text:
Question on Dhammapada 124
That is a question that emerged from a previous discussion, but here I would like to focus on this story.
From the background story:
"Venerable Sir, is the wife of the hunter who is a sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has been getting things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he goes out hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus, the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any evil."
Question: Does it mean that if you work for a company that sells weapons or intoxicants and you do not directly sell or produce it, you also had no opportunity to find another job (it is what you got to pay your bills), you are blameless like the wife of the hunter?

Could you please add the "ethics" tag to your question. Thank you.

May have been answered here: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1421/18

It seems this was already answered sufficiently here:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1421/18
(Posting as an answer just to get this resolved)

Intent is everything. .. The key.

I think you answer your own question by using this story. Let me take out the answer from the story;
"... just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any evil ..."
Intention is the keyword here. If you do not have any unwholesome intentions then you have done nothing wrong. There is another Dhammapada story in which this is clearly stated by the Buddha. This is the story about the blind monk Cakkhupala, Dmp. verse 1, p. 59.
In short the story goes that one night Cakkhupala was doing walking meditation and accidently stepped on and killed a bunch of insects that were covering the path where he did walking meditation. He did not know about it. The next day some other monks came to see Cakkhupala to receive teachings from him. They saw all the dead insects and became angry about it. They then went to the Buddha and asked him how that a monk could do something like that. The Buddha then told this verse. He said that because Cakkhupala had no intentions of killing the insects he had done nothing wrong.
I gave here only a brief part of the story. You should go look it up yourself and read the full story.
Lanka


text:
Understanding Mindfulness through outwardly qualities
Is absent-mindedness, the opposite of Mindfulness? If someone forgets to buy grocery on the way home despite having planned, does it necessarily mean he is very less mindful?
Do these qualities somehow affect each other?
More generally, Is there a way to notice in practical aspects of life how mindful someone is? If some one is sharp, is he necessarily mindful? If contemplative?
Does any out worldly character indicate mindful nature or the lack there of?

I see a lot of questions here. Could you try to sum it up into maybe 1 or 2 questions? Thank you.

The last sentence is the only 1 question. The other questions are more like a build up and description of the one question.

I see. I still think it looks confusing. If the other questions are a build up into the last question you should clealy state that in your question so that the reader knows what to answer specifically. That will also ensure that you get an answer you can use and not an answer to e.g. the first question.

There is only 1 truth. Within the 1 truth, all the other 3 truths are contained :) But all other truths also are truths, for elaboration!

I believe you asked this exact question on our monk radio broadcast last week. Here's the answer, for reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwDVIzD3O00

Thanks for answering my question. Watching your Dhammapadha series of Youtube videos did bring in a great deal of peace inside of me.

I would suggest for you the video; Vigilance - The Heart of Buddhism, by Ven. Yuttadhammo. In here it is talked about mindfulness and the importance of it and also what charateristics a mindful person have. For example it is told why old monks still look radiant.
Lanka

I'm not sure what you mean about outward quality.So forgive me if I got it wrong.I think being mindful is not the same as remembering your groceries.I can be completely mindful of walking but as long as the thought of grocery doesn't arise I won't remember it.So its more about remembering to stay in the present moment.Also outward characters that shows mindfulness probably Introversion or quiet people since they are not scattering their attention through excessive talking.

In Buddhism mindfullness is being mindful of the arising and passing of phenomena pertaining to the mind matter process, while being equanimous and comprehending the true nature of the phenomena and the process.
By practicing the 4 foundations of mindfullness this is what you try to achieve. Being mindless in daily activities doesn't matter. Being mindful devoid of the above in daily activities like a circus girl doing her act will not help achieve liberation.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Understanding Psychosomatic ailments
I am given to understand deep mental suffering can inflict physical ailments. (very understandable.)
Specifically harbouring certain kinds of negative mental constructs, for extended periods of time, leads to certain kinds of ailments.
Are there any such contexts in the Buddha's teachings that point out, categorise these?

Some quotes to this effect:

"Over the past I do not mourn nor for the future weep,—
  I meet the present as it comes, and so my colour keep.
Mourning about the hopeless past or some uncertain future need,—
  This dries a young man's vigour up as when you cut a fresh green reed."
-- Jat. 538 (Cowell, trans)

and

“Again, when a fool is on his chair or on his bed or resting on the ground, then the evil actions that he did in the past—his bodily, verbal, and mental misconduct—cover him, overspread him, and envelop him. Just as the shadow of a great mountain peak in the evening covers, overspreads, and envelops the earth, so too, when a fool is on his chair or on his bed or resting on the ground, then the evil actions that he did in the past—his bodily, verbal, and mental misconduct—cover him, overspread him, and envelop him. Then the fool thinks: ‘I have not done what is good, I have not done what is wholesome, I have not made myself a shelter from anguish. I have done what is evil, I have done what is cruel, I have done what is wicked. When I pass away, I shall go to the destination of those who have not done what is good…who have done what is wicked.’ He sorrows, grieves, and laments, he weeps beating his breast and becomes distraught. This is the third kind of pain and grief that a fool feels here and now.
-- MN 129 (Bodhi, trans)

Also, many Dhammapada verses to this effect, e.g.:

The evil-doer grieves here and hereafter; he grieves in both the worlds. He laments and is afflicted, recollecting his own impure deeds.

(Buddharakkhita, trans)

I can't think of anywhere that specific mental afflictions are enumerated or categorized, though.

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


text:
What is the feeling-clinging aggregate?
Is it the actual sight, sound, smell, taste, tactile sensation, idea, or the feeling based on them.

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, there are these five clinging-aggregates. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as an a clinging-aggregate.
[...]
"And what is feeling? These six classes of feeling — feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of intellect-contact: this is called feeling."
-- SN 22.56
"There are, O monks, these three feelings: pleasant feelings, painful feelings, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings."
-- SN 36.1
"Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the feeling aggregate."
-- SN 22.48

The aggregate itself is not the clinging to it. upādānakkhanda means "clung-to aggregate", not "aggregate of clinging". Otherwise, it would mean that upādāna was the truth of suffering, when in fact it is the truth of the cause of suffering (i.e. tanha).
So, vedanupādānakkhandha means the aggregate of of any and all feelings, when clung to.


text:
Can stream entry be reached by focusing on the links in dependent co-arising
Can you gain stream entry by focusing on the links in dependent co-arising http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html.
The buddha says this: "And what is the noble method that is rightly seen and rightly ferreted out by discernment? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones notices:
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that."

In reference to dependent co-arising, but I wonder whether it's actually a method.

In all my time studying and practicing Buddhism, I've never seen a use for dependent arising.  At one extreme (the 12 point chain) it seems incoherent, nonsensical and self-evidently false.  At the other extreme, it seems so simplistic and obvious as to be banal.  I'd welcome some practical application of this!

@R.Barzell: a Practical Application: explain Dependent Co-Arising to an "ordinary" person. Watch them try to realize that everything they think exists, doesn't as such. I hope that you do not succeed.

It depends what you mean by "focussing on". If by that you mean thinking about mentally, then no, that is not possible, since the mind will be focussed on an abstract object and not be able to see impermanence, suffering, and non-self.
If by that you mean observing empirically then yes, since the links are ultimate reality. By focussing on them, you will see impermanence, suffering, and non-self, which is the path of purification, according to the Buddha.

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


text:
Can contemplation of the four noble truths lead to penetration of them?
Like can  you gain insight into the four  noble truths by contemplating them? In this sutta the Buddha says that "your duty is the contemplation"  and then goes into the four noble truths http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.048.than.html.

Contemplate here doesn't mean thinking about it intellectually. Sure we all have to think about it first but real insight happens when you realise it through direct experience.You have to experience the four noble truth not churn it through your head back and forth trying to get a sense of it.This is like contemplating how a mango tastes a hundred times Instead of just picking up the fruit and tasting it.

The relevant Pali of that sutta is:
yogo karaṇīyo
which means roughly "The setting oneself upon should be done"; i.e., one should focus one's efforts on "this is suffering", etc.
A word meaning "contemplation" is not found in the Pali. The word yoga here actually relates to the context of the sutta, since it means, literally, "yoke", as in the yoke that the turtle puts its neck under in the allegory.
The commentary explains that there are four yokes that one should yoke oneself to:

manussapaṭilābho - the attainment of humanhood
tathāgatuppādo - the arising of a Tathagata (i.e., being born as a human during...)
tathāgatappaveditassa dhammavinayassa dīpanaṃ - the elucidation of the dhammavinaya of the Tathagata (i.e. listening to...)
catusaccapaṭivedho - the realization of the four noble truths

It is this last one that is described by the Buddha; he is most definitely referring to paṭivedha or realization, not contemplation.
As to your question, directly, if by contemplation you mean intellectually, then no, it is not possible to become enlightened through intellectual contemplation, since the mind is not focussed on ultimate reality (i.e. as it occurs) at that time. If by contemplation you mean empirical observation, then one should only observe the first noble truth - the second and third come as a result of that, and the fourth is that observation itself.

So by focusing on suffering we can gain insight into the four noble truths, but do we focus on suffering as the suffering we're experiencing in the present moment or do we focus on suffering how the Buddha and Sariputta put forth and analyzed the four noble truths like: "Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful.[2] In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful."

