text:
Did Buddha had issues in meditation?
Well, I Keep hearing this dialogue by a few Buddhist meditation teachers, "It's very common for everyone to get distracted by thoughts when you start the meditation practise initially".
I am curious to know whether Buddha, himself, faced any issues while meditating, initially, (lack of concentration, etc)?

wow, great question. i guess you could call him -- sans myth -- a meditation prodigy? ha

This is a very good question that makes Buddha more realistic, as a man who conquered all his struggles of existence. This question brings Buddha to a practical, achievable level for human beings and gives hope for us to achieve enlightenment.

Among several others two main impediments that troubled him for many years  were   in rejecting severe fasting and abrogation of  a faith of  the then spiritual masters. He trod a path of thorns, after sort of abdicating his throne.. Moderation in food and behaviour were common sense hallmarks his solution but that was difficult  to come by in his time.

You can read this sutta about how the Buddha-To-Be overcome obstacles: https://suttacentral.net/mn19/en/bodhi

The buddha says he had plenty of worries with ''breathless absorption''
https://suttacentral.net/mn100/en/sujato

both these answers would be better as comments or with quotes

Probably a few minor ones. But remember we're talking about someone who attained the 1st jhana back when He was a kid, and then quickly mastered all form jhanas and formless attainments when studying under his two meditation masters. He was so good that those masters even asked him to become co-leader to help them teach their students! So it's like asking a math prodigy whether s/he faces any issues doing math. Sure, there'd be some, but they'd be just a tiny fraction compared to what a regular average student has to face.

Siddharth Gautama , a prince had issues with the misery of this world.
Even in stories we hear & read that," In childhood days , Gautama used to meditate under a tree by closing eyes & sitting calmly & focusing on in-out breath .
Buddha ,an enlightened version of Gautama ( with no self)  can never be with any type of issue.
Buddha used to teach others without any issue.
Siddharth Gautama had issues with misery & path to end the misery. In a way , it can be said that Gautama might had issues with meditation but Buddha .

"I thought: 'Not only does Alara Kalama have conviction, persistence,
  mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. I, too, have conviction,
  persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. What if I were
  to endeavor to realize for myself the Dhamma that Alara Kalama
  declares he has entered & dwells in, having realized it for himself
  through direct knowledge.' So it was not long before I quickly entered
  & dwelled in that Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct
  knowledge

Alara Kalama was the Buddha-To-Be's first ascetic teacher, and he taught the sphere of nothingness, the 7the Jhana. I'm not sure his learning of this absorption has a date, but the Buddha was an ascetic for about six years, and must have already mastered the earlier concentrations.
There is no sign of him struggling with it, and this sutta is more about his difficulty in giving up the pursuit of wealth and a happy family live -- upon learning of sickness, old age, and death.

another sutta where the buddha talks about wrong concentration, ie concentration which have lots of defilements. then he says he bases his samdhi on the jhanas, ie the jhanas are good samadhi, contrary to whatever he was doing before.
https://suttacentral.net/mn128/en/sujato


text:
Is there a scientific consensus on meditation?
Is there a scientific consensus on meditation? I've seen it said that different parts of the brain are activated during meditation. Is that true for all experienced meditators, all forms of meditation, etc.?
It has to do something, was originally my take on Buddhism -- at the time merely because it has historically thrived: it being pretty obvious that whatever it did was a 'good' thing.

Sorry but I find it unclear what this question is asking: 1) is it really about "Buddhism", or is it about science and non-Buddhist forms of 'meditation', maybe just measuring brain activity or something? 2) The title and first sentence aren't clear -- what does "consensus on meditation" mean -- consensus about what? 3) The third sentence, the detailed question, is that only asking whether "different parts of the brain are activated" and whether that's true for all meditators/meditations? 4) The final paragraph ends with a question mark but I don't know what that question is.

maybe it could be moved to psychology stack, if you find it that unclear etc.. though i would have thought there'd be more interest in it here @ChrisW

Would it be clearer on the psychology stack? Is it only asking about measuring activity? In which case, it's probably asking for references to in-clinic meta-studies, which measure brain activity during one or more forms of meditation, by one or more populations. There's one reference to this kind of thing I know of (there are probably others I don't know) -- http://www.cbc.ca/news2/background/meditation/ -- that's from a while ago though and not a meta-study though it does have a specifically-Buddhist connection.

i don't see what's unclear about it. i'm asking what -- psychological -- science says about meditation. so brain scans, therapeutic potential, structured interviews about it, etc. @ChrisW too broad?

In meditation, you begin to transform into a spontaneous, natural being of love and compassion. Your whole cosmos begins to change. Meditation brings up a great change in a human being. I know this in a small degree from my experience. The only way to know this is to start meditating yourself.

It seems fair to say there is no scientific consensus. It's not easy to see how one could be reached by the methods of the physical sciences. It seems to be agreed that meditation does something, which is something.

If you are still interested, you can check this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/9dx45g/can_we_please_have_a_pinned_thread_with_all_the/e5qcic6/
It's a comment with about 15 benefits of meditation with links to scientific articles that state them as far as I understand.

Ah, just seeing this question now and thought you might find this helpful.

Can we train ourselves to be compassionate? A new study suggests the
  answer is yes. Cultivating compassion and kindness through meditation
  affects brain regions that can make a person more empathetic to other
  peoples’ mental states, say researchers at the University of
  Wisconsin—Madison.
Published March 25 in the Public Library of Science One, the study was
  the first to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to
  indicate that positive emotions such as loving-kindness and compassion
  can be learned in the same way as playing a musical instrument or
  being proficient in a sport. The scans revealed that brain circuits
  used to detect emotions and feelings were dramatically changed in
  subjects who had extensive experience practicing compassion
  meditation.

This is the famous study that led to the Tibetan Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard being dubbed, "The happiest man on earth!"

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Materiality not materiality but mentality
In our world the belief is that matter is only made of materiality not mentality. What I heard from a Buddhit monk is that materiality is actually mental. Can I hear both the Thervada view and the Mahayana view on this topic. Is it true that both of the paths say that there is only our experience nothing outside it exist.

The Pali scriptures refer to materiality (rupa). While materiality can only be known/experienced with mentality; this does not make materiality something mental.

Whatever, Rāhula, is hard, solid, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, that is to say: the hair of the
  head, the hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones,
  marrow of the bones, kidney, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs,
  intestines, mesentery, stomach, excrement, or whatever other thing is
  hard, solid, is internal, referable to an individual and derived
  therefrom, this, Rāhula, is called the internal element of extension.
  Whatever is an internal element of extension and whatever is an
  external element of extension, just these are the element of
  extension (earth).
And what, Rāhula, is the liquid element? The liquid element may be
  internal, it may be external. And what, Rāhula, is the internal liquid
  element? Whatever is liquid, fluid, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, that is to say: bile, phlegm, pus,
  blood, sweat, fat, tears, serum, saliva, mucus, synovial fluid, urine
  or whatever other thing is liquid, fluid, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, this, Rāhula, is called the internal
  liquid element. Whatever is an internal liquid element and whatever is
  an external liquid element, just these are the liquid element.
And what, Rāhula, is the element of heat? The heat element may be
  internal, it may be external. And what, Rāhula, is the internal heat
  element? Whatever is heat, warmth, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, such as by whatever one is
  vitalised, by whatever one is consumed, by whatever one is burnt up,
  and by whatever one has munched, drunk, eaten and tasted that is
  properly transformed (in digestion), or whatever other thing is heat,
  warmth, is internal, referable to an individual and derived therefrom,
  this, Rāhula, is called the internal heat element. Whatever is an
  internal element of heat and whatever is an external element of heat,
  just these are the element of heat.
And what, Rāhula, is the element of motion? The element of motion may
  be internal, it may be external. And what, Rāhula, is the internal
  element of motion? Whatever is motion, wind, is internal, referable to
  an individual and derived therefrom, such as winds going upwards,
  winds going downwards, winds in the abdomen, winds in the belly, winds
  that shoot across the several limbs, in-breathing, out-breathing, or
  whatever other thing is motion, wind, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, this, Rāhula, is called the internal
  element of motion. Whatever is an internal element of motion and
  whatever is an external element of motion, just these are the element
  of motion.
Mahārāhulovāda Sutta

Suttas AN 3.136 and SN 12.20 say Dhamma Law exists outside of experience of it. Therefore, Buddhism does not say the only things that exist are those things that are experienced.
If only things in mental experience existed then, based on the experience of the puthujjana (unenlightened person), Nibbana/Nirvana would not exist.
Udana 1.1 says:

When things [previously unexperienced] become manifest to the ardent meditating brahman; all his
  doubts then vanish since he understands each thing along with its
  cause.

Since enlightenment is knowing/experiencing things that were previously unknown/unexperienced, it is illogical to say Buddhism only says what is experienced is what exists. If Buddhism actually said this then Buddhism would be giving priority to the existence of unenlightened experiences, which is obviously not the case. Since Buddhism gives priority to teaching about things, such as jhana & Nirvana, which are not experienced by most people, then Buddhism is obviously teaching mostly about things that do not exist in the experience of most people.

Great answer, btw I listened a bit more from him and I think what he is saying is that material phenomena are both mental and physical but as it is said in dhammapada the mind is the forerunner from all things, what exists is only the 5 aggregates which would suggest that its only our experience?

