text:
Do any modern ("free-thinking") monks or monastic orders discard elements of the Vinaya?
Yesterday I spent some time studying one of the Vinayas and, completely honestly, I couldn't help but think that some of the rules were shockingly superstitious even by the standards of most of the world religions of the time.  For example, rules that emphasize non-violence to such an extent that they forbid monks and nuns from slicing or peeling their own fruits and vegetables.  The food, completely vegetarian, must be "slaughtered" by a lay donor before the monks are allowed to break it or bite it.
I couldn't help but think that such rules actually harm the Sangha by preventing them from operating in present-day capitalistic societies, where self-sufficiency is highly respected and prized.  (And, potentially unsanitary?  Modern churches, by contrast, issue each congregant a separate cup and communion wafer, even though the disciples shared a single loaf and chalice.)
Other parts of the vinaya were surprisingly in-tune with modern sensibilities of social justice and  "Twitter feminism", such as the rule forbidding monks from teaching nuns without being first asked.  #DontMansplainDharmma  Or the rule that a monk must first ask permission of another monk (trigger warning) before reminding him or politely asking him about a possible rule violation.
It made me wonder if there are modern monks and monastic orders that explicitly (and unapologetically) reject the obsolete parts of the vinaya while conscientiously obeying the beneficial parts.  Granted, which parts are obsolete is open to interpretation.
And secondly, I am aware that the text of the vinaya forbids monks from criticizing vinaya or requesting changes to it, especially for the cause of expediency or attracting new followers.  The Buddha himself authored vinaya and expected it to be followed.  Is it permissible for a Buddhist lay follower, one who has taken refuge and has chosen to follow the Eightfold Path without picking and choosing, to discuss certain aspects of the vinaya in a skeptical light, as I have just done?  Or to describe certain texts as mythological or historical disciples as impure?  I have not taken refuge in the Three Jewels and will not unless I can do so in total sincerity and a pure conscience.

CASE 16. UMMON'S SEVEN-FOLD ROBE
Ummon said, "The world is vast and wide; why do you put on
  your seven-piece robe at the sound of the bell?"
Mumon's Comment: When one meditates and studies Zen, one extinguishes
  the attachment to sound and color. Even though some have attained
  enlightenment by hearing a sound, or an awakening by seeing a color,
  these are ordinary matters. Those who intend to master Zen freely
  master sounds or colors, see clearly the nature of things and every
  activity of mind. Even though this is so, now tell me: Does the sound
  come to the ear, or does the ear go to the sound? But when both sound
  and silence are forgotten, what would you call this state? If you
  listen with your ear, it is hard to hear truly, but if you listen with
  your eye, then you begin to hear properly.
If you are awakened, all things are one and the same, If you are
  not awakened, all things are varied and distinguished. If you are
  not awakened, all things are one and the same, If you are
  awakened, all things are varied and distinguished.

You're being way too literal.  The continued execution of religious prescriptions rarely has anything to do with the more or situation that first gave rise to it.  Tradition carries it forward, but not without it first establishing something far more interesting in the process.  Each training rule is an opportunity to subjugate the ego.  Whether it's a matter of how many bowls you own, how you wear your robe, or how you address members of the opposite sex, each instance bends the will away from one's personal concerns and toward the dharma.  In following these laws, we forgot ourselves.  That forgetting is what's important; most of the rules themselves are almost arbitrary (although let me be clear - some exist that are utterly mandatory).
There's a really great movie entitled Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring.  If you get a chance to watch it, pay close attention to the doors.  Every doorway at the monastery depicted in the film can be walked around.  They are just doors built in empty space.  They don't take one through a gate or into a sealed off room.  In practice, there is absolutely no need to use any of them.  But all of the monks do (and poignantly, those who have gone astray do not).  Training rules are no different than the doors depicted in that film.  In fact, the rules are doors themselves.  Each one is an almost arbitrary limit that we place on ourselves.  Nevertheless, when we choose to take up these kinds of restrictions, they convey us into rooms we would not otherwise have been able to reach.
Only when we carefully put on our seven piece robe can we pass through the door that leads to the throne room of the Buddhas.  What does it mean to put on that robe?

In accordance with the discipline a bhikkhu is prohibited from eating
  fruit or vegetables containing fertile seeds. So when offering such
  things, a lay person can either remove the seeds, or make the fruit
  allowable by slightly damaging it with a knife. This is done by
  piercing the fruit and saying at the same time "kappiya.m bhante"
  (meaning "I make this allowable, sir.").

There is a rule for monks to not damage fertile seeds. This makes the monk both respect life and dependent on laypeople for their food. This also makes the layperson think about their actions.

I couldn't help but think that such rules actually harm the Sangha by preventing them from operating in present-day capitalistic societies

Present-day environmentally destructive capitalistic societies both tamper with nature's seed stock & diversity and even hold commercial control over seeds & also GMO seeds. The Vinaya rules offer an example of the importance of protecting seeds & seed stocks.

Other parts of the vinaya were surprisingly in-tune with modern sensibilities of social justice and "Twitter feminism", such as the rule forbidding monks from teaching nuns without being first asked.

Women are guests or visitors to the monastic community because, instead of starting their own monastic order, they asked to join the men. Refer to AN 8.51. The men did the hard yards of establishing Buddhism and gain gifts of property for monasteries then the women asked to join. While only senior monks can administer the nuns, it appears the nuns are expected to receive teachings of monks each fortnight. The scriptures say: "Each fortnight the nuns should expect two things from the community of monks: the date of the sabbath and visiting for advice."
It is also ironic radical feminist Western nuns claiming equality & independence also complain when they can't receive teachings from monks. In short, the Buddhist teachings were created by men. All Buddhist teachings are male teachings because the Buddha was a man. The scriptures (MN 115) clearly say an original Buddha cannot be a woman.
It is a right view in Buddhism to acknowledge there is mother & father in life. Any woman that cannot acknowledge & have gratitude towards good selfless deeds performed by men cannot be a Buddhist because they will have wrong view.

Is it permissible for a Buddhist lay follower, one who has taken
  refuge and has chosen to follow the Eightfold Path
without picking and choosing, to discuss certain aspects of the vinaya in a skeptical light, as I have just done?

The Noble Eightfold Path includes "celibacy" in its 5th factor, called "abrahmacariyā". To quote:

And what is right action?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto?
Avoiding killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual activity.
Yā kho, bhikkhave, pāṇātipātā veramaṇī, adinnādānā veramaṇī, abrahmacariyā veramaṇī—
This is called right action.
ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, sammākammanto.

Therefore, only relatively few laypeople follow the Noble Eightfold Path. As for the Vinaya, it is not for laypeople. However, Buddhist laypeople should at least follow the Five Precepts but are not expected to follow the Noble Eigthfold Path.
The Vinaya is for monks & nuns. It is only necessary for a layperson to know Vinaya if they must regularly interact with a monk or a nun. This said, if this where the case, the monk or nun would instruct the layperson about the relevant Vinaya rules a monk or nun must uphold.
For example, if a layperson irregularly offers a monk or nun fruit with seeds, while I personally don't know the exact rules, I imagine the monk or nun will either refuse the offering or, otherwise, accept the fruit but not eat it (depending on the circumstances).

Or to describe certain texts as mythological or historical disciples
  as impure?

The Vinaya is designed for purity. This topic has not yet identified anything "impure" about the Vinaya.

I have not taken refuge in the Three Jewels and will not unless I can
  do so in total sincerity and a pure conscience.

Buddhism is not suitable for everyone. The Buddha said he only intended to teach those with little dust in the eyes. The Buddha often called his teaching 'Dhamma-Vinaya'. The Three Jewels include Vinaya, which promotes harmlessness & renunciation for monks & nuns and, most importantly, ensures appropriate protective boundaries between monastics & laypeople.
For example, contrary to Christianity, the Vinaya ensures there can be no protection of pedophiles and other sexual abusers within the Sangha. Unlike Christianity, which often believes in must exercise Christ's Forgiveness towards a sexually active priest, the Vinaya offers no such option. A monk or nun engaging in any external sexual act is immediately defeated &, when discovered, expelled from the Sangha.

potentially unsanitary?

The life of a monk is to dwell without fear. Monks don't check their alms food for poison, for example.

preventing them from operating in present-day capitalistic societies

Is that not the point of at least some of parts of the Vinaya?

Raga (Sanskrit, also rāga; Pali lobha; Tibetan: 'dod chags) is a
Buddhist concept of character affliction or poison referring to any
form of "greed, sensuality, lust, desire" or "attachment to a sensory
object".... The Abhidharma-samuccaya states:
What is craving (raga)? It is attachment to the three realms of existence. Its function consists of engendering suffering.[7]

Raga is said to arise from the identification of the self as being separate from everything else.

Alas, I only have that book in sanskrit.

I couldn't help but think that some of the rules were shockingly superstitious even by the standards of most of the world religions of the time. For example, rules that emphasize non-violence to such an extent that they forbid monks and nuns from slicing or peeling their own fruits and vegetables.
Just historically perhaps that is a middle (i.e. less extreme) way, compared to the doctrine of the Jains, which had started one generation before.
Is it permissible for a Buddhist lay follower, one who has taken refuge and has chosen to follow the Eightfold Path without picking and choosing, to discuss certain aspects of the vinaya in a skeptical light, as I have just done?
Well I think you have asked politely enough for this site, anyway. :-)
I'm mindful of this line from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha (DN 16)

"If it is desired, Ananda, the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the lesser and minor rules.

