text:
Addiction and Suffering
I have experienced minor addictions lately, such as overeating or social media; these topics have been addressed on this site previously.
I now have a more general question. I am wondering: which is more important between tolerating negative emotions and aspiring to healthier positive emotions and activities?
Currently, both are quite difficult for me. Any suggestions as how to tolerate negative emotions, to let them arise, are welcome. Similarly, any suggestions about ideal ways to generate joyfulness and positive emotions would be useful as well.
Thank you.

How te hell is addiction different from suffering?

I now have a more general question. I am wondering: which is more important between tolerating negative emotions and aspiring to healthier positive emotions and activities?
Any suggestions as how to tolerate negative emotions, to let them arise, are welcome. Similarly, any suggestions about ideal ways to generate joyfulness and positive emotions would be useful as well.

It really depends on the tradition/method that works for you.
When negative feelings or thoughts of ill-will arise, they can be substituted with wholesome thoughts/feelings, e.g. by practicing Loving-kindness meditation.
In Vipassana traditions, one tries to observe unwholesome phenomena passively and objectively, in order to prevent the mind from falling into liking or disliking, thereby slowly changing the habits of the clinging mind.
The general approach is explained in the noble path factor of Right Effort (Samma Vayama). In SN 45.8 - Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path, the Buddha teaches:

“... And what, bhikkhus, is right effort? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu generates desire for the nonarising of unarisen evil unwholesome states; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. He generates desire for the abandoning of arisen evil unwholesome states…. He generates desire for the arising of unarisen wholesome states…. He generates desire for the maintenance of arisen wholesome states, for their nondecay, increase, expansion, and fulfilment by development; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. This is called right effort ...".

To sum it up, one needs to:

abandon or dispel already arisen unwholesome states of mind.

to guard against or prevent unarisen unwholesome states of mind from arising.

to cultivate unarisen wholesome states of mind.

to main already arisen wholesome states of mind.

Wholesome states of mind are e.g.; Serenity and insight, the four foundations of mindfulness, the eight path factors and especially the seven factors of enlightenment.

Normally in Buddhism we don't "tolerate" negative emotions. We tolerate negative experiences, but negative emotions is something we would like to eliminate.
Joyfulness and positive emotions is something we are taught to generate, starting from coarse and then progressively finer, until we arrive at pure suchness, which is not an emotion at all.
Generally speaking, negative emotions arise due to all kinds of (mental/emotional) attachments. A standard technique probably taught by all schools is to see attachment/preconception/overgeneralization behind the emotion and to let that go. If emotion is particularly strong it may help to first learn to localize it as psychosomatic experience somewhere around the body image, and to reduce it with psychosomatic methods (breathing, moving, relaxation, visualizations). Some teachers suggest massaging or tickling the air in the area where emotion is felt, or tapping the body at that spot. In any case, psychosomatic methods are secondary. The primary technique is to learn to pacify the inner conflicts through control of conceptual fabrications. I've heard many descriptions of this: learning to construct wholesome narratives, learning to switch perspectives at will etc. but they all boil down to the same principle: tapping into brain's evaluation mechanism.
The same principle is at work for generating positive emotions. The basic skill is to control one's perspectives and the personal narratives that come from it. It is the same technique most people unconsciously use to maintain their ego: finding reasons to congratulate oneself, and reinvesting the joy that comes from that into further effort in the same direction. The only difference here is that Buddhists use it consistently with Ethics, and with perfect awareness of Emptiness, so they don't get lost in their own fabrications and don't create unwholesome results.
To boil this down to one principle: it is all about "The Given" and "The Ought" or simply "Is" and "Should". A mismatch leads to negative emotions, a match leads to positive emotions. Everything we do in Buddhism, regardless of how a particular school presents it, serves only one goal: to minimize the mismatch, to fabricate a match, and to eventually transcend the dichotomy altogether.


text:
Is Buddha the root of Dhamma?
Here Monks praise Buddha by exclaiming the following:

The monks said to the Buddha: “The Buddha is the root of the Dharma,
  the eye of Dharma, the foundation of the Dharma. May he teach us!
  Having heard him teach the Dharma, the monks will receive it
  respectfully as he has taught it.”

My questions are :
What is the meaning of the fact that Buddha is the root of Dhamma?
Similarly what is the meaning of the fact that Buddha is the eye of Dhamma? And what is the meaning of the fact that Buddha is the foundation of Dhamma ?

Where did you find these? Please quote sources.

@ruben2020 I have updated the question. Thanks.

Buddha is the root of the Dhamma as in Buddha is the root source of his teaching.
Buddha is the eye of the Dhamma as in the Buddha's omniscience and all seeing knowledges are what see the the Dhamma that is hidden from the world.
Buddha is the foundation of the Dhamma as in the Dhamma preached by his followers are based on the teachings of the Buddha.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to get rid of thoughts of grandiosness?
By practising the eight fold path and meditation I have been able to get over lot of suffering as a result of my past created by my mind. I am able to get over self pity, hatered, anger by following the advise of friends in this forum...
But now that I am over the past my mind has started playing new game...it starts painting pictures of grandiosness...like it presents me with illusions like i will be as great as the Buddha...I will be the Buddha and have followers...i will have super powers...i can fly etc etc...
Its getting difficult to control these thoughts in meditation...its a kind of hindrance I didnt read in any book...
I want to attain silent present moment awareness...is there any sutta which can help me with overcoming this maya of my mind?
Is there any help?

Can you please share how do you  practice maybe I will find smth really helpful

Hi D.'s, I do the silent sitting meditation....I practise as per given Ajahn Brahms book Mindfulness bliss and beyond...I kind of do Samatha meditation...sit and try to be aware of my thoughts and try not to ha e any thoughts.

with open or closed eyes?

With closed eyes....but seriously does that really matter...open or closed problem is out of control thoughts...but may be you know better...

Yes it matters,your closed eyes make you loose reference::Any teaching which teaches one to do meditation with closed eyes and teaches that the experience one gets by closed eyes is the final one, should be buried down the earth”.Vallalar .

Satipattana meditation is what you should practice. If you are feeling proud, simply note it until it goes away. Ex: Proud... proud... proud... or expecting... expecting... expecting... or thinking... thinking... thinking...
If you start to get worried, do the same: worrying... worrying.. worrying...
You just need to keep noting using a word that best describes what is happening at the present moment

from my own experience with mindfulness meditation over past 10 months (and a slightly longer interest in zen buddhism and Jungian psychology), I can understand what is your struggle.
Accepting and understanding my own self pity, hatered and anger was a big step for me, yet it has opened me to a completely new set of aspects of my personality that were hiding in the background, undeveloped and a little bit scary at first.
But frankly, is there something that worries you about your thoughts of becoming something greater? Is it possible that you are not used to be someone better? Or that you are angry about these thoughts? That you pity yourself because your progress was undermined by these new emotions?
For me it was exactly this. So I took a step back because I found myself in the power of emotions I was originaly trying to understand.
The great thing about mindfulness meditation is that we are able to notice all of these emotions and thoughts (even grandiosness), understand why they appeared, cherish them for a short time and let them go.
I wish you a lovely day!
Martin

May be your psychoanalysis about why I dont want them is right but more importantly these new thoughts are now hampering my possibility of being here and now. Earlier i lied in past...now this is fantasies of future...they are both futile...

This is interesting, because it reminds me about the presentation (on the personal growth) I was present at just 3 weeks ago. It was mentioned there that people that are used to lie to their bosses about the amount/quality of work they are doing, should at first focus on this area of their lives, because it is possible that after they quit their job (to become a freelancer) they will continue to lie to themselves and (sadly) fail in pursuing their dream. Have you ever considered a psychoanalysis before? It helped me personally to deal with the shadows of my past a lead me to mindfulness.

I dont have psychoanalyst where I live...I will see what I can do...may be search online...

Dear BodhiWalker, maybe this post on Quora will be of some help to you (I assumed area based on your profile), it mentions also some online sessions. https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-find-a-good-psychologist-in-India#

It's nothing :) Have a nice day!

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


text:
Can we own a bird pet which will in a cage?
My cousin asked me to get one for her but I said : "Sorry, It's not allowed in Buddhism and we should care for them not in a cage even if cage were made of gold and must set them free and liberate them".
So may I know if it's allowed or not?
Instead of bad karma I felt myself pity and sorrowful for them. I felt so bad for animals if they're in trouble or something like this.
And isn't it same as slavery?
We making it as pet for our entertainment and not for caring for them.
So please guide me.