This interpretation of the dhammapada is incorrect. You  can ask a new question about the meaning of Dhammapada 1 & 2 on the forum. Regards

From what I've read the Pali suttas in translation (which are part of the Theravada canon), I gather that Buddhist phenomenology describes:

five skandhas or "aggregates" -- see here
six consciousnesses -- see for example Sabba Sutta: The All, or Vijñāna (Wikipedia)

So I guess that matter might be best described as neither "materiality" not "mentality", but "sensuality" or "a sense-object" -- i.e. it's what people "sense" via the five or six sense-consciousnesses.
I think that not incompatible with saying "there is only our experience nothing outside it exist" -- except that sounds sollipsistic which I suppose might defined as one of the very many possible "wrong views", along with "materialism" and "eternalism" and so on.

In Theravada Rupa (materiality) means earth, air, fire, and water.
Conventional sense of what we called earth means the physical earth but we can't see it. We can only feel the softness and the hardness of the earth. Rupa also independently arisen and earth, air, fire, and water are not independent of each other. For instance water can be ice (patavi), cold/heat (tejo) gas (vayo) water (apo)
This analysis is mainly found in Abhidhamma.

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


text:
Are these 23 a copy of the Tibetan Perfection of Knowledge Collection?
I am new to Tibetan but am interested in the Tibetan script versions of the texts. Not knowing much Tibetan script yet, I am not totally sure I am looking at the right thing and so wanted to clarify to see if these 23 items are the Perfection of Knowledge collection.
The list of titles in Tibetan script I have found here. The first two or three I have found (I think) the corresponding Tibetan script text here (འབུམ། and ཉི་ཁྲི།, basically). In that collection, does it contain all 23 of these texts? If so, where would I find them? If not, do they exist elsewhere online in Tibetan etexts?
If it's too complicated, primarily I'm interested if this collection has the 8000 line one, such as here?


text:
Literal translation of Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra
What is the literal meaning of Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. Everywhere I read it says "The Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 Lines", but that is not a literal translation as far as I can tell. What is the literal translation or etymology?
For example, Sutra means "thread", but that is no where in that perfection of wisdom phrase. I read elsewhere, too, that:

The word Prajñāpāramitā combines the Sanskrit words prajñā "wisdom" with pāramitā "perfection".

So we have the "wisdom perfecting thread" sort of thing. But what is the other word?

8000 is the literal translation -- not knowing that sutra though, I don't know whether it's intended literally or metaphorically, perhaps for example as a metaphor for "many", "long", "detailed".

Aṣṭasāhasrikā translates to "eight thousand":

aṣṭá -- eight
sahasra -- thousand

Sanskrit Numbers

Aṣṭasāhasrikā: asta (8) sahasara (1000)
Prajñāpāramitā: prajna(wisdom) paramita(perfection)
Sutra: thread/verse
PDF: THE PERFECTION OF WISDOM IN EIGHT THOUSAND LINES & ITS
VERSE SUMMARY
- The Huntington Archive


text:
Ideas to Contemplate When Meditation is Difficult
I wrote previously that somehow, my meditation practice suddenly became more difficult, without any cause. So, I wondered what measures could be taken. Since my objective -- for now -- is meditation once per day, any means by which I'd sit and meditate for an allotted time would be useful.
I wondered: what reasons/motives can one contemplate mentally to get that push and sit more easily? For example:

"Once I will sit down, the difficulty will diminish."
"This is part of a path leading eventually to Buddhahood."
"Meditating will help not only myself, but others."

I guess I'm looking for canonical or traditionally given reasons to invoke to motivate oneself to meditate or practice in any form.
Thank you.

We always want things to be less difficult, that's why they are difficult.
I thought,  I need things to be easy now and latter I would ease into being able to handle what is more difficult but then I found that if I faced what is difficult head on with heroic and sustained effort then over time what is uncomfortable becomes way more manageable. This was a fundamental breakthrough idea for me.

Old age, sickness and death are good choices along the lines; 'Today effort should be done; life is uncertain, death is certain. Youth is a fleeting, unreliable and death might overtake you before you finish drawing a breath.'
Reflect on the drawbacks of laziness perhaps like this; 'Laziness is looked down upon by the world, lazy people don't accomplish even mundane tasks let alone the ultimate goal'
Reflect on the danger of not finishing your work, perhaps like this; 'Were i to die without finishing my work, it would be to my detriment, a cause for regret, a cause for birth, aging, sickness, lamentation and death...'
Reflect on the good fortune of being able to practice; 'Truly many would envy me, those beings in hells and those unable to practice this good Dhamma, how truly fortunate am i being blessed with an opportunity window in this very moment"
One can consider the words of the Tathagatha; ~ 'Practice jhana monks, do not be negligent so that you don't regret it later' or ' Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head; in the same way, the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities.'
Furthermore one can consider that it has been said that;

(386) The sun shines by day. The moon glows at night. The warrior shines in his armor. The brahmin shines in meditative absorption.

or you can consider that there are two modes of practice; 'A painful practice' and 'A pleasant practice'
Considering the drawbacks of the painful and the benefit of the pleasant practice, it is possible that one would resolve on the pleasant development.
There are other things one might want to give attention depending on the particular hindrances you are facing, ie reflecting on unattractiveness & drawbacks will counter infatuation, reflecting on the benefits of wakefulness and the drawbacks of sleeping will rouse energy.


text:
Introductory/Beginner books on Buddhism, but for children
There are a few posts on the site asking for good introduction/beginner books on Buddhism, but I can't seem to find any that a child could read and understand.
Although age range doesn't really matter to the answer that people might post, let's say someone between the age of 7 and 14, just to have some context.

Good post on teaching children: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7279/151

I was reading adult and young adult books by the age of 14.
I haven't read this one in particular but Penguin Classics tend to be alright as a pseudo-scholarly introduction to a reader who is otherwise naive about the subject.
I'm pretty sure I read the Penguin Classic edition of the Dhammapada at one stage.
I guess the classic introduction to Buddhism is the story of Gautama's meeting the "four divine messengers" and leaving home, becoming enlightened -- see for example Meeting the Divine Messengers.
I think that story is published in innumerable editions and translations, some wth more and some with less attempt to make the story seem realistic (as opposed to e.g. supernatural, viz the Buddha's remarkable powers and Mara etc). Canonically I think that story is the introduction to the Jataka.
I haven't seen the Gathas in an edition for children, it might be an interesting suggestion though -- perhaps something to read together and discuss?
The commentary to the Dhammapada consists of stories (including the supernatural), one per verse (and many verses), see e.g. Buddhist Stories from the Dhammapada Commentary -- the stories are included in this online edition (click on the links to each verse e.g. Verse 1) I'd guess there might be a for-children edition of that.
A Google search for Buddhist school books might be useful, for example my first result from that search was this page: Buddhist Studies for Schools: eBook Library (PDF documents)

The Buddha provided a teaching to his 7 year old son, which instructed two things, namely:

To never tell a deliberate lie.
To always reflect (think; consider) about whether an action to be performed or performed harms oneself or another.

This teaching is called: Advice to Rāhula at Ambalaṭṭhika.

I don't have a title for you but there are the Jataka Tales which would introduce some Buddhist ideas to entertain and there are english publications of these.
However if the child is over 7 years old it is possible that they would understand whatever you throw at them in regards to the Dhamma, there are mentions of very young Arahants from the time of the Buddha.
Other than that there are the Gathas (poems of the Elders) which come to mind if you are looking for something like that.

Please check book at below link :

The Story of Buddha : The Enlightened One (Tripti Nainwal, Ayeshe Sadr, Ishaan Dasgupta)

Above book is specifically designed for children.Flowing visuals combined with painstaking details and merge seamlessly with  strong contemporary narrative.
 Read at above link about book description.
(If above link doesn't work ,check this link, taken from my web-browser).


text:
Why are the words "mano" & "manasa" used in the opening Dhammapada verses?
The well-known yet often differently translated opening verses of the Dhamma use the Pali words "mano" and "manasa", as follows:

Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā,
manoseṭṭhā manomayā;
Manasā ce paduṭṭhena,
bhāsati vā karoti vā;
Tato naṃ dukkhamanveti,
cakkaṃva vahato padaṃ.
Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā,
manoseṭṭhā manomayā;
Manasā ce pasannena,
bhāsati vā karoti vā;
Tato naṃ sukhamanveti,
chāyāva anapāyinī

What do the Pali words "mano" and "manasa" specify refer to & why are they used in Dhammapada verses 1 & 2?

Have you seen the following link? https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001

See also a related topic -- What is the difference between Vijñāna, Manas and Citta?