The footnote there says,

Since Ananda, at this point, did not ask what the minor rules were, the Sangha decided not to abolish any of the rules of the Vinaya.

Apparently they didn't agree that some were "minor" and/or which were minor and, out of respect, kept them all as-is.
Within a school I think that the Vinaya famously doesn't change -- it's part of what defines "a tradition", for example "Theravada". So much so that there's even something, I forget what, which existing monks may do when they go to a new monastery, in case the rules at their previous monastery hadn't been followed correctly -- and so they take on the rules afresh, just to be sure -- conversely some might, even rightly, not trust the compliance-with-the-rules of other places/groups.
Comparatively:

Japan might be exceptional or extreme in the non-standardness of its Vinaya -- where senior monks are allowed to marry. That might be because there was at least one episode in Japanese history where Buddhism was forcibly altered by the state.
The Tibetan Vinaya is not unlike the Theravada -- it might be a superset? -- it too includes rules about "seeds of a plant" for example.
I don't know about (non-Japanese) Zen, generally. I get the impression that the discipline in Plum Village (is that traditional Vietnamese I don't know) seems joyous for and welcoming of nuns, but who knows -- other nuns with any online presence that I've noticed might be joyful albeit experiencing some difficulties too, maybe it's something to "see for yourself".

Now in practice and not just in theory:

If you read something like The Broken Buddha you can see there are some monks and monasteries who flout the rules, perhaps openly or perhaps hypocritically (monks don't necessarily welcome that book having been published as some might interpret it as bringing the whole Sangha into disrepute and/or harming the faith of laypeople).
Sometimes there are controversies like bhikkhuni ordination for example.

I have not taken refuge in the Three Jewels and will not unless I can do so in total sincerity and a pure conscience.
It might help to understand that Sangha has at least two distinct meanings:

The groups of all presently-ordained people, monks and nuns
The "noble" sangha is the group of all present and past enlightened and semi-enlightened people -- including for example "Sotāpanna", monastic and/or lay

Conversely one of the monastic rules forbids monks from claiming attainment in front of laypeople -- in case laypeople will prefer (to gives alms to) the more enlightened,  leaving others with no support.
Perhaps it's our duty, as people in general and even as laypeople, to be careful about what teaching and teachers we accept.
But I suspect that we shouldn't be too critical of the Sangha in general nor of (venerable) members of the sangha in particular, even if one were to believe that one might have seen some fault.
"Pure conscience" might mean that it's not an unvirtuous or unskilful action on your part, i.e. not something you regret or have remorse for.

Householder, it is good to take not refuge into fools.
Sn 1.5: Cunda Sutta — To Cunda
And obliviously, like most, you also already got corrupted by "modern and smart" monks of the last kind.
Of course one is free to join one or another alternative rebel group of thieves, like here, and share the ways of corruption with each other.
A "free thinking" monk isn't a monk but a fool, isn't even a disciple, since he/she hasn't gone to refuge obiviously but runs his ego-trip for gains and honor under monks and householder. So their follower are...
A wise thinking monks takes even the smallest rule more serious and reflects it's meaning also in other areas then it that of the stories and tends to how to make no mistake rather then usual "how to gain what I like in using ways around".
f looking for the "headquarter of missleaders" and thieves, just go to https://discourse.suttacentral.net/ and find all what a lost wishes to gain for his further lose.
(Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, trade... but "just" for escape from this corrupt wheel)


text:
Most beneficial Buddhist organizations and monastic orders?
My understanding is that, in order to hear the correct dhamma, one must hear it from somebody who displays the outward marks of humility, generosity and selflessness.  Otherwise, one cannot be sure one is hearing the correct dhamma.
Are there any Buddhist organizations or monastic orders that teach dhamma to lay believers, and do humanitarian work, either in poor countries, or for the general public where they are based?  I'm thinking things like refugee resettlement, addiction treatment and recovery, fundraising for medical research or vaccination drives, tutoring special needs children, etc.  Can you recommend/provide links for your "favorite" organization?
And secondly, is there a "better" or different karma for donating to Buddhist humanitarian work conducted by celibate monks, vs donating to Buddhist humanitarian work conducted by lay followers?  Is there a better or different karma for hearing the dhamma taught by celibate monks, vs hearing the dhamma taught by experienced and intelligent lay followers?
(Having been raised an evangelical Protestant, I was taught to believe in the "priesthood of believers" and that, for example, bread for communion can be consecrated by any Christian, not by priests only.)

There is only one and that is called the Savaka Sangha, the good following community of monks. The rest are traders, fakes and thieves. As for the ideal community the Ariya Sangha, householder could by following the first, become also part of it. See at Into the Stream on how to become part of the Noble ones. Not easy for modern woman, of cause. Man like a like.

Very useful for understanding: Serving Dishes and may householder take care since modern woman are easy lend toward very bad conducts risking a lot.

My understanding is that, in order to hear the correct dhamma, one must hear it from somebody who displays the outward marks of humility, generosity and selflessness. Otherwise, one cannot be sure one is hearing the correct dhamma.

The correct dhamma is related to the teaching rather than to the quality of the speaker. For example, Christianity often preaches about humility, generosity and selflessness but obviously has a different dharma (teaching) than Buddhism.

Are there any Buddhist organizations or monastic orders that teach dhamma to lay believers

Yes. Buddhism Stack Exchange and Dhammadhatu is most beneficial.

and do humanitarian work, either in poor countries

My impression of Buddhist countries (such as Thailand & Burma) is, prior to Western contact, there was relatively little need for 'humanitarian work' because, despite inequities, most people had sufficient requisites of life. For example, Thailand is not a country historically known for poverty and it is well-documented Burma was a country of great domestic abundance before the British raped & pillaged it economy & politically.
I think an examination of history might find 'Christian humanitarian charity' goes hand in hand with Western (Christian) colonialism & exploitation. For example, while I know little about if  British colonialism contributed to poverty in India, I do know the British created a man-made famine in Bengal during WW2, which killed around 2 million Indians. Even my own father immigrated to Australia because of the poverty Britain created in his country of birth.

I'm thinking things like refugee resettlement

Despite your obvious good intentions, refugee resettlement is generally the addressing of a symptom rather than the addressing of a cause. For example, in my lifetime, there have been Vietnamese, Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi & Syrian refugees in my country of birth, each caused by American wars (directly or indirectly) towards those peoples.
It is well-known in Western history Christian missionaries quickly followed Western conquerors, which includes in the recent Iraq War.
Despite your obvious good intentions, you appear to be imputing a Christian Western Semitic paradigm onto Buddhism.
Unlike Judaism, Christianity & Islam, Buddhism has no doctrine of imperialism, conversion, world salvation & world conquest.

addiction treatment and recovery

In Thailand, there are lots of traditional addiction treatment and recovery using traditional herbal medicine, where monks are involved (even though Vinaya appears to forbid this), such as Wat Thramkrabok

fundraising for medical research or vaccination drives, tutoring special needs children, etc. Can you recommend/provide links for your "favorite" organization?

Again, despite your obvious good intentions, you appear to be imputing a Christian Western Semitic paradigm onto Buddhism.
Each nation has evolved, slower or quicker, technologically in its history and each nation obviously does its best to advance what Buddhism calls the "four requisites" of food, clothing, shelter & medicine. This said, while Buddhism clearly teaches medicine is a human life requisite, it is not the role of Buddhist monks to develop medicine and medical technology.

Why did buddha forbid addiction treatment?(I am assuming they are not making money out of it)

The monks Vinaya forbids monks acting as doctors, that is all.

I think an examination of history might find 'Christian humanitarian charity' goes hand in hand with Western (Christian) colonialism & exploitation. I think that charity started while Christians were still being persecuted by the Romans. Even after Christianity became a State religion I gather that Christian charity versus cruel economic exploitation might have been virtues or vices of different people or different times -- see e.g. Bartolomé de las Casas here and/or here.

I'm not sure that the Thai monks do act as doctors -- perhaps all they prescribe to addicts is seclusion and withdrawal -- and kindness, morality, a bit of tough love possibly -- I haven't been there. :-)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
sensations as meditation object
Can sensations be a meditation object like breath? if yes how do I practice meditations with it?

Vedananupassana (contemplation of feelings) is part of the Satipatthana. There are 3 types of feelings:

Pleasant feeling or sensation,
Unpleasant feeling or sensation,
Neutral feeling or sensation.

In Vedananupassana you focus your mind on the sensation to see how and when it arises and how and when it passes away, keeping your mind steadfastly equanimous without getting attached to the pleasant sensations or averse to the painful sensation or ignorant of the transient nature of the neutral sensations.
This is a very concise description of the technique. It is best you take a course to learn it properly. Following are some pointers:

https://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html

Yes, of course, anything that is experienced can be an object like thoughts, seeing, hearing and the detection of bodily sensations.
Moment by moment the sensations can be  witnessed  in the body and the reactions to those sensations are witnessed in the mind.
At the moment there is witnessing(mindfulness) there can't be reactions.
Reactions are put into 3 categories:

Disliking, anger, sadness, fear & in general, a pushing of the sensation away from being experienced more.
Liking, greed, attraction & in general, a pulling of the sensation towards being experienced more.
Neither pushing the sensations away or pulling the sensations towards what is being experienced.

