuals may fall under asittaka pandaka. They cannot ordain.

asittakapandaka - A man who gains satisfaction from performing oral sex on another man and from ingesting his semen, and only becomes sexually aroused after ingesting another man's semen.

Source: Pandaka

According to this answer, āsitta-paṇḍaka and usūya-paṇḍaka can ordain. The others cannot.

Just a heads up: the original question was edited.

I don't want to spend time on this topic, but fyi ...
A partial answer from Wikipedia Buddhism and sexual orientation -- Paṇḍakas

The paṇḍaka is a complex category that is variously defined in different Buddhist texts. In the earliest texts, the word seems to refer to a socially stigmatized class of trans-feminine and/or cross-dressing people, some of whom may have been sex workers. Paisarn Likhitpreechakul argue that these people are grouped together as special types of those suffering impotence due to seminal absence/deficiency rather than gender roles.
Paṇḍaka is categorized along with other stigmatized groups who are excluded from ordination as well; those with physical disabilities such as deafness or dwarfism, or those who have committed crimes. "The Story of the Prohibition of the Ordination of Pandaka" from the Vinaya claims that the ban is a response to the example of a paṇḍaka monk with a desire to have sex. Being refused by other monks, he had sex with animal handlers, who then told the wider community and brought disgrace upon the sangha.

So it's from Vinaya commentary, apparently, if you like to research that.
So that's why topics like What is a pandaka? revolve around wonering what the word "paṇḍaka" even means.
"Are you a paṇḍaka?" isn't one of among the questions asked at ordination, so I don't know at what point in the process the question even arises.

This overview of the Vinaya says on page 100,

The twelve equivalent p›r›jikas include the eleven disqualified types who should
  not be ordained as bhikkhus in the first place. If they happen to be ordained,
  their ordination is invalid; once they are found out they must be expelled for life
  (Mv.I.61-68; see BMC2, Chapter 14 for details). They are—

a pa˚˜aka (essentially, a eunuch or a person born neuter—see Saºgh›disesa
  2),
a “non-human” being, (this includes n›gas, petas, devas, and yakkhas),
a hermaphrodite,
a person who poses as a bhikkhu without having been ordained,
a bhikkhu who has ordained in another religion without first giving up his
  status as a bhikkhu,
a person who has murdered his father,
a person who has murdered his mother,
a person who has murdered an arahant,
a person who has sexually molested a bhikkhunı,
a person who has maliciously injured a Buddha to the point of causing him to
  bleed, and
a person who has dishonestly caused a schism in the Saºgha, knowing or
  suspecting that his position was contrary to the Dhamma-Vinaya.

These eleven equivalent p›r›jikas apply to bhikkhunıs as well.
  The twelfth equivalent p›r›jika, which applies only to bhikkhunıs, is the case
  where a bhikkhunı leaves the Bhikkhunı Saºgha and takes up the role of a lay
  woman (Cv.X.26.1). Unlike the bhikkhus, the bhikkhunıs have no formal
  procedure for disrobing. If they leave the Saºgha, they are not allowed to
  reordain for the rest of this lifetime.

A "parajika" rule is a rule for which the consequence is disrobing i.e. no longer being a member of the sangha.

Incidentally I'm not saying that "homosexuals cannot ordain", instead I was only trying to "cite sources" i.e. to cite what the source is and what it says.


text:
What is the meaning of Dhammavicaya
What is the exact meaning of the second factor of Enlightenment 'Dhammavicaya'? Does it mean: enquiry of the Dhamma (buddhasasana)? Or is it the enquiry (= tilakkhana) of all dhammas i.c. all phenomena? Or both?

For a full description, please see Ven. Piyadassi "Seven Factors of Enlightnment" at: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/piyadassi/wheel001.html

The sutta says:

Abiding thus mindful, he investigates and examines that state (dhammaṃ) with wisdom and embarks upon a full inquiry into it. On whatever occasion,
  abiding thus mindful, a bhikkhu investigates and examines that state (dhammaṃ) with wisdom and embarks upon a full inquiry into it—on that occasion
  the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor is aroused in him,
  and he develops it, and by development it comes to fulfilment in him.