In simple words (not writing this for bounty)
1.)Meaning :
Mano & Mansa refer to same word ,'MIND' but meaning .
Mano means ,"Only Mind is"  and
Mansa means ," by/through/with Mind ".
2.)Why? :
To indicate that only mind (within our body) is a leader of every tiny bit of sorrowness & happiness . If behaviour is with corrupted mind ,sorrowness arises & if behaviour is through good-will mind ,happiness arises.
Learner is mind ,teacher is mind .
Mind sees itself ,mind talks to itself that's why mind punishes itself &  awards itself.
Explanation ::
As for me & every being on earth with Mind...
Eye signals or Sensory signals from outside world(for eyeless beings) develop a sense of understanding either through image inside brain or through senses. This whole process ( & all the other interacting electric signals too) within our body  is called Mind .
PAY ATTENTION PAL.
This Mind has few in-built properties of aversion & craving due to Ignorance towards lust ,anger ,laziness etc . But certain fewones become able to change this behaviour pattern , become detached to world while living alongside world.
When behaviour is done with detached(good-will) Mind i.e. process of interacting electric signals within body produces
no clinging effect OR attachement to anything , eternal happiness arises.
But
When behaviour is done with Ignorance , only suffering arises.
---------- :)
Whatever we see or feel , ultimately it's image or sense is developed in Mind within body & every reaction is done by Mind (i.e. by the electric signal process within body) w.r.t. those images/ senses.
So Mind sees itself , talks to itself & when process is corrupted due to Ignorance Punishement in form of Suffering occurs . When process is clean & of good-will( detached one) ,gifts in form of satisfied_happiness arises.
Why Suffering arises?
Cause within our body we want to remain calm ,secure ,peace ,satisfied ,etc. but process is completely corrupted & hence what 'we want ' is not happening so process reacts AGAINST itself because ,'we want' is also a part of process. When our mind is against itself ,it feels like agitation ,bad ,sorrow ,depression etc.
Why gifts of happiness?
Cause No-one is against anyone.Mind is completely clean. Calm , Secure ,peace ,pre-satisfied etc. are now the inbuilt properties of Mind. So Mind does not oppose itself. That keeps enlightened one in equanimity.
That's why, Mano pubbangma dhamma ,...., mansa che ...
Phew! That was a lot of Explanation. It's my 2nd time to explain this process. 1st was when I was serving for free in a Sikh Temple.At that time I tried to explain this process to a teacher of intermediate class students.He couldn't understand... :)

As to the word manas, Thrangu Rinpoche said (paraphrasing):

All mental events—all thoughts, memories and anticipation of the future with all its emotions of happiness, sadness, excitement, and frustration takes place in the manas. It is the manas which differentiates and thinks and makes judgements about the perception. After the eye, ear, nose, tongue and tactile consciousness perceives an object, the manas judges the sensory perception with thoughts.

So the word manas here is used to drive home the idea that it is our mind -- in the sense of our outlook, our way of seeing and interpretation -- is what creates our reality.
In Tibetan Buddhism they have this notion called "pure perception" or "sacred outlook". It's a practice of seeing everything as expression of Buddha-Nature, without a taint.
When we see the world with pure perception, there are no enemies of ours, no aggression is provoked in us, no anger, no antipathy. The reality of our perception is pure. Then our reactions are pure, our karma is pure, and it results in peace.
But when our perception is tainted, we see a different reality, we are in a different world. So naturally this world provokes very different reactions in us, which lead to trouble.
It is our outlook that defines our reality, our actions, and its results.
This outlook is a state of mind.
This is what is meant here by the word manas.

If one speaks or acts out of an addled manas, dukkha follows him like the cart's wheel follows the ox's hoofprint.
...
If one speaks or acts out of a clear manas, sukha follows him like a shadow which never leaves.

Now, what exactly is addled/dirty manas and what is clear/pure manas?
Manas is not memory, it is only an organ of mental (inner, reflective) perception, thus supporting further interpretation and judgement - so how and why can it be dirty or clean?
Manas is exactly the part of mind where Upadana or Feeding occurs. Upadana is when we keep going over a certain idea or image or event, triggering our interpretation and emotional reaction again and again. As a result of this cyclic feeding, manas constantly keeps this idea "loaded", and presence of this idea affects or skews all new interpretation and judgment.
So the dirty manas or dirty outlook is what happens when we feed on negative, selfish, aggressive, divisive thoughts.
And the pure manas is when we don't feed, don't maintain these tainting dharmas (known as klesha or asava). As a result we see things yathabhuta - as they are. Seeing things as they are leads to right action, and right action leads to the ending of suffering and to harmony and peace.
This is why the subsequent verses of Dhammapada speak about (not) harboring offense and enmity, (not) dwelling on pleasant experiences, and eventually "vomiting all the asavas". These are examples of maintaining the dirty manas vs purifying it.

There are not many responses to this question therefore I will provide my view.

The term 'mano' is used primarily in the suttas to refer to the mind as a sense organ. The sense organ of the mind not only knows the mind's feelings, perceptions & thoughts but also knows Truth (such as cause & effect, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self) and even Nibbana. Therefore, it is 'mano' as a sense organ that perceives Truth and thus develops knowledge & wisdom (or otherwise, remains ignorant or instinctual). Thus, mano, having been translated as 'the intellect', is that which makes decisions and develops intentions.
Related to the word 'mano' is 'manasa'. Manasa is one of the three types of kamma, namely:

It is intention that I call deeds.
Cetanāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kammaṃ vadāmi.
For after making a choice one acts
Cetayitvā kammaṃ karoti—
by way of body, speech and mind.
kāyena vācāya manasā.
AN 6.63

In the same way, deeds of body, speech and mind should be done only after repeated checking.
Evameva kho, rāhula, paccavekkhitvā paccavekkhitvā kāyena kammaṃ kattabbaṃ, paccavekkhitvā paccavekkhitvā vācāya kammaṃ kattabbaṃ, paccavekkhitvā paccavekkhitvā manasā kammaṃ kattabbaṃ.
MN 61

In addition, the words 'manosaṅkhāraṃ' ('formation of/by mind') & 'manosañcetanāhetu' ('mental intention as a cause') are often found exclusively in suttas about intention & kamma (eg. AN 3.23; AN 4.171; SN 12.25).
Therefore, it appears obvious by both the words 'mano' & 'manasa' and the contextual teaching found in Dhammapada 1 &  2 about "a person speaks or acts" that Dhammapada 1 &  2 are about 'kamma' rather than about a 'solipsistic' or Brahmanic creationist princple. Dhp 1 & 2 say:

1. Mind precedes all dhammā. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
  follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
2. Mind precedes all dhammā. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness
  follows him like his never-departing shadow.

Therefore, it appears plainly obvious, Dhp 1 & 2 are about 'kamma' & 'results' and not about consciousness being the creator of the universe of sense experience.

As for the word 'dhammā', in India, it is a word that describes any religious path or mode of behaviour that people believe (either wisely or ignorantly) helps their life. In my opinion, 'dhammā' here means 'modes of behaviour'.
Therefore, I personally would translate Dhp 1 & 2 as follows:

1. Mind precedes all modes of behaviour. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
2. Mind precedes all modes of behaviour. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness
  follows him like his never-departing shadow.

In summary you translate mano as "mind". I think you didn't like the translation "mind precedes all phenomena" -- maybe the point of the question then wasn't to ask the meaning of mano but to ask the meaning of dhamma in that context, i.e. you translate it "modes of behaviour" instead of "phenomena".

No. “Mind” is too generic for “Mano”. Regardless, Mano is certainly not vinnana (consciousness). Regards


text:
Where is the Tibetan Book of the Dead online in Tibetan script?
THLib contains the Kangyur and Tengyur in Tibetan script, which is a lot of text. But it doesn't seem to contain the Tibetan Book of the Dead :(
Is there any place online that has the Tibetan Book of the Dead in text format?
Searching Google for བར་དོ་ཐོས་གྲོལ reveals this and this, but I can't tell if that is it. Or perhaps this?

The Bardo Thodol isn't in the Kangyur or Tengyur, it's a terma text, so in a different classification. You can get the text from here in Tibetan, or here in Dzongkha.


text:
Paramatha and samatha meditation
Can ultimate paramatha reality ever be observed or realized with only samatha concentration meditation on a concept?

The word 'samatha' ('tranquility') is not synonymous with 'samadhi' ('concentration').
Regardless, both 'samatha' ('tranquility') &^ 'vipassana' ('insight') occur in tandem when right samadhi ('concentration') is developed (refer to MN 149).
If fact, the ultimate paramatha reality cannot be observed or realized without samatha (tranquil) concentration (samadhi) meditation.

Maybe the edit to the question  changes your answer?

you have to mix your memory of right view, sati, right investigation with the jhanas and the buddha calls this right samadhi and that's the basis for ''seeing things as they really are'', ie conditioned things as anatta, anicca, dukkha and the ''stilling of all formations'' as ''peaceful'' and so on... Currently, nobody knows how to mix sati and the jhanas and even the jhanas alone are already hard, jhanas as the ''pleasant abiding in the present life'' like the buddha calls them when there is not much sati with them.


text:
How to redeem a wasted youth?
I wasted my youth. I am 35 years old. I had a toxic relationship with my parents, especially my mother. My career never started and am still looking for a fresh start and finding it humiliating at my age.
What does Buddhism says about wasting your youth? Is redemption possible?
Thanks.

Buddhism says a lot of things.  On the practical side, every day is an opportunity to start/continue a journey.  And, if you want to get there, it's your responsibility to get started and working on it diligently.  You missed some time, but life is only going to get harder the longer you wait.

So Buddhism says a lot of things.
One is that unhappiness is caused by "craving" i.e. by wanting things to be other than as they are (or by wanting impermanent things to continue)
Another is that unhappiness is caused by various types of "self-view", for example, "I will die" or "I cannot have what I want" etc.
One aspect of "self-view" is "comparison" -- comparing "yourself" to others -- for example, "I have or don't have a job", and, "I don't have as good a job as she has" etc.
The word "humiliation" sounds like it's associated with "pride" -- which, is one of the "fetters", one of the canonical problems. There is one way in which "conceit" or "comparison" can be used wisely or productively, which is to say, "That person (maybe a 'spiritual friend') has attained X (i.e. 'enlightenment') by doing Y (i.e. 'practising the way to enlightenment'). Perhaps I too, by doing Y, can attain X".
I guess the Buddhist path might be something like,

Be moral (ethical) to avoid hurting others
Understand (perhaps by learning Buddhist doctrine on that subject) what kinds of thinking cause unhappiness, then stop doing that

The word "redemption" might not be mainstream Buddhist -- I associate that word with "Christ the Redeemer" i.e. "Jesus dying to save (redeem, buy back, pay a sacrificial price for) Mankind from Sin".
Buddhism is a little more "You're saved by your own efforts" (with due respect, to the three jewels or refuges) -- i.e. it's up to you to learn, up to you to control or not control your mind, and each person is "heir to their own kamma" i.e. it's because of your own intentions/actions that you become happy or unhappy -- go to "heaven" or "the animal word" or become "enlightened".
The fact that you're able to ask this question suggests you're capable -- not too addicted or angry to care, not too confused to even ask, at least have lucid moments.
I don't know your circumstances, but from this distance I might suggest, don't worry too much about "career never started" if you can. Any work you do might be good work, what you volunteer to do as well. The important thing is to do the best you can in the circumstances -- "best" meaning "kind to yourself and others" -- and then be happy, because you're doing the best you can.