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


text:
What happens after anger disappears?
I practiced meditation few years ago,had reached a state where experience consepte of "I"was an illusion.when was Illusion  of the I disappeared anger disappeared altogether. But  I can't  meditate now.It is totally  different. Now wondering thoughts are less.what shall I do ?

I did vipassana meditation. Sometimes I felt iam not attracted to the thoughts which was coming to the mind. Once I thought it was the bavanga citta.

my two cents is that one time during what i would consider "meditation" i observed anger and later wondered if it would ceae altogether. but it didn't: i often get angry still

If you can give more details on the type of meditation and your current situation -- like anger, and whether 'I' is still there or not -- helpers here might reach you.
Assuming that you are doing sensation-Vipassana, anger and 'I' have a comeback. As you mentioned, "less wondering thoughts" means that now you are able to see thoughts too.
It's a progress in meditation -- things coming and passing by, and you are aware of them. Your main focus must be to alter the defiled behaviour pattern by accepting the sensations and  thoughts as they are, and maintaining noble silence in front of them (this part of maintaining noble••• comes under practice of Citta-Vipassana).
What comes after anger?
Anger generates heat in body. Heat is due to sankharas. After anger seems to pass-by, leftover sankharas induce (or to be precise, divert mind to) other defiled characteristics like lust, memory-loss, frustration etc. These defilements, if  remain unseen wisely, enables anger to have a comeback.

``"Now, O bhikkhus, I say to you that these teachings of which I have direct knowledge and which I have made known to you — these you should thoroughly learn, cultivate, develop, and frequently practice, that the life of purity may be established and may long endure, for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well being, and happiness of gods and men.
  "And what, bhikkhus, are these teachings? They are the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four constituents of psychic power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of enlightenment, and the Noble Eightfold Path. These, bhikkhus, are the teachings of which I have direct knowledge, which I have made known to you, and which you should thoroughly learn, cultivate, develop, and frequently practice...." -DN16

The training doesn't change. The only peculiar part is when one has had the entering into a cessation attainment, emerging from that there is a dilemma as to whether one should practice that absorbtion as fruition re-attainment by making specific determinations or to keep training as before.


text:
Secular, Tradition or the pathway of the branches
We come to understand the groundwork of Buddhism, along with traditional beliefs/traditions based on what the mind may declare, what tradition may teach, what the sutra may declare. Beyond the  Tripitaka, is not much of what we rely on for Buddhism outside the scope of true enlightenment? In short, in today's world doesn't secular Buddhism better fit reality?

Please provide appropriate Title for your question.

"Which school of Buddhism (e.g. secular or traditional) is better?" is considered an unanswerable (or unaskable) question on this site. I don't even understand the question, so I cannot reword it.

Thats a valid question: "In short, in today's world doesn't secular Buddhism better fit reality?", just chance the question title. The foulish opinion based killing is teally useless and just opinion. Not to speak about Dana at the right time: new arriver.

Should a side be limited by the not understanding of a non refugee?

"is considered an unanswerable (or unaskable) question on this site"... the Buddha was very clear on it. Unless not wishing to produce fakes or spread lies public, there isn't and reason for such statements.

@SamanaJohann The site's or community's policy was to not invite questions of the form, "Which school of Buddhism is better?", or, "Is school A better than school B?", which is what this question seems to be asking.

The OP doesn't ask that. And this former community is long extinguished as well. "Seems", is plane opinion, or? So what all that foundation less burden of questioner and those willing to answer, good careholder. So good to remove this personal opinion censuring.

"In short, in today's world (todays BSE) doesn't secular Buddhism (opinions of ourtsider moderator) better fit reality?"

You know, speaking personally, I've never been able to make hats work. I've tried on a lot of different hats, but no matter what, when I put on a hat I end up looking like the world's biggest doof. Some people really rock hats; hats suit them. I have to respect that, but honestly it doesn't help answer the question of whether or not we should all wear hats. It's a contentious point.
We could argue about that, I suppose, but while we do the meal is getting cold.
We all need to develop discrimination: to know what is important, and what is not, and to avoid getting tangled up in the latter. No one can discriminate for us. Spiritual traditions can help keep us on the path or hinder our development; secular independence can free us to advance or get us lost in the woods. Wear a hat, don't wear a hat; in the end it's irrelevant, because a hat has nothing to do with awakening. Either way, it's just a style we adopt for the sake of our egos while we walk the path, and sooner or later we're going to want to slough off matters of style.

I would like to have a clear definition of 'secular Buddhism' as understood by the OP. I can make little sense of the phrase.
From the Wiki definition I can see no difference between 'secular' Buddhism and Mahayana. It seems to be a phrase used by those who believe Buddhism is about religious beliefs and the supernatural. As this is a wrong view the phrase seems redundant and meaningless.
I would normally assume that someone who calls themselves a secular Buddhist has almost no understanding of it.
As for Buddhism not being fit for today's world the idea is ridiculous. It's the same world it always was. I really cannot imagine how a modern human with internet access can confuse Buddhism with religious beliefs and dogma and oppose this to secularism. It tells us something about how little effort many people put into understanding philosophy and religion before leaping to conclusions.

secular means related, objected fot the world (sense) till even denying that there is something beyond. May it be of use to improve the answer.

@SamanaJohann 'Secular' means not connected with religious or spiritual matters. So much for secular Buddhism. .

First adking for defenition and than being the smart one. That's secular.

@SamanaJohann - I wish I could comprehend your comments.

@PeterJ I think it was criticism, or at least reflexive -- "first you (Peter, in your answer) ask for a definition, then (later in the answer and/or comment) you act as if you're the smart one ... and there, that's 'secular' for you, that's what secular is/means/is like."

@Chis - Yes, I was being disingenuous. I suggested that a definition for secularism would be an improvement to the question. I did not say I did not know the definition. I'm mightily fed-up with the constant garbled and needlessly critical posts from this poster. I find it difficult to believe he is a Buddhist and i am happy to let him know this. I'm close to leaving the site so don't mind getting into trouble over this. It is unacceptable. . .     .

I suspended his account again about an hour ago -- but thank you for the feedback. If there's any conflict between you again in future then I might to suggest you just flag it for a moderator.

@Chris- I consider some of this to be my fault. I should be able to deal with these things better. I know it is easy to post idiotic comments and I do it all too regularly, which is why I may leave, but it's the ill-will in this case that I find unacceptable.

@PeterJ I don't know that it's ill-will. I suspect (I get the impression that) he thinks we're all highly deluded for not being monks ourselves and for conversing about Buddhism here instead of in a more formal/appropriate/traditional place i.e. a monastery, including with our necessary/proper respect for monks -- which is arguably for our welfare and not ill-willed. Nevertheless ad hominem comments are forbidden on this site, hence my suspending his user account, and not for the first time.

I was offline for a few days (travelling with my mum for a funeral), and found dozens of comments when I got back yesterday, and here's me trying to sort the aftermath. If anything like this does happen again I think you can just flag it -- then I'll look at it eventually.

@ChrisW - I don't envy your job and am grateful you do it.

The discrepancy between Buddhism and modern society is not the fault of Buddhism. This problem signifies that society is drawing away from reality. Of course, since "Buddhism" is the expression of the Dharma in samsara, it is also subject to degeneration.
Pristine Dharma as the Buddha knew it will remain the absolute Truth. The ease of access to it will fluctuate and become more difficult as society falters against it. Based on my understanding, "secular Buddhism" is an example of corruption.

Corruption or discarding of irrelevant mythology? Let's not forget that all schools of Buddhism were influenced by the prevailing cosmologies and religions of both its homeland and the countries in which is was imported. A supreme deity is completely irrelevant in Buddhism, and the literal interpretation of Samsara is copied from Hinduism. If you classify secular Buddhism, i.e. the consequence of being imported into a secular society, as corruption, would you not also need to classify Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese schools of Buddhism, or even evolving insights in Indian tradition as corruption?

@Codosaur, any reformulation of the original message of the Buddha it's a corruption. The Dhamma is about the uproot of conceit and If someone insist in cherry-pick his teachings without give it a proper try to all of them, this means that he is not willing to let go of his own conceit and personal preconceived views.  That being so, it is a corrupted dhamma because the original meaning and purpose has been lost.

So, according to this reasoning, all schools of Buddhism except the Mahāsāṃghika is corrupted teaching, since any school branched from this first school "reformulated" the original message? And how could you prove beyond any doubt what the "original message" was? The canon was only written down centuries after Gautama, and the reliability of oral traditions is inaccurate at best.

@Codosaur, schools and branchs aside, the guidelines to know what is in line with the Dhamma and what is not, was given in https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_53.html

"dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to reclusiveness, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome" - Nothing I see here would imply incompatibility with Secular Buddhism. In fact, many are echoed in the core principles of Humanism and Sceptical Reasoning, as well as in Science.

@Codosaur, "secular buddhists" discard some teachings beforehand, this by itself, means that their conceit are taking place, they are not willing to let go of their sense of identity which comes from their secular values and mindset.

@Danilo  Good point. As Codosaur suggests, secular Buddhists are not usually people who study Buddhism, for if they were they'd know the word 'secular' is entirely redundant. Presumably they imagine Buddhists are credulous believers in thrall to mythology and religious icons. They might as well just say they are not interested in Buddhism since clearly it is the case. .

It's not a matter of time, this Dhamma as Adhamma as well, but a matter of right or wrong view.

I wonder if secular Buddhism is a reaction to non-Mahayana schools which have a more dogmatic and scripture-based approach, much in the same way that Materialism is a reaction to the excesses of monotheism. Just wondering.

