text:
Does it matter if the mind is neurologically originated or not?
For example, in this answer, we find Buddhists insisting that the mind is not a "byproduct" of the brain, i.e. the mind does not arise neurologically in the brain. By neurology, I mean that according to that view, the mind arises by the electrical and chemical interactions happening in neuron cells of the physical brain.
I have also seen Ajahn Brahm stating in a video that even a person with dementia would have a moment of clarity of mind, just before death, proving that the mind is not neurologically originated.
My understanding is that Buddhists have this view, because without it, it does not seem sensible that the mind stream can be reborn into another life. Is this right? That's my first question.
This answer is interesting:

Consciousness (viññana) and Materiality (rūpa) are related as are
  magnetism and electricity. Their relationship is reciprocal, each
  conditioning the other. They are dependently originated, i.e. neither
  exists independently.

To me, it does not matter if the mind arose neurologically in the physical brain or not.
My analogy is that software or data is composed of the bits of 1s and 0s on the physical media of a computer, for example, harddisk and RAM. So, it is electronically and chemically originated. However, software can be copied or transferred to other computers or other physical media over networks. So, while software depends on physical media, this does not impede it from moving to other physical media.
So, my second question is, does it really matter (in terms of holding the Right View) if the mind is neurologically originated or not? I think if the mind is neurologically originated, it does not matter and does not impede the notion of rebirth or continuity of the mind stream, just like in the case of software.

Brain and mind are different things.You get informed because of brain (neurons) and not because of mind. Here may this question would help you.

I think I more-or-less agree with your "mind is like software" position. Here is my personal opinion on the topic.
If you read modern books on mind, such as "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett and "Mind: A Journey to the Heart of Being Human" by Daniel Siegel, you will see that modern researchers are slowly getting to the same idea:
Mind is an empty (non-solid, impossible to reify) informational phenomenon. It's existence depends on dynamic processes of information exchange. In this sense mind is not dualistically separate from its various media, it is the informational aspect of everything, built into the fabric of regular things. In this sense, "everything is mind".
In my opinion, the comparison of mind with software is fairly accurate - although mind is even more subtle and amorphous than even software, but yes it is of the same kind. Mind is not just the thoughts, memes, books and other human stuff though. In a more subtle way mind exists in animals, trees, and even in geographical features. Mind as dynamic property of things moving, transforming, reflecting, affecting, conditioning, and representing each other.
I would not say mind "emerges" from matter though, to me that's an incorrect characterization. In my view, mind is what animates matter, it is the "spirit" or "soul" of things if you wish (metaphorically speaking). Mind/information/energy is the active side of things, while matter is only a temporary form that it takes.
Now, whether it matters for Buddhism or not, I think it does matter. The materialistic or nihilistic position declares primacy of matter and downplays importance of information and (abstract) energy (of latent influences and potentialities). The position of naive spiritualism is really an extension of materialism, in which "soul" and "self" is some sort of special cloud that resides in the body and leaves it at death (and more elaborate versions of that). Both of these positions lead to interpretation mistakes about reality and life. Materialism leads to "it does not matter" attitude that ignores all subtleties and critically important sideeffects. Naive spiritualism leads to a conservative kind of thinking that fears scientific discoveries and advances and basically rejects reality in favor of superstitions.
In terms of ethics, this way of thinking has potential to finally reconcile the religious and the scientific positions, and the two camps of people identifying with them. The mainstream understanding that mind is not confined to brain but instead is like the atmosphere that we all share should lead to important breakthroughs in our ability to connect, share, appreciate, respect, accept, and love each other.

In short: it doesn't matter.
Why? Because drilling down on this topic will not free you from suffering. Instead, it may well create more.

I provided a similar answer. Kindly score my answer 'up' if you wish, so it is not snuffed out. Thanks

The first question is asking about this answer (in full):

All unenlightened beings suffer including scientists. I suppose the real question is whether scientists will ever realize the four noble truths. Unless there's a radical change in how they approach reality, I do not see that happening any time soon.
The real issue is that mainstream science still does not acknowledge that there is a mental aspect to the universe. They think of the mind as a byproduct of the brain. Any scientific research done based on that hypothesis will never lead to the understanding of the four noble truths.

The phrase you're asking about ("they think of the mind as a byproduct of the brain") seems to be an elaboration of the previous sentence ("The real issue is that mainstream science still does not acknowledge that there is a mental aspect to the universe"), and a bridge to the next sentence ("Any scientific research done based on that hypothesis will never lead to the understanding of the four noble truths").
I think the sentence wants to emphasise mental aspects (not physical aspects), as explained more-or-less explained in these comments (under a different answer):

If the scientists took the mental aspect of the universe seriously, today we would have very useful scientific theories on things like rebirth, Karma etc. – Sankha Kulathantille Mar 4 at 13:46
@SankhaKulathantille If the scientists took the mental aspect of the universe seriously When you write "the mental aspect", I guess that "mental aspect" includes ,"how we perceive it (sense-objects)", "how we feel about it (dissatisfaction)", and "how we react to it (anger or attachment)", and maybe "what's good (ethics, discipline, maybe kindness or selflessness too)". Is that what you mean by "the mental aspect" (which science should have studied), or did you mean something else? – ChrisW Mar 4 at 14:13
@ChrisW By the mental aspect, I mean 4 out of the 5 aggregates. Scientists only study 1. I.e. Rupa. Look how much they are missing. – Sankha Kulathantille Mar 4 at 14:15

So I think that answers that. Your question is "why does it matter if the mind is seen as a byproduct of the brain", and the answer appears to be that the brain is only a part of only one of the 5 skandhas, which is (I think, obviously) insufficient for the Buddhist endeavour.
In summary I don't think it's because it's relevant to "rebirth"; it's because it's too simplistic. And maybe too low-level: you can try to interpret everything (all activity) as physical/atomic, but IMO that is an inappropriate level in/at/from which to perceive feelings, ethics, and so on.
Yes you can take fMRIs of a brain in various states, but ...

As for the second question, "So, my second question is, does it really matter (in terms of holding the Right View) if the mind is neurologically originated or not?"

I think it's OK to say that the mind has a "dependent origination" relationship.
BUT "the mind" is complicated -- see e.g. What is the difference between Vijñāna, Manas and Citta?
BUT "dependent origination" (the 12 nidanas) includes more than only "mind and brain" (i.e. it's more complicated than that)
BUT tradition includes "immaterial (formless) realms", and inhabitants thereof (devas), and any claim that "there is no mind without brain" may appear to contradict that.
BUT "the mind originates in the brain" isn't taught (historically orthodox), isn't included in any definition of Right View, and maybe isn't a soteriological doctrine -- which prefers to teach that mental phenomena are mind-made (not that mind is matter-made)

As a scientist perhaps I might say that "the theory that 'the mind originates in the brain' is a model which seems to explain various phenomena".
But maybe it's not the best (or right) model, to explain the kinds of observation that are the subject of Buddhist doctrine.
To answer the question with a rhetorical question, do you think you can arrive at, for example, a neurological understanding of the four noble truths? Can other people? Is it that doctrine that's readily apparent, inviting inspection, maybe self-evident etc.?
Again I don't think it's necessarily to do with "rebirth", only that assuming that "the physical is all there is" isn't the right perspective from which to understand Buddhist doctrine or practice.

When I said "byproduct" I meant the materialistic belief that the mind is a physical phenomenon, rather than being a separate aspect of reality outside physicality. I didn't imply that the physicality cannot influence the mind. In reality, it is the craving in the mind towards physical experiences that creates the senses. If not for the workings of the mind, the body wouldn't even exist, much less the brain.
Having said that, lets assume that the mind is a byproduct of the brain. In other words, the physical is all there is in the universe. Then there would be no Karmic difference between a man intentionally killing another man and a coconut falling on a man's head and killing him. Either both events are devoid of any Karma or the coconut also breaks the first precept. :) Suffering of beings would be nothing more than the suffering of a rock in your garden. Why even bother to attain Nibbana?
Electricity and magnetism are both physical phenomena. Software does not exist. What you call software is usually electricity and magnetism. If we assume that the mind is a part of the brain, in order for those data/chemicals/electrical traces to be transferred to the brain of the next life, the brain in the current life should have some physical connection to the brain of the next life before it is rotten or burnt. This scenario is highly unlikely given the diverse places where beings can be born and that there is no such physical connection to those places. It also completely removes any possibility of immaterial births.
So if one wants to end Samsara, all one has to do is to go to a room with electromagnetic insulation and commit suicide and let the brain be burnt. No need to keep to the precepts and meditate tirelessly :)
If we go to the level of ultimate reality, electricity and magnetism do not exist either. It's all seeing, hearing, feeling etc. Identifying that those experiences have mental and physical aspects is called the  the Namarupa pariccheda nana. It is the first Vipassana knowledge a meditator attains. There's no ending of suffering if you cannot even get past that first stage.

Here is the mind catching question again. The mind and brain question. if some one analyze my suggestion as an answer is most appreciated.There are mainly two views on this issue.

Brain( material/physics or rupa) and mind are two different things. once death of brain, mind is caused to next birth. buddhist way chutti citta shape the next birth. Also memory recall of past life is taken as supportive proof for the rebirth. Here is very strong witness information of Prof.Ian Stevenson rebirth exploration as an example.
In the case of the boy who said he recalled the life of someone who had been shot, the sister of the deceased told Stevenson that her brother had shot himself in the throat. The boy had shown Stevenson a birthmark on his throat. Stevenson suggested that he might also have a birthmark on the top of his head, representing the exit wound, and found one there underneath the boy's hair.