So may I know if it's allowed or not?
It's a Buddhist practice, in some countries, to buy caged birds (or sometimes other animals, like fish), in order to liberate them (i.e. to set them free, let them go).
I guess the purpose is to acquire merit, and that an idea behind it is that birds want their freedom.
An "unintended consequence" (of buying birds) is that people trap birds in order to sell them.
For this reason you might (or might not) want to refrain from buying birds, according to the same logic as being vegetarian (i.e. not buying meat in order to not encourage other people to kill animals): as you probably know, different schools of Buddhism hold different views on this subject.
IMO birds are a special category of the topic of, more generally, pet animals. Perhaps some people would keep fish (thinking that fish don't object to being kept); or "domesticated" animals like dogs, cats, cows, chickens, horses...
Buying dogs, incidentally, provides a financial incentive to breeders of dogs (i.e. it causes people to breed dogs). Some people suggest that you shouldn't buy a dog from a breeder, but instead "rescue" a dog from a shelter. When you rescue a dog, by the way, that's to keep the dog rather than to free it -- it appears that a pet dog would prefer to stay with its owner than to have to face the world alone.
Apparently there's an "unintended consequence" of getting dogs from a shelter: I read recently that some shelters are rich (from the donations they receive) and so buy puppies from breeders in order to have more to rescue! A way to avoid that, if it matters, might be to rescue an older dog (not a puppy).
It may be relevant to mention that animals in captivity sometimes live longer than in the wild -- they may be "safer", better fed, better cared for.
And isn't it same as slavery?
I don't know what goes on in the mind of a bird: I suppose they're not aware of slavery as a state-of-self, but are aware of a cage as a barrier-to-liberty.
"Slavery" (as a type of human relationship) would exist in the mind of the "owner".
From a human point of view, a good thing about not being a slave is that you can choose your master or boss (i.e. choose who you work for). If you don't like your current boss, you're at liberty to look for another.
Dogs seem to me more able and willing to communicate than birds. Pet dogs often have an opportunity to escape, and choose not to. The "leash" is often seen as being, and used, only for the dog's safety -- to protect the dog's safety rather than to protect the owner's ownership of the dog. I'm not sure that I see a pet dog as a slave: more of a friend, partner, or family member. OTOH some dogs are kept chained or caged: and it's easier to see them as "slaves".
I guess some people see a pet (dog or bird) as being like a friend or a kind of friend, or like a young child, rather than only like a slave.
Having (and looking after) a bird is a responsibility, which some people would prefer to avoid or to not seek -- if it's true that possessions are a burden, that (being burdensome) may be even more true of live animals -- but maybe that (whether it's seen as a burden or a blessing) depends on the attitude of the person.

Thank you. I'm agree with you but I think what would animal  felt like. I think about them as if what's on their mind cause they're helpless. Even if I want a bird pet then I won't put it in a cage so it can live freely whether would live with me or will fly in forest. Thank you for your invaluable time.

According to the preaching of Lord Buddha, before you kill or hurt animals/humans think it is you (do you like if someone kills/hurts you?)
Definitely answer will be no. So you can apply the same theory to your problem. If you were that bird in that cage, do you like to stay rest of your life in a cage?       Answer yourself to this question and you will get the answer you need and act accordingly(I told this with having the idea of answer being a "NO")

yes I thinking same what bird would felt like. And as if Buddha told us we must have compassion towards animals that don't let me do such things. I'm keep  trying to teaching Dhamma to my family. Thank you.

Good luck with your effort and it's really good what you are trying to do. Never give up on them

I don't know the customs of Buddhism, but there is a saying that I'm twisting a little that I find to be a useful guide ... if you set an animal free and it comes back, it wants to be with you. Some birds do in fact like the people they live with and seek their company.  My dog would always stay with me, but even if she wandered off, she would come back to me. Same with the cat. I also believe that adopting / rescuing a pet is the most humane and good thing to do.

If you have owned a pet bird before, you will understand the fact that birds cannot be enslaved in any ways. You can only tame a bird, not enslave.

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


text:
What are the wholesome qualities?
Namo Buddhaya. At many places in the Suttas, Buddha calls for development of wholesome qualities. I guess Love , Joy , Compassion , Equanimity,Honesty,Conscience are wholesome qualities but that is the not the final list of wholesome qualities.
My question is : Is there a Sutta in which Buddha lists all the wholesome qualities one should develop in order to attain Nirvana?

The 25 beautiful mental factors (sobhanaa cetasika) from the Abhidhamma (which is not sutta but is derived from the Buddha's teachings):

The beautiful mental factors. There are twenty-five beautiful factors.
  Nineteen are common to all beautiful thoughts, six are variable. The
  latter are the three "abstinence factors," two "illimitables," and the
  wisdom factor.
The common beautiful factors (sobhanaa saadhaaranaa) are as follows:

Confidence (saddhaa), also called faith, which for a Buddhist means
  trust in the Three Jewels — the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, and in the
  principles of the Buddha's teachings.
Mindfulness (sati): this is alertness, which makes us aware of what is
  happening to us, from moment to moment, through the five physical
  senses and the mind. Mindfulness is essential to insight meditation,
  when it must be conjoined with a clear comprehension of the
  suitability, purpose, and conformity with reality of any action. Then
  it is called right mindfulness (sammaa sati). Usually the average
  person acts without any form of mindfulness; his acts are prompted by
  force of habit. Right mindfulness has two functions: one is to
  increase the power of recollection and the other is to evaluate what
  is wholesome and what is unwholesome. Right mindfulness is a spiritual
  faculty that maintains a proper balance of the other faculties —
  faith, energy, concentration and wisdom.
Shame of evil (hiri) and
fear of evil (ottappa) are the opposites
  of the second and third unwholesome mental factors, already discussed.
Non-attachment (alobha) restrains attachment and fosters generosity.
Good-will (adosa) is synonymous with loving kindness (mettaa). It
  keeps a person free from resentment and anger.
Equanimity (tatramajjhattaa, upekkhaa) is balance of mind, a quality
  of neutrality free from attachment and repulsion.

The other twelve common beautiful factors fall into six pairs, one member affecting the "body" of mental factors (kaaya), the other
  affecting consciousness as a whole (citta). The six are as follows,
  the terms themselves indicating their nature:

composure (passaddhi) of the mental factors
composure (passaddhi) of consciousness
buoyancy (lakhutaa) of the mental factors
buoyancy (lakhutaa) of consciousness
pliancy (mudutaa) of the mental factors
pliancy (mudutaa) of consciousness
efficiency (kammaññataa) of the mental factors
efficiency (kammaññataa) of consciousness
proficiency (paguññataa) of the mental factors
proficiency (paguññataa) of consciousness
rectitude (ujukataa) of the mental factors
rectitude (ujukataa) of consciousness

The abstinence factors (virati) restrain a person from committing evil
  acts. These are three in number:

Right speech (sammaa vacaa) is abstinence from lying, slandering,
  abusive language, and idle talk.
Right action (sammaa kammantaa) is abstinence from killing, taking
  what is not given, and wrong conduct with regard to sense pleasures.
Right livelihood (sammaa aajiiva) is abstinence from any livelihood
  that brings harm to other living beings.

The illimitable factors (appamaññaa) are compassion and sympathetic
  joy; they are called illimitable because they are boundless and extend
  to all living beings.

Compassion (karu.naa) has the nature of being moved by the suffering
  of others. The sadness we might experience over the suffering or loss
  of a loved one is not true compassion. Such sadness is sentimental, a
  manifestation of grief. Real compassion arises when the mind, detached
  from self-referential concerns, is stirred by the suffering of others,
  feeling the suffering as its own.
Sympathetic joy (muditaa) has the nature of rejoicing in other's
  happiness. Usually people rejoice at the success of someone who is
  near and dear to them, but it is rare for them to rejoice when success
  and prosperity are enjoyed by someone unknown, not to speak of an
  adversary. Muditaa embraces all beings and cannot coexist with the
  unwholesome mental factor of jealousy.