The word 'dhammaṃ' above is 'singular' (rather than plural). Therefore, dhammavicayasambojjhaṅgo (the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor) appears to mean examining satisambojjhaṅgo (the mindfulness enlightenment factor) with wisdom.

In the essay The Seven Factors of Enlightenment, Piyadassi Thera wrote in the footnotes:

Keen investigation of the dhamma (dhammavicaya)
Dhamma is a multisignificant term. Here it means mind and matter (nama-rupa); dhammavicaya is the investigation or analysis of this
  conflux of mind and body, and all component and conditioned things.

In Bhikkhu Nanamoli's work on the Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification), he referred to dhammavicaya as investigation-of-states.
In the book The Seven Factors of Enlightenment, Ven. Dhammajiva wrote:

When you are mindful, you are able to investigate the primary object.
  Investigation (dhammavicaya) is what differentiates samatha from
  vipassanā.   Dhamma is mind and matter and vicaya is investigation. Dhammavicaya is investigation into the operation of
  mind and matter
In the samatha practice, you dwell on the concentration that is
  being developed, but there is no exploration or penetration into the
  phenomena.    So the mind  superficially observes the objects without
  much investigation or understanding of their true nature.
To work with investigation of the dhamma, you must penetrate into
  the phenomena. A yogi must directly note all mind objects and matter
  (nāma and rūpa) that arise at each of the six sense doors during
  the practice. Become familiar with them, investigate them and
  penetrate into their true characteristics. This is the vipassanā
  practice.


text:
Satipatthana bhavana versus Vipassana bhavana
Is there a difference in the practice of satipatthana bhavana and vipassana bhavana? Or are both terms synonyms?

Vipassanā is the same as satipatthana bhavana. Essentially the practice is from Satipatthana Sutta and/or Anapanasati Sutta or similar Suttas are called Vipassanā as they help to see clearly the true nature of phenomena.

Yes there is a difference, and no the terms are not synonyms.
Sati-patthana bhavana is the setting up of mind or memory,
vipassana bhavana is the setting up of the insights on which that setting up of mind or memory is based.
You do not say that purchasing the ingrediants for a loaf of bread is the same thing as the use of those ingrediants in the making of the dough.
It is a common error to mistake sati for satipatthana and for vipassana practice to be identified as limited to the satipatthana sutta (or a tiny fraction of it as in teaching people how to breath for the big bucks).
Satipatthana is not the same practice as Anapanasati. They have two entirely different aims. The Satipatthana is aimed at setting up the mind: "Thus he sets up memory just sufficiently to gain a measure of knowledge, a measure of recollectedness."
Anapanasati is aimed at setting up the method for liberation: "On thelook-out for opportunities to let go, I will inspire, this is the way he trains, On the look-out for opportunities to let go, I will expire," this is the way he trains.
That the two practices utilize the same elements and merge does not make them the same things.
Various translations of the Satipatthana sutta:
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/dn/idx_digha_nikaya.htm#p22 .
Various translations of the Anapana samyutta:
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/05_mv/idx_54_anapanasamyutta.htm

And how, bhikkhus, does mindfulness of breathing, developed and cultivated, fulfil the four foundations of mindfulness? https://suttacentral.net/mn118/en/bodhi

There is no such thing as "vipassana bhavana" since "vipassana" ("clear seeing"; direct insight) is not something that can be practised or "developed" ("bhavana") via an act of will (refer to AN 11.2).
MN 149 says satipaṭṭhānā is developed (bhāvanā) and vipassanā occurs (vattanti):

When he develops (bhāvayato) this Noble Eightfold Path (ariyaṃ aṭṭhaṅgikaṃ maggaṃ), the four foundations of
  mindfulness (satipaṭṭhānā) also come to fulfilment (pāripūriṃ) in him by development (bhāvanā); the four
  right kinds of striving also come to fulfilment in him by development;
  the four bases for spiritual power also come to fulfilment in him by
  development; the five faculties also come to fulfilment in him by
  development; the five powers also come to fulfilment in him by
  development; the seven enlightenment factors also come to fulfilment
  in him by development. These two things — serenity (samatho) and insight (vipassanā) — occur (vattanti)
  in him yoked evenly together.
MN 149