And also do we just have to notice the actual mental experience of suffering as cause by craving or can we notice all its different manifestations, like the stress of the body or the stress of impatience?

Another way to look at it is when looking at theoretical physics and experimental physics.
Take a scientist for example. He has a theory about e.g. gravity. Its only a theory on the drawing board. He contemplates it thoroughly and does his calculations.
Will he get insight into how reality functions?
No he will not. Why? Because he has not testet his theory on reality.
Then lets take it a step further. Lets say that this scientist now wants to test his theory in practice. He now conducts an experiment in reality where he tests this gravity theory. He then gets his results and see that part of his theory was correct and the other part was not in line with reality. He can now reevaluate his theory and make it more precise and then go test it again.
Has he now gotten insight into how reality functions?
Yes he has. That is the difference between theoretical, intellectual, "book" knowledge AND experiental knowledge.
It is helpful to think and contemplate but know the limits of the intellect. It is helpful to try to grapple with these concepts intellectually but that is it.
Only contemplating is like reading a restaurant menu and knowing all the food but never actually ordering it and tasting it.
Or like planning a trip but never actually making the trip.
Contemplation can only get you so far.
Insight into the 4 noble truths and how reality functions is achieved by looking. By observing mindfully. By doing insight meditation practice.


text:
Buddhism and the middle path
I am battling with understanding the concept of the middle path. Having read the many articles available, the concept escapes me especially with a view of self and no-self.
My understanding is that in Buddhism neither is where you want to be as it is an extreme. There must be balance.
If i work with an example, it leaves me nowhere. I do not see the middle path. If i have a weapon pointed to my head, i only see 2 outcomes. Death or survival. If i take the view of self, i would fear the outcome. If i take the view of no-self, i realize all is impermanent and have no fear.
Where is the middle path in this?
Secondly, what roles do intent and motivation play? For example, given the same example, if i am motivated to survive, is that not a play on self? If i have no intention of survival, is that not a play on no-self?
Again, where is the middle path in this?

I wonder if you've been reading about and then asking about something called Madhyamaka ... if so, that school (and that use of the word 'middle') is one I didn't know about and didn't touch on in my answer.

it depends on what sort of buddhism or med. you want to practice. good question !

@ChrisW - I may have. I am reading everything that makes sense to me. Some are covered in mysticism, others language should shrouded in poetry it escapes me from practical application.

It's hard to get a word in with all the answers, but according to 'Buddhism: A History' by Reat, the middle way suggests a kind of conceptual mid-point on most issues. [x] is true, [x] is also not true, [x] is not not true, etc. I think the basic idea is to avoid absolutist thinking and recognize every philosophical position is multi-faceted, with many correct 'sides'.
In practice this leads us to avoid absolutist thinking, and extreme behavior.

The middle path is not that which is in between two paths, rather it is usually a different path that does not take extreme viewpoints.
One definition of the middle path comes in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of practice. Here, one takes neither the path of enjoying sensual pleasures in a nihilistic and hedonistic way, nor self-mortification through extreme asceticism. Instead, comes the Noble Eightfold Path, which really isn't about allowing or prohibiting sensual pleasures but covers much more.
Another definition of the middle path comes in the Acela Sutta  where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of philosophy. Here, one neither takes viewpoints of eternalism (there is an eternal self) nor annihilationism (there is no self at all and no existence), but rather takes a very different viewpoint, which is of dependent origination.
This idea is also similar to what is described as false dilemma in western philosophy, where you think that the solution must either be black or white, and nothing else. In reality, there could be more solutions than simply two extreme viewpoints. Wikipedia has the example of "either you are for, or against us". In reality, you could take other stands.
For e.g. in your example, you think you have two choices - either not defend yourself and take the bullet, or defend yourself and maybe even kill the attacker. But there could be a different solution, e.g. you could try to negotiate with the attacker and try to convince him that he could do better than to commit murder. In this way, you could actually help your attacker by providing him with the means to reform and improve himself.
And by the way, the Buddha doesn't teach that there is no self. A self definitely exists. It is just that the self is not permanent or absolute, and arises due to the inter-working of the senses, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. Anatta means "not self" (not "no self") as in "all phenomena is not self". This again lies in the middle path (of dependent origination), rather than taking the extreme views (there is an eternal self vs. there is absolutely no self and no existence). I discuss this also in another answer.
The mistaken view is that because there is no self, it is ok to allow the attacker to kill you without any other alternatives. This is based on the extreme view of annihilationism, which is mentioned above.

Thanks ruben2020. Do you mind if i drop you an email as i am utterly confused by the terminology and its meanings especially when reading multiple sources that appear to interpret them in different ways. My email is motivatedgorilla AT gmail DOT com

Yes, sure. I'm not sure whether you can see my email address from the profile page.

@ruben2020 The email address on your profile page can't be seen by others. If you want to publish your contact details you can do that in the large, multi-line "About me" textarea on your profile. Alternatively could send an email to Motivate's email address (published in the previous comment above).

@ruben2020 - As mentioned by ChrisW, i can't see your email address. If you drop me an email, i'll reply. Thanks ruben2020 and ChrisW.

I tend to follow the hindu concept of self much more emphatically. The self is the ether of awareness in which all things subject to cause and effect are constructed. It's singular identity within us is a sham save for the karmic leftovers at this husk's death. But for those resultants we'd blend back into the ether as one. as long as we have those however we are subject to rebirth.

I am battling with understanding the concept of the middle path.
I agree with ruben2020's answer, including with the statement that the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta has the original/classic way in which the phrase "middle way" is used. The same dilemma (i.e. the same two, specific extremes) is described in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search, in which the two extremes are described as,

living luxuriously, straying from his exertion, backsliding into abundance
performance of austerities

Neither of those extremes were conducive to the Buddha's enlightenment.
Having read the many articles available, the concept escapes me especially with a view of self and no-self. My understanding is that in Buddhism neither is where you want to be as it is an extreme. There must be balance.
What would you think of advice such as, "Try not to be too selfish?"
That might be pretty radical advice but at least in theory I think not too difficult to understand.
There are supposed to be three aspects to Buddhism, i.e.

Virtue/behaviour aka sīla
Mind/concentration
Wisdom/views

An example of virtuous behaviour is dāna (generosity).
Sila is sometimes seen as a basis or foundation, e.g. without practicing enough virtue you can't concentrate or find peace in meditation, and can't find wisdom or have 'right view' i.e. see things properly.
Something else that might bring 'balance'; there are rules (aka 'precepts') of virtue for example,

I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing

Or for example here is what the Dhammapada says,

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
131. One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
  hereafter.
132. One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
  hereafter.

I suspect that you should be as non-violent towards yourself as you are towards other people.
Might that result in 'balance'?
If i work with an example, it leaves me nowhere. I do not see the middle path. If i have a weapon pointed to my head, i only see 2 outcomes. Death or survival. If i take the view of self, i would fear the outcome. If i take the view of no-self, i realize all is impermanent and have no fear.
I see several possible ways to reply.

You're thinking "If" but you presumably don't in fact have a weapon pointed to your head. That idea of a weapon is no more than a fantasy.
The Buddha said that that there various questions which he wasn't going to answer ... and that not-answering is because his intention is to teach liberation from dukkha; however questions about the self lead towards a thicket of views and not away from dukkha
That the skhandas are fairly impermanent: each thought is here one second, and gone the next.
Saying that the self does or doesn't exist might be wrong, in the same way as saying that a tree does or doesn't exist might be wrong. More correct might be to say that it exists, but it's impermanent, and it's conditioned (not independent), also that it's a mental construct (who says exactly where the boundaries of 'tree' or 'self' are, where do they begin and end). Another way of putting it is that things exist but their existence is empty (suññatā)
There are other emotions/emotions which you can (or should) cultivate, other than fear and no-fear: including equanimity, loving-kindness, etc.

Secondly, what roles do intent and motivation play?
Maybe a large role: because intention is related to karma or karma is driven by intention.
However karma is a complicated and/or confused subject.

You raise valid points. I don't disagree nor agree as i am learning. Do you mind if i dropped you an email? My email is motivatedgorilla AT gmail DOT com

If this answer is unclear somehow, wouldn't it be better to say so in a comment so that I can try to improve this answer? And/or if you have further questions you could ask a separate, new question. And/or you can review other, pre-existing topics on this site if you haven't already, including ones which are tagged [tag:self], [tag:middle-way], [tag:anatman], etc.

The reason i would like to drop an email is not because not answer needs improving but rather a way for me to converse with you with possibly better direction of a path to learning. I haven't found a teacher that simplifies the process of explaining and i have found this with online articles as well. They assume some level of knowledge which i for one do not posses yet.

I'm sorry I'm reluctant to have a private email conversation: that's partly because I'm unqualified, and I hope that you'll get better answers to your questions if you post them on the site, where people other than me can see and reply to them.

Assuming your main question is what is the middle path?
There paths can be viewed as:

Seeking pleasures to satisfy the sense bases
Seeking pain as means to eradicate past fabrication
Neither seek pleasure or pain but live peacefully with oneself and others (Middle path)

In the middle path comprises morality, mastery over the mind and wisdom.