I still wonder if all suffering are really from oneself
Canonically it (i.e. mental or psychological suffering) arises from craving, attachment, self-image -- part of which is the idea that there is a "oneself" for it to come from.
you can also be made to feel shame by the community
People might try to shame you, I guess -- there's a sutta SN 7.2 which describes the Buddha's reply to someone trying to "insult" him.
I'm not sure that "shame" is a good way to teach people -- here's a non-Buddhist poem which was semi-famous when I was young:

CHILDREN LEARN WHAT THEY LIVE
  --Dorothy Law Nolte
If children live with criticism, they learn to condemn.
  If children live with hostility, they learn to fight.
  If children live with ridicule, they learn to be shy.
  If children live with shame, they learn to feel guilty.
  If children live with encouragement, they learn confidence.
  If children live with tolerance, they learn to be patient.
  If children live with praise, they learn to appreciate.
  If children live with acceptance, they learn to love.
  If children live with approval, they learn to like themselves.
  If children live with honesty, they learn truthfulness.
  If children live with security, they learn to have faith in themselves and others.
  If children live with friendliness, they learn the world is a nice place in which to live.

It's possible, I don't know, that some people in the community are trying to tell you something worthwhile -- or, maybe they're unkind and trying to shame you -- or maybe you react with shame, when it's not their intention to inflict it -- I don't know.
Perhaps you can't afford to pay too much attention to people who are only negative and not helpful.
I also don't know what they want, maybe they're selfishly trying to sell you something useless -- it's up to you to find wise advice I guess.
isn't there a point where the inner world is not so solipsisitc
Yes and no?
I've met people in whom "suffering", as a result of their "inner world", seemed to me absolutely pathological, and nearly life-long -- and maladaptive i.e. not a "good" response to the current social environment -- like post-traumatic stress.
The whole "self versus society" is complicated, especially when that's seen as "versus" rather than as "cooperating with".
Anyway I think that Buddhism intends to help you become free of negative emotions, like shame (also called "obscurations" in some schools of Buddhism). Perhaps you have to recognise the emotion, and understand how it arises, and remove or avoid or "uproot" the condition[s] in which it arises.
To be fair Buddhism also teaches that "a sense of shame" can be a good thing for a student to have, because it keeps them from doing the wrong things.
A good part of that and a (possibly 'the') basis of Buddhism is ethics -- it's taught that "skilful virtue" (which I think means "doing the right thing well") has a purpose and a result, which is "absence of remorse", from which arises "joy" and so on.
So "absence of remorse" -- having done the best you can, doing the best you can, intending to do the best you can in future -- and not being ashamed of that, not being ashamed because of that.
Note that "ethics" aren't, necessarily, "solipsistic" -- ethics help people coexist, help the person coexist with society. The so-called Threefold Training maybe begins with "Right Speech", which is usefully summarised here -- Right Speech -- which I'd recommend you read ... and then practice i.e. try to speak like that and to listen to "right speech" from other people.

Thank you for the answer. Doing good for others and oneself is sound advice. The Buddhist view on unhappiness is insightful, but I still wonder if all suffering are really from oneself, if a situation is humiliating. You can feel shame from your own thoughts and judgements, but you can also be made to feel shame by the community for having wasted your youth. ...

...If we want to argue that whatever I feel comes from me regardless of the treatment of others, aren't we entering a very unpragmatical territory? To some extent we should control our feelings at the face of how others treat us, but if the situation is permanent and intense, isn't there a point where the inner world is not so solipsistic? In any case thank you for your insights and information.

I added one new paragraph to the answer, about "humiliation" -- I don't know how I'd reply to the comments yet.

@Reeel I added to the answer to try to address the comments.

Thank you for the precisions, a lot for me to chew on.

35 years old is young. The Buddha attained enlightenment at 35 years old and lived teaching others the path to enlightenment for the next 45 years. The Buddha passed away at 80 years old.
Also, most if not all of the Buddha's famous enlightened disciples, such as Kondanna, Maha Kassapa, Sariputta and Maha Moggallana, were older than the Buddha therefore they started the path after 35 years of age.
That you are 35 years old and looking for the true path and that the Buddha found the true path at 35 years old appears to be a good omen or sign.

Like the two chief disciples, Sariputta and Maha Moggallana, Maha Kassapa too descended from the brahman caste, and again like them, he was older than the Buddha
Maha Kassapa

What is a great tragedy & waste is being born in a Buddhist country, such as in Sri Lanka, yet never understanding what the Buddha taught; including when you are taught the true teachings everyday but still fail to understand because of brainwashed youth.
In my opinion, it is easier to redeem wasted youth but much more difficult to redeem brainwashed youth.

Thank you very much for your answer. Your concluding remark is particularly interesting to me. I will have to ponder on it for a while to understand its implications. Cannot upvote from lack of reputation on the site yet.

Restore yourself with Metta. I'm also at your age, in the same situation, thinking about how to regain my youth. Metta meditation gave me an understanding of this particular issue. In our youth, we had a much better positive attitude toward all human beings. There was much less negativity in our life. This was the cause of our beautiful life in your youth! By indulging in negative thoughts and other low acts, we strayed away from our path. This is how we have lost our intelligence.
By sending good wishes, and especially to those closes to you, you will regain your youth and the world will be as it was 30 years ago - young and fresh, with much less negativity!
Metta will also deprogram you from so many stupidities and bad habits, especially social conditioning. I think this is the most sensitive issue now. Social conditioning went against our truth. Many young kids were programmed by society to act against their natural spontaneous will. Metta works in favor of your naturalness. By doing Metta, you become less societal and more natural. No real meditator will ever participate in the affair of society as ordinary materialistic people do, knowing well the dangerous consequences of materialistic sinful life.

Reeel. Would you call all that’s brought you to this personal realisation a ‘wasted youth?’ What an opportunity it has handed you. Best wishes

I also want to point out that 35 is considered to be relatively young and is a competitive age in many physical sports. I think being 35 your are in the beginning of the middle part of the lifespan and are not really expected to have peaked as a person in general.
Buddha has said this in Dhp 155;

Those who have neither lived the chaste life Nor gained wealth in their youth; Lie around like [arrows misfired] from a bow, Lamenting the past.

Imo living the chaste life is the supreme achievement because gaining material wealth does not free one from lamentation in the ultimate sense.

Isn't this quote from Buddha an indication that redemption is not possible? It is an horrible fate to be a misfired arrow lamenting the past.

@Reeel: no, he was describing the feelings of a person in your shoes.  You might feel useless, wasted.  I know I did when I was in similar circumstances.

In your case there is nothing to redeem as i see it you are not misfired. You are still young and strong. Even in wordly terms peak earning years are ~45 for men.

And yes it seems that those who do waste their life are going to have nothing to show for it and will have to deal with those consequences

Even old people, seniors, can train and win. Satipatthana Sutta says even 7 days can be enough if practice is correctly undertaken.

@Reeel Here is traditional commentary for that verse -- Dhp 155. It suggests that at any stage of life it's possible to learn look after what you have/inherited, or (renouncing possessions as a monk) progress to enlightenment.

I am actually in the exact situation as you are and also have a toxic relationship with my mother .But I know that is just the play of life ,things where good before and bad today ,its a cycle if you are not ready to accept life as it is then you will continually suffer .There is no quality in inhaling if you aren't exhaling ,no quality for anything if you don't pay for it .No quality for life if there is no death. Buddhism says just surrender to life ,its all happening by itself ,no self needs to fix it ,no self is getting attacked .There is only emptiness at the center.No guilt , no blame .
That way every situation for you is understood & your action wise ,Buddha experienced the insight of dependent origination which states everything happens due to certain causes and parameters.So there is really nothing wrong in anything that happened it was all meant due to the existence of these parameters ,you are perfect as you are already,you just don't realize it.