So these kind of witnesses can't be scientifically proven and supply strong supportive materials for rebirth believers.

Brain and mind co-exits and co-related and interdependent. mind is extinguishes (once neurons stop fire) on brain death and that is the end of mind and consciousnesses. Scientists,rationalists are in this view. They have supportive materials to prove it.

e.g An patient in unconscious or coma situation,
Some psychotic medication and some chemical(e.g chloroform,adrenalin,opium etc...  can be used to manipulate mind and thoughts patterns.
Also when consider and analyze Heart Sutta and culla sunnata sutta express the similar thing.
But the second view is make huge controversy to first view in ethics,tradition in the purpose of doing good(karmic effects) and bad,doing wholesome and mundane,super-mundane concepts.

The Buddha did not teach about a 'mind stream'. Dependent origination is about the origination of suffering (sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair). 'Rebirth' (new egoism) in happy or unhappy state is something that is a result of kamma (action). The question is about meta-physics and unrelated to the teaching of the Buddha, who taught:

In the past & now, I teach about suffering & freedom from suffering.
MN 22


text:
How can one avoid the suffering after getting cheated?
Today I suffered severe disappointment because I thought I was cheated some amount of money. I couldn't complain to anyone because I had no proof. And I suspect those who cheated me will also cheat other people.
I want to avoid such disappointments in future and also I want to do the right thing.
What should be my response on getting cheated ? Should I forgive the thugs who stole my money ? Should I wish bad for them and report it to the police or the managers?

Forgiving them would not entail not reporting them to the police, especially if they might do it again. No need to get emotional and suffer. But if you have no proof there may be no point.

In Buddhism, the preferred practice is to cultivate wholesome or skillful states of mind in any situation.
In this scenario, you should not bear hatred or ill-will or anger or any such negative states of mind.
You can do this by cultivating compassion.
For example, ask "why did those people cheat others of their money?" Perhaps, they are desperate for money due to personal financial crisis? Or perhaps, their lack of understanding of the Dhamma leads them to act in ways that would lead them towards unfortunate future outcomes? In any case, those cheaters are suffering, and would continue to suffer due to their unwholesome mental states of having the intention to harm others.
Another way to view this is to consider that the cheaters are overwhelmed by negative states of mind, so much so that they are not able to see the right path clearly. It's like they are suffering from a disease of the mind. If you see it that way, you can also cultivate compassion towards them.
If your grandmother who is suffering from senile dementia speaks or behaves in a hurting way towards you, would you feel anger towards her? No. It's because you understand her condition and are compassionate towards her. Similarly, you can show understanding and compassion towards the mental condition of the cheaters.
However, this does not mean that you should let them do as they wish. You can still lodge a complaint with the police and follow the procedures laid out by the law. However, you shouldn't do this with hatred or anger or malice in your mind. Instead, you can do so out of compassion for other innocent people, wishing for them to not suffer from the malicious actions of the cheaters.
At the same time, it is also not wrong to consider getting your money back if that's possible.
If the people who cheated others are punished by the law, they might become repentant and change their ways. So, by informing the police, you are also acting in a compassionate way to help them change their negative way of life.
So, the main point here is that you can still lodge a complaint with the police, follow the procedures laid out by the law and try to get your money back. But the Buddhist way is to do so with wholesome states of mind like compassion and loving-kindness, rather than with anger, hatred and malice. When you understand that those who try to harm you and others are suffering in their mind, you can respond with a compassionate perspective.
This you can see from Dhammapada 1:

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as
  their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil
  mind, 'dukkha' (suffering) follows him just as the wheel follows the
  hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

And Dhammapada 124:

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.

Nice answer. I found Buddhist way the right way. As I forgave the cheaters with compassion I felt a strange satisfaction. I felt light and happy.

First, do not hold ill intentions. It may or may not be a case of cheating, there could be misconceptions.
Secondly, if you really got your money cheated, just report to the police or managers. Do it out of due diligent intentions, nothing more nothing less.

You can think like this;

""A disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not the only one
  who is owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions,
  related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator; who
  — whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir. To
  the extent that there are beings — past and future, passing away and
  re-arising — all beings are the owner of their actions, heir to their
  actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and
  have their actions as their arbitrator. Whatever they do, for good or
  for evil, to that will they fall heir.'

(excerpt from AN 5.57 "Subjects for Contemplation" https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html)
Furthermore you can reflect on this;

‘I see no error made which I could not have made Myself’ * (i.e. given
  the same amount of delusion)

This is from http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Deliverance_of_Heart.pdf by Ven. Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda
Furthermore;
Excerpt from Dhammapada: Twinned Verses (verses 3,4&5)

3“Me, she swore at”. “Me, he flogged”. “Me, defeated”. “Me, she
  robbed”. Those with hateful thoughts thus held, Hatred in those ones
  will never be quelled.
4 “Me, she swore at”. “Me, he flogged”. “Me, defeated”. “Me, she
  robbed”. Those who live such thoughts not held, Hatred in those ones
  is utterly quelled.
5 Never, in all of creation. Hatred by hatred has been pacified Through freedom from hatred does hatred
  subside: This law is of ageless duration.

And finally;

“Let them abuse me, beat me, kill me – I’ll have Mettā – Unconditional
  Mettā.” (Note: Repeat this formula non-stop in times of danger to your
  Mettā. Mettā = Universal Love) For a practical illustration, see
  Puṇṇovāda Sutta, M III 267.
  *** “Even were bandits savagely to sever you limb from limb with a two handled saw, he who entertained hate in his heart on that account
  would not be one who carried out my teachings.”

– Kakacūpama Sutta, M. I 21

Both forgive them &, if possible, report them.

How can i avoid the suffering after being cheated out of money???
Firstly money is impermanent, nothing last s forever and the money you were cheated of is just that.
Second wishing bad on someone who feels the need to steal could be considered as bad as stealing. You should nt wish bad on anyone. Instead see their act of stealing as an act of desperation born out of fear of somthing. It is sad that this person or persons are in such a dire situation that they would resort to theft, we should try to have compassion for such people as that theft will come back to haunt them at a later date, and when it happens they may be in a worse situation then yourself right now and they may really really be in a situation where they cannot not  afford to lose that money and they might lose alot more than you aswell. Will you starve tonight because of it?  What would you have spent that money on anyway has it been such a massive loss?
Thirdly, have you never ever stole anything in this life? Maybe this was karma s seed ripening from that time you stole if not in this life maybe a previous life. This maybe a karmic seed released from you, so by taking the right action and by having compassion for the cheaters, you may have just earn t yourself 1 step closer to enlightenment and u now know you have a tiny weeny bit less suffering to endure while carrying on your life s journey.
If I were you see it as a good thing, they took it from someone who can deal with being cheated from better than some other people may have taken it. You could say that telling the police is good for whomever cheated you as if they get caught and punished then they will stop stealing faster and thus create less negative karma for themselves in the long run. Not to mention by telling the police you may be helping anyone else in the future who may have the misfortune to be cheated by the same people.
It s a win win situation. You ve bore the brunt of a bad situation but with the right action you can help many people that could get caught up by the same person (s). But you can only tell the police then leave it up to them to carry out their job as they re supposed to. If the perpetrators never get caught then they will one day and it maybe over somthing bigger.
So don t worry about it, tell the police and leave it there,
or at least that's what I think would be the best course of action to take anyway.

If it is a large amount of money and if you feel that they would do it to other people as well, it is better to inform the police. However, it is very important to forgive and forget whether you go to the police or not because your inner peace is more important than anything else.

First and foremost, how did they steal? Was it by pick pocket, or cheating by deceiving you?
If it's a big amount, people can take action.
Also inform others so that others are careful.
Develop compassion.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Annoyed by nasal congestion and hyper-salivation during meditation?
I just attended a 10-day Vipassana retreat and during the whole retreat I was constantly annoyed by nasal congestion and hyper-salivation. For many years I've had a sort of chronic nasal congestion, whether it's summer or winter, it doesn't matter, I always have at least one stuffy nostril. I know I need to go to the doctor but I've been lazy all this time, but now I'll do it, I promise.
Anyways, it seems that in tandem with the nasal congestion I've also developed the automatic habit of "fighting" the nasal congestion by sucking/breathing the mucus in, producing saliva and then swallowing the saliva which kind of carries some of the mucus with it, thus producing a temporary feeling of relief from the nasal congestion. However, as I said the relief is partial and only temporary, because a few seconds later the feeling of nasal congestion comes back again, the urge to "fight" arises and the whole process repeats again. This almost subconscious process became blatantly obvious during the 10-day retreat where we were meditating 12 hours a day. It was super annoying. I was developing aversion towards it which totally defeats the purpose of Vipassana. So I tried to remain equanimous to my nasal congestion and hyper-salivation, but then I realized that even if I remain equanimous to the feeling of the air hitting the clogged nostril, the saliva production would not stop. The saliva would start accumulating quickly in my mouth, and eventually I would have no choice but to swallow it all. This was super annoying and many times I just gave up and started swallowing quickly and compulsively, hopelessly trying to get rid of the saliva, but then my mouth would keep producing saliva anyway. So one way or another I ended up fighting my nasal congestion and swallowing a lot of saliva, and felt like a weirdo making all these mouth noises during the group meditations, which probably annoyed my unfortunate fellow meditators in the room.
So it seems as if my brain has somehow learned to automatically produce saliva whenever I experience nasal congestion, which is pretty much all the time. It's as if I've developed a sort of OCD of fighiting my nasal congestion and producing and swallowing saliva, and I don't know how to get rid of it. After the 10-day retreat I still keep experiencing this, in fact I had experienced this problem even before the retreat too, it's just that the retreat allowed me to become extremely aware of it.
What can I do? Has anyone experienced something like this and managed to solve it?
Thank you very much in advance.