1st you give up hurting others, hence establish in morality. (In many cases this is in seeking excessive worldly pleasures.)
2nd you develop mastery over the mind where you mind is devoid of clinging and craving, mindful on arising and passing of phenomena and focused on a wholesome object (like arising and passing of phenomena)
3rd you develop wisdom by seeing: 3 characteristics, some understanding or karmic formations (any metal volition gives a subtle sensation of what the sensation would be when the results ripens), 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Origination

When you are under attack this environment is conditioned by perhaps past Karma. At this point you are agitated as you are under attack. Loosing the balance of you mind will hamper your cause of action to get out of the situation. The best is to use a clever tactic or flee. If not perhaps attack but without hatred. (I guess in martial arts this is what is advocated.). Try keeping your calm by watching your breath and sensations. You can use the sensation you experience in such a situation to eradicate your past stock of Karma. When the situation was created your past karma is bearing fruit. If you do not create new karma by reacting to the sensation you experience in the situation you are not creating new karma which might bring about similar situations in the future. Also try some Metta towards them. This way you are handling the situation within the path.
See @ChisW's and @ruben2020's answer to compliment.

The problem yo are referring to , is the problem of physical survival of an Individual or a Group, in the presence of a threat . Vajrayana Buddhism studies  this problem and justifies the use of violence for Self-preservation or preservation of the Religious Organization .
Buddhist Philosophy in India has evolved over the years and taken many forms . The three main variants are (1) Hinayana  (2) Mahayana (3) Vajrayana. Finally , around 10th to 12th century AD , Buddhism merged with Hinduism in India.Hinayana form is the oldest and has spread to other parts of the world .Hinduism had to accept all the three variants of Buddhism...You can get more details of this in the works of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.    The Vajryana form probably developed after 7th cenury A.D. ,when Islam spread to India. North India was at that time predominantly Buddhist . Buddhism had Govt. support and so they were not concerned nor  discussing about the survival problem.. Buddhists , in those areas which fell to Muslim invaders ,were forcibly converted to Islam or else were massacred .This forced the Buddhists to change their philosophy with regard to self-preservation. This change also helped them to get the support of Hindu Kingdoms of South India --to fight against Islam. Vajrayana philosophy is a middle path between Hinayana Buddhism and Islam.

Many traditional Buddhist interpretations of the Middle Way tend to focus on the specific extremes avoided by the Buddha's teachings in specific circumstances, rather than trying to identify the general principle behind those specific examples. The Middle Way between eternalism and nihilism is situated in the debates about karma and rebirth in the Buddha's context.
The Middle Way between asceticism and indulgence is a specific ethical issue. The Middle Way between existence and non-existence responds to a specific metaphysical dualism. However, what all of these have in common is a dialectical process of judgement as outlined in MN 26 and 36, in the story of Siddhartha's 'going forth' from the Palace and then the further dissatisfaction with the teachings of Alara Kalama, Udaka Ramaputta, and ascetic practice. It is the absolutisation of the claims in each case that form the extremes, whether positive or negative: the Palace thought it had all the final answers, but didn't, as did both the religious teachers and the ascetics.
Thus the most universal (and thus practical) formulation of the Middle Way is the avoidance of all absolutisations, whether positive or negative, not just the ones specifically mentioned in the Pali Canon that happened to be a problem for the Buddha in his context.
For more information see this Middle Way Society page

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

To answer it in a middle way notion with words of Buddhas disciples, actually walking and teaching the middle way, and not just defending their usuall habits as bing a compromiss between knowing the right and possessing capability of letting go in certain hypocritical ways as following.
So it comes from people knowing and having right mastered situations of having a gun on the head in ways of Dhamma as well and not just ideas and opinions about it:

In his very first sermon, the Buddha introduced his path of practice as a middle way that avoids two extremes: a commitment to sensual pleasures related to sensual desires, and a commitment to self-affliction. On the surface, this statement makes the path sound like a middling way, at a bland halfway point on the continuum between pleasure and pain. But if you read further in the Canon on the middle way, you realize that its middleness is much more complex than that.
To begin with, there are times when the Buddha recommends pursuing pleasant practice; and other times where he recommends painful practice. There are also times where he talks of the middleness of his middle way in different terms entirely. When discussing one of the more advanced stages of the first factor of the path, right view, he describes it as a perspective that avoids questions requiring an either/or response, where both the either and the or entangle you in issues that distract you from the task of putting an end to suffering and stress. This aspect of the path is middle in the sense that it cuts right through the middle of such questions and throws both alternatives off to the side... read further for righ understanding: The Middles of the Middle Way

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

When I walk, I walk, When I eat, I eat. When I sleep,  I sleep.
Whether one thinks of a self or thinks of a no-self, there is still a self that thinks. There is still a self that doesn't think.
In your example, there is extremes. If one is dying, yet one think of survival, that is extreme. If one is dying, one should be thinking of dying. If one is surviving, one should be thinking of surviving. Thus the middle path.


text:
Modernity and black magic can coexist?
1. In Buddhism, does black magic, magic spell exist? If it is, what's our belief system should be when we are taught to treat all with loving kindness?
Often Black magic is not only concerned with negative, evil, demons, or bad things. Black magic spells and amulets can also be used for good, protection and as many other uses as there are human needs and desires.
Thailand being the predominately a Buddhist country, but this tends to be mixed with older animistic beliefs and some of them also have a strong belief in powerful supernatural entities.
Thailand is indeed one of the top tourist spot but some people also avoid going due to the fear of all these.
I for one, love Thailand a lot and been there many times but often curious about all this and at times confused.
I have read somewhere, some of the the top Monks in Thailand are that spiritually powerful to perform all these.
2. Supposingly all these exist, what's the odd of being the target apart from jealousy?Supposingly if you are very much enlightened and practice meditation vigorously, does this make you any less of being the target?
As some of the victims can be severely disturbed emotionally and in some cases it might even lead to death.

Read the chapter "Psychic Powers" in Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha by Daniel Ingram (get it from http://integrateddaniel.info/book), I find that is a good informative resource (note: it is perhaps not 100% orthodox, I cannot judge that; but it is clearly written). Summary: high concentration plus intent causes magick to happen; buddhists cultivate safe magick which are 4 brahmaviharas (metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha) plus perhaps teaching "power".

Can you elaborate on high concentration plus intent causes magick to happen? Does this means that one can never be too engaging?

Read that book, I am not knowledgeable enough to give more than pointers. My own experience is zero, sorry.

In Buddhism, does black magic, magic spell exist?
I believe so... the Buddha seems to recognize some pretty powerful black magic, e.g.:

“What do you think, householder? Suppose some recluse or brahmin came here possessed of supernormal power and attained to mastery of mind, and he spoke thus: ‘I will reduce this town of Nāḷandā to ashes with one mental act of hate.’ What do you think, householder, would such a recluse or brahmin be able to do that?”
“Venerable sir, such a recluse or brahmin possessed of supernormal power and attained to mastery of mind would be able to reduce ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or even fifty Nāḷandās to ashes with one mental act of hate, so what does a single trivial Nāḷandā count for?”
-- MN 56 (Bodhi, trans)

If it is, what's our belief system should be when we are taught to treat all with loving kindness?
I don't believe this changes our imperative to treat all with loving kindness...

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons, making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love — thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves.
-- MN 21 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

2. Supposingly all these exist, what's the odd of being the target apart from jealousy?
I don't think this question is relevant to our site.

Supposingly if you are very much enlightened and practice meditation vigorously, does this make you any less of being the target?
Maybe... to some extent enlightenment protects one from harm, but mostly it protects one from reacting to harm and therefore causing further retribution. The stories of Angulimala and Mogallana both exemplify this idea.

TL;DR version:
It's possible to protect oneself using the foundations of mindfulness (satipatthana), virtues (sila) and by not having bad intentions.
I think the general idea is that through these, one would generate good karma that takes one away from falling to black magic.
Long version:
There's a discussion on protection through Satipatthana by Ven. Nyanaponika where he quotes SN 19:

This is the right way," said the Blessed One and spoke further as
  follows:
"It is just as the apprentice said: 'I shall protect myself' — in that
  way the foundations of mindfulness (satipatthana) should be practiced.
  'I shall protect others' — in that way the foundations of mindfulness
  should be practiced. Protecting oneself, one protects others;
  protecting others, one protects oneself.
"And how does one, in protecting oneself, protect others? By the
  repeated and frequent practice of meditation.
"And how does one, in protecting others, protect oneself? By patience
  and forbearance, by a non-violent and harmless life, by loving
  kindness and compassion."

In the Atta-rakkhita Sutta, there is discussion on self-protection through virtues (sila):

Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental
  misconduct leave themselves unprotected. Even though a squadron of
  elephant troops might protect them, a squadron of cavalry troops, a
  squadron of chariot troops, a squadron of infantry troops might
  protect them, still they leave themselves unprotected. Why is that?
  Because that's an external protection, not an internal one. Therefore
  they leave themselves unprotected. But those who engage in good bodily
  conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct have themselves
  protected. Even though neither a squadron of elephant troops, a
  squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, nor a
  squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they have
  themselves protected. Why is that? Because that's an internal
  protection, not an external one. Therefore they have themselves
  protected."

And finally protection through not having bad intentions in Dhammapada 124:

The bhikkhus then asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the
  hunter who is a sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has
  been getting things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he
  goes out hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus,
  the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The
  wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for
  him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so
  also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any
  evil."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
If there is no
  wound on the hand, one may handle poison; poison does not affect one
  who has no wound; there can be no evil for one who has no evil
  intention.