Compassion and sympathetic joy, together with goodwill and equanimity,
  form the Four Sublime Abodes (brahma vihaara). Goodwill and equanimity
  were mentioned under the common beautiful factors.
The wisdom factor (paññaa) enables one to see things as they truly
  are, that is, in the light of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and
  selflessness.

Abhidhamma is the teaching of the Buddha

MN117 mentions "Thus, bhikkhus, there are twenty factors on the side of the wholesome, and twenty factors on the side of the unwholesome. " ....Are the twenty factors which are talked about in MN 117 a subset of AbhiDhamma which you have quoted above ?


text:
Earliest usage of "rope or snake" allegory in Buddhist literature?
The allegory of a rope being mistaken for a snake to explain subtle metaphysical points is widespread in Buddhist literature. In particular, Je Tsongkhapa uses this allegory many times in his works to explain subtle distinctions of his formulation of Prasangika Madhyamaka.
I am looking to track down the earliest usage of this rope or snake allegory in Buddhist literature. I have not been able to identify any sutra where this allegory is mentioned, but it occurs many times in later commentarial literature on the perfection of wisdom sutra's as well as in explanations of Nagarjuna's writing.
The earliest usage I have been able to discover is from Chandrakirti's explanation of Aryadeva's Four Hundred Stanzas on the Middle Way (Chatuhshataka). Here is Aryadeva's stanza 178:

Apart from concepuality,
  Desire and so forth have no existence,
  Who with intelligence would hold [that there are]
  Real things [imputed by] conceptuality?
Aryadeva's Four Hundred Stanzas on the Middle Way

To which ChandraKirti apparently gives this explanation:

Those which exist only when the conceptuality [apprehending]
  exists and do not exist when conceptuality does not are
  without question definite as not established by way of their
  own nature, like a snake imputed to a coiled rope.
Tsong-kha-pa's Final Exposition of Wisdom

Does anyone know of any earlier or contemporary usages of this allegory in Buddhist literature? Anything that can be traced back to Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Chandrakirti, Buddhapalita, or Bhaviveka would certainly apply. Of course, if it can be found in sutra that would definitely count as an answer.
Thanks!

In Upanishads there are many analogies to explain their philosophy.Why Advaitins take this rope snake analogy? Because it suits their philosophy.

For all I know, the simile may come from generic Indian religious tradition and not specifically from Buddhism. For example, here are some quotes from Upanidhads:
Nirvana Upanishad (~ 100 BCE - 100 CE) :

The phenomenal world is impermanent as it is produced [from Brahman
which alone is real]; it is similar to a world seen in a dream and an
[illusory] elephant in the sky; similarly, the cluster of things such as
the body is perceived by a network of a multitude of delusions and it is
fancied to exist as a serpent in a rope.

(Wikipedia:) The composition date or author of Nirvana Upanishad is unknown, but its sutra-style suggests that it originated in the sutra text period (final centuries of the 1st-millennium BC), before it was compiled and classified as an Upanishad. This text was likely composed in the centuries around the start of common era.

Tejobindu Upanishad (~ 100 BCE - 300 CE):

If a man is bitten by a rope mistaken for a snake, then mundane existence may be. If a blazing fire is extinguished by a golden arrow, then the world is.

(Wikipedia:) [...] Eliade's suggestion places these in the final centuries of BCE or early centuries of the CE. [...] Gavin Flood dates the Tejobindu text, along with other Yoga Upanishads, to be probably from the 100 BCE to 300 CE period.

More of these quotes can be found in Advaita Vedanta mail list archives.
And then somewhere around 310-390 CE we see it used by the Yogacara founder Asanga in his Mahayanasamgraha:

How is this entry into Concept-Only made and what is it
like? [...] One enters in the same way that one identifies a rope which seems in the darkness to be a snake. Since it does not exist, the snake seen in the rope is an illusion. Those who have recognized that it does not exist reject the notion of snake and keep the notion of rope. But the rope itself, if reduced to its subtle elements, is an illusion itself, for it has color,
smell, taste and tactile as specific characteristics.
Thus, when any reality has been denied to the six types
of mental words which appear as phoneme or as thing - just as the notion of snake is abandoned by means of the
notion of rope - the notion of Concept-Only underlying the mental words should be abandoned by means of the notion of the absolute nature, just as the notion of rope is abandoned by means of the notion of color, etc.

Since Asanga was originally a brahmin before converting to Buddhism, I wouldn't be surprised if he took this simile from one of the Upanishads and repurposed for Yogacara.
There is also this Sanskrit version of Cittavisuddhiprakarana by Aryadeva (~200-300 CE), but I was not able to find a translation:

sarpabuddhiryathā rajjau rajjudṛṣṭau nivartate|
sarpabuddhiḥ punastatra naiva syādiha janmani||68||
sattvabuddhistathātrāpi vajrajñānānnivartate|
na bhāvaḥ sambhavettatra dagdhabīja ivāṅkuraḥ||69||

Also, this simile appears in Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Sastra which would date it around 150CE: 薩迦耶見計我我所。於勝義中無我我所。如人見繩謂是蛇。 'The satkāyadṛṣṭi thinks about the self and that which belongs to the self; but according to higher truth, there is no self. As for example, a person sees a rope and calls it a snake' (T 1545 (XXVII) 36a18-19)

You've gone above and beyond and I thank you especially looking up the sanskrit for the terms rope and snake and finding that precious Aryadeva text. If you find any more by in the lineage of Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Chandrakirti I would be very interested.

Very good and comprehensive answer, thank you.

Nagarjuna definitely used the metaphor of mistaking rope for a snake as in "If their view of emptiness is wrong, those of little intelligence will be hurt. Like handling a snake in the wrong way, or casting a spell in the wrong way."Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way (Mulamadhyamakakarika)
Also it is clear from an article on The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) website on Nagarjuna that the metaphor was already well established in Hinduism. "The stock examples used in Indian (in context Indian includes Hindu) texts are seeing a rope and mistaking it as a snake, or seeing conch in the sand and mistaking it as silver."

Thanks, but the way Nagarjuna references snakes seems different from the thrust of the rope vs snake allegory to my mind.

Nagarjuna's and Chandrakirti's use of the rope/snake simile seem similar to me. Wrong views of emptiness and conceptuality are both compared to mistaking a rope for a snake. Does you idea differ from Chandrakirti's usage as well as Nagarjuna's?

Hmm, I don't think so. Nagarjuna is saying that misunderstanding emptiness can be deadly like a snake filled with poison.  Chandrakirti is saying that all things established via conceptuality are as unreal as a snake imputed to a rope.

Thank you. I see the distinction you are making in the two sources. I will leave my answer stand for now. Would you prefer it be deleted?

No problem and not at all

The allegory of the rope being mistaken for a snake is indeed widespread in Buddhist literature, and is found in Zen literature.  Most interesting is that this allegory comes from the Skeptic School of ancient Greece, dating to Carneades (214-129 BCE).

It's good not to mistake origin from other sects with that of the Sublime Buddha and his Sangha of disciples. Even more worse is it to approve something adopted for the sake of copy.
Even if story bearing like children, such talks have effects and cut one more off the right track.
Downvote, of course, may satisfy one shortly... so feel free if wishing for harm and misfortune...
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-bindung trades, nor for pseudo liberalism, but for an escape from this wheel]


text:
Looking for mentions of karma related to actions taken while dreaming
I am looking for early mentions of the accumulation of karma while dreaming.
Here is what I've been able to find so far:

In The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom a discussion of accumulating karma in dreams:

Sāriputra: Ven. Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great being, who in
  his dreams enters into the three concentrations—emptiness, the
  signless, the wishless—does he, then, grow in perfect wisdom?
Subhuti: If, Ven. Śāriputra, he grows through the development by
  day, then he also grows in a dream. And why? Because dream and waking
  are indiscriminate. If the Bodhisattva who courses by day in the
  perfection of wisdom has a development of the perfection of wisdom,
  then also the Bodhisattva, the great being, who dreams will have a
  development of the perfection of wisdom.
Śāriputra: If again, Ven. Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great
  being, does a deed in his dream, will there by of that deed a heaping
  up or accumulation? If all dharmas are said to be like a dream, there
  will be no heaping up or accumulation of it. And why? Because in a
  dream no heaping up or accumulation of a dharma can be apprehended.
  But when one wakes up and thinks it over, then there is a heaping up
  or accumu- lation of it.
Subhuti: One who had committed a murder in his dream, and, on
  waking, would think it over like this, 'he has been well killed by me,
  (A: it is right that he was killed, it is just that he was killed, it
  was I who killed him!' Such thoughts are equivalent to the conscious
  notion that he wants to kill someone).
Śāriputra: Not without an objective support does a deed arise or an
  act of will.
Subhuti: So it is, Śāriputra, not without an objective support does
  a deed arise or an act of will. Only with an objective support is a
  deed produced, or an act of will, and not without. In seen, heard, and
  known dharmas does intelligence proceed, and not in unseen, unheard,
  unknown dharmas. Therein some intellectual acts take hold of
  defilement, and some of purification. Therefore, then, Śāriputra, it
  is with an objective support that a deed or act of will arises and not
  without objective support.