I was developing aversion towards it which totally defeats the purpose of Vipassana.

The purpose of Vipassana is to gain insight. Is there any way you can gain insight into the workings of your experience through your newfound aversion? You can observe any experience to gain insight into the truth, but looking into suffering is particularly helpful. Moments of suffering house so much delusion, they are information treasures!
Wishing your physical condition to go away is a manifestation of fundimental aversion. Next time you are meditating, I encourage you to ask yourself these questions.

What makes up your desire to have your condition go away?
How often is the desire/suffering being felt by you?
What physical and mental sensations occur that show you your desire is absolute/a need?
What part of you is your condition harming?

The beautiful thing about being dissatisfied is that although it is painful, it is an insight jumping in front of your face, ready to occur!
Best of luck to you and I hope you find what you are looking for!

This appears to be a physical issue; that probably needs to be resolved in a physical way; such as by proper exercise, proper eating, non-consumption of intoxicants,  herbal detoxification medicine, acupuncture, etc. For example, if you could run five kilometers this nasal problem probably would not occur.
Pornography was also mentioned in another topic. Pornography can contribute to this because watching the secretion of fluids in pornography (such as when a women performs oral sex on a man) will naturally cause the watcher's own body to secrete similar fluids (as the woman); similar to how watching a man's body aroused in pornography will stimulate the watcher's body to be aroused.
Whatever the mind fixates, the watcher will also "become". Pornography is deliberately designed using Freudian principles of phallic, oral & anal arousal to trap men into a self (male) fixation. Pornography is not primarily the watching of naked women but the watching of men having sex.
Both posts on this forum are indicative of an unhealthy lifestyle. The benefit of doing the Vipassana Retreat is it had you become personally & intimately conscious of these problems & therefore it provided you with an insight & opportunity to change your life for the better.

Dhammadhatu, is there a way to e-mail you privately for addressing certain questions in Buddhism?

dhammadhatu@bigpond.com

Did you tell the assistant teacher about your problem?
I've attended a few 10-day Vipassana courses and even though my symptoms perhaps weren't as acute as yours, I've also had problems with the blocked nose and saliva in my mouth. Almost every time I attended the course I asked the assistant teacher what I should do with the excess saliva in my mouth, and they all consistently answered that I may swallow it as often as I wish. I suggest you ask that question yourself next time you attend the course, but it seems that the simplest solution is to swallow the saliva and return to observing sensations.
As for the problem with nasal congestion, I don't know any good solution for that, perhaps a physical/medical solution is needed here. Note, however, that during Ānāpānasati you're supposed to breath through your nostrils, but it's apparently not so crucial during Vipassanā, and you can resort to breathing though your mouth, if there's no other option. Again, this is what an assistant teacher told me, but you should ask this question yourself.

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


text:
Is it fair to say that Buddhism employ misology?
The question is straightforward as it read, but to elaborate I will give some examples.
I think most people will agree that reason is what is special about human beings, and most religions and philosophies are directed to human reason to persuade or redirect human reason to what is deemed correct/true, but human reason have a set of premises that it works from, in other word discernment in human requires approval by reason itself, it cannot be otherwise.
So, to convince what is reasonable philosophy employ dialectic thus it cannot be blamed for misology. Most religions, however, use faith in addition to dialectic and when faith contradict with reason misology is visible and human reason succumb to confusion.
Now, Buddhism is no different from these religions, although it claims that no faith is need beside direct knowledge, it avoid explaining the basic building block of the idea it propounds. For example, it seeks to eliminate ignorance to end suffering but it avoids to give an explanation how in the first place ignorance arise? Some sect of Buddhism also teach a Buddha nature in every being but fail to explain how a perfect Buddha nature get deluded, to begin with. Buddhism also fail/avoid to explain how it’s possible that an endless liberation is possible.
The above is not uncommon to other religions even in India the Jain’s teach a True Soul that get liberated from karmic element but they fail to explain how this ever going ebb of liberation can be true, how is that even possible to have a never filling bucket? Why are all souls not liberated if the Jani’s cosmos progress or the Buddhist idea is to be believed?

This question is marked as a duplicate, but I don't think it is directly related to my question. What I'm asking is not a bias towards conceptualization, but avoidance to explain idea's within Buddhism, not of individual conceptualization Mr.Ethan would want to keep, but a reasoned explanation for Buddism itself.

Related: Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?

Now, Buddhism is no different from these religions, although it claims that no faith is need beside direct knowledge, it avoid
  explaining the basic building block of the idea it propounds. For
  example, it seeks to eliminate ignorance to end suffering but it
  avoids to give an explanation how in the first place ignorance
  arise?

The above statement is itself 'misology' because an explanation how in the first place ignorance arose is unknowable. It is not possible to apply reason & logic to that which is unknowable.
In AN 10.61, the Buddha taught the origin of ignorance cannot be known however what sustains or feeds ignorance (namely, the five hindrances) can be both known & eradicated. Therefore, although the origin of ignorance cannot be known, ignorance can be eradicated.
This is similar to the origin of life. The origin of life cannot be known but life is easily eradicated, such as by starvation, disease, suffocation or weapons.

Some sect of Buddhism also teach a Buddha nature in every being but fail to explain how a perfect Buddha nature get deluded, to begin with.

The Buddha did not teach about 'Buddha-Nature' because it does not exist. Again, the above statement is itself 'misology' because the explanation about a superstition called 'Buddha-Nature' is not possible.

Buddhism also fail/avoid to explain how it’s possible that an endless liberation is possible.

The Buddha did not teach about an "endless liberation". However, the Buddha did teach a permanent liberation of mind during the finite lifetime of a mind is possible.

What I'm asking is not a bias towards conceptualization, but avoidance to explain idea's within Buddhism, not of individual
  conceptualization Mr.Ethan would want to keep, but a reasoned
  explanation for Buddism itself.

I think to critique anything first requires knowledge of the matter to be critiqued.

1) it seeks to eliminate ignorance to end suffering but it avoids to give an explanation how in the first place ignorance arise?
you are wrong. Buddhism gives very clear explanation arise of ignorance. which is lack of wisdom. lack of wisdom arises due to imperfection or unsatisfactory. These are fundamental characteristics of nature.
2) Some sect of Buddhism also teach a Buddha nature in every being but fail to explain how a perfect Buddha nature get deluded
Buddha nature is a state of our mind. Which is deluded by defilement of mind.Buddha nature signify capacity(develop and having wisdom) to eliminate all sort of defilement in mind, clear and realize the path to final liberation,absolute emptiness or Nirvana and show the path to others. In other words it can be describe as having perfection of wisdom.
3) Buddhism also fail/avoid to explain how it’s possible that an endless liberation is possible.
Buddhism has clearly explained the path. Only thing is how ordinary people understand and realize it. Hold and cling so hard to unwholesome views and lack of wisdom. e.g view of self,I,me,mine,ours, almighty god,force,destiny,continuous soul etc... Buddhism clearly expel all those deluded concepts and explained very well. all you need is give up all deluded views and study the basics step by step (come and see) and measure it with your enhanced wisdom and take the decision.
Please analyze into depth of Three characteristics of nature Anicca,Dukkha,Anatta, four noble truths,noble eight fold paths, concept of metta, five precepts etc... step by step. without studying basics you will not realize the profound teaching of Buddha. Then gradually read and analyze essential sutta such as heart sutta, cula-sunaata sutta,karaniya metta sutta,maha parinibbana sutta etc...
hope this will help you. Thanks and metta. you may gain more and more wisdom to realize the path and have courage to serve the universe.

Your question is basically asking: "Why can't we measure the cosmos with a ruler?" The answer is, you can't !

No, my question is not asking what you stated. You made your own question and answered it in a very scary way, how do you know that the cosmos can't be measured?

If you do not understand the metaphor behind my statement, I'd suggest you re-visit the answers provided to you earlier on, especially the one with the highest votes, and I am sure you will eventually understand. In the mean time, have a great and happy day.

Is it fair to say that Buddhism employ misology?
Yes and no.

No: Buddhist terms are well defined or can be explained. Doctrines like the four noble truths seem to me logical. The suttas obviously can't be described as "anti-wordy". The dhamma is meant to be evident, common sense. Basic tennets (e.g. virtue is good, but craving correlates with suffering) are meant to be practical and (unlike some religions) don't depend on "faith".
Yes: some of the suttas (e.g. MN 18) warn against "perceptions" and "categories of objectification", and "obsessions of views" and so on. Some of the practices (forms of meditation, especially) are non-verbal (or even anti-verbal). The teachings are called "the finger pointing at the moon".

it avoids to give an explanation how in the first place ignorance arise
I like the parable of the arrow, I see it as an example of Buddhism's being practical and admirable.
If the Buddha said,

From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on.

... then why would you want Buddhism to try to explain a beginning? Isn't an explanation likely to be "wrong" (not right) if it isn't evident? And so isn't it right to focus on what is evident?
Do you want to call that "misology", I don't know.


text:
Can loving kindness, compassion and sympathetic joy be developed through Vipassana meditation?
As far as I understand, Vipassana meditation trains attention and equanimity. Which makes sense because you are basically doing body scans all the time and remaining equanimous to bodily sensations, whether they are pleasant or unpleasant. Cool. But ... how can you develop love, compassion and sympathetic joy by doing that? How can "watching equanimously your bodily sensations" make you a more loving and compassionate person? At best you should become a very neutral, equanimous, cold person with a very high level of awareness, but then how would you cultivate sympathetic joy, loving kindness, compassion? Does one need to complement vipassana with other techniques to develop those qualities?