To redeem a wasted youth, let it go...
First of all, regardless of whom you ask this question, you are likely to receive some variation of the following advice: "Make amends and learn from your mistakes. Don't dwell on the past and instead focus on doing better in the future." This is because the inevitable passage of time is a universal human experience; it is common when you reach your 30's or 40's to start wondering what your life would be like now if you had done things differently. Some (presumably including the OP) regret their decisions enough to feel they need to somehow redeem themselves.
That said, I believe Buddhism provides can provide some unique insight into this question for a number of reasons...
Lessons from Buddhism
Dependent Origination
In some religious traditions, events are predestined and humans have little or no agency. In others, humans have complete free will and bear full responsibilities for their actions and their fate. Buddhism falls in the middle.
The concept of dependent origination is essentially the idea that connected and depend on each other. The here and now that you are experience is the product of many factors, some that are within your control and others that are not. This means you shouldn't regret or feel ashamed of a "wasted youth" as the fault is not yours alone. What you should focus on is identifying what mistakes you did make, do what you can to correct them, and learn from those mistakes so you don't repeat them.
Think of a boat floating down a river. You can't control the current that is pushing the boat forward. However, if the current has caused you to drift in an undesirable direction, you can also grab the oars and steer in a new direction.
Attachment
Buddhism is, ultimately, a path towards the elimination of suffering. One of the primary sources of suffering is attachment, which includes holding onto the past. Worrying about "redeeming a wasted youth" is only likely to make you feel bad and waste energy that could be spent in a more productive fashion. Let go and move on with your life! Focus on the present and what steps you can take towards a better future.
Attachment is also important to consider when others attempt to make you feel guilty or ashamed of the past. It's natural to seek the approval of others, particularly family members. However, if someone continues to bring more suffering into your life than joy, it may be best to walk away especially if they refuse to change.
Enlightenment
"Redemption" isn't really a concept in Buddhism as salvation comes not from calling upon some external power for deliverance but from cultivating a state of mind - enlightenment - that allows you to transcend suffering.
In this light, "redeeming a wasted youth" is a matter of learning to see that your youth wasn't wasted and doesn't need to be redeemed. Instead of ruminating over the bad things that you regret, reflect upon the truth - good, bad, and neutral - in a calm, objective fashion. Doing so can help you overcome the negative emotions that cause you to continue suffering today.
Parting Thoughts
In his answer, ChrisW says:

The important thing is to do the best you can in the circumstances -- "best" meaning "kind to yourself and others" -- and then be happy, because you're doing the best you can.

I couldn't say it better! If there is only one thing you take away from the answers to this question, it should be this simple advice.
Best of luck in your journeys through life!


text:
In the movie Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring, why does the master cry?
Here is the movie: Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring 2003
The plot is that the student having attachment to a woman, leave the temple and marries her. Years fly by, and the student returns because he kills her, after her affair. The master helps him to let the anger out before being caught by the police, and then he immolates himself. After that, he leaves some śarīra.
My question is: why would the master cries before the immolation?

(source: i2.wp.com)
My answer is that he disappoints with the student. But isn't that disappointment an attachment?

My question is: why would the master cries before the immolation?

The "Winter" segment of the movie kind of gave the hint. Notice in this segment, after being paroled from prison for the crime of killing his wife, the now middle-age apprentice returns to the floating monastery and begins to take on the role of his previous master. And as with the movie's title's central theme, which reflects the cyclical nature of Samsara, the same exact history repeats itself with the scene of a woman abandoning her baby son, then the baby becomes the boy apprentice who is shown tormenting a turtle in the Spring-Again segment,... etc. Putting together all the pieces of the puzzle, it points to the original old master's own dark past with its own dark kamma before he renounced it to become a good monk. So although after years of training and gaining certain level of attainment, he's still not free of his kammic debt. And so he cries not only out of sadness for his student but also for himself, that his self immolation doesn't mean total and final complete liberation, there's still "more work to be done" and life will go on and on until all kammic debts' been completedly exhausted, hence the image of the water snake swimming away after the self immolation.

I see. Somehow I have thought that master = no attachment whatsoever. However, the scene that he has sarira indicates that he really has no attachment?

The sarira is only indicative of certain level of virtuous/meditative strength, but in no way guaranteeing attainment of total final complete liberation, ie. Nibbana.

I see. So there are different levels of liberation? I thought that once you are in meditation, you reach nirvana?

Absolutely. See the stages of enlightenment link below for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment

I’d say he’s more disappointed in himself.  But either way, what’s wrong with being upset?  Buddhism isn’t Vulcanism.  To really practice is to face samsara with a heart that is fully open.  When you do that, sometimes you’re going to cry.


text:
Reorienting Thoughts Towards Virtuous Object
I noticed that if I set an intention to avoid some behaviour, I rarely follow through. I feel perhaps a mere intention based on willpower doesn't have much strength.
Is it more effective to direct one's thoughts to a virtuous object whenever fantasies and cravings, or worries and rumination, occur? Are these cravings/worries causing the problems?
Is just setting an intention mentally sometimes not adequate?

You might want to consult Vitakkasanthana Sutta: The Removal of Distracting Thoughts
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html
It explains how one deals with unwholesome thoughts in several ways and 'Reorienting Thoughts Towards Virtuous Object' is one of those ways.

If I may ask, I wonder what "an object connected with skill" means in that sutta (or Piya Tan's translation, "a sign connected with the wholesome")? Would that mean one of the anussati, or something else?

MN19;The Buddha said this: “Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I thought: ‘Why don’t I meditate by continually dividing my thoughts into two classes?’ So I assigned sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts to one class. And I assigned thoughts of renunciation, good will, and harmlessness to the second class.

other than the mn19 explaination, my personal interpretation is that any theme conducive to development is good, including the nupassana and subjects for reflection otherwise listed throughout the Sutta.

Fwiw i think developing this practice is called developing the perception of abandoning;
(5) “And what, Ānanda, is the perception of abandoning? Here, a bhikkhu does not tolerate an arisen sensual thought; he abandons it, dispels it, terminates it, and obliterates it. He does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will … an arisen thought of harming … bad unwholesome states whenever they arise; he abandons them, dispels them, terminates them, and obliterates them. This is called the perception of abandoning. (AN10.60)

There are no virtues objects. However, the object of meditation is to bring the mind to a neutral object such as breath hence no unwholesome thoughts arise.


text:
Cravings Arising to Consciousness
I noticed that I usually think in a very abstract manner, without images, just words and ideas. When I try intentionally to think visually, only then does lustful or worry-related images pop up. And, only then can I seemingly redirect my attention from these images.
If a person thinks very abstractly, is it possible that cravings or worries don't arise in consciousness? What is going on here?

Where else would they arise? Isn't the subconscious  the consciousness that one has yet to see clearly?

I believe Tibetan Vajrayana lays more emphasis on visualization as against abstract thinking, as a means towards final liberation. Recommend utube  discourses by Professor Robert Thurman and Lama Govinda's classic 'Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism' for starters. Its likely to be a long haul.

Abstract thinking intself is a form of fast-imagination.
Imagination and Creativity are linked with each other.
The ability to contemplate things that are not actually happening can contribute to mental health problems such as anxiety and delusions.-- see imagination in above link.
When I try intentionally to think visually, only then does lustful or worry-related images pop up
It's with everyone, not something special. Only thing is, person here is able to know that he is the one, who is developing these visualizations.
Conclusion:: If a person has high abstract thinking, he is more prone to cravings, delusions, worriness, if he is not fixated in sīla.
Reason:: He has more access to thinking process, hence without equanimous awareness, he will become more prone to unwholesomeness.

I am not entirely sure about this, but my understanding is that what you are calling abstract thinking is just regular conceptualization as a way of knowing. Training in visualization is necessary to facilitate practice in direct mental perception rather than just conceptualization.
In my experience, cravings and worry arise all the time with conceptualization.

Are you saying that when visualizing, one isn't engaging in mental fabrication?

No, I think most visualizations are pretty poor and involve mental fabrication. But it is a practice for developing that ability to mentally see things directly. I could be very wrong as I have not taken minds and mental factors in awhile.

If a person thinks very abstractly, is it possible that cravings or worries don't arise in consciousness?

No, that’s not very likely seeing as cravings present themselves in a variety of bodily, emotional, as well as behavioral formations. Our way of thinking is by no means the end-all-be-all proof of our attachments.

What is going on here?

There is no cookie cut way that consciousness should act. There are ever so many variations in how consciousness behaves, and what thoughts that may pop up or not. It’s just the way the mind works.


text:
Why our mind always live in habits? Why we are always making new habits? What will happen if habits are not formed?
QN 1: What is connection between thoughts and habits?
QN 2: We (as a lay practitioner) are aware of our few habits like smoking but not all.
Example: Morning tea habit (feeling to have tea). Similarly checking mobile time to time, watching TV, doing prayers and other religious habits.
I was not aware of these habits from many years but now I'm aware of it.
Main QN: Why is our mind always making new habits and gets trapped in habits?

Note: To clarify this question as it has been edited, you can check the original question asked by the user.

OP: QN 1: What is connection between thoughts and habits?

The answer for this is given in MN 19:

“Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon,
  that will become the inclination of his mind. If he frequently
  thinks and ponders upon thoughts of renunciation, he has abandoned the
  thought of sensual desire to cultivate the thought of renunciation,
  and then his mind inclines to thoughts of renunciation. If he
  frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of non-ill will…upon
  thoughts of non-cruelty, he has abandoned the thought of cruelty to
  cultivate the thought of non-cruelty, and then his mind inclines to
  thoughts of non-cruelty.

The inclination of one's mind translates to habits in thoughts and actions.

OP: Main QN: Why is our mind always making new habits and gets trapped in
  habits?

This is because we have the underlying tendencies or obsessions (anusaya) as found in AN 7.11 (or from here):

"Monks, there are these seven obsessions. Which seven?
"(1) The obsession of sensual passion (or sensual desire).
  "(2) The obsession of resistance (repulsion).
  "(3) The obsession of views.
  "(4) The obsession of uncertainty (doubt).
  "(5) The obsession of conceit.
  "(6) The obsession of passion for becoming.
  "(7) The obsession of ignorance.
"These are the seven obsessions."

Forming habits of sensual enjoyment e.g. sex , coffee, desserts etc. is due to the obsession of sensual passion.
Forming habits of self-improvement e.g. reading, fitness etc. is due to the obsession of passion for becoming.
According to this answer, the underlying tendencies or obsessions (anusaya) are a type of defilement (kilesa) or mental impurity that is caused by ignorance (avijja) in dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda).