In Tsongkhapa's Praise for Dependent Relativity it is mentioned that the karma of killing in a dream was a question answered by the Buddha, but no sources are provided.
Shantideva addressed this (or a closely related) question in Chapter 9 of his Guide to the Bodhisattvas Way of Life verse 11 and on:

If consciousness does not exist, there is no sin in killing an
  illusory person. On the contrary, when one is endowed with the
  illusion of consciousness, vice and merit do arise.

In the Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 lines:

Sariputra: If someone in his dreams does a deed, wholesome or
  unwholesome, will that be added on to the heap or collection of his
  karma?
Subhuti: In so far as the Lord has taught that ultimately all dharmas
  are like a dream, in so far that deed will not be added to his head or
  collection of karma. But on the other hand [from the standpoint of
  empirical reality], that deed will be added to the heap and collection
  of his karma if, after the man has woken up, he thinks the dream over,
  and consciously forms the notion that he wants to kill someone. How
  does he do that? During his dream he may have taken life, and after he
  has woken up, he thinks it over like this: “it is good that he was
  killed! It is right that he was killed! It was just that he was
  killed! It was I who killed him.” Such thoughts are equivalent to the
  conscious notion that he wants to kill someone.

Does anyone know of sutras or other ancient sources where the Buddha or Nagarjuna, Shantideva, Chandrakirti, Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Tsongkhapa or others might have addressed the question of whether karma can be accumulated in dreams and if so, how?
I'm especially interested to know if this question was ever answered or addressed by the Buddha in the pali canon

According to Lama Je Tsongkhapa, actions done in a dream are actions done but not accumulated. On the other hand, setting the intention to kill someone and not doing it is accumulated but not done.
A karma that is done and not accumulated, or accumulated but not done, is a "karma whose result you not definitely but only possibly experience" according to Tsongkhapa. In addition, purifying an action that is done and accumulated, by way of the four opponent powers, transforms it into an action that is done and not accumulated.
In the Lam Rim Chen Mo, volume 1, Je Tsongkhapa says:

[Asanga's] Compendium of Determinations presents four permutations
  between tween karma done and karma accumulated. Killing that is karma
  which you have done but not accumulated is seen in the following
  cases: that done unknowingly, that done in a dream, that not done
  intentionally, [etc]

In the same text, he cites the Levels of Yogic Deeds:

Karma that you have accumulated is that not included among the
  following ten types of actions: actions done in dreams...

This is helpful. I will look at Levels of Yogic Deeds and/or Compendium of Determinations, but I would really like to trace this back to sutra or the reasoning used to arrive at these assertions. Thanks!

But doesn't the dream show our deep emotions and real intentions.I too believe that karma in dreams is not accumulated

I think it's listed as a point of controversy in the Abhidhamma -- Kv 22.6:

Controverted Point: That all dream-consciousness is ethically neutral.
22.6.1 Theravādin: You admit, do you not, that a dreamer may (in dreams) commit murder, theft, etc.? How then can you call such consciousness ethically neutral?
22.6.2 Uttarapāthakas: If I am wrong, was it not said by the Exalted One that dream-consciousness was negligible? If so, my proposition holds good.

I think the (Theravādin) argument is that intention (e.g. intention to murder) may be present, therefore it's not ethically neutral.
I think the counter-argument is that there's no material result, so if it's not neutral it's negligible.
See also the Vinaya -- that defines offences (e.g. killing) in some detail or legalistically (i.e. in more detail than the suttas do) -- and there, there are various (several) conditions which must be met for the offence of e.g. "killing" to have occurred, one of which is that somebody has to die -- and in a dream, nobody is really killed, so that wouldn't be counted (and punished) as the offence of killing.
The Abhidhamma is considered part of the Pali canon, even if it isn't all quotes from the Buddha.
In Tsongkhapa's Praise for Dependent Relativity it is mentioned that the karma of killing in a dream was a question answered by the Buddha, but no sources are provided.
So far as I known, the commentary to the Vinaya pronounces the non-punishment of sexual actions performed while dreaming (while also saying it's better not to).
It's not exacty right to equate the working of kamma with the rules of the Vinaya, however that may be the best we have -- because the Vinaya is defined in detail whereas the suttas don't describe kamma in every detail -- even say that the precise workings of kamma is known to the Buddha but is unconjecturable -- and, the Vinaya was defined by the Buddha.

Thanks Chris! Do you know where the Buddha pronounced it negligible? What this in the vinaya and if so is there a translation?

I've read this, this, and this about the Vinaya -- this mentions "An almost complete (though archaic) English translation of the Vinaya Pitaka" (in six volumes from the PTS, not online), which I haven't -- I think there's some commentary too, e.g. this (also translated, but maybe not free nor online).

I don't know where the Buddha pronounced it negligible. I'm guessing that's a reference to the (Buddha's) Vinaya, as I explained. Perhaps there is (you might look for) some commentary on that Abhidhamma/Kathāvatthu topic (I don't know much about the Abhidhamma, nor its commentaries if any).

So for example search for the word "dream" in this explanation of the Monastic code ... the word occurs in 15 places, almost all in reference to sexual misconduct while dreaming; but see also the explanation of killing, there, which specify that the offence of killing has not occurred if nobody died.

Thank you @ChrisW for your help finding these references!

It is found here btw: https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-bu-vb-ss1/en/brahmali

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


text:
Is it forbidden to fight to defend your possessions from a thief?
From the last few days i have been trying to meditate to generate equanimity.
My question is simple: If i practice equanimity, compassion, loving kindness, forgiveness, there would always be people who would take advantage of that right? For instance if someone comes to steal from me, i should give him my belongings right? Like thats the Buddhist way right? Fighting and resisting is forbidden right?
And he informs 10 other thieves about this kind man. How to be wise in this situation where you know people take advantage of your compassion, niceness?

Can you please reference where does the Buddha say not to protect yourself?Just to clarify smth Buddhism teaches compassion and wisdom,not only compassion.So not protecting yourself is illogical to me.I mean even yourself doubt this,couse its not true. ...and this has nothing to do with the nature of this world...

@D.'s Its clear that Buddhism teaches Wisdom as well, thats exactly what i want to learn, is it wise to defend yourself or let people walk over you? what if this defense involves violence?

From my experience It's difficult not to react ,you & I certainly can't understand(for the lack of a better word) the teachings of great beings,however I would say this ,when I gained the notion of Emptiness everything became clear to me,seriously I gained depth and understanding of the phenomena and my desire vanished away!If you have had told me I would have never believed you let me quote Kalu:This lack of recognition is like throwing mud or sand into pure water; it becomes sullied or defiled.-So I must say practise ,see,believe!

Resisting or protecting what you have is not forbidden. But you shouldn't kill. It is perfectly fine to say no to someone who is trying to take advantage of you. It's perfectly fine to have  a non-lethal security system for your house. That does not get in the way of Brahmavihara.

If resisting and protecting is not forbidden, why didn't Vessantara resist when his children were taken from him to serve as slaves?

@michau giving away children and wife completed his Dana Paramitha. It's not like they were taken by force. He gave them willingly,

If i practice equanimity, compassion, loving kindness, forgiveness,
  there would always be people who would take advantage of that right?

Yes there will be people who will like to take advantage of your position to prove their point. But it is generally our own karma which puts us in the bad position. If you are really good then no one can, I repeat no one can steal even a single penny from you.

For instance if someone comes to steal from me, i should give him my
  belongings right?