Your concern is based on invalid definition of Vipassana/Vipashyana. "Watching equanimously your bodily sensations" is not what Buddha meant by insight meditation. Insight meditation is rigorous introspection of one's mental processes seeking answers to questions like:

What is it that we call "I" and how can it be identified exactly in our subjective experience? Who or what is the subject of experience that does the watching?
What are the limits to the extent that we can be said to have free-will and to have an identity?
How do the trains of thought work?
What exactly happens when the mind engages in relative judgement?
How does the mind create its notions of entities?
How is reality we perceive relate to the mind perceiving it?
How do emotions work and what do they depend on?
What are preconceptions and attachments and why they are problematic?
What are overgeneralization and reification and why are they problematic?
Why exactly do we feel unhappy?
How do psychosomatic experiences relate to our subconscious mind and to our emotions?
How is emotional energy drained and how is it generated?
What can we change in our behavior in light of all the factors above, in order to be stronger and happier?

Now, this is vipashyana - sitting and looking at one's mindstream in order to get answers to these questions.
Once you get some answers to most of the above - and with your new perspective you look back at the state of humanity -- you suddenly find yourself having the very same loving kindness, compassion, and sympathetic joy arising quite spontaneously ;)

My understanding of Vipassana as a technique comes from Goenka's 10 day retreat. There we pretty much had to perform body scans, " .. from head to feet and from feet to head, maintaining perfect equanimity, perfect equanimity ..." I still can hear Goenka's recorded voice in my head :)

That's the problem with modern interpretations of Vipassana, I think they strip it of its depth.

This list of questions to bear in mind while practising is quite helpful

Well-developed Buddhist samatha-vipassana meditation cleanses the body & mind from mental impurities such as greed, lust, hatred, anger, delusion, etc. Also, to practise samatha-vipassana successfully requires lots of self-love or self-compassion. Thus, when the true results of samatha-vipassana meditation are developed, what will remain is bliss & love. In summary, when unwholesome emotions are cleansed, what naturally will remain are wholesome emotions.
Therefore, one does not really need to complement samatha-vipassana with other techniques to develop those qualities. Often, sympathetic joy, loving kindness, compassion, etc, need to be developed when there are hindrances to samatha-vipassana. But if there are no hindrances to concentration, those qualities will be included in the natural results of samatha-vipassana.


text:
Suitability of Meditation Types
I return to this site after a long absence due to various causes.
My current question is whether some meditations are more suited to certain contexts than others, for example:

Would mindfulness of breathing be as easy as other meditations on public transport?
Would mindfulness of sight be more appropriate in such a context?
Is mindfulness of breathing suitable to walking, or is it preferable to practice mindfulness of stepping and so on?

I am mainly asking this because my formal meditation is almost impossible, as I live at home and noises are continuously occurring. I'm specifically talking about television noises, or discussions, which in addition to being loud also distract from my practice. Thus, I search for other situations to meditate in, like transport and walking.

Would mindfulness of breathing be as easy as other meditations on public transport?

Mindfulness with breathing is most suitable for public transport.

Would mindfulness of sight be more appropriate in such a context?

Both should be practised. When there is nothing necessary to look at, practise anapanasati. When there is something necessary to look at, have mindfulness & wisdom at sense contact.

Is mindfulness of breathing suitable to walking, or is it preferable to practice mindfulness of stepping and so on?

Mindfulness with breathing is suitable to formal walking, i.e., when walking back & forth on a defined path or when walking on a clear path/road (with no obstacles to trip on). However, it requires skill to practise it.

I am mainly asking this because my formal meditation is almost impossible, as I live at home and noises are continuously occurring.
  I'm specifically talking about television noises, or discussions,
  which in addition to being loud also distract from my practice.

You should still try to practise anapanasati at home (although it is difficult to do with eyes closed in the presence of others but can be done with eyes open).

May I direct you to the following article on Mahasati Meditation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasati_meditation
"Also known as Dynamic Meditation, Mahasati Meditation is a form of mindfulness meditation. It is a technique developed by Thai Buddhist reformist Luangpor Teean Cittasubho. Mahasati Meditation uses movement of the body to generate self-awareness and is a powerful tool for self-realization."
At the end of the day, only through trial and error and we can then evaluate what works best. Whatever works best is the way to go.

I suggest to attempt to answer the question directly. This is not an evangelical site for advertising our favourite gurus.

Thanks. I was merely hoping to point a suitable direction for the poster to do some more reading. As I myself is in the process of studying Mahasati Meditation, however not so confident in elaborating it just yet. Still, suggestions accepted.


text:
Correct Perspective for Mindfulness
I am wondering whether anyone can give me information on the correct way to practice non-judgmental mindfulness. The way I understand it, different attitudes towards experience can imply:

Attachment: Participating in an experience or indulging in a desire or fantasy through action.  Or, even, clinging to and believing thoroughly a thought or idea, i.e. in a non-relative way.
Aversion: The opposite, which is aversion towards an experience, shunning it, denying it, avoiding it by removing oneself from it. Denying realities and ideas, considering them as entirely wrong or false, or undesirable.
Equanimity: Finally, having equanimity, holding experiences in oneself without acting upon them or avoiding them, and considering the relativity of ideas and emotions, etc.

I believe the third point is mindfulness, but when I practice meditation very little seems to arise. I am caught in the breath. Outside of meditation, even, I often act out of anger without time to think, or fail to experience different emotions and affects.
Is it possible I am meditating wrongly, in a way that inhibits non-judgmental awareness of inner experience, and instead prevents these experiences from arising? I.e should these experiences (lust or anger, emotions, etc) at least arise?

Here are some good resources on how to mindfulness
https://static.sirimangalo.org/howto/HTM.pdf
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Seeing-Through-Rev-0_3.pdf
https://pathpress.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/notes-on-meditation-by-bhikkhu-ninoslav-nyanamoli.pdf

Lust or anger, emotions will definitely arise. Through meditation, you manage them, not to suppress them.
The more you suppress, the more persistent they will be.

If mindfulness is practised, lust & anger will not arise.
Cittanupassana (3rd tetrad of satipatthana) does not refer to the arising of lust & anger from sense experience but refers to a very deep state of non-thinking samadhi when the energies of subtle underlying tendencies come to the surface.
Very few Buddhists have ever reached the level of cittanupassana in meditation. The 'cittanupassana' particularly taught in Western vipassana is not really cittanupassana.

How sure are you on that? Do the 4 tetrads happen chronologically? Meaning: From Body, to feeling, to mind and then to dhammas? Surely, I am able to observe impermanence (dhammas), defilements (which are in Cittanupassana) and vedanas as well, without being in deep concentration. Might to clarify this?

In the Anapanasati Sutta the 4 tetrads happen chronologically. Yes, impermanence of breathing can be observed in the 1st tetrad but this is not as profound as when impermanence itself is the object of meditation in the 4th tetrad. As for observing defilments, this does not occur lucidly in the 1st tetrad but merely vaguely.


text:
Am I a man of integrity?
Namo Budhhaya (I would like to begin by paying homage to Buddha...I don't think that will violate the rules of the forum please).
I oppose science for its wrong views on the origin of Universe , origin of consciousness and existence of God. However I everyday use science to make my life simpler. I am indebted to science for giving me all the comfort.
But here arises the question of integrity.
How can I use the services of science if I oppose its values ?
Am I a man of integrity?
Is Integrity Anatta too ?

Your dog guards your house from robbers and other criminals. But if it barks at your friends and relatives, shouldn't you shush it? Is that being ungrateful to the dog?
Rice is the staple diet of most asians. But are you ungrateful to rice if you refuse to eat spoilt rice? You eat rice when it is healthy to eat. In the same way, agree with scientific teachings when they are beneficial and true. Reject them when they are mere hypotheses based on wrong views.
Integrity is the quality of being honest. It is Anatta like everything else. But Anatta does not imply that one should not cultivate good qualities.

I agree. But if Integrity is Anatta then Integrity will be cause of suffering and it is not worth identifying with me or as myself or as mine. In other words it is not worth cultivating...Why will you cultivate something which will cause suffering ? (I am sorry if I got it wrong... but that is what is implied by  integrity is Anatta.If you want to explain in full then I can ask this question separately. Thanks)

Anatta does not imply suffering. Even Nibbana itself is Anatta. You do not have to cling to wholesome qualities as a self to cultivate them. All you need to understanding is that  wholesome mindstates lead to favorable results. ex: To take medicine for a sickness, do you need to cling to medicine as a self? No! You just need to know that it is the medicine for the sickness.

read sutta on intergrity glhf
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.031.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.073.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.113.than.html

If possible it's conventional and usually preferable to add some comment or explanation of your own, for example to clarify how the quoted suttas are relevant to answering the OP's question.

This is interesting.In those suttas Integrity is defined with respect to other people. I am interested in integrity with respect to science. Am I ungrateful or unthankful to science ? No. But I wish to live in a world which is in greater harmony with Dhamma.

science is just an idea, there is no science in real world, there are scientists who build up on previous ideas, no scientist(people/Aggregates/streams of cosciousness) start from scratch, everyone is influenced. You are enjoying the comforts of science due to your past merits. Do not worry about it.

Integrity.
- Do not make false claim about anything that you don't actually know. Whatever claims you make should be anything that you truly know. If you are unsure, then claim it as you are unsure.
Science is very broad. Some science are proven to be true, some are not. As simple as that.

Science claims life came out of and came as juggling of chemicals. That is impossible. Why is science ignoring such an obvious thing?  Anyways , my question was if I disagree with science then should I use its inventions for a comfortable life?