Wow...that's very deep, will try to digest.Thanks for sharing anyway! =)

Can this answer be edited to include a tl;dr version at the top or bottom?

Anthony - Pls go ahead and edit if you may, thanks!

I've edited it to say that.

Thanks ruben2020. Sunset_Limited, i wanted to but at the time i was sleepy and couldn't understand the full text.

I think the general idea is that through these, one would generate good karma that takes one away from falling to black magic.

If your really afraid of black magic in Thailand remember,if you don't bear any ill will it "bounces" back to the owner.In other words if your a good person or virtuous someone's ill will can not harm you.Not even a powerful nature spirit can harm you if your heart is pure.A virtuous person is respected by other beings.Take refuge in your virtue.Your sila gives you the confidence to stand up and face hostility   because your blameless.Your whole.I advice that you recite the Paritta Protection Book.And do a lot of metta practice.If someone is going through great lengths to spread and concentrate I'll will on you.You should be doing the opposite.For hatred can only be overcome by love.

Bearing of no ill will towards that person u mean? What if you are the indirect target?


text:
Dana in Thailand or Sri Lanka
I'm sorry it may be a little off topic, does anyone here know anywhere in Thailand or Sri Lanka where Dana is being carried out? Preferably central area, more accessible.
Thanks!

See also Interacting with monks in Thailand and note that both answers mention some extra rules for women.

Thanks for sharing.Those standard ones like no direct contact when offering food are pretty common.But still, I saw some of them just scoop and put it into the Monk's alm. Aren't they suppose to put them on a piece of clothe or something?

Into the monk's "bowl" or "alms bowl", do you mean? I don't know. Bakmoon's answer said the monks will lay out a cloth (I guess instead of accepting it directly into their hand) if you are offering something other than food (with food being put directly into the bowl, for example as shown in Sankha's video recording below).

Sorry,I meant alms bowl.Yeah,exactly.Usually the monk will lay out a cloth.Yes,watched. =)

Well, if you are a layman looking for free food, come to Sri Lanka during the Vesak or Poson full moon poya days. You will find many free food outlets. Usually you can get rice & curry, noodles, sandwiches, ice cream, various beverages etc.
If you are a monk, you can go on alms round on any day. You will be offered food in most cities.
If you're actually looking to do the dana offering to monks, just go to any temple and make your wishes known to the head monk: they will give you a date. Alternately, you can go near monasteries like Meethirigala and try to catch a monk who's going on alms round. Here's a recording I did in January: Pindapathe on Election Day

Hi Sankha, thanks for your response. I'm actually looking to do the dana offering to Monks. =)

Just go to any temple and make your wishes known to the head monk. They will give you a date. Alternately, you can go near monasteries like meethirigala and try to catch a monk who's going on alms round. Here's a recording I did in January: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCudZFi-rOQ

Just checked out Meetirigala Nissarana Vanaya, will join for a retreat if time permits. Anyway, is tourist allow to visit the monastery?

Tourists or foreigners who wants to meditate? Also what type of meditation you are looking for?

Just tourist dropping by to visit the monastery, is it appropriate?

Yes, as long as you don't make noise or try to talk with meditators or visit their kutis.


text:
How does cause depend on its effect?
This philosophical treatment of Nagarjuna by Westerhoff talks about how a cause depends on its effect.
I think that this point is a stumbling block for me but in my philosophical interpretations of Buddhism and of life and death per se.
He says:

There are three different ways in which we can make sense of
  Nāgārjuna's assertion that the cause depends existentially on the
  effect.

And then proceeds to argue about them (which I cannot make complete sense of).
Is the idea that a conditioned cause must be conditioned by its effect, in the sense of having it as a part?

Approaching causal and effectual reliance through "times"
Past, Present, and Future are the three times.
Future, Past, and Present equally depend on each other.
If you try and draw a triangle with only one line or two lines, it is impossible.  All three need to be in place for the totality of "time."
In this way, it might be possible to reason more clearly about how causes depend on effects.
Approaching co-emergent phenomena via phor
Your question seems to be "okay causes lead to effects, but why do causes depend on effects?"
Two people high-fiving requires a silent clap from both sides.
The beach (of sand) and the shore-line (of water) depend upon one another.  To say there can be a beach without water is to have a desert.  To have water without a shore-line is not a shore, but an ocean.
Thus, investigating
The nature of where they meet
Noble Nagarjuna, in Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way states

Forms do not meet and they do not part.

Dogen-ji made a statement of similar magnitude by saying "Space has no gaps."
I will stop there, at risk of becoming too philosophical.  The teachings are meant for experiential understanding.  Words will help, but like reading a menu or eating a meal, the actual experience is what counts.
For now, know that the present is dominant and that both future and past must borrow from Now in order to even come into question.

Good question.
I have this magnificent book "How to See Yourself As You Really Are" by Dalai Lama.
And in this book he actually speaks about the question you are asking about - how a cause is dependent on its effect.
Dalai Lama explains it brilliantly in his book so i am going to quote him directly.
Both passages are from "Chapter 20: Notice How everything Depends on Thought, p. 201-203".

"For instance, it is obvious that effects depend upon causes, but causes also, in a subtle sense, depend upon effects. Every cause itself is an effect of its own causes, which preceded it, and therefore arises in dependence upon its respective causes. All Buddhist systems assert that effects arise in dependence upon causes. Here cause and effect are in a temporal sequence, an effect occurring after its cause. This is dependent-arising in the sense of dependent production. Only the highest philosophical perspective within Buddhism contains an additional consideration, that because the designation of something as a “cause” depends upon consideration of its effect, in this sense a cause depends upon its effect. Something is not a cause in and of itself; it is named a “cause” in relation to its effect. Here the effect does not occur before its cause, and its cause does not come into being after its effect; it is in thinking of its future effect that we designate something as a cause. This is dependent-arising in the sense of dependent designation."

He says further;

"As Nagarjuna says in his Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Called “Wisdom”:
  A doer is dependent on a doing, And a doing exists dependent on a doer. Except for dependently arising, we do not see another cause for their establishment. Agent and action depend upon each other. An action is posited in dependence upon an agent, and an agent is posited in dependence upon an action. An action arises in dependence upon an agent, and an agent arises in dependence upon an action. Nevertheless, they are not related in the same way as cause and effect, since the one is not produced before the other. How is it that, in general, things are relative? How is it that a cause is relative to its effect? It is because it is not established in and of itself. If that were the case, a cause would not need to depend on its effect. But there is no self-sufficient cause, which is why we do not find anything in and of itself when we analytically examine a cause, despite its appearance to our everyday mind that each thing has its own self-contained being. Because things are under the influence of something other than themselves, the designation of something as a cause necessarily depends upon consideration of its effect. This is the route through which we come to realize that this more subtle understanding of dependent-arising as dependent designation is correct."

Lanka

If I make your day bad, you're likely to come home to your wife in a rotten mood and she will have a tough time with you. Much like rings in the water. At the center you have X energy and then it fades along the way to 0. Everything is impermanent. However the energy of the process might trigger other similar processes to happen and those you can be hit by, but it is never your own started process. If your process has started two other processes out there, then you get it back in strength depending on how far out the other processes are. Because you're already sensitive to it you will get triggered again. But if you have learned to handle the "trigger", then the processes will have no effect.


text:
Is it ok for a Buddhist to participate in a demonstration?
I'm talking about a peaceful demonstration against a corrupt government. The point is: It can be seen as divisive speech because there will be people against it.

The Buddha himself protested silently on at least two occasions in the Dhp commentary; both relate to his family, though. He never seems to have protested against the cruelty of kings, etc. and his actions seem always to have been in the form of teaching.
A protest is always a showing that you are against something. If you are truly against it, this is paṭigha, or aversion, and it is always unwholesome. In Buddhism we look at the bigger picture, and try to see that samsara as a whole is meaningless. As such, we try to teach all people to give up their unwholesomeness - this means teaching all rather than taking sides. The Buddha was exemplary in this regard, teaching even the basest of human beings and never challenging evil directly.
If the protest is instructional - i.e. a means of reminding certain parties of the error of their ways, then it seems to be reasonable, provided one is an involved party (e.g. a relative or intimate to one party in a conflict).
Finally, one might argue a civic responsibility for lay people - e.g. voting, or even demonstrating simply as a duty (e.g. H. D. Thoreau's Civil Disobedience). As long as one simply sees it as a duty, this seems reasonable.

"If the protest is instructional - i.e. a means of reminding certain parties of the error of their ways, then it seems to be reasonable, provided one is an involved party (e.g. a relative or intimate to one party in a conflict).". Is this a teaching of the Buddha?

Some monks have, occasionally, protested against a government (for example, "this sermon was extremely critical of the Prime Minister").
The word "divisive" reminds me of rules against creating a "Schism in the Sangha" ... maybe the rule against "divisive" speech means, especially, speech which would divide the sangha (not the body politic).
Even in the Vinaya there are rules for orderly ways to express disagreement or to assert your belief.
I don't want to say that it's always correct (maybe it varies depending on the country etc.), but I also don't want to say that it's never correct!
It might depend on your motive too. I have met one (lay) lady who told me that she joins the front row of street manifestations, because (she said) her being in the front row will decrease the likelihood of violent clashes between protesters and police.