@PeterJ Wikipedia suggests the term ("secular") is associated with Stephen Batchelor -- and his Wikipedia entry says his experience was with Tibetan and Korean Zen.

@ChrisW - I'm stumped for an explanation then. Apparently his 'pragmatic' approach "may open up the possibility of going beyond the belief-based metaphysics of classical Indian soteriology (Buddhism 1.0) to a praxis-based, post-metaphysical vision of the dharma". I presume some people can make sense of this idea.but I'm not one of them.

@PeterJ I'm guessing it might be what's left of Buddhism after subtracting (or ignoring) any doctrine[s] about rebirth, about other realms (heaven and hell), and about beings in other realms (Gods, demons, devas) ... but, I don't know. I came to this site to learn more about traditional/classic Buddhism instead of how modern and/or western authors might try to paraphrase or adapt it.

@ChrisW - What makes rebirth a secular or non-secular idea, and what does it matter which it is? All that matters is whether it is true or false. The realms of Hell and Hungry Ghosts are secular places, psychological states, unless we imagine they are up in the sky with the flying spaghetti monsters.

@PeterJ That's what it said, on the 3rd paragraph of Wikipedia -- ... stripped of any unspecified combination of various traditional beliefs that could be considered superstitious, or that cannot be tested through empirical research, namely: supernatural beings (such as devas, bodhisattvas, nāgas, pretas, Buddhas, etc.), merit and its transference, rebirth, and karma, Buddhist cosmology (including the existence of pure lands and hells), etc. I guess e.g. the idea of mother being reborn as a mouse doesn't fit with skeptical/scientific inquiry.

@ChrisW - This issue depends on how we interpret words such as 'rebirth', 'devas' etc. If we give them a psychological interpretation the idea they are superstitions becomes untenable. We should be looking for this interpretation precisely in order to overcome our superstitions. The idea of a mother being reborn as a mouse cannot be studied by the physical sciences but is only non-scientific if there is no way to verify it,  and Buddhism never teaches anything that cannot be verified. I get the idea of secular Buddhism but feel its a poorly-chosen and unfortunate adjective.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
Reincarnation of a Sotapanna person (Stream Enterer)
When the life of a Sotapanna ends, let's say he/she reincarnates as a human.
Does that mean, the reincarnated is capable of demonstrating the qualities of a Sotapanna since a very young age?
Or, does it take years of practice (again) to regain Sotapanna qualities ?
And how long roughly does it take ?
And is there anyway to tell if a kid attained Sotapanna in his/her past life ?

I'm answering this with some experience I know similar to this.
It's says that 7years is the minimum age that it would take to understand Dhamma. I haven't seen a reference for this but it is said by many people. An example for this is prince Rahula become a monk when he was at age of 7years.
Anyway according to some stories I've heard present day, They no need to practice anything, they them selves starts to realise that there's a problem in the things they do. That's because they have the right view. So that right view starts to conflict with the view of the other people (puthujjana). So with their understanding they have started to search for Dhamma. And they have come and stopped at some monks. And these monks' view is not accepted by the majority of the people (same as in this forum). But those stream entrants people say that it is what they have looked for.

How long does it take?

Can't give an exact answer to that. But as mentioned earlier it's said that minimum age is 7. With the experience it can go up to 20, 30 as well.
Only way to tell about past life is through pubbe-nivās-ānussati-ñāṇā (which is used to see the past lives) which can be obtained by meditation, or by asking buddha. But a rough idea can be get by asking the right view
With metta..!

I assume that asawakya gnana might be Pali but it's using non-standard spelling ("romanisation"). I guess that gnana is probably jnana or ñāṇa but I can't guess what asawakya is?

@ChrisW, Thanks for highlighting that, I've corrected the word and add a reference in the answer.

When the life of a Sotapanna ends, let's say he/she reincarnates as a human.

Yes, Sotapannas can either come back as devas or humans for seven times at most:

"Again, some person fulfills virtuous behavior but cultivates concentration and wisdom only to a moderate extent. With the utter destruction of three fetters, this person is a seventimes-at-most attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among devas and humans seven times at most, makes an end of suffering. This is the ninth person, passing away with a residue remaining, who is freed from hell, the animal realm, and the sphere of afflicted spirits; freed from the plane of misery, the bad destination, the lower world" ~~ AN 9.12 ~~

.

Does that mean, the reincarnated is capable of demonstrating the qualities of a Sotapanna since a very young age?

Quite possible. It's like the cases of those music or math prodigies who demonstrate extraordinary potential at very young age. A more concrete example related to the Dhamma was when the Buddha attained the First Jhana when He was a kid!

Or, does it take years of practice (again) to regain Sotapanna qualities ?

Since it's all about potential and capability, it's not that one has to "regain" Sotapanna qualities, but it's just that there're various differnt sub-levels within Sotapanna: some do take the maximum span of 7 lifetimes, some only takes 1 life, etc. So, again, really depending on how much one cultivated in his previous lives that he could either be like a Mozart, or a Chopin, or a Paul Mauriat.

And is there anyway to tell if a kid attained Sotapanna in his/her past life ?

It'd take a Sotapanna himself to really know AND experience firsthand all the Sotapanna's quality, in order to truly tell if someone else is also a Sotapanna. However, just like the attributes of a math prodigy, a Sotapanna kid could show early signs of Dhammic maturity, some natural instinctual tendencies toward virtues, calmness, wisdom( Sila/Samadhi/Panna ) without much coaching or close guidance from his/her parents.

the Buddha attained the First Jhana when He was a kid but was not a stream-enterer.

AN 9.12 merely your materialistic interpretation. Not evidence at all.

@Dhammadhatu, I simply quoted a sutta without even had to interpret anything. So you obviously have a huge problem with factual data.

@Dhammadhatu If you're going to comment then phrase it politely -- writing "merely your" begins to cross the line, from commenting on content to implying that the person is inadequate. I must ask you to not criticise people -- try avoiding the word "you" and "your" for example.

There is nothing in the Pali suttas to support answering any of the questions.
For example, there are no stories of Sotapanna reappearing as human after death. Instead, every story in the suttas has Sotappana reappear as a deva (god), such as in MN 143.
There are no stories in the suttas of a child born with Supramundane Knowledge. For example, the suttas have a short verse (Thag 6.10) about a 7 year old Arahant however the sutta merely says the boy was "educated and trained" by Arahant monk Anuruddha.
Also, there are no accounts of contemporary famous (reputed enlightened) monks who claimed to have Supramundane Knowledge from a young age and did not acquire Supramundane Knowledge from study and practise.


text:
Buddhism and Mathematics
Have there been any Buddhist texts addressing geometry, calculation or abstract algebra?
I recently read a composite biography of several mathematicians through history. While some had schizophrenia, few had serious mood disorders. Cardano was mentioned as a possibility. Proofs require a mindfulness of thought. There is also the stereotype of ivory tower nerds being emotionless or stoic. There seem to be therapeutic effects of learning mathematics or minds resistant to emotional pains are better at math than average.
Buddhism has a lot to do with handling emotional pain. Has me wondering if mathematics might have been a point of interest. Numbers seem to be. Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Three Marks if Existence.
On the other hand, a straight forward, linear, literal approach to understanding doesn't quite feel like Buddhism .

Have there been any Buddhist texts addressing geometry, calculation or abstract algebra?
I don't know much about the History of Mathematics.
This History of 0 (zero) mentions Pingala -- that's "Maurya or post-Maurya" era, perhaps they were mostly-all kind of Buddhists then.
I read elsewhere that, later (e.g. at the time of the Islamic invasion), it was the educated/urban/merchant class who were mostly-Buddhist -- whereas it was the rural/peasant class who were 'Hindu'. That (being merchants, trading, travelling) might imply they (i.e. the lay people/society who supported the Buddhist monastics) had uses for mathematics.
While some had schizophrenia, few had serious mood disorders.
I don't know if you might have read it, Zen and the Art of motorcycle Maintenance mentions, some instructions for assembling a bicycle,

"... I’ve a set of instructions at home which open up great realms for the improvement of
  technical writing. They begin, ‘Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind.’"

Buddhism has a lot to do with handling emotional pain. Has me wondering if mathematics might have been a point of interest. Numbers seem to be. Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Three Marks if Existence.
I think the numbers there are to do with "list-making" -- a numbered list.
Also "analysis" -- i.e. dividing and categorising.
So instead of "there's a big problem" Buddhism gives "there are three poisons, ten fetters -- twelve nidanas -- etc."
That's not classical "mathematics" like greek geometry. It may be related to or contain (use or presume) logic -- see Catuṣkoṭi for example.
And deconstruction seems like it ought to be useful if you want to make something stop -- like taking apart a wrist-watch (which will stop it), and understanding the causes of things (like the French proverb that "to understand all is to forgive all").
I think that list-making is principally an "Abhidhamma" kind of thing -- just one example among many might be the Paṭṭhāna.
Apparently the (several) abhidhammas (of the several schools) are summaries of doctrine. One of the ways to summarise elements of doctrine is to list or index them.
Here's a collection of some of the most famous lists -- Dhamma Lists
On the other hand, a straight forward, linear, literal approach to understanding doesn't quite feel like Buddhism.
There are many forms of maths, aren't there. I don't know them all of course, it seemed to me that maths was good at taking things apart (analysis), abstraction (maybe number theory), putting things together (maybe induction) -- and inventing systems, based on sets of axioms.
And when you choose useful axioms (which e.g. match observations) then it's science.
It seems to me, I guess, that Buddhism is more like a science than mathematics -- doctrines like the four noble truths being axiomatic.
Also Buddhism kinds of warns against constructing things (like sankharas).
And maybe warns against too much deconstruction too, like if the west tradition has a subjective/objective dichotomy (these being two extremes) then buddhism teaches "the middle way" meaning "neither extreme".