"Science claims life came out of and came as juggling of chemicals. That is impossible. Why is science ignoring such an obvious thing? " <--- because science is based on 'Matter'. They dismiss almost anything metaphysical. Quantum being metaphysical but again, it is calculable.

"if I disagree with science then should I use its inventions for a comfortable life?" Use the part that you agree, and use the part that assist you with your Buddhism practicing.

The Buddha did not teach about the origin of universe, about God or about the origin of consciousness (apart from saying consciousness is caused by the mind-body; SN 22.82; SN 22.56). Therefore, a man of integrity should not behave like a fundamentalist Christian and oppose science. The Buddha said he only taught about suffering & the cessation of suffering (MN 22). In the teaching of Dependent Origination, the Buddha taught about how consciousness polluted by ignorance arises because a defiled consciousness leads to suffering. The Dependent Origination is not about the existence of the consciousness element. In conclusion, a man of integrity does not misrepresent Buddhism & bring shame upon the Buddha by believing the Buddha taught unknowable & unverifiable things. The Buddha said his Dhamma is visible here & now and to be verified by the discerning.

SN 22.82 is missing from this page. I disagree with what science says and agree with what Buddha says. The two are incompatible because science claims to know all things about origination of universe and consciousness and feelings and perceptions etc...Buddha doesn't claim to know all the unknowables. I respect Buddha for that. But  due to the position held by science I disagree with it.

suttacentral has a more-complete collection of suttas -- if you don't find it on accesstoinsight you can probably find it on suttacentral -- for example https://suttacentral.net/sn22.82

You have to differentiate the goal of science from the goal of Buddhism. Science aims to understand nature empirically, while Buddhism aims to end suffering.
You have to differentiate the method of science from the knowledge of science. The scientific method is empirical, which is quite the same in spirit, as the Buddhist method.
The knowledge of science however, is continuously updating. For example, Newton's Laws of Motion predicted most of the observations of motion, but could not explain them precisely. Einstein later was able to explain it precisely and also calculate almost all motion and gravity except for those at the quantum level. All these were empirically proven.
However, Einstein's theory has now been improved with String Theory for quantum gravity, but this is difficult to prove or disprove.
This shows that science is continuously updating.
The Buddha's methods only need you to prove to yourself that you can end your own suffering. If you became enlightened, it's hard to definitively prove that to others, but that's not needed.
The scientific method needs the scientists to prove or disprove hypotheses to others. And unfortunately, the Buddhist enlightenment is not something that can be easily physically proven to others.
Retired physics professor Richard Muller wrote here a few days ago:

My opinion? I don’t have one. I think we should be respectful of the
  iconoclasts, however. Consensus is an unreliable indicator of correct
  science.

So, you see... every scientist can propose something, anything. Then they have to try to prove it. One published paper may conflict with another. There may be a consensus among scientists, but that does not mean they are right. But they keep doing their work, and they keep updating their understanding over time. In the 80s to 90s, they said fat was bad, but now they say fat is OK and carbohydrates are bad. Things keep updating.
I would say as a man of integrity, either you should prove Buddhist teachings to scientists using the scientific method, or otherwise respect that scientists have their scientific knowledge (at whatever level it is as of today) based on the scientific method, while you have your Buddhist knowledge based on the Buddhist method.
Agree to disagree. Accept that an orange is an orange, while an apple is an apple - the two are similar in the sense that they are both fruits, but they will never become the same fruit. Similarly, science and Buddhism are both empirical in their methods, but they have different goals.

Why do you feel indebted to Science as a whole? Feel indebted to the man and women who invented the technology that made your life better. Feel indebted to Nikola Tesla for inventing AC current and lighting the world but don't feel indebted to Darwin, what benefit have you gain from his evolution theory? Similarly, what benefits is there for humanity from Einstein's spacetime mathematical abstraction? Noting! So, don't feel indebted to what is not beneficial.
Science as the study of nature is a good thing you can't be against it. Sure some scientists present unproved theories which may seem bombastic at present but it's a fact that theoretical science always outpaces experimental science and some of these theories may be proven to be true experimentally in the future.
You shouldn't also forget what drives science, the engine behind propelling science is Philosophy. So, although greatly discounted in our time, science could revert to the study of non-physical phenomena in the future.
Nikola Tesla said,

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make
  more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its
  existence."


text:
Sanditthika Sutta: Visible Here-&-Now
In the Sanditthika Sutta,

"The fact that when a delusive quality is present within you, you discern that a delusive quality is present within you; and when a delusive quality is not present within you, you discern that a delusive quality is not present within you"

A similar description is also given in the Satipatthana Sutta. The second part, "to know when something is not present inside of me", is to be understood how? Do I literally acknowledge at any point in my daily life that I have currently no defilements in me? And if the answer is yes, what do I do with that acknowledging?

See also this topic which tries to define "delusion".

The four right efforts in the noble path are:

effort to prevent unwholesome mental states.
effort to abandon unwholesome mental states.
effort to develop wholesome mental states
effort to maintain & increase wholesome mental states

Therefore, when the mind without delusion is discerned, the effort is made to maintain the mind without delusion, which requires governance or supervision by mindfulness.

I never understood the first point. By that we mean sense restraint, right? How is that achieved? If I see tasty food or an attractive woman I have to reconsider the objects? Avoiding the objects might be good but it doesn't address my underlying desire, aversion and delusion.


text:
Canonical passages mentioning the 13 dhutaṅga practices
I am looking for canonical passages regarding the 13 Dhutanga practices in particular Nesajjika dhutaṅga, the sitter's practice.

I doubt passages will be found in the Sutta Pitaka (discourses and sermons of the Buddha) however they are mentioned in the later Canonical texts, such as the Milinda Pañha and Mahā Niddesa.

And what are these thirteen? Wearing raiment made up of pieces taken from a dust-heap—Wearing three robes, and three robes only—Living on food received by begging—Begging straight on from house to house—Eating only once a day, at one sitting—Eating from one vessel only—Refusing food in excess of the regulations—Dwelling in the woods—Dwelling at the root of a tree-Dwelling in the open air—Dwelling in or near a cemetery—Not altering the mat or bed when it has once been spread out to sleep on—and sleeping in a sitting posture. It is he, O king, who, in former births, has undertaken and practised, followed and carried out, observed, framed his conduct according to, and fulfilled these thirteen vows, who acquires all the results of the life of a recluse, and all its ecstacy of peace and bliss becomes his very own.
Milinda Pañha Book 6 The Voluntary Extra Vows


text:
Why are many links on SuttaCentral showing page not found error?
Namo Budhhaya. I had bookmarked many Suttas from SuttaCentral but most of them are showing page not found error.
For example : This link and this link.
I wonder why are many links on SuttaCentral showing page not found error?

They have reorganized the site: SuttaCentral 2018.
For example MN 10 can now be found here: https://suttacentral.net/mn10 ... the new structure supports having more than one English-language translation of a sutta.
I don't know about AN 2.19. The top-level "index" page with all the AN suttas is here: https://suttacentral.net/an ...

what I don't really understand about it is that the numbering or sequence of these suttas doesn't match https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/an/ whose introduction says that numbering of "suttas in the Ones and Twos" "are particularly problematic".
More genrally, IMO ideally they might implement HTTP 301 redirect so they they would transparently continue to support their old URLs, but maybe they can't do everything. Your question might be better posted on https://discourse.suttacentral.net/

This post says, "Yes, we are aware of this bug. We are working on it to fix it asap.", so maybe it will be fixed soon.

The old web site is still available at https://legacy.suttacentral.net/ (though perhaps only temporarily), so for example this link and this link are working at the moment.


text:
Devotion in Buddhism
What is the purpose or significance of devotion in Buddhism? Are there differences in acts of devotion in Mahayana and Theravada tradition?

In Theravada, there is faith and preferably verified confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. One who has faith is called a faith follower. There is faith, but there is no (Hindu style of) devotion in Theravada. There is however, reverence in Theravada Buddhism for example, through the act of prostration, as pointed out by ChrisW in the comments.
In Mahayana, some schools like Pure Land Buddhism, have devotion to Avalokiteshvara or Amitabha Buddha, with mantras to chant. There is a belief that one can be reborn in the Pure Land, the realm where the Amitabha Buddha resides, in order to continue the journey towards Buddhahood, with the guidance of Amitabha Buddha.
The Hindu style of devotion (bhakti) involve chanting the deity's names, remembering the deity's forms and glories, as well as having a close personal relationship with the deity. There are similar types of devotions in the Abrahamic religions. This is not found in Theravada Buddhism which does not have a Supreme God. Also in Theravada, the Buddha is no longer reborn after Nirvana. I am not sure if the Mahayana devotion in certains schools like Pure Land Buddhism is the same as the Hindu style of devotion.

There is reverence in Theravada, I suppose you're saying that's not the same thing as devotion.

@ChrisW Updated the answer. Yes, I see reverence and devotion as being different.

Both Mahayana or Theravada emphasis on What to devote to, which has always been: The Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.


text:
What to do after becoming free from suffering and attachments?
Suppose I'm free from suffering, free from attachments, untouched by pain and pleasure, with absolute, constant calm and peace of mind; feeling profound compassion towards all beings (from an ant, to my mother, to a murderer).
I no longer see any vexation in front of me. There's nothing to fix. There's nothing to overcome. There's nothing to attain. (I'm not really interested in enligthenment).
What would you recommend me to do? Is there a way to make good use of this state, maybe to help others somehow? What would you do in my place?

Simply cultivate what you've reached and help others to find their very own path accordingly.