Yes, it is ok since you are simply voicing your opinion against corruption. Your motive is not to divide people. But it is not ok, if you are putting the people who follow you in harms way, just to serve your political agenda.

To demonstrate... in regard of doing ways of Demon, straight
Protesting in such ways requires wrong, absence of right view, demanding, claiming for one/his, ingratitude:

There is the case where a certain person is covetous. He covets the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears ill will, corrupt in the resolves of his heart: 'May these beings be killed or cut apart or crushed or destroyed, or may they not exist at all!' He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made impure in three ways by mental action.

What is understood as Demonstration goes direct against the path, seen best in Right resolve:

"And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve."

A duty to abstain for a clan-man, householder under 'equal':

"In five ways, young householder, should a clansman minister to his friends and associates as the North:
(i) by liberality,
(ii) by courteous speech,
(iii) by being helpful,
(iv) by being impartial,
(v) by sincerity.

And a highway to hell for rebelling toward authorities, elders, sublime, chef, boss, leader:

"Then the hell-wardens, seizing (such a being) by the arms, present him to King Yama: 'This is a man, your majesty, with no respect for mother, no respect for father [1], no reverence for contemplatives, no reverence for brahmans, no honor for the leaders of his clan. Let your majesty decree his punishment.'

There isn't easy a Sutta found not transporting a 'no-go' message, actually, in regard of what is called: paṭigha, paṭisandhi
"Buddhist" might do what they feel as ok, and others might approve or disapprove, good householder, as for a person wishing to follow the path, not wishing to accumulate bad Kamma or even strong hindrances, or desires for a most pleasing wandering on, uses non violent (incl. passive aggressions or violence) means to display his disapprove if it is even something of his, in his relations. Disapproving of something unskillful is actually important but does not necessarily require to go further than mentally doing.
Demonstrations are nearly always violent (incl passive aggression, ala Gandhi for example, or simply kinds of extortions) and it's totally not understandable why such is at large allowed to do, lead only to conflicts, till masses of deaths, it's like a "fest" of very unskillful emotions, aversion, greed, confusion, disturbs communities and has not only personal long term bad impact but also far infecting other in joining. So a practicing follower of the Buddha disapproves such thing, hell-leading undertaking, mentally, by declaring or giving signs of turning away, or by bodily deeds, walking away. Opposing, taking side, for certain groups interests, isn't something a wise person does, or gives signs of approve. There are always plenty other means to possible improve things.
As for the highest way of demonstration, demonstrating, for one no more taking part on common relations, the Sallekha Sutta: The Discourse on Effacement demonstrates such.
For one living on alms of faith it's total improper to take part on such, far off of his duties, incl. by ways of voting, signing perditions... not even for the Sanghas or others of his societies purpose and it's good to keep distance to such, since like with demos, even if in good ways and good mind taking part, as one associates with (danger) of fools, one gets not only suspected but also seen as part-taker on even worldly crimes.
Quarrel-maker, part-taker on demonstration, supporter, are at large total unwelcome in traditional societies with certain connection to Dhammic customs.
And how to overcome arising drive to do or join a Demonstration, violent protest?
AN 5.162: Aghatavinaya Sutta — Subduing Hatred (2)
AN 5.162: Aghatavinaya Sutta — Subduing Hatred (2)
May all those using the label 'Buddhis', Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha always demonstrate the proper use of taking on them and prefer to turn toward mudita and the other Brahmaviharas if required.
[Note that this demonstration isn't given for stacks, exchange, other wordl-binding trades but as gift for release for those able to receive]

You should definitely be able to edit your previous answer.

If, why a secound and comment then... 'should': sabbe dhamma anicca, isn't for sure, good householder. 'definitely': who knows cessation of suffering...

Sadhu for edits, for demonstration, Nyom @triplee (Just to inform Kamma is the Pali-spelling for deeds)

Vietnamese Buddhist monks were against the repressive rule of President Diem, a Catholic in South Vietnam in the early sixties. They conducted street demonstrations and were beaten and jailed by the military and secret police thugs of the Diem gov't. Finally one of their monks in protest burnt himself with gasoline in downtown Saigon. A photographer was present and these photos of a monk burning were instrumental in bringing down Diem's repressive gov't and also in providing support to anti-war protesters around the world. The protests by Buddhist monks in a predominantly Buddhist country culminated in the ousting of President Diem by the CIA (via his assassination by military personnel loyal to coup plotters) in September? of 1963. You can read more about this monk at wiki page link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c

Unless you have attained freedom, you fix yourself before you fix the world otherwise you fix the world and your defilement manifests in the world. If you believe you can help because you believe X that may be lobha as we people cling to that which gives us purpose: Helping other people.

Some may find this answer challenging; apologies in advance...
The essence of Buddhism is protest: a protest against the blind, grasping nature of the self, and all the confusion and disruption that this nature can bring on us. Every time we sit down to meditate we confront that self, and show it a different path. Every time we teach the dharma, we confront that egoic nature in others, in the hope they will take up the protest.
Buddhism says: "Stop perpetuating discontentment and strife." That is the core message of every protest ever made.
Of course, every protest carries the risk that we will get carried away and perpetuate discontentment and strife in the very act of trying to end it. We cannot blindly grasp after a solution to the problem of the blind, grasping nature of the self. We have to bring the dharma into the protest. But that being said...

Well, I like this answer and there are certainly suttas about that but I'm not sure that is what is meant. I thought they meant "demonstration or protest" as a practice that tries to lessen the defilements of society as opposed to the individual's  defilements.

@Lowbrow (noting that I don't generally use the term 'defilement,' which I find a bit heavy-handed): Though I understand the urge to make this distinction, I'm not certain how much water it can hold. Where does a society stop and an individual begin? How can the defilement of one be different from the defilement of many? If a leader starts a war, is the defilement behind it his, or the nation's, or the world's at large? Karma is impersonal; we all share its burden.

"Buddhist" might do what they feel as ok, and others might approve or disapprove, good householder, as for a person wishing to follow the path, not wishing to accumulate bad kamma or even strong hindrances, or desires for a most pleasing wandering on, uses non violent (incl. passive agressions or violence) means to display his disaprove if it is even something of his, in his relations. Disaprove of something unskillful is actually importand but does not necessay required to go further then mentally doing.
Demonstrations are nearly always violent (incl passive aggression, ala Gandi for example, or simply kinds of extortions) and it's totally not understandable why such is at large allowed to do, lead only to conflicts, till masses of deaths, it's like a "fest" of very unskillful emotions, aversion, greed, confusion, disturbs communities and has not only personal long term bad impact but also far infecting other in joining. So a practicing follower of the Buddha disaproves such thing, hell-leading undertaking, mentally, by declaring or giving signs of turning away, or by bodily deeds, walking away. Opposing, taking side, for certain groups interests, isn't something a wise person does,or gives signs of approve. There are always plenty other means to possible improve things.
As for the highest way of demonstration, demonstrating, for one no more taking part on common relations, the Sallekha Sutta: The Discourse on Effacement demonstrates such.
For one living on alms of faith it's total improper to take part on such, far off of his duties, incl. by ways of voting, signing perditions... not even for the Sanghas or others of his societies purpose and it's good to keep distance to such, since like with demos, even if in good ways and good mind taking part, as one associates with (danger) of fools, one gets not only suspected but also seen as part-taker on even worldly crimes.
Quarrel-maker, part-taker on demonstration, supporter, are at large total unwelcome in traditional societies with certain connection to Dhammic customs.

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


text:
Karma instead of God's plan
Hello I wondered if the existence of karma (I believe in it anyway) can take the place of the concept of "God's plan" - which is how some people live with the horrors of Nihilism.
I am not a Christian but it seems to me that God's plan is what we humans are missing (existentially) since He died.

What are you expecting when you say "God's plan"?

It's difficult to understand this question. Are you simply asking, "Are Karma and God's Plan the same thing?"

no i'm asking about nihilism, and how people can live with themselves after the death of God

OK, that's a good question in itself, but how does that belong on Buddhism.SE?

i don't know, it seems to be about karma anyway

This is an interesting question. How can people live with themselves after the death of God. And it's not nihilistic but simply atheistic. This question probably belongs on Philosophy SE.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this belongs on philosophy.stackexchange.com

@Anthony not sure I agree, it has philosophical elements (e.g. death of god as nihilism) but it IS about Buddhist doctrine :)

OK I think I see where you are coming from. The question wording needs to be fixed; I will try to do it shortly.

What are you really asking, though? "Can karma be a source of comfort like God's Plan for Christians?" In that case the question is opinion-based and I would answer by saying "yes, but a practicing Buddhist should not rely on comfort."

I don't mean "comfort" as much as: can karma be a reason to suppose moral nihilism is not a fact?

God's plan implies a working towards some goal, or a rhyme or reason at least. Karma implies no such thing; it simply describes an orderliness to the mental aspect of reality, in the same way that physics does for the physical aspect. Karma is in fact to be abandoned, or risen above, in the end, to the extent that one performs neither wholesome nor unwholesome karma as an enlightened being.
Simply put, Buddhism admits of no plan to samsara; it is utterly meaningless and to be risen above or abandoned in the end. Karma simply describes a part of the mechanics of the system and is not in fact all that important to Buddhist practice, in comparison to realization of the nature of reality as impermanent, suffering, and non-self.