Have there been any Buddhist texts addressing geometry, calculation or abstract algebra?
Not as far as I know. It is in the foundations of mathematics that Buddhism becomes fascinating since it overcomes Russell's paradox.for a fundamental theory, but at a higher level I'm not aware of any maths texts or much interest in the topic

I'm curious about how you see Buddhist thought overcoming Russell's paradox. Can you explain?

@TedWrigley - Aha. Well spotted. One explanation is given by George Spencer Brown in his book 'Laws of Form'. He describes the logic of ontology, if I may put it like this, and the emergence of form from formlessness, and to do so must overcome R's paradox. Russell agreed it solved his problem but missed its metaphysical message and the clear connection with Buddhism and Taoism. Brown's description itakes the form of a simple calculus and it models Nagarjuna's metaphysics. A fundamental theory must overcome R's paradox and the Middle Way view does exactly this. .  .  . ,  .

@TedWrigley - In short, the Middle Way view does not reify sets but the origin of sets, so reducing them for a fundamental theory is not a problem.

Yes, Buddhism is "deceptively" related to mathematics, but only those who are lucky enough to be able to appreciate the Mahayana (Chinese lineage) teachings, they can fathom it.
Example A, 108 is an "infinite" number, it gets applied to the number of Arhats, fetters, features/beauties (minor) of the Buddha... 108 = 9x12 = 3x3x3x4 > 3+3+3+4=13 (our world is on the 13th petal of the Avatamsaka Universe) ; 108 > 1+0+8=9 > 3x3 or 3+6 (3,6,9 are magic numbers that can divide any number if its digits added reduced to 3,6,9).
Example B, the Eight-Consciousness and number 3, 3 is a "fundamental" number, as the Dao De Jing said 3 gives birth to all things. To stabilize any object it needs 3 points, say, a tripod. Meanwhile 8=23 or 2x2x2. Why 2? Because our world is in dual, I/you, subject/object, consciousness/cognize, smell/scent, vision/form...
Example C, numbers are related to sound, i. e., Dharani, which the raw element is the letters, or vowels and consonants... OK, let me find reference to continue

The special status attributed to the number 108 is actually derived from Hinduism, the predominant religion in the Buddha's time. Hindu and Buddhist Jamala for example both have 108 beads. As for the Taoist example, the Chinese text doesn't refer to the math number 1 in this verse, but about the undifferentiated oneness of all things , that we render into dualistic language. In Literary Chinese , 一生二 "one gives birth to two", the first two characters (一生) also mean "from beginning to end; all-encompassing". This is lost in translation.

@Codosaur I hope your mentioning of 108 & Hinduism not an indication you the fetish of knowledge like a Buddhist sect who declared anything written in Sanskrit is Brahmin, not Buddhist, impure. Btw, that is Brahmin-ism, Hinduism was later than Buddhism. Also, inherited knowledge doesn't mean it not Buddhist knowledge, like Karma; but Buddha perfected the knowledge. Einstein also shared knowledge with Newton... Copernius, say, the earth circling the sun - impure, not physics? Mathematically, 3 incl. 1+2, and I've never heard 1 meant beginning, for next said, 二生三, here 生 is 生ing, a verb. Thks :D

@Codosaur - Excellent point. translations of that verse of the Tao Te Ching often bother me.

No no no, @Codosaur missed the point, PeterJ. Before 一生二 is 道生一 (The Dao gives birth to One), Dao is the "origin/undifferentiated", not One. Remember the verses? 道可道，非常道。名可名，非常名。无名，天地之始；有名，万物之母 (The Dao has... name that can be named is not The Name... Nameless, is the beginning of heaven and earth...) Therefore, if you can say "one", it is named, it is not the beginning. Ok? Why don't you two consult someone who is fluent and an adept in Chinese, but listening to the foreigners ¯_(ツ)_/¯? ... peculiar men...

@PeterJ ...☝..

@Mishu - I thought this is what Codosaur was saying. We all seem to agree that 'One' is not the correct translation.

Peculiar! One and 一, or Unus, is 1, and number 1 is unity. Geometrically 1 is a circle, 2/4 is rectangle, 3 is triangle... and 1,2,3 have included all the numbers in the entire universe, or any mind can conceive, all the other numbers are just composites of 1,2,3... perhaps the Western mind really can't "view the universe from on high" - as theDoctor said @PeterJ

As bonus, the Dao De Jing corresponding verses is in this order: 道生一，一生二，二生三，三生万物。Not sure if the Chinese characters are hard to differentiate for ppl don't command Chinese, for I cannot have this experience

@Mishu米殊 - Agree about 1.2.3 and the other numbers. Also agree that a fundamental theory must go deeper than the numbers.  .

I mentioned it because you implied you needed to appreciate the Chinese Mahayana lineages to fathom it. What is your historical basis for that argument? Theravadin mala also have 108 beads.

Ah, I see... @Codosaur. Mentioned because the Example B talked abt 8-consciousness but all other sects take 6-consciousness (incl. Tibetan and Zen/Japanese, 6.5 or 7-consciousness) but that explanation was deleted by moderator. C talked abt Dharani but Theravada said that's Brahmin's (so I felt it's redundant to add further for this forum). A talked abt Avatamsaka Universe, you know, that was from a "fake" Sutta - the Chinese Tripitaka... need more explanation?


text:
How our body/soul is composition of five elements?
Recently I'm discussing five elements of nature with an atheist he cleared our body is composition of 11 elements Composition of the human body.

These elements are enough different from those 5 elements.
My reply to him :

"How we can say different, when those 11 elements are form of 5 elements and vice versa."

His clarification is as follows:

Form ? These are 5 elements in which Buddha believed -

Earth- Earth is just a planet that’s diameter is 8000 miles while our body’s diameter is barely 600 mm. We live on earth. How our body could be composed of a whole planet ?
Air- Air is a mixture of dust particles and gases such as- nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is dangerous to humans. Argon is also dangerous in close areas. The only real elements are nitrogen and oxygen. If we breathe dust particles, they will make negative impact on our cardiovascular health.
Aether- Aehter is what you look up AKA space. How our body could be composed of sky ? Our body has opposite energy of sky.
Fire- fire is just a result of atomic transitions of elements rather than an element itself.
Water- Water is constituted from Hydrogen and Oxygen so it is not an element either.

For qualifying the definition of an element, it must be the smallest substance which cannot be broken into more forms. The Buddha was contemporary of Aristotle so this speculation was very famous at that time. Both philosophers believed in same speculation. I am quoting the critics of Aristotelian physics- Modern scholars differ in their opinions of whether Aristotle's physics were sufficiently based on empirical observations to qualify as science, or else whether they were derived primarily from philosophical speculation and thus fail to satisfy the scientific method-Aristotelian physics

So how our body/soul is composition of five elements of nature?
Is there have any sutta that explained? I'm assuming may there would have philosophical explanation.

I think the confusion is the meaning of the word "element".
Modern school children are taught that the word "element" has a physical/chemical meaning -- see (periodic table).
The English word "element" can be used in other ways though -- I could say, "the head, tail, and claws are 'elements' of a cat". Elements means that they are part of, which combine to create the cat, that the cat is composed of these elements.
"Element" can be used for non-concrete (i.e. abstract) words as well -- "the element of surprise" is a common phrase.
Or I could say, "Nouns and verbs are merely elements of grammar".
Westerners might be especially suspicious of the word "element" because it (or a word like it) was used by pre-modern scientists too -- see Classical element.
I think that in Buddhism the word refers to elements of experience -- and that the words represent subjective or perceived qualities of a thing. For example, I don't know, ice might be hard and wet and not-hot so it seems to be composed or (or is perceived as having) those two elements.

Is there have any sutta that explained? I'm assuming may there would have philosophical explanation.

Here for example is an academic analysis:
Rūpa (Form)
A study of the 1st aggregate as the 4 elements
by Piya Tan ©2005
Suttas include MN 140 (as another answer already posted).

How our body/soul is composition of five elements?
There you are, most likely, talking about the five skandhas.

The word "subjective" in the above answer might misleadingly imply that the subjective/objective dichotomy is true -- perhaps subjective/objective are two extremes whereas Buddhism teaches a "middle way" of neither extreme.

Thanks for the source. I tried to explain that 5 elements are base form of 11 elements. So I also think it's confusion.

My experience is that you (by which I mean 'I', like the atheist) have to be interested in Buddhist doctrine for its own sake. "What is Dhamma trying to explain? Why is it saying this or that, what is the purpose?" It's saying something different than what "modern science" -- modern Physics, especially -- is saying. The fact that they're different doesn't mean one is wrong. And they both -- Buddhism and Physics -- have technical/specialist vocabulary translated into or expressed using common/lay English words ... don't say, "A is right therefore B must be wrong", is my advice to the atheist.

He is the atheist so he couldn't understand Buddhism philosophy.