If nothing is left for attainment. Why would you ask anyone else to tell you to do , is this still not a form of an attachment to views of others ?
If someone is not interested in enlightenment or if it is not achieved then in particular ,  they would consider to promote and propagate  compassion and kindness amongst beings so that it could lead to path of partial fulfilment of end of suffering.

But I didn't say I have nothing to learn! :)
Thank you for your answer!!

In the Mahayana tradition, liberation is a step on the path to full enlightenment. To become a fully enlightened buddha, practice generosity, morality, patience, enthusiasm, meditation, and wisdom (the 6 perfections).

what to do after getting rid off suffering and attachment is the question and answer to this is as follows.
   at that stage no such question will arise bcs the driving force behind doing something will also be ceased. the sankharas (prime movers for actions )will be nil. Upon this no any type of doing will happen except those which happens out of outburst of unconditional compassion. In our day to day life also we experience that if we are compassionate for a slight second of time towards any being in some or other pathetic condition, it is observed that, that being starts changing /improving. after liberated state, only compassion works .there remains no self to generate such question as what to do now ?


text:
Avoiding inner narration while practising Anapanasati
I began meditating a few months ago with the help of guided online meditations for a long time from different sources and read some articles on how to do Anapanasati while continuing my practice. After realising what the essence of the meditation practice is, I decided to practice it on my own with the help of online timers. What is bothering me is that, while other thoughts do arise and the point is to recognise the thoughts and bring the attention to the breath, while doing the meditation there is also an inner narrator in my head which comes in as any other thought would and it guides me as an instructor would in guided meditations, that too in great detail. The voice would often be in someone else's voice and at times on my own voice. I am not entirely sure if I am forcing this on me at times or it comes up effortlessly. And at times it adds up to my dissatisfaction and confuses me a lot.
What I want to know is, am I doing something wrong or is it perfectly normal for people like me who are new to meditation and started off with guided meditation as a starting point? If it is wrong, how to avoid this and continue my meditation sessions without hindrance? Should I be non-judgemental or non-reactive to it like any other sensation and visual/pictorial thoughts arising on mind while meditating, observing it, and bringing the attention to my breath be of help? I need help here because I don't think that at this rate, I can bring myself to have the level of concentration to be effortlessly aware of my breath to reach the next stages of meditation.

Edit: Apologies to everyone for the delay and maybe I wasn't verbose enough in my question. What I meant was that apart from auditory or visual distractions that come to some/most of us while meditating (eg; a song popping up in our brain, or some conversation which happened a while ago or a long time ago, some negative thought or remark by someone to us which made us sad/angry -- and most of which come without us putting an active effort to bring forth these thoughts, i.e. unwillingly and naturally), I experience the narration of voices of many people based on whose guided online courses, audio files, videos, I started doing meditation (eg; Gil Fronsdal, Sharon Salzberg, John Kabat Zinn, etc.). And often, they come when bodily sensations(distracting in nature -- kind of like a fidgety feeling) or mind wandering (of other forms) start taking the central stage for a brief period of time during Anapanasati, and sometimes without any kind of distractions.
I am not certain if this is happening with an active effortless conscious effort from me or whether this is some kind of distraction/mind wandering/cognitive auditory effect of its own coming from the Default Mode Network of my brain. For the record, I do have ADHD and my psychiatrist (of recent) thinks that it may be plausible that I might have BPAD, but he isn't sure as more tests are needed to conclude that. Maybe some of it is because of these ailments. I hope I was more clear now.

What I want to know is, am I doing something wrong or is it perfectly normal for people like me who are new to meditation and started off with guided meditation as a starting point?
It might be normal?
Look at this comment, for example:

I still can hear Goenka's recorded voice in my head :)

It may even be normal in everyone, see e.g. Internal monologue.

Hearing the voice as a voice is distracting -- some people (perhaps with a weaker understanding of reality) find it alarming or confusing -- see e.g. Auditory hallucination.
My very limited experience is that you're warned that you shouldn't necessarily do something just because you hear a voice telling you to! That it isn't the Voice of God, or anything.

I need help here because I don't think that at this rate
I guess you'll find that it (i.e. narration) is subject to cessation (i.e. that it stops sometimes), and/or replaced by something else (e.g. by mindfulness of breathing).
Maybe it would be encouraging to think of those moments (of success) as a gain, a reward for practice, rather than thinking of other moments (of failure) as a hindrance which prevent practice.
Perhaps you're taught equanimity (that sounds like what you talk about in the question, e.g. "non-judgemental or non-reactive"); I think it may also be good to feel some enthusiasm for a success.
Also note that, according to the Anapanasati Sutta, equanimity is the result (i.e. not necessarily the means or the way).
I think it takes time (and practice) to learn new skills. Also for what it's worth I'm told that a little practice every day is the best way to create a new habit. For example, perhaps you couldn't learn to play a new musical instrument in a few months, nor learn to speak a new language -- maybe you shouldn't expect too large a change in too short a time. Even so, people do learn new skills if and when they keep practising. Stories like Banzo's sword warn against being in a hurry -- being in a hurry is kind of inimical to being "content with the practice".

Also (I don't know if this is relevant), rereading the title, I'd think of it as "the narration" not "the narrator", i.e. it's just a phenomenon, non-self.

You're right, the title should be narration as it is the phenomena which act as a hindrance. And I read the articles about internal narration and Auditory hallucination. This might very well be the case for me because I do have ADHD and my doc suspects that I may have BPAD as well, but more tests are needed for that. And it is true, people with ADHD work on basis of reward mechanism. I have read your answer but have to come to the realisation of the same with the help of finesse, practice and patience.

My friend had auditory hallucination sometimes. I don't, really, though I do have (appear to get lost in) trains of thought. I hope that a hallucination (which is 'just' a type of sensory perception) isn't confusing or disabling, or only for a moment at most, especially after you recognise it.

True, I just recognise it and most of the times it goes away. If it doesn't, I pay attention to the next thing which is more intense than the thought itself, like sounds coming from outside without forcing them to come to me. And then I return to the breath again. But the confusing thing is, the act to focus on the thoughts themselves which cause mind wandering come in form of instructions in the form voices of those from whose audio or video files I started learning meditation -- be it anapanasati or meditation on bodily sensations.

Not something I have personal experience with. From your description it sounds like there's an intermittent/temporary channel or mode, in which a thought appear to be voiced (out loud). When that mental/physical state activates, you seem to hear something, and when you "think" to return to breathing you "hear" that too because that channel or mode is still active, hasn't ceased yet. I think I'm sometimes more feely than thinky, and more touchy than seey and heary; so if I practice I remember the physical and emotional feeling of breathing, and of moments when narration is replaced by presence.

I'd keep that in mind because that struck a chord in me. Thank you!

Inner talking is fairly standard with all practitioners. In your case it takes a form of instructions, in other cases it can be songs, arguments with imaginary adversaries, all sort of replayed conversations that had some emotional charges in them, or simply commenting on what one's currently doing.
All teachers I worked with always said I must learn to stop that talking.
At the end of the day, it takes a level of integration and control over one's mental faculties when you can directly feel where this talking is coming from and can let go of it, in the same kind of way as you relax a muscle.
Until you reach that level of insight and control, you can try several tricks:

reading meaningless mantras, out loud or in your head
holding your tongue and lips in a fixed position, e.g. tongue up against the roof of your mouth, lips closed
switching and holding your attention onto external auditory environment (background noises)
rolling your eyes and/or engaging your peripheral vision
humming

At some point you will reach a level of integration when the talking will be very easy to stop. Until then just try to see how inner talking is (usually) connected with some sort of inner neurosis and see if you can relax that. Meanwhile you can try using the tricks above to stop it when it gets too annoying.

I am sensing there are still a lot of "wild thoughts" going on in your mind. May I know if you have already been a frequent or on-going abiding with the '5 precepts'?
If not, what you are doing it's almost like running on a treadmill instead.
Hope this clears up some of your confusion.

It is so normal at the beginning of learning a certain meditation, that there is a big Mental Noise. Nothing to worry.  The particularity of this Anapanasati is to explore, explore our liberation, relaxation, breathing.... - one meditation at a time.
Eventhough, I learned a lot from my Inner Teacher, the best teacher for Anapanasati to follow to begin, is Bikkhu Buddhadasa, I find.
https://www.suanmokkh.org/retreat_talks -
There is also many retreats with videos + transcripts.  He teaches a very simple way to Dhamma - Buddhism - Anapanasati has also many free ebooks.
Buddha said:  He was liberated or enlighted by and during the practice of Anapanasati. He also formulated the analysis of the Dependant Originagion, he even made a song with it.  He also said ' Who sees de Dhamma sees the Buddha, and who sees the Buddha sees the Dhamma.'
We have to develop our practice of :  Mindfullness WITH breathing - in the relaxation, letting the breathing follow in the background, like a metronome. We have to concentrate on RELAXING all and each part of the body and mind... and letting go, and stay with the experiencing of the breathing. Don't listen to the chatterbox, but feel each breath, and feel relaxation, as you follow each step. Reposition and breath deeply between each step.
It is so important... So Important, to practice ONE type of meditation at the same time, following ONE teacher, and doing the Sila or 5 precepts in the best practice we can and forgiving us when we don't.  This meditation is the way to center us and refocus all our 4 levels ( body - mental & emotions - Mind - and Dhamma ) in harmony.
Recently I try to find an other approach to Anapanasati teaching.  I got so desappointed with that teacher... & I could not meditate at all for almost 1 month, having too big headaches.  Until I returned to the teaching of Buddhadasa.  One teacher that does the job, is what it takes, to progress.
So before each practice, I establish a golden light shield around my meditation area - I ground myself with a nice chat with Earth - and feel the presence of my own Spirit - Buddha - & ask them all to protect my meditation - and teach me what I need to explore at that moment &  I Trust that it is so.
Hindrances are normal, in fact they often are the subject I will have to explore for liberating their attachement, in the last 4 steps of Dhamma of same meditation.
When they arise: - Recognize them - Let it go or Release it - Relaxe the brain and the body - Reposition yourself - Smile and return before their start and continue along... In some meditations I can have a few dozens of them, my experience then is to reach the end of my meditation, I call that ' Right Effort..'
About the voices:  If you ground yourself properly in the start of your meditation, the voices will be True Teachers, among which will be your own Spirit or own Buddha. How to recognize if they are aggregates or other 4th dimension disturbers, is where you hear that in the head - Does it comes from the left: Not good - From the right: your guides - Center: your own Spirit or Buddha Teacher. Watch not to imagine or cheat.  The therapists are not our right teacher, you will find all or any explanations that are for you - in your inner listening, mostly in meditation. As you learn the inner listening it will follow you in every area of your life, by developping it, and that's the true Truth for you.
The healing and libaration I experience from each meditation is beyond what I was expecting.  No other meditation has this power of balancing - focusing - healing - empowering - liberating.... And procure a true liberation from any attachment.
We do not become virtuose by doing things all over the place and following so many teachers, or methods... But following one proper and sound  progression path. If not, most probably we will give up soon any interest in that unmanageable circus.
Anapanasati is the only meditation that I find Fun to practice with all its discoveries.