Yes and remember Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.Give up your belongings and be grateful that he did not hurt you. If he hurts you be grateful that he did not kill you.

Like thats the Buddhist way right? Fighting and resisting is forbidden
  right?

I dont exactly know about the Buddhist way but from I have read, the right way to find in which ways you are blessed and find a way to bless the tormentor.

And he informs 10 other thieves about this kind man. How to be wise in
  this situation where you know people take advantage of your
  compassion, niceness?

As I said it is generally your own karma which confronts you with bad situations. Do not run away from it. Do not fill your heart with hate. Just realize that what is needed is more compassion and not less.
I quote a famous verse from Dhammapada:

Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is
  appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.

Karma is extremely complex to understand, like i still cant make sense why should i pay for my deeds in my previous births in this lifetime. So you're right in a way, if i am in that situation , my  deeds/thoughts from current/previous lifetime are responsible for the situation.

If someone attempts to rob you it is wise not to  resist and give them what they ask for because of safety reasons, you are less likely to be hurt in that situation. If your intention is to practice generosity there are better ways to do that and practice the Dhamma. Buddhist need to stop thinking that practicing the Dhamma means allowing people to walk over you and take advantage of your practice.
You have a right to your life, liberty and your property, just don't let your attachment add to your physical or mental suffering. If you want to practice that level of non attachment become a monastic.
If he tells others that you are an easy mark you will have to use your wisdom to avoid those circumstances because sooner or later you will meet a thief who lacks wisdom and compassion and will hurt you.

No, what you have learned seems like it is crippling you. No, just do what you do.
The great Rinzai Master, once said Followers of the way, often get frustrated by thinking that Theory, Practice, and reality somehow have to be perfectly aligned.
No, When you are able to follow this advice, which wasn't spoken to you, in the first place. Then, more power to you. If you are really asking these questions in good faith, which I doubt, just "do your best", That's it. Keep asking questions.
Here read this
The criterion for rejection
4. "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.
Now, I found a link for you to read the entire Teaching. Please, respect yourself, and think for yourself.https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.013.than.html
Take Care, be happy, Please take care of your health. Enjoy life.

For instance if someone comes to steal me, i should give him my belongings right? Like thats the Buddhist way right? Fighting and resisting is forbidden right?

The Buddha teaches us the path to enlightenment. When enlightenment occurs, the sense of self, attachment, and suffering no longer arise.
In my opinion, the Buddhist way is analyzing your experience in order to cultivate wisdom and become enlightened.
If someone attepts to steal from you, yes a Buddhist who is attempting to emulate an arahant would give the thief their belongings. But now that your things are gone, how do you react? Are you attached to those possessions? Where does that attachment come from? What does it feel like deep within you?
If you have walked the path, it is impossible for someone to steal from you.
If you are walking the path and your goal is enlightenment, what is most important is not what happens and how you act, but how through your investgation of your experience is. Training in morality is essential, but I would argue not as important as concentration and wisdom.

so basically it is not posible to live a Buddhist life in this consumerist, materialistic way, i thought it were possible. The only option is to become a monk by renouncing all your possessions?

No that is not true, and if that's how my post came across, I apologize for the miscommunication. What I am suggesting that there is nothing wrong with how you are living right now! You don't need to change how you live, you just need to keep meditating and keep investigating your existence. Then, once attain certain understandings, things will naturally change, and your suffering, attachments, and sense of self will stop becoming.

Okay, thank you for the clarification, it's just that it's really hard , this path towards enlightenment, being constantly mindful of your thoughts and actions, its not easy. I was not the one who downvoted your answer by the way.

Good luck on your path my friend! The road is difficult but have faith! If you keep trying, there's no doubt in my mind you will cultivate what you are looking for.


text:
Other than Nirvana , what else is not changing?
It is said that Nirvana is not changing. But I found a text here which states that dharma of conditioned arising is unchanging.

The Buddha said to the monk: “Conditioned arising was neither made by
  me, nor made by others. Whether a Tathāgata arises in the world or
  not, this element of dharma remains unchanging.

If sabbe dhamma anatta then how is it possible that Dhamma of conditioned arising is not changing ?
And is it possible that Nirvana and Dhamma of conditioned arising are the same?

"sabbe dhamma anatta" means "all dhammas are non-self" -- it does not mean "all dhammas are impermanent".

Earth is impermanent , water is impermanent, Air is impermanent...Which Dhamma is not impermanent except Niravana? That is my question. Why Dhammas are non self? because (except for Nirvana) they are impermanent and changeable.

See also Two unconditioned dhammas?

This answer is in the context of the Tibetan Gelug School and is taught in modern Buddhist Monasteries of this tradition.
Uncompounded space (as opposed to the usual idea of space) is a permanent phenomenon. This is the standard example of an existing thing that is permanent. Like emptiness, uncompounded space is taught to be a non-affirming negation. So what is uncompounded space? First, we have to understand what compounded space is...
Compounded space is the vacuum between material things. Take two material objects (made of matter) that are spacelike separated. This means not only do they not occupy the same space, but that they have a vacuity between them. Imagine they are placed in the void of deep space with a meter of distance between them. In this meter of distance between them, there is no air, there are no molecules, no matter. This is what is meant by compounded space.
Uncompounded space is the complete absence of obstructive contact. Those two things we imagined above are spacelike separated and sitting in a void. They have no contact with anything. They have a complete absence of obstructive contact. They are sitting, if you like, in uncompounded space.
This is thought of as a permanent phenomenon and not dependent on causes and conditions. How can it be said to be independent of causes and conditions? Unlike compounded space, it does not rely upon matter. Whether there is something sitting in uncompounded space or not, the mere absence of obstructive contact remains. It is unproduced.

Objection! Doesn't this mean that uncompounded space contains a self? Doesn't it mean that it is inherently existent?
Answer... No, because it is a mere non-affirming negation. It is the mere lack of obstruction. No matter how hard you look "inside" of uncompounded space you will find nothing. There is no inherently existent self in uncompounded space that can be found. This is what is meant by a non-affirming negation. There is nothing left whatsoever to be reified.

Objection! But isn't uncompounded space an independent phenomena?
Answer... No, it is dependent upon name and designation. It is empty of inherent existence just like all phenomena.

If space had been permanent the Buddha would have said so. Please support the answer with a quote. Logically it would mean that space can be the self. I can say I am the space. But we know space is also impermanent as the existence arises. Existence of matter proves that space is not permanent.

I'm sorry, I do not have a quote for you. However, I think this can be arrived at through reasoning. The Buddha did not teach all that can be learned.

@DheerajVerma Perhaps it's a topic, about which schools disagree: the first answer here says, The standard Theravada position is that only Nibbana is unconditioned. In this they were unusual, as most of the early schools had more extensive lists of unconditioned phenomena. (The EBTs, too, treat space as conditioned, so in this respect the Theravadin position appears to have been correct.) A common candidate was space, which was regarded as unconditioned by the Sarvastivadins among others.

See also this topic.

@YesheTenley if unconditioned space is boundary less then where does it exist ? I don't see it anywhere.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Is the premise that all existents must exist in a definite time and place? Or that they must be seen?

The element of space is not permanent.

Uncompounded space is not the element of space. It also can't be seen. It is an existent thing that is a non-affirming negation. At least that is how it is taught in my tradition.

I think that most things are considered "conditioned" -- especially, anything that you perceive: any perception (including the perception of a sight, for example, but also the perception of some idea).
And anything that's conditioned is impermanent (disappears when its condition no longer exists).
I'm not sure, however, that "unconditioned" and "not impermanent" means the same thing.
In particular I don't know whether "Dhamma" (i.e. the kinds of "laws" which the Buddha taught) is considered "conditioned" -- I'd guess that the perception of Dhamma is conditioned.
I think that the Dhamma itself is described as "timeless", i.e. "akaliko", rather than unconditioned.
See also verse 183 of the Dhammapada -- the commentary says that the Dhamma taught by the Buddha is the Dhamma taught by all the Buddhas.

Buddha says whether Buddha arises or not the Dhamma remains unchanging i.e. it remains functional as always independent of condition. Whether you or me or we exist or not the Dhamma remains the same. If we exist then we can discover it. If we do not exist then we can not discover it. However it is always present as it is unconditioned. There is no condition upon which the Dhamma arises or ceases.