He says Rūpa (Form)
A study of the 1st aggregate as the 4 elements
by Piya Tan ©2005 is not an authentic source (like wikipedia) and Russell never speak about Five Elements of Buddhism. So as he had mentioned me that Tripirika is defined five elements, I would give sutta is an authentic source Sutta Piṭaka- Wikipedia

Piya Tan's is a scholarly analysis of some suttas -- the kind of source which Wikipedia summarises (see also Piya Tan). There are different elements of different things. As I mentioned, the "five elements of the body-plus-mind" are probably the khandhas not the dhatus. Maybe he could post here if he wanted to ask an other question.

According to Theravada Buddhism a person (satva) is explained in terms of six major elements. Patavi,Apo,Tejo,vayo,Akasa (space) and vinnana (consciousness)
The way I understand these elements are smaller than atoms. They are even not physical. The Buddhist term for them is Dathu.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

Thank you but need more explanation and meaning of these elements and source.

MN 140 is very clear. It refers to the five physical elements and how they form various body parts. Then MN 140 refers to how consciousness is the basis of mental experience. Regards


text:
Attachment to trifling material things
Just a practical question on attachment to trifling material things.
I struggle to put it in words but from my younger age, I have a habit of being angry when someone takes a minor item without asking. He/she could be my best friend but still, the feeling is there. I don't think it been stingy because been asked or not even asked I would give the same person or even a stranger x100 times the value of the item but when taken without my consent it is all a different matter.
My question is how do I get read of it?
A thinker once told me: if you claim to not-care for these things then when someone takes these items and you feel the anger go burn two more of the items to show that you're in control... this method did help me to quench the anger, but the character still lingers?
Many Thanks.

An alternate (less destructive) practice. If someone takes a trifling thing without permission, go out, buy another one, and offer the person the new one in exchange for the one that s'he took. That will soothe your ego in the short run, and in the long run highlight the silliness of the attachment, so that you can release it.

The reason to this state is actually not bound to things that's been taken, it's the worthiness (treating it's the best) that you given to the action of politeness. In simple word, asking permission or informing before taking something.
So the core of the buddhism is this. If you try to keep things the way you want (way you want means is the worthiness you have assigned to -> it can be anything like an action, an attitude, a person, a thing, etc..), you are doing a mistake. Because the things in the world are not in our control. Everything happens as a result of a reason.
Of course we can make reasons and control it right? But there are incidents that though we control (make reasons) things won't go the way we want right? If you think about this further the reason for that is,

First case -> Our actions had some space to impact on the existing
state
Second case -> Our actions had no space to change the existing state, because existing state had stronger reasons

So simply, though we think, we can 100% control things, actually we cannot. Without knowing this, we label things as politeness and we expects it from others, it won't happens the way you want it to be. Our foolishness is (not mean to offence) we crazily expect things like that from others and the world. And as a result we get angry. Which is bad for us. Why bad for us -> just have a look on this video which you can get an idea.
That's where the Buddhism comes useful. If we give worthiness to the world and expects things to be the way we want and when we try to control things the way we want, it results in anger which is bad. (Of course there's another side of the same on attraction to the things also doing bad for us, I won't speak about it here, since not relevant to the question)
So let it go, there are things that you can't change because the things are not the way you want, they behave based on their own reasons. So by getting angry by trying to change won't do any good for you but bad. You still can try to change without anger, if there are reasons it might be success.
With Metta..!

this method did help me to quench the anger, but the character still lingers?
In my case I remember what might cause it. I was in a strict primary school with a strict primary school teacher who was frightening (and slghtly violent), more than once there the time came in class, for everyone to bring out some book or other for the next lesson, and my book wasn't there in my desk as expected!
And I couldn't think where the book was. And I'd be hiding, pretending now to look for the book in my desk when -- it's only a small school-desk -- it's obvious to my sight that the book isn't in there.
So it's traumatic -- and a minor post-traumatic stress -- I don't like losing things. I want them to be where I put them (aka "object permanence").
I have lost a lot more important things since then though -- people.
That and I don't like feeling upset so I try not to. I don't want to be angry with other people, instead of getting angry -- like, "he robbed me!", etc. -- I tend to attribute the event to "carelessness" or "communication failure" or even a childish greed (like the dog is greedy). It's not malice on their part.
Still there's also that joke about "depression" i.e. that it is "anger without enthusiasm" -- see also wrath?


text:
Does "dhatu" in Pali refer to "elements of experience"?
I read the following on the internet:

I think that in Buddhism the word refers to elements of experience --
  and that the words represent subjective or perceived qualities of a
  thing. For example, I don't know, ice might be hard and wet and
  not-hot so it seems to be composed or (or is perceived as having)
  those two elements.

Does "dhatu" in Pali refer to "elements of experience"?

As it was explained to me, dhatu means something like "aspect" or "tier". Meaning, it's a cross-cutting principle found in a whole that's delineated when you analytically disect the whole in a particular way.
So, when you analyze experience, you may delineate "the visual aspect" - present across many rather different experiences. When you analyze external dharmas, you may delineate "the aspect of solidity" present across many very different objects etc.
Today we could delineate e.g. the electromagnetic aspect, the chemical aspect, the  informational aspect. All are elements or principles of the whole observed as different "analytical planes".
ChrisW is not wrong to explain it as he did for the purpose of contrasting dhatu with the chemical elements of the periodic table. They are subjective inasmuch as it takes an act of analysis to delineate and "focus" on one dhatu at a time. Of course they are also objective because they are actual aspects of an ontological whole.
As part of the gradual instruction, Buddha taught basic phenomenological analysis, delineating dhatus such as "the seen", "the heard" etc.
The culmination of his teaching, though, is the notion of amrita-dhatu aka dharmadhatu, the most fundamental aspect of everything. Seeing this dhatu is seeing Nirvana. This dhatu can be described as the absolute reference point, substratum of all fluctuation.

I think that MN 140 for example says that "earth" refers to anything hard and solid.

And what is the earth element? The earth element may be interior or exterior. And what is the interior earth element? Anything hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This is called the interior earth element. The interior earth element and the exterior earth element are just the earth element. This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ When you truly see with right understanding, you reject the earth element, detaching the mind from the earth element.

Those things are components of a body, of which their solidity seems to me an experiential quality.
In context I think they may describe not only experience but "aggregates of clinging" -- the text quoted above includes upādinna.

I wrote "elements of experience" in the bit you quoted in the question because in that answer I hoped to clarify that's not the same as a chemical 'element' (like Hydrogen and so on).

There's a dictionary definition e.g. here suggests its meaning is similar to "element" in English: meaning both a "physical element" (i.e. an element of something physical) and/or an element of something else.
It might also be translated as "a sort of" or "a type of" (except that's not idiomatic English).


text:
how many meditations have the word 'sati' in there? what are all the practices that are "great fruit, great benefit"?
The motivation behind these two questions, is I suspect the Buddha emphasized some meditation practices above others for some reason or other. Obviously everything the Buddha taught would have useful applications at some stage, for some reason. But some practices have been touted as being especially useful for a particular purpose, such as metta to counter ill will. Anapana breath meditation, was the practice the Buddha engaged in on his personal retreats, he seemed to favor that above all else.
The 7sb awakening factors, are the samadhi engine that takes in any Dharma (meditation practice) that sati-sambojjhanga (awakening factor) 'remembers' and feeds into the 7sb samadhi engine.
The 4sp satipatthana are defined as 'samadhi nimittas', equivalent to the Dharma that sati remembers and feeds into 7sb, and as such, would cover every meditation subject.
So what we're looking for, in these two questions, is whether the Buddha used certain key terms to designate a small number of meditation subjects as being exceptional, among so many meditation topics taught.
Two questions:

how many meditations have the word 'sati' in there?
I'm aware of 3:

Ānā-pāna-s-sati 16APS: in-breath (&) out-breath remembering,
maraṇa-s-sati : death remembering
kāya-gatā-sati : body-immersed-remembering

They all have 'sati' in there name.
I'm not including anu-s-sati practices (such as Buddha anu sati, Dhamma... Sangha....).
And not including sati-(u)patthana.
Am I missing any? I think those are the only 3.

what are all the practices that are touted to be of "great fruit, great benefit" (maha-p-phalā, mahā-nisaṃsā)?
The 3 sati practices above are.
the 4ip iddhi pada are.
What else? I believe there are more.

How do you read emojis? For example how how could I find for myself what "" means without asking?

for emojis in general, emojipedia.org is a good source. If you're asking what buddhist meaning I assign to them, lucid24.org/sted

Since the first question was answered superbly by DD, I'll try to answer the second one:
In essence, everything the Buddha taught is to be done again & again, ad nauseam, so that it's "of great fruit, of great benefit", otherwise he'd not have taught it. The Noble Eightfold Path is often also called The Threefold Training.
AN 7.46 is basically the short answer to your question
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.046.than.html

No, it's not. I'm not asking about which meditation objects are called perceptions/sañña. I'm asking which practices explicitly use the phrase "maha phala & maha nisamsa".

looking at AN 7.46 again, it does explicitly say those 7 perceptions are of "great fruit great benefit."

'Sati' means to remember the teachings (SN 46.3) and keep Right View in mind (MN 1117).
'Sati' does not mean to 'observe' or 'watch' ('anupassi') meditation objects.
It is consciousness that observes or watches meditation objects.
Therefore, the mind can remember death but the mind cannot remember the body or breathing.
In conclusion, to answer this question, since 'sati' itself means to remember the teachings (SN 46.3) and keep Right View in mind (MN 1117), 'sati' includes remembering all teachings & all realities when required; thus the phrase SATI-SAMPAJANNA.