I think i get what you mean based on the comments.
Thinking can only be about these six;

what has been seen
what has been heard
what has been smelled
what has been tasted
what has been felt
what has been thought about or imagined

Thinking arranges a map of sorts, map is like the general understanding
In reference to this one could say that mind lives in [it's] habits in as far as thinking is directed referencing the map that is made by thinking as it is thus directed. When mind is directed in reference to the map, it becomes a path travelled and it might produce the expected result, if a path is frequently travelled it becomes well explored by intellect and well known.
Intention and attention are also based on that same map of an interpretation of phenomena. Therefore what is seen, heard, smelled, tasted, sensed, imagined & thought about; comes into play by directing according to the map and having come into being is in turn thought about and evaluated, laying foundation future reference.

A habit is basically rebirth. Looking for rebirth, we find SN12.23:

I say that suffering has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Rebirth.’
I say that rebirth has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Continued existence.’
I say that continued existence has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Grasping.’
I say that grasping has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Craving.’
I say that craving has a vital condition.
  And what is it? You should say: ‘Feeling.’ … You should say: ‘Contact.’ … You should say: ‘The six sense fields.’ … You should say: ‘Name and form.’ … You should say: ‘Consciousness.’ … You should say: ‘Choices.’ … I say that choices have a vital condition, they don’t lack a vital condition. And what is the vital condition for choices? You should say: ‘Ignorance.’

Notice the phrase "six sense fields."  This includes the five senses as well as thought. Therefore Dependent Origination describes the connection between thought and habit.
The cure is the Noble Eight-Fold Path. Even though we may understand that clinging to our delights causes us suffering, to actually get rid of habitual suffering does require practicing the Path, relinquishing identity view. And identity view is just the craving in habits (MN44):

“Ma’am, they speak of this thing called ‘the origin of identity’. What is the origin of identity that the Buddha spoke of?”
“It’s the craving that leads to future rebirth, mixed up with relishing and greed, taking pleasure in various different realms. That is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence. The Buddha said that this is the origin of identity.”

To end suffering, one replaces unskillful habits (e.g., smoking) with skillful habits (e.g., observing precepts).

The mind is not you but it can be trained. It has been trained to repeatedly form unwholesome/unskillful states. Train it in mindfulness, a wholesome state, by getting familiar with what greed, aversion and getting lost in thought are like. Then the mind trained in skillful states will pull itself out of old and into new habbits on its own. Try not to force out of habbits because that is defilement. Instead, learn correct mindfulness in daily life.

The mind creates habits because it is the mind's nature to structure and organize the world around it. The mind wants to be assured of its desires, and that notion of 'assurance' implies that the mind wants the world to be orderly, systematic, and predictable: one can be assured of something that has those qualities. And what is a habit except a set of behaviors that are orderly, systematic, and predictable?
The problem with habits is that habits which are badly formed become tanhā (cravings). We want the world to be orderly, systematic, and predictable in some way that conflicts with the natural (karmic) order of the world; we try to impose our discordant habits on the world, and that creates dukkha (misery) in us and others. So part of the dharma amounts to replacing bad habits with good: i.e., with habits that are not in discord with the natural (karmic) order, and do not de-evolve into tanhā.

One might make a restrained habit of morning tea, not a habit of gluttonous meals, because the former is less likely to fall into carving
One might make the conscious habit of setting aside one's cell phone for defined periods, not fall into the fretful habit of constantly checking for messages
One might make a calm habit of renunciation, rather than give way to the constant urge to satisfy desires

Simple habits make life easier and better; they allow us to satisfy the basic necessities of life with a minimum of fuss and bother. Conscious habits keep us from tanhā; that allows us to change our habits as needed when they fall out of sync with the natural order. What we should avoid is those unconscious, discordant habits that lock us in opposition to the world.


text:
Subconscious & Vipassana
Is the subconscious what becomes conscious when insight occurs? When the hinderances fall is the subconscious seen? What is the subconscious in relationship to the scriptures & the Abhidhamma?
Related to this question: Cravings Arising to Consciousness

One of the best descriptions of the structure of consciousness from a Abhidhamma standpoint is found in Lama Govinda's 'The Psychological Attitude of Early Buddhist Philosophy" pdf page 121. Recommend the entire book, as a user friendly account of the Higher Doctrine of the Buddha i.e. Abhidhamma.

From the viewpoint of modern Western psychology, the 'subconscious' is explained as follows:

The subconscious is the part of our mind that is not in current awareness. It is the part of our consciousness that is not being
focused on and is lying dormant. It is impossible to hold the entirety
of our knowledge in direct focus in our minds at the same time so we
need to store memories and knowledge. This storage is known as the
subconscious, the term being coined by Pierre Janet. The subconscious
stores all of your memories, beliefs, previous experiences, the
people/places you have seen, and the skills you have acquired.
Information in the subconscious cannot be recalled easily, they are
buried deep within our minds (or repressed).
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Subconscious

The closest Pali term to 'subconscious' is 'anusaya' or 'underlying tendencies', as follows:

Mendicants, there are these seven underlying tendencies. What seven? The underlying tendencies of sensual desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, desire for becoming and ignorance. These are the seven underlying tendencies.
AN 7.11

'Anusaya' can flow out or erupt from the subconscious into consciousness. This 'outflow' or 'eruption' in Pali is called 'asava'. The product or result of these anusaya flowing out are called 'hindrances' ('nivarana').
Therefore, on a gross level, it appears it is the hindrances themselves which are the 'subconscious' coming into consciousness.
When the hindrances end, what occurs is the bliss & equanimity of jhana; which is obviously not 'the subconscious' referred to by modern Western psychology.
However, on a very subtle level, when a jhana attainer recollects their 'previous dwellings', 'past ego adherences' or 'pubbenivāsa' (described in SN 22.79), this appears to be an example of genuine insight (vipassana) in relation to the 'subconscious'.

No.  It is a bit like saying what happens to your liver or kidney when insight occurs?  The subconscious is just something that keeps your consciousness moving along.  It might be in the right direction or it might be the wrong direction.  You only know when it's too late.


text:
How to avoid subtle biases and inclinations to influence phenomena when doing vipassana?
In other words, how do I know if I'm really being objective?

Find out the difference between what are concepts and what is.
Follow the sensation of the breath not the idea of the breath.
Follow the sensation of the feet as they move exactly in the present moment and don't follow the idea of the feet.
Notice thoughts as they happen or as they are remembered but don't make an effort to notice or not notice the content of the thoughts.
Notice what mental content is being reacted to, notice intentions.
When you merely witness what is in attention and realize that it is what it is then there cannot be any bias in that moment. Bias comes with consepts.

One of the most powerful and useful suttas is SN12.23 Dependent Origination.. SN12.23 lists the things you can observe while being rightfully mindful of biases and inclinations. For example, suppose a seductive thought comes to mind. Then one can use this sutta to find the roots of that craving:

I say that craving has a vital condition.
And what is it? You should say: ‘Feeling.’ … You should say: ‘Contact.’ … You should say: ‘The six sense fields.’ … You should say: ‘Name and form.’ … You should say: ‘Consciousness.’ … You should say: ‘Choices.’ … I say that choices have a vital condition, they don’t lack a vital condition. And what is the vital condition for choices? You should say: ‘Ignorance.’

One can look for and relinquish the feeling (e.g., "there was attraction" vs "I liked")
One can look for and relinquish the contact (e.g., "there was a sight" vs. "I saw")
One can look for and relinquish the six sense fields (e.g., "there was a sight" vs. "I saw softly billowing hair in the sunny breeze")
One can look for and relinquish the name and form (e.g., "healthy person" vs "beautiful blonde")
Etc.
In other words, use the the efforts to restrain, to give up, to develop, and to preserve

By not trying to avoid them .You let it all come, your very avoidance is recognized ,there is no certain state that needs to be achieved,because if you put that in your mind then always you will need to get to that state else you feel disconnected and thats called rapture .
The play of life is happening and at emptiness there is looking without a looker ,no conceptual understanding is forced ,the play is simply happening with all its colors .In Vipassana there is realization of that which is already happening no special state needs achievement no miracle ,just realization of the miracle that is already there ,when that realization is perfectly clear and not just a flash ,there is a new rooting in the emptiness instead of the identity and no need for methods.


text:
Is Buddhist practice a form of suicide?
I don't presume to understand Buddhism very well, but I'm trying to increase my understanding of the Dhamma, so please don't take what I write the wrong way. I'm not being disrespectful, because even the Buddha praised Sariputta for his unwillingness to accept teachings on faith alone, but rather from his own personal experience and understanding.
I sometimes feel like Buddhist practice is a slow form of suicide. Gradually, all interest in life, the world, family, friends, romantic interests, sense pleasures and even love itself needs to be ultimately abandoned and renounced. Nibbana is considered to be the ultimate freedom and highest happiness because it ends all suffering by extinguishing the mind from all forms of existence forever. This is denied as being annihilation because its argued that since there was never a true self to begin with, there was nothing to be annihilated. Nevertheless, we still experience a subjective experience of a self, otherwise, there would be no point in practicing the Eightfold Path.
Because only a deluded (unenlightened) mind could have any motivation to extinguish itself, craving Nibbana seems very much like a strong aversion to existence. Anyone who tries to logically extrapolate this to justify suicide as a means to accomplish the same result is denied because its argued that a desire for annihilation (via suicide) creates more bad karma which causes rebirth. Yet, desiring annihilation via the Eightfold Path is somehow exempt from this. If someone wants to remain in Samsara forever, it's very easy to do, no effort is required. But if someone craves to permanently self-destruct via Nibbana, they must be highly motivated and diligent in their efforts, perhaps spanning many lifetimes. Some people even abandon all worldly life to become monastics to accomplish this in the fastest and most direct manner possible. Thus, it seems that to remain in Samsara requires much less desire and effort than to seek one's own annihilation via the Eightfold Path.
Again, I realize people will argue that you can't annihilate what doesn't truly exist, but this existence which all sentient beings experience as subjective reality is all a deluded mind can ever know, so seeking to extinguish that reality seems like a desire for non-existence which is supposed to create more bad karma and rebirth. I honestly struggle to follow the logic of this.