God's plan is someone else laying out your fate.Karma is you laying down your own fate.Karma is action done in the present moment.You can choose what you want to do in the present moment but have to live with the consequences.

I don't think that's necessarily the case :) your first statement i mean :)

i don't have to invoke any xtian mysticism to show how your response is a little hot headed. even if God's plan is his and not ours, that doesn't mean we can't choose to "act... in the present but... live with the consequences". not to mention the history of xtians who argued for free will.

Orion you're welcome to add to your answer to make sure it makes sense to me tho :)

hey.. relax..man. lol..just breath in count to three then exhale.trust me Everything is going to be alright. This is an excellent question but i get confused when its unclear, your not a  Christian but your asking about Gods plan to a Buddhist...I think that you will find Christian SE to be more qualified In answering the Christian concept of free will or God's plan .by the way what is xtians?? sounds sci fi- ish. Are you just too lazy to type Christians aww thas cute :" >

No it's about nietzsche my breathing is fine thanks. I'm just trying to understand what you are talking about haha


text:
What are the famous debates in canonical Buddhist texts?
Debate plays an important part of Buddhism. What are famous debate encounters by the Buddha and also by other Buddhist masters like Dharmakīrti, especially with Hindus(exponents of Brahmavāda-Ātmavāda) and Jains?

Edited your title so that the question can be understood when it appears on the right-hand column.

A really good look at the sort of debates Buddhists got into is in the Kathaavatthu - translated into English as "Points of Controversy". This is a later text, but outlines the many controversies and associated arguments. Examples of good debates in the suttas are MN 56 and DN 23.
As you say, debate plays an important part in the teaching, so the debates are really too numerous to list. I don't have any information on Dharmakirti though.

Thanks for your answer. Where could I find an English translation of MN 56 and DN 23? I found an English transliteration though internet search. And Dharmakiriti is a Mahayana master who I've read was involved in a debate with Kumarilla Bhatta of Purva Mimamsa school of Hinduism.


text:
Natural practice of meditation
Hey I just wondered: I met a high intensity theravadin meditator (who teaches it) and he defined the self enlightened as being meditators that no one had to teach. It came naturally, so to speak.
Is it possible to be practicing this untaught meditation but not be self enlightened?

and not have experienced "kensho" either - i mean !

A question can often be clarified by rephrasing it to include an explicit question mark: or two question marks, i.e. one question mark in the title and another in the text of the question.

A person who attains nirvana without hearing the Dhamma, by his own efforts and trials, is generally called a [characterization-prefix]-Buddha ("self enlightened" is an overdose of ambiguities). It's a long jump from "not being taught nirvana" to "came naturally", specially when there is a long period of striving and a very special kind of dedication in between.

@ThiagoSilva hello I think you are reading the wrong allusion into my term "naturally" I don't mean without effort I mean without the effort to learn it from others

Re. the first paragraph of your question, perhaps the teacher you met was talking about a so-called pratyekabuddha or paccekabuddha (it's useful to know the technical word if you want to read more about it, see also e.g. the 'external links' etc. at the end of that article).

I could tell you some pseudo zen wisdom that I have learned to spinoff after reading zen masters from the past. Study Dogen or Shunryu Suzuki. I especially like Zen Mind Beginners Mind the uses the term Beginners Mind in place of enlightenment. Enlightenent sounds like something that strikes like lightning. Beginner's mind is more like a sudden wind that stops you in your tracks, you look around, and nothing is there. But you experienced something without preconception. Maybe a glimpse of beginners mind
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf


text:
Were the Zen Patriarchs reborn?
Was e.g. the 6th patriarch Huineng reborn? Was Dogen reborn?
I would think that Huineng wasn't (it's called the platform sutra for a reason) and Dogen was - though I don't know of anything he said to that effect

You're welcome. If the question is asked in the title, it's easier for users to understand when they see it on the right-hand column.

There are two implications to the question you ask:
If you imply that being reborn so that they can come back to earth to teach again like the Tibetan lamas, the answer is no. That is the path of a bodhisattva. The zen tradition is to gain enlightenment, instantly or gradually.
The second is that, have those patriarch reached enlightenment so that they will never be reborn? If you believe they were enlightened then they will not.


text:
Did Buddha practice group meditation with bhikkhus, bhikkhunis and laymen, just like in today's meditation center?
In today's meditation center, practitioners meditate with others in group sitting. After an hour or so of meditation, the practitioners may proceed to seek advices from the teacher on their progress.
Did Buddha practice group meditation with bhikkhus, bhikkhunis and laymen, and then they may seek advice from Buddha? Is there any such event described in the Sutta?

Yes, it seems he did. For example in DN 2:

10. And when King Ajatasattu came near the mango-grove he felt fear and terror, and his hair stood on end. And feeling [50] this fear and the rising of the hairs, the King said to Jīvaka: ‘Friend Jivaka, you are not deceiving me? You are not tricking me? You are not delivering me up to an enemy? How is it that from this great number of twelve hundred and fifty monks not a sneeze, a cough or a shout is to be heard?’
‘Have no fear, Your Majesty, I would not deceive you or trick you or deliver you up to an enemy. Approach, Sire, approach. There are the lights burning in the round pavilion.’
11. So King Ajatasattu, having ridden on his elephant as far as the ground would permit, alighted and continued on foot to the door of the round pavilion. Then he said: ‘Jivaka, where is the Lord?’ ‘That is the Lord, Sire. That is the Lord sitting against the middle column with his order of monks in front of him.’
12. Then King Ajātasattu went up to the Lord and stood to one side, and standing there to one side the King observed how the order of monks continued in silence like a clear lake, and he exclaimed: ‘If only Prince Udāyabhadda were possessed of such calm as this order of monks!’
(Walshe, trans)

Thanks, didn't realize that they might be meditating when I read this earlier.

Yes, it seems he did. For example in Yasoja Sutta:

Now, at that time the Blessed One was sitting in imperturbable
  concentration [either in the fourth jhāna, the dimension of the
  infinitude of space, or the dimension of the infinitude of
  consciousness]. The thought occurred to the monks, "Now, in which
  mental dwelling is the Blessed One now residing?" Then they realized,
  "He is residing in the imperturbable dwelling." So they all sat in
  imperturbable concentration.
Then Ven. Ānanda — when the night was far advanced, at the end of the
  first watch — got up from his seat, arranged his robe over one
  shoulder, stood facing the Blessed One, paying homage with his hands
  placed palm-to-palm over his heart, and said to him, "The night, lord,
  is far advanced. The first watch has ended. The visiting monks have
  been sitting here a long time. May the Blessed One greet them." When
  this was said, the Blessed One remained silent.
Then a second time ... (Ananda did the same thing later)
Then a third time ... (Ananda did the same thing later)
Then the Blessed One, emerging from his imperturbable concentration,
  said to Ven. Ānanda, "Ānanda, if you had known, not even that much
  would have occurred to you (to say). I, along with all 500 of these
  monks, have been sitting in imperturbable concentration."

Wow, was that 6pm to 6am of the next morning? Wonder what Ananda was doing while the others were in imperturbable concentration for such a long period.


text:
The actualization of Anatta
Having attempted to understand the actualization of Anatta, i am at a complete loss. The more i endeavor to understand the meaning, the more confusing it seems.
I have read;

What is the best translation of Anatta into English?
What is the precise meaning of anatta?
No-self Not self

My understanding to date is that it not-self is to detach from the 5 aggregates. So to use an example. If i express anger or sadness, i should look to detach or disassociate myself from such emotions. This may be through meditation or mindfulness.

Is my understanding correct? If incorrect, please use lay person examples that will allow me to relate or understand.
Are meditation and mindfulness the only methods of actualization?

i express anger or sadness, i should look to detach or disassociate
  myself from such emotions.

Not! Stop hypothesizing and simply observe the events/experience at their unsullied form.
When you say "I express anger", it's already sullied. You have assumed the existence of an 'I'. Anger is anger. So simply notice it as anger. Not 'I'! Same with sadness and other emotions. Don't look to do anything with them. Just observe and see if they qualify as an 'I' or 'self'.

Are meditation and mindfulness the only methods of actualization?

There's no actualization required. Anatta is already actual. It's similar to saying "how do I make the world round?". It's already round, you just need to realize it.
Satipattana meditation is the only way to purify the mind. Buddha called it the "Ekayano Maggo".The one and only way.

Thanks although i don't quite get it so forgive my naivety. In the moment be it anger, sadness, etc, how do you simply become the observer and not the actor? i.e. to observe the emotion rather than play it out.
Secondly. What do you mean anatta is actual? Can you give me examples?

Anger is anger and the observing of it is just observing. If you think observing is 'I', note the observing to see if it qualifies as an 'I'. Everything you see, hear, taste, smell, feel, think is Anatta. Pick one as an example! :)

Thanks. If everything is simply an observation, how can there be happiness? Is that not simply happiness and the association with the I?

Everything is not observation. Observation is awareness. There are 4 more aggregates. Happiness is another emotion like anger. Just note it as happy. Don't sully it by assuming an 'I'.

Sorry i am confused. What is everything? Be it emotion, physical pain, mental models, the senses?

I am very keen to learn and understand. Do you mind if i dropped you an email or possibly you dropping me an email and i can respond? My email address is motivatedgorilla [at] gmail [dot] com.

The five aggregates.
"I am happy" is a statement based on the assumption that 'I' exist due to the arising of the emotion called 'happiness'.