If householder just would have gained a nimitta so that he could remember it and keep in mind instead of speading his "this is right, i know" bindness. So what does he remember here? An idea just arising?


text:
what's the emptiness, 空, in 3rd jhana of STED 4 jhana formula in agamas?
what's the emptiness, 空, in 3rd jhana of STED 4 jhana formula in agamas?
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/12/whats-emptiness-in-3rd-jhana-of-sted-4.html
excerpt:
The 4 jhanas standard formula in the agamas of MA, match up very closely with the pali STED 4 jhana formulas. There's a striking difference in the 3rd jhana though, which is not in the pali. There's a sunyata/kong/空 on this part of third jhana:
聖所捨、念、 樂住、 shèng suǒ shě, niàn, lè zhù
the noble’s equanimity (捨), mindfulness, happy (樂) abode,
空，kōng
and emptiness.
得第三禪成就遊， dé dì sān chán chéngjiù yóu
He attains the accomplishment of the third meditation.

Could just be emptiness in the sense that the third jhana is empty of piti.  That said, emptiness is also a fairly apt description of the phenomenology of 3rd jhana.

I would assume 'emptiness' here means what Nagarjuna means by it. There seems no reason to give the word a different meaning.

Actually, that’s a linguistic trope you’ll often find in the Pali suttas (eg the Sunna Sutta) where one condition removed from another makes the former empty of what’s taken away.  If that passage is coming out of the agamas, that reading is more plausible than bringing Nagarjuna into the discussion.

Good, interesting find. Here is what I think:
Jhanas are not just a list of four separate states, they are a progression of the same principle developing and getting stronger from one phase to another.
The principle is that as our skill (of seeing and overcoming obstacles to peace, which is what meditation, and indeed the entire Buddhist path, is about) increases, we overcome subtler-and-subtler types of obstacles and as a result our happiness gets subtler-and-subtler, too:

In the beginning we generate crude happiness by "detaching" ourselves from unwholesome experiences and ideas, and by remembering and going over certain wholesome ideas that elate our mind.
Then we "detach" from  this crutch of the wholesome ideas that we used on the previous step, and master a non-discursive method of generating happiness (of subtler nature) by focusing on the (psychosomatic) experience of inner unity, inner confidence, being at peace and comfortable in our own skin.
Then (and this is what's called the third jhana) we "detach" from any notion of spiritual goal or success, including the very notion of inner harmony that we cultivated on the previous step. Now we dwell in effortless peace, without any sense of "practice" or "cultivation".
Finally, we "detach" from any judgement or comparison that we used to apply in order to categorize our inner state as "peaceful" vs "disturbed".

As you can see, on every step we overcome the limits inherent in valid practice of the previous step, expanding our mind to include what we previously left out, and reducing the tension that comes from division.
I believe the word you found in this version of agama sutra, 空, is there to emphasize the sense of effortlessness and goal-less-ness, the peaceful exhaustion of striving that is characteristic of the third jhana.
This all-encompassing effortlessness is illustrated by the image of the lotus pond used in the Pali Suttas:

Just as in a lotus pond there may be some lotuses which, born and grown under water, stay immersed at all times, never sticking out of the water.

These lotuses don't need to try and immerse themselves in the water. Water is already all around them at all times. The same way, a meditator who has mastered the third jhana has mastered dwelling in effortless peace. Because they let go of any sense of striving for a goal, including the spiritual goal of enlightenment or successful meditation or anything like that, they never "stick out of peace" no matter where they go or what they do. It's like being in retirement, there is nowhere to rush and nothing to worry about.
This sense of effortlessness, goal-less-ness, purpose-less-ness, vacancy - is what's meant here by the word 空.

Mystery solved, reading another translation of MA 2 with footnote
THE MADHYAMA ĀGAMA
MIDDLE-LENGTH DISCOURSES)
VOLUME I
footnote 47:
Le zhu shi, Pāli sukha-vihāra. In the Chinese textual tradition the final character shi,
“room, abode,” is sometimes mistaken as kong, “emptiness.” Another variant is ding,
“concentration.”
That kong/空 is a scribal error is supported by the lack of a corresponding
term in the Pāli version of the formula.
I do appreciate the other answers, feel free to continue commenting on the topic.


text:
Do Buddhists talk about insides?
Buddhists talk about abstract and concrete things, particulars, parts and wholes, etc., and Theravada Buddhism is often I think thought of in terms of an analysis of parts, breaking things down into smaller components and the Buddhist 'dharma'.
But do they talk about "insides" at all?
I'm asking because surely everything with a beginning has an inside, but death, which must occur and so begin, can't have an inside in at least some senses, at least supposing that there is no after-life.

I think you must be thinking of 'middle'. Things have beginnings, middles, and ends. And yes the suttas are filled with discussions of all three.
"It was not until I had thoroughly understood the six senses, the origin of the six senses, the satisfaction of the six senses, the problem with the six senses, the end of the six senses, and the way to the end of the six senses, that I knew of myself that I had attained the highest attaining."
Buddhism also discusses 'inside' vs. 'outside' or 'internal' vs. 'external' which is more easily understood as 'personal' vs. 'impersonal'; subjective versus objective.

interesting reply, thanks

there is 'mutual inclusion' as the middle, right?

Just occurred to me, in terms of "middle":

Each of the ten realms or worlds are contained within each realm, the
  "mutual possession of the ten realms" (Jap. jikkai gogu).

In Tendai. Whereas in Huayen

Samsara is reality as experienced with dukkha. Awakening of Faith in
  Mahayana presents these aspects as mutually inclusive and inseparable.

The aggregates of mind and body, being ever subject to cause and effect, as we saw above, pass through the inconceivably rapid moments of arising, presently existing, and ceasing (uppaada, .thiti, bha"nga), just as the unending waves of the sea or as a river in flood sweeps to a climax and subsides. Indeed, human life is compared to a mountain stream that flows and rushes on, changing incessantly (AN 7.70) "nadisoto viya," like a flowing stream.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html

somewhat helpful thanks


text:
How buddhists see/deal with Gaslighting?
I've had my share of gaslighting and have given it as well. To me there's this sort of limbo situation, where the undefinition is the abuse, where a person has the underlying feeling that something is wrong with her rationale, and that there is no one else except herself to be blamed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
Taking into account this disconcerting feeling that is produced by manipulative habits, what would be a buddhist approach/interpretation of gaslighting from both sides, the "perpetrator" and the "victim", if we can name them like that, so that a solution could be reached?

i was reading parts of the dharmika subhitu the other day, on rebirth / karma. cheating and deception -- coupled with causing mental AND physical anguish -- is the action of a hell being of the raurava hell. whereas guile deception and quarreling the asura realm

Here's an answer without claiming it's extraordinarily Buddhist.
Buddhism might recommend you be resistant to (or perhaps transparent to) blame and censure.
From two traditions:

Lokavipatti Sutta (AN 8.6)
Eight worldly preoccupations

I think they're also called "eight winds" -- so just let the wind blow through you, as it were, or don't be there for the wind to blow on, might be my advice to you based on my small experience of it.
And the fart is a related story -- trying to explain not being moved by reputation -- though possibly harsh.
That's not to say that you "don't care" -- I think we're warned that people who are "incapable" of remorse will tend towards being ill-behaved.
I think you're supposed to accept the teaching of your teacher perhaps (and/or "spiritual friends"), but perhaps you might be a better judge of your own character and intentions than other people are.
If you want to avoid being gaslit then perhaps "remembering your own virtue" then is important. And then again in this story -- Is That So? -- the question of "Am I the one to blame?" was not the important question.
Another doctrine is that "skilful virtue" on our part should occasion "lack of remorse" and, from there, some joy -- a "lack of remorse" (though not "incapable of remorse") is perhaps a good "defence" against being gas-lit -- except that perhaps it's not a defence (an ego-defence), in the sense that some absence of remorse is non-existent (see e.g. this topic).
People attempt to blame or appear to gaslight "me" on this site, sometimes, I could reference comments as examples. It might help to see that as neither true (it isn't a brilliant description) nor false (they are really saying that at the moment), it's perhaps their "view"? Whether it's even a semi-accurate view is another story, your saying "gaslighting" implies you think it isn't accurate.
But communication problems exist between people. And what people say -- e.g. about relationships and how they perceive you -- might also be based on something like their own experience with their own family and society ... so it isn't always easy to agree with everyone and about everything, and of course people might reach different conclusions when they start from different premises, and when egos become involved.

As for your gaslighting other people I'm not sure why you think you are or want to be doing that at all. It might perhaps be typical of the competitions which people get into -- like "I am superior to you", or, "I am more deserving", see also this answer (about "conceit" and identity view) -- and a reason to be careful of what relationships and personal relationships you engage with -- see also Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?
For more on whether you're gaslighting people try to pay attention to right speech and to not being a sectarian.

Otherness is an illusion. Compassion and kindness radiating inwardly and outwardly, enveloping all distinction, discriminations

I was reading parts of the dharmika subhitu the other day, on rebirth / karma. Cheating and deception -- coupled with causing mental and physical anguish -- is the action of a hell being of the raurava hell. i..e you will be reborn there. Whereas guile deception and quarrelling the asura realm.
So, naturally, it depends on result.
Moreover, any bodhisattva should have enough compassion to relieve other people's confusion, let alone deliberately confuse them.