I suspect some schools teach that Dharmas are empty -- see for example Is mathematics empty?. But anyway, you seem to be using your logic to argue about whether Dhamma is unconditioned. What I was trying to say in this answer was that, so far as I know, in the suttas, the Dhamma is described as "timeless" rather than as "unconditioned".

Anything eternal is unconditioned. For example if rock is eternal then it we say rock is unconditioned because rock has always been there in the past independent of circumstances.

I don't understand why you're commenting? I think that the reason why things are described as "conditioned", in the suttas, is to explain that all forms of dukkha are subject to cessation. It doesn't make sense to me to describe Dhamma as "unconditioned"  (I don't see the purpose of that description). It is purposeful to describe Dhamma as timeless (ever-present). I guess too that Dhamma may be empty (of self-existence), e.g. to the extent that it depends on your definition of dukkha, etc. (but even if that's so I guess that's not one of the messages in the Pali suttas).

Nibbana is something perceived. This answer focusing on "perception" is unrelated to Buddhism but appears to be another doctrine (similar to heretical doctrines of monks such as Katukurunde Nyanananda ).

@Dhammadhatu "Is perception permanent or impermanent?"

Perception is impermanent but Nibbana (as an element of nature) is not impermanent.  Please note Bhikkhu Bodhi has changed his mind about whether Dhamma is ontology or phenomonology. These two non-senses should be avoided. You seem to be saying the mind is like "God" because it creates Nibbana via perception. This is not what the Buddha taught.

@Dhammadhatu You seem to be saying the mind is like "God" because it creates Nibbana via perception I didn't intend to say that. How would I have to edit the answer to not say that? The paragraph is trying to say "Most 'things' (except the Unconditioned) are considered to be 'conditioned' -- especially any 'thing' you perceive -- by which ('any thing perceived') I mean especially 'any perception' (because Buddhism is especially about subjective phenomena)". Is that better, worse, or still missing the point? Or confusing the difference between perceptions and compound things?

Ontology and phenomonology seem to me to be fancy, three-dollar words. Do you think the Buddha tried to explain the difference ontology and phenomonology, in so many words? So I'm not very interested in those words: I don't know what they mean, what the difference in their meanings is, and I don't know it's important that I do understand them. I was trying to answer that a) some things (most things) are described as conditioned; b) conditioned implies impermanent, so the OP argues that dhamma is unconditioned because it's unchanging 3); however dhamma is described as akaliko not unconditioned.

The Buddha said to the monk: “Conditioned arising was neither made by me, nor made by others. Whether a Tathāgata arises in the world or
  not, this element of dharma remains unchanging.

The above teaching is about the Law of Nature (Dhamma-Niyama) pertaining to suffering. It explains whenever suffering arises; it will always arise via the process of Dependent Origination.
This Law of Nature is permanent; just as Nirvana is permanent. However, just because both the Law of Nature and Nirvana are permanent does not mean they are the same thing; just as an impermanent rock and an impermanent cloud are not the same things.

Is it possible that Nirvana and Dhamma of conditioned arising are the same?

No, as was explained above. The logical fallacy of the question is similar to the logical fallacy of Nargajuna, who wrongly taught Dependent Origination and Emptiness are the same thing.
Dependent Origination is marked by Emptiness but Emptiness is not necessarily marked by Dependent Origination because Nirvana is marked by Emptiness but Nirvana is not marked by Dependent Origination.

the low of Nature is permanent?????????Where did you read this?

in the quote in the question. Are you claiming that the Law of Nature that conditioned things are impermanent is also impermanent? If impermanence was also impermanent that would mean conditioned things can be permanent.

I can give you plenty of examples where the law of nature changes,you may have misinterpreted the quote above!

Element of Dhamma remains unchanging

This simply means that the teachings of the Buddha are true for all times whether a Buddha is there to reveal it to the world or not. It doesn't mean that all phenomena are permanent.

What is true at all times is the laws of nature (which the Buddha taught about). For example, the teachings can disappear or be altered; like the doctrines of dependent origination & rebirth have been altered from what the Buddha taught by heretics such as Buddhaghosa.

@Dhammadhatu This question is not about your lack of faith in mainstream Theravada Buddhism. I'm not interested in discussing your personal prejudices under this question.

There is not such thing as mainstream Buddhism because the mainstream the Buddha called puthujjana. Regards

All compounded and/ or conditioned things are impermanent or changing. This applies to the five aggregates, physical objects, matter, energy, physical space, time, most mental concepts and ideas etc.
All matter can be broken down to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. That we know from Einstein's E=mc2. Matter can convert into different forms and so can energy.
Physical space and time can be warped by matter. This we know from Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
Nibbana is not impermanent. The Buddha's Dhamma (teachings) is also not impermanent. These things are not conditioned or compounded. They do not depend on anything else.
However, all things including Nibbana, Buddha's teachings, matter, physical space, time, thoughts, concepts are not self. There is no permanent, standalone, independent thing called self, just as you cannot find a thing called music when you breakdown a musical instrument into its constituent parts. Please also see this answer.

the realm of infinite space (Ākāsānañcāyatana) is not not impermanent. Refer to MN 111: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html

@Dhammadhatu OK. It makes sense that the formless realms are not impermanent.


text:
Insight meditation
During  meditation lost connection between body  and the thoughts. Body remains silent  but thoughts stop arise that particular matter .which  are arise remain as a flow.What is this experience?

Mind is not silent. The mind thinks that it is silent. The knowing itself is a mental activity. So if you think that the mind is silent, that is a mental activity. Meditate on it as thinking.... thinking... thinking... or knowing... knowing... knowing...

Only mental activity  is there. No connection between body and the thoughts.

Be mindful of the mental activity

When  the mindfulness  arise there is no thoughts and cittarupa  seen the only wisdom  coming.

Wisdom means non judgment has appeared.

There's knowing. Be mindful of the knowing

Actually good judgement is a big part of wisdom. You got it in reverse.

In mind  conscious  judgment  is not the wisdom.

Good judgment is wisdom. Cloudiness or vagueness in the mind is not wisdom.

No cloudy  and vauge. Brilliant light appears with the wisdom. If there is a judgment  there is a self  know.

Self is not required for good judgement


text:
Guru Yoga at Home?
I recently started attending Karma Kagyu meditations and did the guided Guru Yoga meditation. Is it suitable to be done (with youtube for example) at home or just at Sangha? I feel like I'd like to be doing that more than twice a week.
Is doing it elsewhere technically considered a breach of tradition?

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

Let me answer this question with one of Milarepas songs:

A yogi, I roam the mountains.
Like a great Mandala, my body is full of bliss.
Cleansed of desires and pride, I feel well and happy.
With longing for diversions extinguished, I feel joy in solitude.
  Since I have renounced all things, I am happy in a desolate land.
Since I have cut all ties with kin, getting and saving are not
  worries.
Happy and joyous do I live ... without plans or schemes.
I want neither fame nor glory.  Wherever I stay, whatever I wear or
  eat, I fell truly content

Also the third Karmapa used to practise in different places from mountain to mountain without a fixed places.Most of the yogis choose a solitary retreat and they rarely return to monasteries.

My native land is all lands, In no particular direction. My monastery
  is the solitary mountains, In no particular place. My family is all
  the beings of the six realms.
~ Shabkar

We seek freedom from attachment when you realize that all that appears and exists to be your mind, there is no path of enlightenment apart from that.
As long as there exists a place in Samsara to give us freedom,we aren't truly free!

Before you go on reading my answer, know I have no familiarity with Karma Kagyu or Guru Yoga meditation.

Is it suitable to be done (with youtube for example) at home or just at Sangha?

I think this entirely depends on what you are trying to get out of it. If you are looking for more time with the effects of doing the meditation, then I would say do them as often and wherever you'd like! If you are looking for a feeling of inclusion in the Sangha or the feelings that go along with being a part of a religious tradition, then I would say just do them at the Sangha.

Is doing it elsewhere technically considered a breach of tradition?