Sure! My email is in the profile.

It doesn't appear in the profile. From what i gather, it's not visible to the public unless you place it in the textarea. Hopefully you won't mind dropping me an email and i can reply. Thanks.

I understand the concept of the 5 aggregates. If the concept of i is based on the arising of an emotion, where role do happiness or love play? Surely, you don't mean to say that each time i experience happiness, i should simply observe it. I don't understand the concept of sullying it. So an example, what do you do when anger is present or in contrast love or happiness?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

"Having attempted to understand the actualization of Anatta, i am at a complete loss. The more i endeavor to understand the meaning, the more confusing it seems."
It is a tough characteristic to grapple :). I would urge you to read Mr. Piya Tan's translation and notes on the Buddha's Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (and all his other works). The link is below.
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1.2-Anatta-Lakkhana-S-s22.59-piya-proto.pdf
The full sutta with the repetitions is also useful as a daily guided meditation or daily subject of contemplation. If one routinely contemplates on this earnestly, it will help one realize that the five clinging aggregates cannot be considered as 'mine, I, myself.'
It is also essential to have a good understanding of five aggregates.
As you routinely contemplate thus, sharpen your understanding, there will eventually come a time when the old views of considering these five false friends to be mine, I, myself will disappear. It will be a profound moment.
Test the five aggregates as one would test a stone you are told is a diamond is truly a diamond. Subject it to various lights, look deep into it.
Now the breaking from the wrong views will help in the reduction of anger and sorrow. However, the complete cessation of anger and sorrow will take time. Most of such responses are habitual, reflexive. This is where having developed mindful awareness is beneficial, and the advice of experienced teachers like Ven Yuttadhammo are invaluable.
I find often contemplating the drawbacks of anger useful.
Sorrow often arises when we don't meet expectations, or if our expectations are dashed. I heard of a once promising cricketer who broke his arm and could never play properly again. He took to alcoholism since the view he had of himself, a national cricketer, could not be achieved. He constantly moped about it. Later, with the help of a friend he started regularly contemplating on the anatta nature of the body (rupa) and mental formations (mano sankhara), and was able to overcame his sorrow of not meeting expectation which are mental formations created by a 'mind apparatus' which was not created by I, mine of myself :)

Thanks however attempting to read literature that i have very little understanding makes it more complex to understand. I am attempting to understand these through basic examples that i can relate which will then allow me to progress further in my understanding.

Then may I suggest reading the translation of the Anatta lakkhana Sutta available from the link below. Its very simple and straight forward to read and perhaps even understand. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html

I don't think we need to find ways to actualize Anatta. Rather, through contemplation on the teachings, mindfulness and insight meditation, we should eventually gain deep insight into the fact that the Three Marks of Existence are true.
With regards to insight meditation (vipassana), rather than detaching or disassociating oneself from one's emotions, my view is that we should passively observe how they arise and pass, in order to get a better understanding of how these work.
Actualizing anatta and detaching from emotions sound very active and forceful.
Mindfulness is for calming the mind so that it becomes steady, calm and concentrated, which in turn can help vipassana.
By the way, the level of my practice is very much novice. So, my answer above is purely from a philosophical understanding.
In addition to meditation and mindfulness, contemplation on the teachings, practice of virtues (sila) and basically the whole Noble Eightfold Path contributes toward the goal.

Thanks ruben2020. I am confused by the passive observation of emotions. What about happiness? Do you simply observe? Do you not laugh? Smile? Take joy in the moment?

Observe everything. Every little thing. But only when you are practising vipassana meditation.

Is my understanding correct?
Yes, that sounds right to me.

Some preliminaries:

Anattā is one of the three marks of existence and I relate it to the other two, when I describe it.
There's a related term, suññatā translated as emptiness or voidness.
Wikipedia says "In Theravada Buddhism, suññatā often refers to the not-self (anattā) nature"; and I don't think I usually make a meaningful distinction between suññatā and anattā, though other people might.
I asked about it in this question and one of the comments was that it means "empty of disturbances".
The Dalai Lama writes that there's more than one kind of self or ego. There are for example unrealistic expectations or 'having a very high idea about ourselves' ... which is extreme, a false path, and leads to trouble. The other is a feeling of 'I can do it', 'I should do it', 'I should take on this responsibility' which he says is a basis of human determination and courage, the loss of which would provoke discouragement, self-doubt, self-hatred.

So to use an example. If i express anger ...
I rarely become angry these days. When I do, I think:

This (feeling or expression of anger) is unusual. It wasn't here (I wasn't expressing or feeling it) a minute ago. It it noticeable, transient, impermanent, not me. I needn't keep it.
This (feeling or expression of anger) is unpleasant for me and for anyone who is with me. I needn't continue it.

I think that Buddhism teaches (and you can verify for yourself) that thoughts and feelings come and go. I therefore don't see 'myself' as being some kind of solid/permanent thing, which reacts robustly and justifiably e.g. with anger to any adversity. Instead I see myself as a hollow, leaky boat. Sometimes anger will leak in and if it ever does then as far as I'm concerned it can go and leak out again.
I suspect that a view of anattā may be necessary or helpful, but not sufficient. For example the beginning of the Dhammapada says,

5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

I think that teachings like that, i.e. about non-hatred (as well as teaching about non-self), help to deal with anger.
I should mention that "anger" (and "hatred") are extremes within a continuum. It can similarly take the form of dislike or aversion. I might congratulate myself on not manifesting much anger these days, but there's 'dislike'.
One more thing: if I get angry it's often when feeling thwarted or frustrated -- e.g. when I wanted to do something, had planned or hoped to do something, but someone else wants to do something else with me. Well I see that as an example of attachment (my being attached to preconceived plans); and I think that attachment is a form of self ("my" desires, "my" plans), and letting go of attachment is related to letting go of (false) views of self.
The view of the five aggregates themselves might contribute to a view of anattā and dispassion. Consider the difference between "I am hurt" and "I am feeling hurt": the latter implies perhaps just a transient feeling, whereas the former implies some perhaps-permanently damaged self. So for example this video is I think about "mindfulness" and involves the mind identifying the feeling ("hearing", "pain", or whatever the feeling is) ... which I guess might have the effect of helping to separate the feeling from the self, helping to see the feeling as being external/separate/non-self.

...  or sadness,
That might be similar to 'anger', above. Depending on the sadness, maybe the sadness is caused by loss, caused by attachment, cause by a false sense of self (e.g. by seeing 'self' within something that was impermanent). And maybe the feeling of sadness too is not-self, and the idea which caused the feeling of sadness, etc.

Thanks ChrisW. It isn't very clear what you mean by empty of disturbances. For example, what is a disturbance? Emotions? Thoughts? Both? What if happiness is what you seek?

That's not clear to me either. Shall I make wild guesses? Perhaps disturbance could mean klesha. I think suññatā comes from later, Mahayana Buddhism, which includes in its doctrine the concept of 'Buddha Nature', which might be what's the subject of this pair of poems. OTOH someone I talked with yesterday said that in her dhamma discussion, it had been said that 'empty' or 'spacious' is like a space into which you can welcome others, not a space to protect the self.

What you have is a perception or nartion of self. With the cessation of perception your perception or notion of self disappears.
In the conventional sense we have the perception of self. Conventional wisdom is what can be perceived within the field of perception, out of which entity view is one such item.
At the ultimate level there is no self. That is the realisation after the cessation of perception or knowledge beyond the field of perception. Self view being a perception when perception ceases so does the identity view.


text:
How should Buddhists receive generosity?
There is a lot of advice about dana and the importance of generosity and giving but is there any advice on how to receive generosity? From a western perspective it can be quite awkward to receive gifts or charity so I wondered if there is any specific Buddhist advice on how should this be done - both the actions and the appropriate mental state.
The motivation for this is this you tube video where Yuttadhammo is receiving alms. I found it very striking the manner in which they are received - without any thank you or speech. This could be a cultural phenomena within Sri-Lanka or how alms are received generally - I'm not sure. However it makes me wonder in what spirit generosity should be received from a Buddhist perspective generally.

Perhaps you could also ask whether it's different depending on circumstance: e.g. whether or not a lay person receiving generosity should emulate the way in which a monk receives it.

The lay community consider it a privilege to offer Dana to monks. A monk is a special person who has given up the comforts of lay life in search of spiritual liberation. Offering Dana to such a being is very meritorious(refer to Dakkhina Vibhanga Sutta). So the monks are actually doing a favor to the laypeople by accepting it. When going on alms round, a monk may give a short blessing, but it is not compulsory. If monks are invited to a house to receive the dana, they will usually give a sermon on invitation.
From a monk's perspective, being worthy of it is the spirit of receiving generosity. In the Aggikkhandopama Sutta, lord Buddha explains what happens to the monks who are not worthy of the gifts received.
From a giver's perspective, the receiver needn't have any standards. You can even give food to an animal and expect a 100 fold gift in return, according to Dakkhina Vibhanga Sutta. The more virtuous the receiver, the greater the merit.
Generally, from a receiver's perspective, rather than just thanking as a common courtesy, it's more important to remember the favor and return the kindness as one is able when one gets the chance. SACCAṀKIRA-JĀTAKA gives a good example. Also, one can try to make the best use of the gift received to make the giver happier.