I'm going to redirect the conversation because there isn't anything you need to do about things that arise in Ānāpānasati. I'm going to instead look at the question within the question about how to experience quiet and stillness. And mostly the answer is wash, rinse, and repeat (as they say in shampoo commercials). It's kind of a matter of expertise, but contrary to what may believe, it is highly individual. It is developing a skill. In other words, so get to quiet and stillness, you have to just be still, quietly breathe, and gently be aware of it happening. FOR ME (I'm not saying it's exactly like this for you) I follow the breath down into a quiet place, e.g. as I do this I feel the mind transform and the breath transform. Since I really believe the breath is a vehicle for transformation, I just let go and follow it there. Yes, sometimes a song is stuck in my head. Or maybe i feel itchy all over. Doesn't matter, I just do what I do anyway.


text:
How should I respond to people who fake suffering?
Namo Buddhaya.
Yesterday a person came to me and said he was bit by a dog and then he asked for money to buy medicines as he had none as he was poor. I gave the money to him.But I wonder whether people fake suffering to win sympathy and/or money ? Should I compromise my pride in honesty to help these fake people ?
How should I respond to people who fake suffering ?

Your honesty was not compromised. And don't let your pride grow on you because of these incidents.
Money comes and go. If the money is yours it will eventually come back in any possible way. Be more careful/mindful next time too, of course.

I think I should feel compassion even to those who fake suffering. Why should I harden myself against the Truth ?

Either Harden or soften, is just a relative concept. If someone is faking their suffering, they could very well be really suffering, just in a different context behind this "Fakeness".

you might be what pali called; "yācayogā ".  Took me a very long time to understand this word.

yācati: beg
yogga: Suitable, fit for

I dont think there is an English word directly translate "one who deserves to be begged".  this word appears in many suttas about gift giving. One with kind heart when asked for gifts or things he does not get angry or get frustrated.  Opposite for some people.  They get angry when asked to give up something.  So naturally, "one who deserves to be begged" attract beggars.
I guess in your example, instead focusing on helping others, bring your attention back and focus on giving to remove greed (ornament of mind).  As per sutta,

This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world.
....vossaggaratā yācayogā dānasaṃvibhāgaratā..."

Dana Sutta
my point is, if you are one of those who deserves to be begged, expect to hear from beggars.  And when you do, focus your mind on removing greed.

The beggar was not claiming to be beggar. He claimed to have been bitten by dog. He exploited my compassion to gain financially I suspect. There are lot of beggars in India. Some are genuine some are fake. I want to help only the genuine ones. Every time a situation arises I am in habit of asking is it genuine or is it fake ?

For this conversation, anyone who asks you for things (money) is beggar.  Semantics here.   Budget your money according to Buddha, and be selective in whom you give (since resource is limited), and focus on your mind.  I get that A LOT of that too.  amount of sob stories I hear each month. I gave what i can which often not enough to meet their demands. I dont care what they do with the money I give.  The whole point of my answer which most people overlook is that , by placing your mind on proper place, one can reach nirvana as result from it.

Even to fake something like that, the person can be very poor. Therefore, instead of just begging they may come up with a story like that. However, if I feel like that the person is using the money for drugs kind of things I may ignore. But if it is for food or education type of a thing, I will give money although the story seems fake.

Act of begging is meritorious enough to be rewarded with love and kindness.


text:
Does meditation lead to incarnation?
Continuous meditation will calm the mind, when eyes open there is a difference felt, this difference means the soul has change, is this change an incarnation ?
Similarly when hungry, thoughts are different & when satisfied with food there is relief, so this change from hungry to being relieved can be called an incarnation or change of soul ?

Meditation leads to the clarity and tranquility of the mind, and such mind is fundamental and instrumental for discerning truths from non-truths.

The difference is 'difference' or 'change' or 'transformation' of 'mind'.
Buddhism does not teach about 'incarnation' or 'soul'.
Possibly you are asking these questions on the incorrect forum.

Maybe the OP is asking about becoming or birth.

The difference you felt is a temporary relief to your mind. Basically that happens because of the rate of thoughts coming to your mind became low. Naturally mind is full of thoughts. Mind runs here and there without taking any vacation. So after the meditation the feeling you get is normal because your mind became peaceful and concentrated. It is not a change of soul or incarnation. It is a behavior of mind which let you to further develop the meditation.


text:
Religious experiences in Buddhism
What would be considered a religious experience in Buddhism in the same way,for example, Moses' experience with the burning bush of God? Would it be the Buddha's enlightenment itself or a bodhisattva's interaction with Buddha?

Perhaps this could be answered only imprecisely, with opinion -- because the question is kind of vague or subjective: "a religious experience in the same way, for example, Moses' experience with the burning bush of God". Can you be more precise ... what does "religious" mean, and how (in what specific ways) is it "the same as"?

As in the experiences that relate to Buddhism, such as interactions with the heavenly Bodhisattvas

So "religious experience" means no more nor less than "interaction with a heavenly being"?

Yes I would say so

Examples of religious experiences in Buddhism:

traveling with one's mind to other worlds
speaking with supernatural beings, like Devas
remembering past lives
witnessing an enlightened person flying, being in multiple places at once
having an enlightened master read your mind and respond directly to your thoughts

Buddhists are not supposed to cling to experiences. All experiences are impermanent and clinging to them brings you suffering. So we usually do not glorify experiences as "religious experiences".

It would be unwise to 'trim down' Buddhism to fit into "religious experience" and/or associating direct equivalents.
When you mention "Moses' experience with the bush of God", you are implying a God vs Man hierarchy/relationship exist in Buddhism. However, such hierarchy does not apply in the teachings of the Buddha, nor exist between the people at the times of the Buddha, the Dharma, nor the Sangha.

You can find here some useful quotes on this topic by Ajaan Fuang:

"Don't be amazed by people with visions. Visions are nothing else but
  dreams. There are true ones and false ones. You can't really trust
  them."
"There are true visions and false visions. So whenever you see one,
  just sit still and watch it. Don't get pulled into following it."
"You should watch visions the same way you watch TV: Just watch it,
  without getting pulled inside the tube."


text:
Was Jesus a Buddhist monk named Issa?
As per BBC documentary Jesus Christ was a Buddhist monk named Issa. According to documentary Jesus was not crucified and he was trained as Buddhist monk.Further to that Jesus tomb situated in Kashmir Pradesh. How is this valid? (E.g Buddhism is older than Christianity and more possibility of extract Buddhist teaching to Christianity.) If it so what are the similarity of teaching of Buddha and preaching of Jesus?

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

There isn't any valid reason to close the answer and to call it off-topic. Off-imagination or "off-sources" might fill the validation reason.

How is this valid?
It is not.
The video titled Jesus was a Buddhist Monk BBC Documentary (on YouTube) is actually a copy of this: Did Jesus Die? (2003).
According to Wikipedia:

Suggestions of influences
The suggestion that an adult Jesus traveled to India and was influenced by Buddhism before starting his ministry in Galilee was first made by Nicolas Notovitch in 1894 in the book The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ which was widely disseminated and became the basis of other theories.[40][41] Notovitch's theory was controversial from the beginning and was widely criticized.[42][43] Once his story had been re-examined by historians, Notovitch confessed to having fabricated the evidence.

Here is something the BBC published in 2010:

Tourists flock to 'Jesus's tomb' in Kashmir
Professional historians tend to laugh out loud when you mention the notion that Jesus might have lived in Kashmir - but his tomb is now firmly on the tourist trail - and a growing number of credulous visitors believe that he was buried in the Rozabal shrine.
And for those who scoff, remember that others have argued, just as implausibly, that Jesus came to Britain.