I have no idea whatsoever. That being said, if it is a breach of tradition, for what reason is practice not allowed at home? In a best case scenario, tradition can be helpful in that it may be a reliable way to accomplish something that has lasted through the test of time through its repeated success. Worst case scenario, tradition could be in place just because "it is the way it has always been done" and perhaps could inhibit your practice and slow your process of achieving your goals. Only you though can make that assessment and decide which is true for you, or if the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


text:
Is a dream object an existent? How about the face in the mirror?
The context for this question is contemporary Tibetan Buddhist Monastic debate and associated definitions as practiced at Sera Je Monastic University. I'm looking for answers according to the specific definitions and system of jargon used in that context.
In Tibetan Buddhist monastic debate according to The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate an existent is defined as, "that which is realized by a valid cognizer."
I'm asking whether under such a definition a dream object - such as a snake - is considered an existent or a non-existent such as the son of a barren woman.
I believe that it must be considered an existent as it is known by a directly perceiving mental consciousness given the above context. The same can be said of a face in the mirror although in this case it is directly perceived by the eye consciousness. Is this true from viewpoint of above context? Is it true from the Prasangika viewpoint?
I posit that a dream snake and a snake I perceive in waking life are both conventionally existent. Further, that neither are ultimately existent. And that neither are real except from the perspective of a worldly consciousness. That is, they are both equally unreal. Is this true from the Prasangika viewpoint?
If not, please give reasons according to the context mentioned above.

A dream object is an existent, since it is apprehended by a conventional valid cognizer, that is a conventional cognizer that is not subject to any of the four superficial causes of error.
A dream object is a phenomena source. It is apprehended by mental consciousnesses (except in the continuum of a buddha).
According to Geshe Tenzin Tenphel, a dream consciousness is necessarily a non-conceptual perceiver, while Geshe Lobsang Jamphel says that a dream consciousness can be either non-conceptual or conceptual. Either way, a dream consciousness apprehending a dream car as a dream car is valid with regard to the entity of the object it apprehends.
The reflection of a face in the mirror is also an existent. Unlike the dream object, it is not a phenomena source but form.  While it is empty of being an actual face, it is not empty of being a reflection. It is in the entity of a reflection. A consciousness apprehending it as a reflection is valid with regard to the entity of the thing. On the other hand, a consciousness apprehending a mirage as actual water is wrong with regard to the entity of the thing, but that does not make the mirage a non-existent.
According to Prasangika-Madhyamika, conventional truths are not real. However, they are real in relation to the world in that, in the perspective of an ordinary being, they exist the way they appear. That is also why we say: of both truths (conventional and ultimate), only ultimate truths are actually truths. Conventional truths are only truths in relation to a consciousness that is wrong with regard to the mode of existence of phenomena.

Thank you. Why do you feel it necessary to embolden that both are real from the perspective of a worldly consciousness? Moreover, I would dispute that a worldly consciousness would consider the dream snake real. Rather, I think that most people would insist that the dream snake is unreal so as to emphasize the concrete reality of the waking snake.

Welcome. Most people might insist that a dream snake is unreal, but Prasangika mean something else with 'real'. A phenomena that is real is a phenomena that appears the way it exists. That's why, respecting the jargon, I'd say 'a dream snake is empty of being an actual snake', but (1) it exists conventionally (2) it is as unreal as any other conventional truth.

Je Tsongkhapa in the Middle-length Lamrim: Since in the Madhyamikas’ own system the two appearances of reflections, and so forth, and blue, and so forth, to those who possess ignorance do not differ with respect to whether they are mistaken or not in relation to their appearing object, they do not make a division into the two — real and unreal conventionalities.

I think there was a misunderstanding in my first comment above. What I was disputing was this line: "they are real in relation to the world" where I took "they" to specify the rope and the snake. My dispute was with the contention that a dream snake is considered real in relation to the world. However, upon rereading I think you meant "they" to refer to conventional truths.
Also, can you provide a link or source for the last comment quoting Je Tsongkhapa? I do not understand the context of this quote or how it is relevant.

Indeed, "they" referred to conventional truths. But since the dream snake is a conventional truth, a dream snake is real in relation to the world. In the analogy of the rope and the snake, the rope is real in relation to the world while the snake imputed on it is utterly non-existent. In addition, since you said 'most people might insist that a dream snake is unreal' I quoted Tsongkhapa to stress the point that what we mean with 'real' is entirely different. Therefore, the paragraph in which you say "That is, they are both equally unreal. Is this true from the Prasangika viewpoint?" is right.

I don't find the exact link anymore but http://www.freeyourmindtx.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Tsong-Kha-Pa-final-Exposition-of-Wisdom-Tibetan-Buddhism.pdf will provide you with similar statements. If what I'm saying is unclear, feel free to suggest how I can make it clearer.

I don't understand what is meant by, "since the dream snake is a conventional truth." A dream snake is not a truth statement. Also, do you know the tibetan translation of the word "real"? Maybe that would help me to understand...

Also, from Tsongkhapa's Final Exposition of Wisdom we have this, "dream appearances of mountains, houses, and so forth are appre-
hended as real by one who does not recognize dreams as such"
So the question of whether to an ordinary worldly consciousness a dream snake is regarded as real would depend upon whether that consciousness recognizes it is a dream snake. The conclusion being that in relation to the world a dream snake is not considered real. It is also not considered real to a non-ordinary being either. In no way is a dream snake considered real.

Your initial question was "is a dream object an existent?", the answer is yes. An existent is either a conventional or an ultimate truth, and a dream snake is a conventional truth. Additionally, a dream snake appears together with the appearance of true existence to a mental consciousness in the continuum of a sentient being. It does not appear the way it exists, therefore it is not real or true. In this context, the Tibetan word for 'real is 'yang dag', 'real conventionality' is 'yang dag kun rdzob'.

Also, "dream appearances of mountains, houses, and so forth are apprehended as real by one who does not recognize dreams as such" means "a dream house is apprehended real as a house" or "as an actual house". It's another meaning of 'real' and another context. But the issue you initially raised in your question was "They are both equally unreal" and this comes back to our previous issue (yang dag kun rdzob).

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Alright, lets give this a shot.
Lets write down a chain of how reality is perceived before we start. That way, we can understand where this question lies on the spectrum of experience.
The fundamental nature of reality of an unenlightened being is described as thus:

Nirvana exists.
All experience is born through Nirvana.
Experience is conceptualized as a false self. The illusion of consciousness is created.
A false self "observes" the same experience in item 2.
All "non-self" experience is conceptualized.
Conceptualized experience is labeled as an "existent" or "non-existent".

I believe that it must be considered an existent as it is known by a directly perceiving mental consciousness. The same can be said of a face in the mirror although in this case it is directly perceived by the eye consciousness. Is this true?

Consciousness is an illusion, and therefore, I disagree with your belief. Consciousness is a part of the illusion of a separate, permanent self. If I understand your definition of "existent" correctly, then I would say anything you directly experience is considered an existent, with the exception of Nirvana. Nirvana can not be experienced, but it can be realized. Therefore Nirvana is an existent.

I posit that a dream snake and a snake I perceive in waking life are both conventionally existent.

Yes. There is no difference in how our "waking sight" and "dream sight" operate. Both are nothing more than experience coming through our 6 sense doors. Anything that is experienced, is an existent. You can see, hear, feel, taste, and smell both a dream-snake and snake. You can not directly perceive the son of a barren woman through sight, sound, taste, touch, or scent, but you can conceptualize about the son of a barren woman. You can experience thoughts about the concept of a son of a barren woman. These thoughts are absolutely an existent.

Further, that neither are ultimately existent. And that neither are real. That is, they are both equally unreal. Is this true?

What you are observing here, if I understand you correctly, is what is called emptiness. All experience is. No experience has any qualitative aspects. No experience holds any meaning. No experience holds any wisdom. No experience holds any concepts. No experience holds any truth. It is not that snakes are not real. Our experience of any type of snake is real, waking or dreaming. They are both equally empty. There is only experience. We single out one aspect of experience and say "this is a snake!" A snake is nothing more than an interpretation of experience. A snake is the conceptualization of only a small aspect of experience. A snake is just a concept that we use to label experience. A label is empty. Just a word or idea. A concept can be realized, but that doesn't mean there is something behind the concept.