Is there anything you can add about lay people (or for lay people) who receive generosity?

Sure! Added that.

Thank you but I think you were still talking about it from the point of view of the giver, saying that the giver will be rewarded 100-fold in return. (There's a Zen story with a seemingly-similar message, The Giver Should Be Thankful.) But I think the OP was asking, if you're the lay receiver of a gift of generosity, if someone gives you something, how should you do this: what actions and what mental state should accompany receiving a gift or charity, because the OP finds doing that to be quite awkward?

Ok, Added more details :)

I was reading the book "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A guide for Laypeople" by Ven. Bhikkhu Ariyesako and might have found an answer to the almsgiving-part of your question. I am here quoting from the following chapters: "How to help a Bhikkhu - Invitation" and "Receiving and Eating Food".

How to help a Bhikkhu - Invitation.
Normally a bhikkhu will not ask for things. Instead, he will wait for something to be offered. This is exemplified in the alms round where the bhikkhu makes no request, does not even look at people, although he may quietly wait to see if an offering is to be made before moving on. One way that lay people enable a bhikkhu to ask them for help is by making an invitation or pavaara.naa.

And

Receiving and Eating Food.
A whole section of the seventy-five Sekhiya Training guidelines is concerned with how a bhikkhu receives and eats his alms food. Although 'table manners' may differ from country to country, and from age to age, these Sekhiya rules still largely conform to what is considered good manners:
"I will receive alms food appreciatively." (Sekhiya 27)
"When receiving alms food, I will focus my attention on the bowl." (Sekhiya 28)
◊ This explains why the bhikkhu may not look at the donor when accepting food — he is concentrating on properly receiving it.

Lanka

This is a very good question householder Crab Bucket because the capacity to be able to give and to be able to receive are very related.
There are some answers which are dealing with how a Monk should receive gifts and the short answer is: dignified.
It's important, how ever, that the way a monk receives gifts (presenting the optimum of debtlessess) is different from that of a "normal" person, and here the main quality is gratitude if one receives scarifies of others. A person who does not know giving (and here the talk is not on trading), is incapable to trace the goodness and would not be able to feel such as gratitude... and as just looking around, it's possible good to stop here, since people who are used to take of what they like might even perceive gifts as degradation or constraint of the validity about liberty they have.
But things are not for sure and might change when old merits begin to fade or needed can no more be found...
So my person thought to leave "just" The Lessons of Gratitude here behind...
...to continue:
Usual when a lay-person receives something from another layperson (seldom would such happen from monks directly)
Bodily: after something is visible offered, possible asked to get sure that something would be personal offered, one receives a gift with both hands, while the gesture and appearing is humble and respectful. Formal offerings between faithful lay-people would often also take place while sitting, kneeing on the floor. While the giver possible makes a declaration, or while things would be handed over, the receiver would fold his hands before the heart with slight bend head. Such a transaction would always take slowly and careful take place, neither in hurry, in between or crossing others interaction, line of view or even feets. In standing position would be similar. Good to note that a giver would also always use both hands before release. If giver or receiver would hand over an object which is "too small" for two hands, the second, empty hand would symbolic touch the giving hand or arm. The use of using both hands does not only symbolic the very conscious act, but also the full release one handed over and by it's way, wouldn't allow unrestrained, next to other deeds, action.
Usually the conventional "elder" would, even if being the receiver, given higher position. Such "battle" of giving respect, especially between devoted elders, often ends for both is a bowed down gesture having the elbows on the floor. The position, if not equal, in terms of to be respected, the higher position would be not on the side of the giver but of the conventional "inferior" (age, or amount of observed Silas, renunciation). Depending on the circumstances the wearing of shoes would be avoided to do not place one higher and either give or receive in proper attitude/gesture.
The "potential" receiver would not reach out the hands before the giver, but without letting the giver wait as he moves a gift forward, come toward the gift with his hands and at least let the giver place it so that he could take hold on it. Only once the giver has released both hands, the receiver would move hands slowly and humble backward his body. Often would a giver, while holding an object, also gives a blessing and/or verbal express the act of giving. While such is done, both are holding on the object with both hands. This is in some ways like a contract,or symbolizing the bond caused by such transaction.
If more than two people take part on giving or receiving, they would try to hold on and offer with two hands the same object. If the object or place would not allow direct contact, the hand or body of giver, receiver would be touched as symbol of taking part on the bodily action.
while giving, receiving (what's wrong here?)
Picture of parents and children. after parents having received a gift from their children.
...to continue here:
The distance while receiving should be proper. If the giver is to far away, one would not reach out, or try to assist in that way a little for one not common with giving. Also to near is not proper. This also reflects the mental aspects of proper relation.
Once a gift has been received, one puts it careful on secure place, also that it would not taken on by others, if seeming that it has left over or forgotten. One might have observed that monks often do not leave thing in front, after having been given, but put then next on side or even give someone else to store it well. That symbolices the bodily care and proper use of the gift and increases the joy of the giver that one actually sees the sacrifice.
Of course being given, having received the "product of much suffering" of others, one takes best care of the gift, uses it till no more use-able and takes it as means and support only for good undertakings, not as sensual enjoyment, not to harm others and oneself. One would share ones benefit from it with others, like-a-like or give it, if, upwardly, to people who are more advances, sublime.
It's usual to get also agreement that one accepts form another a gift by ones parents, teacher, more sublime in ones relation. Often a short view back to ones leader, to see his acceptance might be usual. A child, good introduce, would reject gifts as long the parents would not encorage. So, as a sample, also good monks would not receive if not given by the Buddha (Vinaya), or a student not as long as the preceptor has not approved. This protects ones relations from disturbances. A child, student, one in dependency, would, after receiving, give first the elders and siblings and leave it to the parents whether getting a personal share to consume it.
Gift's should not be forwarded downwardly, and if only out of compassion and after having used it for upwardly purpose. Thats for example why monks are not allowed to give thing to common and far lay people, aside of exeptions (parents, monastery assistant, trainees...)
In normal societies such would be practiced likewise. At least a giver would not be happy if his gift become food for disadvantages for him. The sharing with equal and formost more sublime , best headed toward Nibbana, supports the benefit of the giver for prosperity and release.
Verbal: be be continued...
A possible extended answer and given space for discussion and giving deeper into, can be found here: [Q&A] How should Buddhists receive generosity?.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)


text:
Aversion and dukkha
I seem to have only a rough understanding of the first two noble truths.
dukkha and dosa
Apparently 'dukkha' and 'aversion (dosa)' are not the same thing.
So, why or how not: in what way are they different/distinct?
second noble truth
Also, does naming aversion as one of the 'three poisons' imply that aversion is on a par with (i.e., is equal and opposite to) desire? If it's true that aversion is of the same rank as desire then why isn't aversion mentioned in the Second Noble Truth?
taṇhā and lobha
Similarly (in case it's a similar answer) what's the difference between taṇhā (which is the subject of the second noble truth) and lobha (which is one of the three poisons)?
attachment and desire
In English I'd guess that 'attachment' and 'desire' might have two different meanings: especially, attachment is semi-permanent, may last a longer time.
If you're hungry, eat, and then are not hungry, maybe that was a transient desire but not attachment. Conversely, a story like Muddy Road (it's the story which ends, '"I left the girl there," said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"') seems to be warning against attachment (i.e. keeping the same thought stuck in your mind for a long time even after the physical reality has changed) rather than desire. Other stories too seem to warn that it's no so much 'desire' that causes suffering, but rather some kind of inflexibility.
Does Buddhism distinguish between attachment and desire? If lobha is translated as attachment and as desire, then which is taṇhā?

Dukkha and Dosa are quite different things. Dukkha is the characteristic of being unable to give real satisfaction, and it is an attribute of all compounded things. Or in some contexts it can refer to physical or mental pain. In contrast Dosa means something like anger or hatred.
Before going any further into your question though I have to make some distinctions. The word desire in English is used in translations and is sometimes used as a translation of the word Tanha, which means craving. However, that's somewhat of a loose translation because not all desires are bad. The Pali word for desire in a general sense is the word chanda, which can mean desire, will, or wish, and includes both good and bad desires. In fact, in Buddhist texts the word chanda is usually used to mean positive desires like desiring to benefit others or to develop one's self. Anyhow, back to the rest of your question.
You are right that Dosa forms a pair. Dosa (hatred, anger, aversion) forms a pair with Lobha (greed, lust, etc...) and Tanha is a specific kind of Lobha. The reason why Tanha is mentioned in the Second Noble Truth but Dosa isn't is because one aspect of the Second Noble Truth is that it is about rebirth, and Tanha plays a direct role in rebirth (this is explained in dependent origination) but Dosa doesn't.
The word for attachement is the word Upādāna which also can mean clinging or grasping. Upādāna is a very specific term while Lobha is a general one. Upādāna refers to the mind trying to hold on to something, but Lobha is just the general wanting of something. In dependent origination you will see that Upādāna occurs just after Tanha.

I would suggest for you the book "What The Buddha Taught" by Dr. Walpola Rahula.
It's a short (65 pages) and great book doing a good job explaining the 4 noble truths. There is a lot of precise and insightful knowledge in it and i think it will serve to give you a fuller understanding of the 4 noble truths.
Dr. Walpola Rahula explains the buddhist attitude of mind, the 4 noble truths and the doctrine of anatta.
You can find the book here.