It must be pointed out that when the original terms that the Buddha used when explaining the Dhamma – terms such as anicca, dukkha and anatta gets translated into other languages there’s always the possibility that terms such as impermanence (anitya), suffering (dukkha) and soullessness (anatta) can be interpreted and applied erroneously by conventional Buddhists. Because of the misleading translations, the meaning of such words can get completely distorted. As a result, wayfarers such as you and me, and untold number of people will end up getting adrift in the darkness of samsara. For example, how would we know whether Majjima Patipada in Buddhism is erroneously translated or not as a middle path, and if so whether this error has turned it into misleading and irrelevant statement?
If one establishes oneself on sensory discipline and is able to terminate sensory obsessions, such a person who operates with wisdom will not get overpowered by feelings and will be in a position to see the true nature of things, and the true meaning of these key words. Such a person will one day br liberated and free. . . . . . . . . . . .

I am not sure if you were targeting another question...


text:
When I focus on my breath, it becomes shallow
Sometimes when I'm meditating, I'll have really "good" breaths - the breath will be deep, very satisfying and relaxing. My diaphragm and chest really expand and it feels like my whole lung fills with air. The trouble is I can't consistently maintain those breaths.
When I do focus on my breath in meditation it becomes more and more shallow. Not a lot of expansion, not relaxing, and not much inhale. I'm not sure why that's happening.
I think I get my best breaths when refocus on my breathing after I have been preoccupied with other thoughts.
Why does focusing on my breath cause it to become shallow and how can I avoid it?
P.S. I'm not against the practice of meditation. It has helped me with attention and focusing. I've tried other techniques such as being aware of the present moment with better user experience.

keep relaxed, is all i can say

Doesn’t matter if your breath is deep or shallow.  Just let it do what it wants to do.  If you force it, you are introducing volition.  All that’s going to do is lead to tension and doubt.  Just let go of your expectations of what meditation ought to be.  Meditation is what happens, not what we make happen.

This is quite normal. So the breath become so subtle the breathing will stop altogether in deep Jhana. Just be mindful of your experience. Do not do analysis. It is better if you consult your teacher.

All breaths are good, even the shallow ones.  Here are 2 techniques that may help awareness to have a "lighter touch" upon the breath:

When becoming aware of the breath, approach it from your back instead of your chest.  Noticing the breath from the back may help you not impact it so much.
Try not noticing the breath right away when you sit down to meditate.  Start first with other body sensations, or even sounds from the room or surrounding area.  Eventually you will notice your breathing, and coming at it this way may help you be aware of your breathing without impacting how shallow or deep it is.

I learned both of these from Gil Fronsdal of Audio Dharma.

Thanks, I used to listen to Gils’ podcasts. They can be helpful.

I agree with what others have said here but just wanted to add my two cents to the conversation. I found a passage on page 73 in the book The Art of Living: Vipassana Meditation as taught by S. N. Goenka by William Hart illuminating:

As concentration strengthens, we begin to feel relaxed, happy, full of energy. Little by little the breathe changes, becoming soft, regular, light, shallow. At times it might seem respiration has stopped altogether. Actually, as the mind becomes tranquil, the body also becomes calm and metabolism slows down, so that less oxygen is required.

This book is not associated with the Art of Living movement by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar.
Pariyatti Press: The Art of Living
(The link contains the free PDF version of the book along with paid paperback and Kindle versions. I am not associated with Pariyatti Press but just wanted to give the link so that others may find the book which has been interesting reading for me.)
After the heart, the brain gets the most oxygen-rich blood and it consumes something like 20% of all oxygen for the whole body so it would make sense that breathing slows down after brain activity has decreased. I'm not sure about the exact number but it is very high.

anything you practice, not just breath meditation, any new skill you're learning will be unnecessarily tense until you become acclimated and put in the time to work on your craft.
Once you put enough time into breath meditation, it'll be easier to relax more deeply.

It's only a suggestion for how to start.  The point is to find the mind that isn't busy.  Lots of people are only made tense by putting their focus on breathing.  So, instead, just mentally bat away any and every thought that arises as though it were a bug trying to land on your face.  It will go away, and another will quickly pop up.  Keep at it.  The thoughts will begin to get sneakier.  Still, every time you realize there is a thought, no matter how nice or how true, swat it.  One day you will realize you have little or no swatting to do, maybe even see that you can halt thinking at will, anytime, anywhere.
Oddly, this vastly improves thinking for when it's useful to think.

Thanks, I used to get tense too following by breathe. I found observing it rather than trying to control it helpful.


text:
Is being conscious of actions' consequences enough to attain nibbana?
I apologize if this has an answer on this site or if this does not make any sense. I am wondering if being conscious alone is enough to attain nibbana? If not, why?
I think conscious person will (always?) act in a way that will not cause sorrow to themselves (and others?). I just thought someone who is fully aware of their thoughts and actions will only work towards a joyful life. If someone does anything that leads to sorrow, I think it's only due to lack of consciousness of it's consequences.
However, I am not sure if being conscious alone is enough to develop the wisdom required to attain nibbana. Can someone consciously do unwholesome deeds? I would like to clear this up. Any help is appreciated.

It would require wisdom, knowledge and insight to decide what actions will and won't be beneficial.and lead to joy. and  And to complicate matters, we never know more than a vanishingly small proportion of the consequences of our actions.

It seems to me you are defining consciousness as "being fully aware of consequences" and therefore "acting towards a better state", correct? (Just so you know, usually this is called "acting with virtue".)
If this is how you define it, then yes - acting with virtue is enough for Nibbana. The cool thing about acting with virtue is, the more you do it, the more it changes your life in the direction of Nibbana, the easier it gets to act even more virtuously. In fact, clearly understanding this self-fulfilling principle is exactly what's called Stream Entry.
The only other factor you need for Nibbana is to always keep improving  your virtue, always looking for ways to make it more sublime and more refined. For this, you need to be 100% honest with yourself, even critical.
Taken together, these two factors - Acting with Virtue and Continuous Improvement - will create the right cyclic engine to propel a sentient being to more and more sublime forms of happiness until complete Nibbana.

No. It won't.
Right Mindfulness is the seventh stage of the Noble Eightfold Path. The eighth step is Right Immersion. Immersion provides the insight and wisdom that informs Right View.

SN12.23:2.13: I say that truly knowing and seeing has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Immersion.’

The Noble Eightfold Path is conditioned. This means that eventual success is obtained in some life at some point for stream-enterers. However, since rebirth in a life conducive to practice is quite rare, it would be best to embrace the entire path sooner rather than later.
Please also practice Right Immersion in this very life.

There are three levels you have to be conscious of:
- latent
- transgression
- Manifestation
It appears you are conscious only of the manifestation level. Only by practicing Satipathana you can tap to the other two levels.

Root condition. Buddhist training is directed towards eliminating the defilements (kilesaa). The foremost defilements are the three unwholesome roots — greed, hate, and delusion. From these spring others: conceit (maana), speculative views (di.t.thi), skeptical doubt (vicikicchaa), mental torpor (thiina), restlessness (uddhacca), shamelessness (ahirika), lack of moral fear or conscience (anottappa). These defilements function at three levels:
Transgression (viitikkama) leading to evil bodily and verbal acts. This is checked by the practice of morality, observing the five precepts.
Obsession (pariyu.t.thaana) when the defilements come to the conscious level and threaten to lead to transgression if not restrained by the practice of mindfulness.
Latency (anusaya) where they remain as tendencies ready to surface through the impact of sensory stimuli. Security from the defilements can be obtained only by destroying the three roots — greed, hate and delusion — at the level of latency. This requires insight-wisdom (vipassanaa-paññaa), the decisive liberating factor in Buddhism.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html

There is a pali keyboard, easy to install and easy to use Nyom, given by tipitaka.org : https://www.tipitaka.org/keyboard/ alt+strg i for ī and so on.

Conscious of what?  You have to delineate what you mean by conscious.
One can have eye consciousness and can see, but he/she could be deluded and get attached to beautiful things or could be averse to ugly sights.
However, If one is conscious of the three marks of existence on everything then that person is wise and free from suffering..

Conscious of anything you do or think

The fight is against ignorance...that is the root cause of suffering...so if one is conscious of true wisdom then he/she is free from suffering ... being conscious of your action and though without underlying wisdoms is not the way to freedom...

Once nibbana gets realized ,everything becomes possible ,wholesome unwholsome ,concious un conscious ,all life is embraced,with all its colors ,just a total surrender to whatever the case,even to not surrendering.
Being conscious is just a tool,and yes it can be enough ,but once you realize nibbana ,the tool doesn't have to be a concern anymore.When you say

"I just thought someone who is fully aware of their thoughts and
  actions will only work towards a joyful life. If someone does anything
  that leads to sorrow, I think it's only due to lack of consciousness
  of it's consequences."

that is a valid observation ,thats why the tool is effective.However as I said once the realization occurs , nobody needs to stay concious all the time to maintain nibbana.

Can someone consciously do unwholesome deeds?
Pick your definitions of "consciously" and "unwholesome".
Somebody might believe, for example ...

I'll be happier when I marry
I'll be happier if I behave in a way that's admired by this group of friends, in order to fit into that group
It's better to be rich
It good to punish anyone who hurts me
It's better to be superior

... I think these are all examples of conventional or normal beliefs, which are more-or-less common in society.
People might consciously as well as unconsciously believe them -- i.e. they might be "a view".
Maybe that's why Buddhism emphasises "right view" as an important prerequisite -- or even, before that, right morality.