Thank you for your answer. The question I'm asking is hard to answer if you are unfamiliar with the specific jargon used and the rules/customs regarding that jargon. In a way, the question is a request for help to understand the way in which a single definition is understood to be used by these rules/customs.


text:
Spirituality of a life from Buddhism
I read a number of books regarding Buddhism. However for me it's a bit hard to identify how to make a life with satisfaction: in other words, I am looking for how to achieve a real happiness of life from myself.
As far as I know, leaving is one way to achieve it.
As a practice, I start to do Anapanasathi Meditation, to concentrate my mind. When mind is in concentration, for one thing, it makes freedom feeling of a life.
I need to ask: what is the spirituality of a life?
Please explain it in depth.

Are you asking "how to achieve lasting happiness according to Buddhism"?

Yes, great happiness through spirituality of life.

please edit your question,and make it more clear for everyone

See also this answer, which will answer this question too.

You might see also How to explain what Buddhism is?

However for me bit hard to identify how to make a life with satisfaction
I think that the word dukkha is sometimes translated as dissatisfaction.
Is it OK if I say that? You say you've read a number of books regarding Buddhism; so maybe you know about dukkha and the Four Noble Truths already, and so I can just refer to them without explaining them?
Anyway, perhaps "a life with satisfaction" might mean "a life without dukkha" -- and, well, I think that's the foundation of Buddhist doctrine -- how to live without dukkha.
It involves the cessation of "craving", apparently -- perhaps even cravings for "spirituality", if that makes sense (I don't know what you mean by "spirituality", but maybe you're "craving" it).
An opposite to dukkha is sukha (not an exact opposite, but nevertheless). Various forms of Sukha are supposed to be available to lay house-holders -- being ethical, fulfilling all your responsibilities, good friendships, and so on. I might recommend this book for more details about that.
Other schools of Buddhism maybe emphasise that it's satisfying to try to help (save) other people.
I think that some people summarise the doctrine[s] as saying that what's "satisfying" is one's own ethical behaviour -- for example:

It is the same technique most people unconsciously use to maintain their ego: finding reasons to congratulate oneself, and reinvesting the joy that comes from that into further effort in the same direction. The only difference here is that Buddhists use it consistently with Ethics ...

If I behave well (e.g. generously) then I might remember that good behaviour with some satisfaction (or I might, at least, have "no remorse"). And, to be a bit pedantic, it might be about having good intention, rather than only behaviour ... behaviour tends to follow after, follow from, intention.

As an addendum, when you talk about "life" and "spirituality", perhaps you're talking about what's translated from the suttas as "holy life" -- perhaps that's brahmacariya -- and features in suttas like this one -- or in this formula.
However that may give the impression that Buddhism is only for monks, which isn't the whole truth.

There's only one lasting happiness according to Buddhism and that is the Nibbana. To achieve that you need to follow the noble eightfold path.
That means developing virtue (Sila), concentration (Samadhi) and wisdom (Panna).


text:
Can we reach Nirvana without removing ignorance?
Namo Buddhaya.
I am learning dependent origination.
If we follow the dependent origination strictly then by cutting off craving , the attachment ceases to be and with cessation of attachment, continuation ceases to be and with cessation of continuation , birth ceases to be and with cessation of birth , the suffering ceases to be. As the suffering ceases, Nirvana is attained.
In the above sequence of happenings we do not need to mention Ignorance. However we know that dependent origination begins with Ignorance.
My question is : can we reach to Nirvana ,without removing ignorance and just by cutting off craving ? Or is cutting off of the craving is same as removing the ignorance?

Maybe you've heard of the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article):

In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
  bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
  describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
  “consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
  has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
  monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
  back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
  physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
  served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
  lethal.

The monkey needs to let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice.
But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance about how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would be free from his suffering.
Also you can say that the monkey's suffering originated with his ignorance of the trap.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)

It seems dependent origination begins at ignorance and then immediately goes to the next step of removing craving. We don't need volitional formations as the result of ignorance. We need craving as a result of ignorance.

@DheerajVerma The old South Indian Monkey Trap is a simplified analogy that I used to explain the relationship between ignorance, craving and suffering. It's not a complete explanation of dependent origination.

The reason why you crave is because of ignorance. When you have a pleasurable experience, you like it because you do not see the Dukkha(suffering) nature of it. Without getting rid of ignorance, you cannot get rid of craving.

Ok. But since we can only "practically" break the origination of suffering by cutting off craving , why do we need to begin with Ignorance then Volitional formations then consciousness etc in dependent origination. We can simply say with origin of craving comes origin of attachement,continuation , birth and suffering and with cessation of craving comes cessation of attachement , continuation ,birth and suffering.. I don't see any need for a beginning from Ignorance leading to volitional formations , consciousness , name-form etc...

Without working on ignorance, how would you work on cutting off craving?

how do you uproot ignorance ?

Ignorance really means the lack of wisdom. So you need to cultivate wisdom using right mindfulness.

If that is so then dependent origination begins with mindfullessness. With the arising of mindfullessness arises ignorance and with cessation of mindfullessness ceases ignorance...(mindfullessness means lack of mindfulness)

Which wisdom do I need to collect ? ( Please give an example which will lead to cessation of ignorance)

Mindfulness is Samma Sati. It's not ignorance. You got it in reverse.

I agree. I invented the word mindfullessness to represent lack of mindfulness. I am talking about mindfullessness.

Realizing the four noble truths with direct knowledge is the wisdom required to cut off craving and end suffering.

Great. I understood that. The dependent origination says cessation of ignorance leads to cessation of volitional formations. Where as cessation of ignorance leads to cessation of craving directly. We don't need cessation of consciousness in between. The dependent origination should be Ignorance leads to craving leads to attachment leads to existence leads to birth etc...why do we need unnecessary steps like volitional formations and consciousness ?

The standard explanation of Dependant Origination is spanned over 3 lives. Past, present and future. The volitional formation there refers to your birth karma. It explains how one keeps on extending Samsara. If we skip the steps in between, it wouldn't make sense in that way.

can u provide the link to the standard explanation of dependent origination over 3 lives ? Thanks.

paticca-samuppāda

If you want go for Nirvana, you have to ignore happiness and sad situations. Need to think in middle position.Otherwise without removing ignorance, you should trap into normal life style of human.

Ignorance (avijjā) can be understood as ignorance about the Four Noble Truths, which indirectly includes ignorance about the three marks of existence: impermanence (anicca), unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) and non-self (anattā). If you manage to get rid of craving, that probably means that you have removed your ignorance about dukkha, but not necessarily about the other two.
Dependent origination is a difficult topic with a lot of different interpretations. The way I see it, I think it's helpful to look at it from the perspective of removing ignorance about anattā, and not about dukkha. If it was about dukkha, removing the link between sensation (vedana) and craving (taṇhā) would indeed make more sense as the starting point.

While this answer is actually very thoughtful, i marked it down because dependent origination teaches ignorance is not seeing the four noble truths and does not mention anatta at all. Not knowing about suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering. This is called ignorance. SN 12.2; MN 9.

@Dhammadhatu Removing ignorance about the four noble truths implies removing ignorance about the noble eightfold path, which implies removing ignorance about the right view and the right mindfulness, which implies removing ignorance about anattā. I'm not saying dependent origination is only about anattā, I'm just saying that it makes most sense, at least to me, when you look at it from the perspective of removing ignorance about anattā.

@Dhammadhatu But in any case, thanks for pointing out the exact meaning of ignorance in this context; I updated my answer to be more explicit.

It does change your answer. Your answer remains incorrect doctrinally. The word 'dukkha' in the four noble truths does not have the same meaning as the word 'dukkha' in the three characteristics. If you read SN 22.59, the last part says the realisation of the three characteristics results in the destruction of craving. Therefore, the important thing is to end craving; as the 3rd noble truth says.

@Dhammadhatu In my answer I use the word dukkha only in the context of the three characteristics. Perhaps it has another meaning in the 3rd noble truth, but what does it change here? Also note that “craving”, both in the question and my answer, specifically means taṇhā, one of the twelve nidānas. SN 22.59 doesn't mention taṇhā at all, so I cannot see how it is relevant.

Craving is cut because of the knowledge that craving is a primary cause of suffering. Such knowledge is the cutting of ignorance.

Not knowing about suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of
  suffering. This is called ignorance.
SN 12.2; MN 9.

How is it possible that cutting off of craving results in cessation of ignorance?

I didn't post the cutting off of craving results in cessation of ignorance. I posted the cutting of craving depends on the knowledge (non-ignorance) that the cutting of craving brings peace.