Yes it is. Hence the Prophet Mohammed ' Die before your death'. But it's only the ego that needs to worry.

"Gradually, all interest in life, the world, family, friends, romantic interests, sense pleasures and even love itself needs to be ultimately abandoned and renounced." The more one tries to suppress one's desires, the more aggressively they will bounce back.

I don't presume to understand Buddhism very well

The above self-awareness is wise.

I sometimes feel like Buddhist practice is a slow form of suicide.

Its not. 'Dhamma' means that which 'supports' life therefore dhamma cannot be suicide.

Gradually, all interest in life, the world, family, friends, romantic interests, sense pleasures and even love itself needs to be ultimately abandoned and renounced.

Yes. Buddhism says to attain the higher pleasures of jhana & Nibbana, worldly pleasures must be abandoned.

Nibbana is considered to be the ultimate freedom and highest happiness because it ends all suffering by extinguishing the mind from all forms of existence forever.

No. Nibbana is the here-&-now freedom from the disturbing emotions of greed, hatred & delusion. As for the word "existence" ("bhava"), it means "ego-existence", which is the root of suffering.

This is denied as being annihilation because its argued that since there was never a true self to begin with, there was nothing to be annihilated.

Actually, the Buddha did say in one sutta he annihilates greed, hatred & self-delusion. But this does not involve suicide.

Nevertheless, we still experience a subjective experience of a self, otherwise, there would be no point in practicing the Eightfold Path.

It is the mind that suffers (when it ignorantly creates self-view) rather than a self that suffers. The end of suffering in Buddhism is called freedom of mind (ceto-vimutti) rather than freedom of self.

Because only a deluded (unenlightened) mind could have any motivation to extinguish itself

Nibbana is not the extinguishing of mind. Nibbana is the extinguishing of greed, hatred & delusion.

Nibbana seems very much like a strong aversion to existence.

No.

Anyone who tries to logically extrapolate this to justify suicide as a means to accomplish the same result is denied because its argued that a desire for annihilation (via suicide) creates more bad karma which causes rebirth.

Nibbana has no correlation to suicide. Nibbana is the freedom from the pain that motivates suicide.

Yet, desiring annihilation via the Eightfold Path is somehow exempt from this.

The idea that Nibbana is ending of mind is wrong understanding of Buddhism.

If someone wants to remain in Samsara forever, it's very easy to do, no effort is required.

Samsara means the continuous attaching to things as self. Refer to SN 22.99.

But if someone craves to permanently self-destruct via Nibbana

Craving does not bring Nibbana. Nibbana is found by ending craving.

they must be highly motivated and diligent in their efforts, perhaps spanning many lifetimes.

There is no evidence for many lifetimes. Such ideas are only found in a certain genre of texts and also later texts.

Thus, it seems that to remain in Samsara requires much less desire and effort than to seek one's own annihilation via the Eightfold Path.

Eightfold Path does not lead to annihilation of life. Only the annihilation of suffering.

existence

Existence (bhava) is an idea; the idea or thought "I exist". It does not mean the existence of the mind & body.

which all sentient beings

The Buddha never used the term "sentient beings". The Buddha taught "beings" are views or ideas born from strong attachment (refer to SN 23.2; SN 5.10).

experience as subjective reality is all a deluded mind can ever know, so seeking to extinguish that reality seems like a desire for non-existence which is supposed to create more bad karma and rebirth.

Suicide is an action born from pain & confusion. Suicide means the mind has not found peace from practising the Noble Eightfold Path. This is why suicide is regarded as bad karma because, instead of performing suicide, a person can practise the Path.

I honestly struggle to follow the logic of this.

This struggle exists because Buddhism has not been studied & learned accurately. Instead, your views about Buddhism, while very common, are the superstitions taught to children & village peasants. Since a Buddha is fully enlightened, obviously what a Buddha teaches cannot be illogical.

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

You have this turned around in your head (which is common enough), so let's go back to first principles. Buddhism does not suggest that:

[...] all interest in life, the world, family, friends, romantic
  interests, sense pleasures and even love itself needs to be ultimately
  abandoned and renounced.

Buddhism points out that we are discontent/unhappy (dukkha) because we form attachments (tānha) to our concepts of these things. It then offers the solution: that we should remove our attachments, and our discontent will disappear. That is how we come to experience the natural joy of life.
Now, monastic orders generally try to fast-track enlightenment, so they actively reject not just attachments themselves, but also the things that we are likely to become attached to. It's like a starvation diet, in which a monk (metaphorically) padlocks the refrigerator and refuses to go near anything indulgently delicious in order to remove the temptation to binge. People engage the monastic life when they have started to become acutely aware of the meaningless misery induced by attachments, and have an urgent desire to be liberated from them. To someone who is not as acutely aware of the delusional misery brought on by attachments, this monastic urge might appear suicidal, granted: that is the uncomprehending ego trying to make sense of liberation through the lens of its own attachments. But by that same token, the person seeking liberation sees 'normal' egoic activities — the prides, the jealousies, the angers, the clingy-obsessive needs to take and have and win — as suicidal, because those activities wound what's best and brightest in human beings. And who's more right in that assessment?
Of course, it's perfectly possible to become attached to the path of liberation. Ego is a tricky thing, and sometimes people translate their worldly attachments into spiritual attachments. That is a (possibly unavoidable) stage in development. But eventually one feels the urge to liberate oneself from the quest for liberation as well, and then the true joy of life shines through. That's when we can bring our lives back to the world without the baggage of attachments.

I'd argue that most people take up the practice of Buddhism in order to extinguish their own personal suffering and not "themselves" on a more general level.  The former are practicing the Great Way, the latter are far from it.  One is Buddhism, the other is delusion.  I think your question also leaves out the millions upon millions of people who practice Buddhism with no real interest in becoming Buddhas in this lifetime.  It's perfectly acceptable to practice simply with the goal of having wiser relationships with your family, friends, and romantic partners.  Rather than sever those bonds, Buddhism can help strengthen them.
But for those who go full bore into their practice, ask yourself, are they running from their existence or running toward something?   Is it the loss of self and the extinction of our petty little lives that motivates us to sit for hours on end in a freezing monastery?  Of course not.  Practice brings joy.  Practice brings freedom.  Practice brings wisdom, compassion, and insight.  The more you taste of these fruits of practice, the more you come to realize that they are far more subtle and delectable than anything the world has to offer.
But it's also silly to think that to pursue enlightenment means that all of our mundane concerns for the world disappear.  The world is full of monks living in community who love their dharma brothers dearly.  It is also full of Bodhisattva householders who face emptiness in their day to day lives caring for the needy, loving their children, or  cleaning their toilets.  Nirvana and samsara are inseparable.  The world of red dust is the universal Bodhimandala - the circle where we all may find awakening.  What can we ever hope to extinguish when everything is Buddha?

Let me try to answer this quickly.
I sometimes feel like Buddhist practice is a slow form of suicide. Gradually, all interest in life, the world, family, friends, romantic interests, sense pleasures and even love itself needs to be ultimately abandoned and renounced.
I think that sabbe sankhara anicca -- compound things are impermanent -- is a fact of life or a law of nature.
Sooner or later these things -- family and so on -- become no more, whether or not you agree or approve of that.
I think that Buddhist doctrine might help in several ways --

To cope when it (i.e. cessation) eventually happens
To decide whether you want to do it again, after cessation has happened
To live more in the present, with less attachment and upset and hang-ups

That's true in at least two time-scales (possibly others too):

Over decades (people die)
Over seconds ("becoming" is unsatisfactory)

Nibbana is considered to be the ultimate freedom and highest happiness because it ends all suffering by extinguishing the mind from all forms of existence forever.
I think nibbana is extinguishing "bad habits" and tendencies of various types, and not extinguishing "the mind".
This is denied as being annihilation because its argued that since there was never a true self to begin with, there was nothing to be annihilated.
I think the doctrine says there is cessation -- and that what ceases isn't fit to be viewed as "self", that viewing it as self is unsatisfactory/suffering.
Nevertheless, we still experience a subjective experience of a self, otherwise, there would be no point in practicing the Eightfold Path.
That may be true? See the answers to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
Because only a deluded (unenlightened) mind could have any motivation to extinguish itself, craving Nibbana seems very much like a strong aversion to existence.
I'm not sure of the logic there -- "Because only a dirty (muddy) boy could have any motive to wash himself, craving a shower seems very much like a strong aversion to existence" -- is that right?
Furthermore, admittedly, that (i.e. "I am dirty") might be at odds with Huineng's realizations but apparently that's the enlightened view -- the "unenlightened" mind might seek an end to suffering rather than an end to existence.
Yet, desiring annihilation via the Eightfold Path is somehow exempt from this.
I think the four noble truths suggest that the eightfold path is for the cessation of suffering and craving and clinging -- not "desiring annihilation" but, canonically, "to live the holy life".
But if someone craves to permanently self-destruct via Nibbana, they must be highly motivated and diligent in their efforts, perhaps spanning many lifetimes.
It's not "self-destruction" but for example eradication of "conceit"-- I think that is the logic!