I 100% agree with Jesus Christ learned Buddhism in the past. Jesus came to India to learn about Buddhism and copied some of Lord Buddha’s teachings and comments. Why some histories/ stories were hidden by some people?
Jesus Christ learned Buddhism, but haven’t learned the pure teachings of Buddha such as
The Three Universal Truths;
The Four Noble Truths; and The Noble Eightfold Path that don’t have in both Mahayana Buddhism and Vajrayana Buddhism except Theravada Buddhism. As we know, there are three main branches of Buddhism, but come from one pure thing called Theravāda Buddhism.
Jesus obviously did not learn directly from the Buddha because the Buddha lived hundreds of years, not just a century, before him. But he was obviously influenced by Buddhist teachings. Even a cursory examination of the teachings of Jesus can find numerous similarities to the teaching of Buddhism.
So who copied some of Lord Buddha’s messages n teachings❓❓And who was influenced by Lord Buddha’s teachings?
The Golden Rule
Buddha: "Consider others as yourself." (Dhammapada 10:1) Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31)
Love others
Buddha: Let your thoughts of boundless love pervade the whole world." (Sutta
Nipata 149- 150) Jesus: This is my commandment that you love one another as I have loved you. (John 15:12)
Love your enemies
Buddha: Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth. (Dhar &17.3) napada 1.5
Jesus: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. (Luke 6.27-30)
Turn the other cheek
Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." (Majjhima Nikaya 21:6)
Jesus: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." (Luke 6:29)
Help others
Buddha: "If you do not tend to one another, then who is there to tend you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick." (Vinaya, Mahavagga 8:26.3)
Jesus: "TrulyI tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." (Matthew 25:45)
Do not judge others
Buddha: "The fault of others is easily perceived, but that of oneself is difficult to perceive; a man winnows his neighbour's faults like chaff, but his own fault he hides." (Dhammapada 252.)
Jesus: "Judge not, that you be not judged. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:15)
Disdain wealth
Buddha: "Let us live most happily, possessing nothing." (Dhammapada 15:4)
Jesus: Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:20)
Do not kill
Buddha: "Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword." Digha Nikaya 1:1.8)
Jesus: "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Matthew 26:52)
Spread the word
Buddha: "Teach the dharma which is lovely at the beginning, lovely in the middle, lovely at the end. Explain with the spirit and the letter in the fashion of Brahma. In this way you will be completely fulfilled and wholly pure." (Vinaya Mahavagga 1:11.1)
Jesus: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20).


text:
What is the word in Pali that is translated as being by some and as becoming by others?
I'm referring to translations in accesstoinsight.org; what is the word in Pali that is translated as "being" by John D. Ireland and "becoming" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu? For example, in Itivuttaka: The Group of Twos -  49. Held by Views.  links and sample translations are given below.
John D. Ireland translation

"Bhikkhus, held by two kinds of views, some devas and human beings
  hold back and some overreach; only those with vision see.
"And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being,
  delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to
  them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or
  acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it.
  Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Overcome by two viewpoints, some human & divine beings adhere,
  other human & divine beings slip right past, while those with vision
  see.
"And how do some adhere? Human & divine beings enjoy becoming, delight
  in becoming, are satisfied with becoming. When the Dhamma is being
  taught for the sake of the cessation of becoming, their minds do not
  take to it, are not calmed by it, do not settle on it or become
  resolved on it. This is how some adhere.

bhava is the word

The word is "bhava" and in my understanding it refers to a particular state of individualized existence: "being a living being", "being a human", "being a person". So it's not about just the mathematical fact of existence, it is about your subjective position of identifying with this particular organism and its personal story, its narrative.
So when Buddha says "devas and humans enjoy being", and "Dhamma is taught for the cessation of being" - it does not mean, Dhamma advocates death or annihilation, it advocates transcending identification with an individual living being.
Does not mean Dharma advocates identitying with Universe  either, that's another wrong view. Instead, the right view is to see the unhealthy outcomes of any and all identification and to abandon identification altogether.
P.S.
As @ChrisW noted, bhava is also notably mentioned in the Second Noble truth as classification of tanha (craving) into bhava-taṇhā and vibhava-taṇhā. In that context, again, bhava refers to a particular sate of existence - in this case a state of existence that we crave for: "I want to live in a certain way, I want to be X, I want to be surrounded by Y, I want my life to look like Z". Vibhava then refers to not being in a particular state: "I want to stop being poor, I want to stop being sick, I want to stop being lonely" etc.
In all cases bhava seems to always be connected with an idea of self in a broad sense - self not as subject of experience or agent of actions, but rather as one's state of existence.

This sutta seems to be anti-view -- opposed to two kinds of view (perhaps like the second noble truth warns against bhava-taṇhā and vibhava-taṇhā).

No. Bhava-nirodha is not the same as vibhava.

The Pali word is 'bhava', which is defined in AN 3.76 as the mind 'established' (patiṭṭhitaṃ) in a sensual, material or immaterial element. For example, if the mind is stuck in delighting in the taste of delicious food, this is 'bhava'.

Lord, this word, ‘becoming (bhavo), becoming (bhavo)’—to what extent is there becoming?
Kamma ripening (vepakkañca) in the sensuality-element.. is sensuality-becoming...
Kamma ripening in the form-element... is  material-becoming...
Kamma ripening in the formless-element... is immaterial-becoming...
Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed and craving the moisture. The consciousness of beings (sattānaṃ) hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in (patiṭṭhitaṃ) the sensuality... material ... immaterial element. Thus there is the production of new becoming in the future.
AN 3.76

'Bhava' is caused by 'craving' & 'attachment' and includes self-views:

The craving that makes for further becoming (bhava) — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving to be, craving not-to-be: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One.
MN 44

Most importantly, 'bhava' is a mental defilement (rather than the existence of life), as follows:

Tayome, bhikkhave, āsavā— kāmāsavo, bhavāsavo, avijjāsavoavijjā
There are these three kinds of fermentations: the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of
  ignorance.
AN 6.63

Iti kāmayogo bhavayogo diṭṭhiyogo avijjāyogo, saṃyutto pāpakehi akusalehi dhammehidhamma saṃkilesikehi
Such are the bond of sensuality, the bond of bhava, the bond of views and the bond of ignorance. One is fettered by bad unwholesome states
  that are defiling....
AN 4.10

For him — thus knowing, thus seeing — the mind is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming (bhava), the fermentation of ignorance.
MN 121

The Blessed One has realized for himself with direct knowledge, in this very life, the fermentationless liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom, and having entered upon it, he dwells in it.
AN 10.30

Here is a copy of the corresponding Pali:

Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā vuttamarahatāti me sutaṃ:
“Dvīhi, bhikkhave, diṭṭhigatehi pariyuṭṭhitā devamanussā olīyanti eke, atidhāvanti eke; cakkhumanto ca passanti.
Kathañca, bhikkhave, olīyanti eke? Bhavārāmā, bhikkhave, devamanussā bhavaratā bhavasammuditā tesaṃ bhavanirodhāya dhamme desiyamāne cittaṃ na pakkhandati na pasīdati na santiṭṭhati nādhimuccati. Evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, olīyanti eke.

The root "bhava" appears three times (corresponding to the three places where the translations say "being" or "becoming").
Here is a dictionary definition for bhava: https://suttacentral.net/define/bhava

Dictionaries do not necessarily represent the suttas & are often inaccurate because they represent later ideas.


text:
Is kamma relative?
My understanding is that Kamma depends on intention and as long as the three poisons aren't involved I'm "good to go".
Does this mean that if someone did something reflexively, (without much reflection), but their action caused suffering, this person's Kamma would be neutral because there was no intent to cause harm?
Does it follow that, if, sometime later, upon reflection, this person came to the realization that this action was the source of suffering (such as something unwholesome, or greedy), from then on their Kamma would be affected if they perpetrated the same act?
Is this right? Does is apply to all cases?
For example someone who chooses to be non-materialistic (in order to not be greedy) or vegetarian (for ethical reasons) but had for some time prior to this choice behaved differently. Would they have to change their behaviour after the realization, but not be affected by their prior behaviour?

Why meat is  mentioned in the question? Are you assuming  that the greed for taste is only limited to  meat?

No it was an example. If a person does something and has neutral feelingw about it his karma will then be neutral even though the act might support killing of animals etc..

According to Buddhism, the act does not support killing animals. Your question would've been legitimate, if you did not make this about vegetarianism.

"Chethanaham bhikkawe kamman wadami chethaithwa , kamman karothi kayena waachaya manasa" always karma depends on the chiththa(thought). So we cannot see it from the outside. Same karma looks similler from the outside might be different according to the thoughts... so always most important thing behind karma is the thought it is based on..

Since OP mentioned thinking about action years later, It is worth adding to this answer that thought that come before/during and after the action will affect karma. For example you can give a gift to Sangha which is positive karma but some time later you regret it due to the amount of money it cost you as a result of greed, resulting in negative karma.

Karma is the result of "Intention" x "Action"; unless either of them has a 'zero' value, then the karma will always be resulted and hence no such thing as "Good-to-go".


text:
How to cure music influence on mind?
Namo Buddhaya.I have a habit of playing involuntary songs in my head which spoils my mood. I am a living library of songs. I have been hearing music since my childhood days.
My question is : how can I cure the music influence on my mind ?
Should I stop listening to songs ?

These songs in the mind are hindances. To stop them, yes, stopping listening to songs.

And what is the nutriment for the five hindrances? It should be said: the three kinds of misconduct. The three kinds of misconduct, too, I
say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the
nutriment for the three kinds of misconduct? It should be said:
non-restraint of the sense faculties. Non-restraint of the sense
faculties, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment.
And what is the nutriment for non-restraint of the sense faculties? It
should be said: lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension. Lack of
mindfulness and clear comprehension, too, I say, has a nutriment; it
is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of
mindfulness and clear comprehension? It should be said: careless
attention. Careless attention, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not
without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for careless attention?
It should be said: lack of faith. Lack of faith, too, I say, has a
nutriment; it is not without nutriment.
AN 10.61