Therefore, satipatthana bhavana and vipassana bhavana are not synonyms, even though vipassana is a fruit/result of satipatthana.


text:
Are Buddha nature and Original enlightenment different, or always identical?
Are Buddha nature and Original enlightenment different, or identical?
So, when a sastra says "Since the essence of Mind is grounded on the Dharmakaya, it is to be called the original enlightenment", is the exact same the case for Buddha nature?
When a Soto monk says "manifest buddha nature", do they mean "manifest original enlightenment"?

Yes.  The difference in terms just highlights a difference in emphasis.  All zen teachings basically point to the same thing.  The difference is dependent on what obstacle the teacher is pointing too.  For someone who is always striving, a teacher might call it original mind to emphasize that he is already in possession of what he's striving for.  For someone who thinks zen is about rarefied states or accomplishments, a teacher might call it ordinary mind.  For someone who is caught up in intellectualizing, he might simply hold up a flower.
Its all the same shit - namely the shit you are caught up in.

You can answer "yes" based on the following reasoning:

Essence of Mind is grounded in Dharmakāya
Dharmakāya is the unmanifested, "inconceivable" aspect out of which Buddhas arise
therefore, Buddha Nature arises from Dharmakāya
therefore, Essence of Mind = Buddha Nature

However, you can also answer "no" based on the equally valid reasoning:

Dharmakāya is the unmanifested, "inconceivable" aspect out of which Buddhas arise
Essence of Mind may be grounded in Dharmakāya, but does not necessarily equate it
Buddha Nature may be grounded in Dharmakāya, but does not necessarily equate it
therefore, Essence of Mind is not necessarily the same as Buddha Nature

So linguistic/logical reasoning isn't helpful to answer the question. In Zen the answer would probably be: they are simultaneously different and identical.
The Chan/Zen schools (of which Soto is a branch) maintain a stance of “not one” and “not two,” that is “a position-less position,” where “not two” means negating the dualistic stance that divides the whole into two parts, while “not one” means negating the nondualistic stance occurring when the Zen practitioner dwells in the whole as one, while suspending judgment in meditation. The free, bilateral movement between “not one” and “not two” characterizes Zen’s achievement of a personhood with a third perspective that cannot, however, be confined to either dualism or non-dualism, neither “not one” nor “not two”. This is expressed in Koans like:

Master Suibe was asked, “What is the secret teaching of Buddhism?”
Suibe said, “Wait until there’s no one around, and I’ll tell you.”
Later in the day the monk accosted him and said, “There’s nobody around now. What is the secret teaching of Buddhism?”
Suibe went into the garden with this monk, and he pointed at the bamboos, and the monk said, “I don’t understand.”
Suibe said, “What a tall one that is. What a short one that is.”

“What is the secret teaching of Buddhism?” is a stylized, literary way of asking "what's the essence of the teaching?"
Suibe's answer is to be realized from his "third perspective": he doesn't mean the inherent Buddha nature is manifested through the difference in length of the bamboos, nor does he mean that the difference in length is not a manifestation of Buddha nature. He means both.


text:
Anapanasati and Compassion
I'm wondering basically whether anapanasati can result in as much compassion as metta. Though the focus is different, can these two meditations have the same potential for altruism? Does meditating on the breath produce as much compassion?
Basically, I wonder if -- in order to become altruistic and compassionate -- one has to focus on compassion as a subject, or if that is not necessary.
Thank you

Anapanasati, when practised properly, arises from compassion towards onself.
Therefore, when Anapanasati is fulfilled, the defilements end, peace occurs & the original compassion towards oneself remains; which then manifests outwardly in one's natural state of being.
To practise the Dhamma and Anapanasati successfully requires a great act love towards oneself.
This love will remain when the task is completed.
However, Anapanasati cannot be practised & fulfilled if we continue to engage in behaviours (kamma) that defile, enslave & weaken our self and others.