Buddha rejected both eternalism and nihilism. The object of suicide is to end the suffering. However, you can not end the suffering of that method. The worst-case scenario is you miss the opportunity as a human and be reborn in the animal realm.
On the other hand, when you attain Nibbana, you have eliminated the self-identification. Hence when you are an Arahant there is no person to die. However, only five aggregate disintegrate.
Anyway, your question is a very good one. However, you might not ask this question when you become an Arahant. Perhaps even a Sotapanna will not ask this question.

Who told you to think about suicide? Who told you to become buddhist? What's wrong with your current life : if nothing then you wouldn't even dare to think about going to a city in which you are not interested ? Why are you even thinking about annihilation/suicide type words : curious OR time-pass OR trying to make a joke ?
Answer :
You wanna see or live with truth .You wanna know difference between right and wrong. Does +ve and -ve OR right & wrong  even matters?
Well, such start of awareness only comes to some people.
Don't think about buddhism or buddha . Buddha was around 2700/- years ago , a PAST . You are PRESENT.
Lots of changes have been made in teachings of Buddha. 99% misunderstanding exists .
Only 4 Noble Truths ::

Suffering within body/mind ,
It's cause ,
It's ANNIHILATION /END ,
Way/Path to & maintain this endness forever.

And
5 Percepts :: no adultery , no killing , no telling lie ,no stealing & no alcohalism.
are CORRECT , CORE & ORIGINAL buddha teachings.
Just stop arguing with others & start your journey within your body .Lots of meditation techniques are there which try to maintain above 5 Percepts & try to reach on same understanding of suffering ,basic one is to maintain continuous awareness of  in-out breath .
8 fold path might be correct or NOT , find out yourself.Cause every 1 buddhist monk among 10,000 ones will give different elaboration on 8 fold path.

I’m not a monk, but a lay person who didn’t realise until a month or so ago that the survival technique I’d taught myself from when I was a small child ( meditation and disciplining my mind to master its own chatter) was the reason I was able to connect with people, my senses, the world ... in a way that I could never have experienced had I not done so. Rather than extinguishing the flame, my amateur yet effective methods (that I clearly see now, duplicate many Buddhist methods ) for releasing myself from the self , are what have kept me from suffering, going deeper, seeing more... really living. I’m alive to the point I could never have been without my practise. Your question is a good one but it’s very subjective. I wish you well


text:
Question about the Pitāpūtrasamāgama-sūtra
Is the pitāpūtrasamāgama-sūtra, a Mahayana sutra or does it occur in the nikayas or somewhere else? What is the historically accepted date of this sutra? Does this sutra precede Nagarjuna or is it a post-Nagarjuna sutra?

The Pitāpūtrasamāgama-sūtra is most likely based on some earlier Abhidharmic writings from one or two centuries after the Buddha’s death. Multiple versions of this sutra have been recovered, perhaps the most famous one from the Ratnakuta collection. The dating of this collection is uncertain, but the collection is mentioned in the Nikāyasaṅgraha, a Theravadin text. It states the collection was compiled by the Caityaka, which had branched off the Mahāsāṃghika school by the 1st or 2nd century BCE.
Nagarjuna lived somewhere between 150-250 CE, so the text very likely predates him.

Thank you for the answer. Are you suggesting that the text was composed in the immediate period after branching off of Caityaka or earlier?

It's impossible to make that distinction based on the historical evidence. Also, consider the Ratnakuta is just one collection that contained a version of the Pitāpūtrasamāgama (albeit the one we can date most reliably AFAIK)

Is it possible that the Pitāpūtrasamāgama is post-nagarjuna or may be around the same time as him? You may wonder why I am asking this. I am trying to find out where the doctrine of two truths originally came from. Trying to find out where it was first explicitly propounded.

As I mentioned, historical evidence indicates the Pitāpūtrasamāgama is not post-Nagarjuna or from the same time. It is also not the origin of the doctrine of two thruths, early references to this concept can be found in early Indian Buddhism


text:
Question about the Samādhirāja-sūtra
I have a similar question about the Samādhirāja-sūtra.
Is the Samādhirāja-sūtra, a mahAyAnA sUtra or does it occur in the nikAyas or somewhere else? What is the historically accepted date of this sUtra? Does this sUtra precede nAgArjuna or is it a post-nAgArjuna sUtra?

What is the reason for the strange edits? I just followed itrans.

I struggled to read the questions. I assume this forum is in the English language.

But sUtra, nAgArjuna etc are not English names. So I used itrans. If you struggled to read the question, how were you able to edit it by removing itrans?

With great difficulty.

Then you should learn itrans and not unnecessarily edit questions. Looks like the people who answered here had no issues.

It's unconventional to use capitals letters in that way. The usual way is to add an accent like "sūtra", or use simple lower-case without an accent like "sutra".

@ChrisW It is itrans scheme - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITRANS

So you've said -- The need for a simple encoding scheme that used only keys available on an ordinary keyboard was felt in the early days of the RMIM newsgroup where lyrics and trivia about Indian popular movie songs was being discussed. It's the first I've seen it, though -- I think that, what I described is the convention on this site and elsewhere, for example 'Mahayana' and 'Mahāyāna' on Wikipedia -- I think the more-conventional version is easier to read and write (so if you want to use that, I think that's what almost everyone else does).

@ChrisW itrans is easier for me, since I use normal keyboard. Simpler than others. Unless I copy paste, I cannot use other schemes.

Almost everyone uses a normal keyboard. So people write unaccented text, like "sutra" and "mahayana".

It's a Mahayana sutra. Info. about the Samadhiraja sutra from the wiki page here. Full infos. and whole sutra is available here.

Thank you. Is it pre-nAgArjuna or post-nAgArjuna?

Wiki says dating to c. 2nd century CE. Wiki says Nāgārjuna (c. 150 – c. 250 CE).

Obviously its not in the Nikayas, per Wikipedia.


text:
Ultimate Reality

Conditioned reality, the psycho-physical interdependence, only exist
  because we experience it. This is how I interpreted Yuttadhammo's
  videos on Ultimate Reality. Is this a correct interpretation and if
  so, how can I apply this to my meditation practice?

Metta!

What is the Pali word for ultimate reality?

@SarathW Paramattha Sacca is the Pali word for ultimate reality.

It does not appear to be found in the sutta.

Ultimatly things exist as raw experience  moving through the sense doors.
Bhante Yuttadhammo talked a lot over many videos about ultimate reality and other useful teachings from many angles so beginners and maybe intermediate level students could understand. I personally had to listen over and over and over and over again while practicing the meditation over and over and over again.

How do you apply this to meditation practice?

You purposely pay attention to whatever is in awareness coming through the sense doors moment by moment. The smallest mind moment may be something like one thousandth of a second of attention and in that moment there is just one atomic particle of reality to experience that is just what it is or ultimate reality. There are no consepts or conditions at this level. Concepts and conditions would need the mind to take another moment or more to gather a combination of momentary experiences, memories and other  mental functions  to form a consept or condition in the mind. Yeah, consepts would need some memories of previous moments that don't actually exist anymore, this may give you insight as to why consepts don't exist like we feel they exist.

As i understand the expression used by Ven Yuttadhamma means that the six or one of the six sensory expressions are 'ultimate reality' and however these get objectified or 'labeled/conceptualized' by intellect is 'conceptual'.
I don't know if Ven Sir would approve of the meaning thus drawn out to be agreeable but think that as i explained it, it can be quite misleading.
The problem one is bound to run into is dealing with phenomena such as 'contact'. Is that also conceptual? if one answes that it is conceptual then one will have to say that sensory expression itself is conceptual and if one says that contact is ultimate reality one will have to admit that there is no basis for this statement because contact is not a sensory expression and must therefore be excluded per definition.
If concept is per definition going to be that which is mind made then 'manopubbangama' will make everything included.
It isn't totally useless because there are demonstrable classes of abstraction and understanding how abstraction works is very useful but this system of language is mostly used by people studying general semantics. Buddha did not use it for a reason.

...the psycho-physical interdependence, ONLY EXIST because we experience it.

Nama-rupa is experienced due to consciousness (SN 12.10; SN 12.65; SN 12.67). However, nama-rupa can exist when we do not experience it. For example, I do not experience the nama-rupa (minds & bodies) in Alaska or Mongolia however they obviously exist outside of my experience.

Conditioned reality... ONLY EXIST because we experience it.

I have not read this in the Pali suttas. In fact, suttas such as AN 3.136 & SN 12.20 refute this Creationalist belief. I only read this is what Brahma believes, as follows:

The Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.'
DN 11

How can I apply this to my meditation practice?

What is written in the question is unrelated to meditation practise. Meditation is about developing calmness, peace, good-will, compassion and discerning the causes & cessation of suffering, impermanence & not-self. Meditation is not about believing in Brahma or God that is Ultimate Reality.

I find this an odd answer. If meditation is about acquiring an understanding of the ultimate reality would this not make the question relevant to practice? Perhaps you mean that speculation is not relevant, which I'd agree is inarguable. ,.

Who's talking about God?  How is dhamma not related to meditation practice? You mean what you are saying only applies to non meditation practice? "I do not experience the nama-rupa in Alaska however they obviously exist outside of my experience." Imagine the Buddha answering
"Well come on, you know, it's just obvious". I don't think it is obvious that Alaska exists probably because it is a worldly concept. I respect where your coming from but Idk about this...

This comment is not related to Buddhism. It is mixing up the philosophies.