text:
Nirvana is the ground layer underneath them all
According to this answer:

Nirvana is the ground layer ("dhatu") underneath them all. ...
Nirvana is this most fundamental law (the formula, the rule, the
  program) according to which the Universe develops.

This comment also seems to support that idea:

... the expression "the unmade is a foundation for phenomena" is
  probably an agreeable thing to say given than it occurs in the pali
  discourses "amatogadha" meaning deathless as foundation or deathless
  as ground. There is also a reasonable way to defend it, which makes it
  not a real point of controversy imo but a rather reasonable assumption
  in that the pali wording is to be taken at facevalue and read
  literally.

This sounds very similar to Advaita which describes Brahman as the substratum or foundation of all phenomena, just as different kinds of pots and plates made of clay, all have clay as their foundation.
Questions:

Does the notion "Nirvana is the ground layer" come from Mahayana? From which Mahayana subschool or text?
Does the Pali Canon support the notion that "Nirvana is the ground layer"? Does this relate to "amatogadha" some how? What's that?
The ground layer concept sounds similar to luminous mind. However, we know that Nirvana is unconditioned, while the luminous mind is conditioned. Does this "Nirvana is the ground layer" concept connect to the luminous mind in any way?

1. Does the notion "Nirvana is the ground layer" come from Mahayana? From which Mahayana subschool or text?
Yes. Well, they don't call it "Nirvana" - because they think this word got spoiled by abuse and acquired a dualistic meaning (as the opposite of Samsara). Instead, they simply call it "The Ground of All", "The Absolute", "The Unity of Relative and Absolute" etc.
This is certainly a well-known feature of Tibetan Buddhist lineages in Karma Kagyu and Nyungma schools that adhere to the so-called Shentong interpretation of Emptiness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(Dzogchen)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangtong-Shentong

Shentong was systematized and articulated under that name by Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (1292–1361), who identified absolute reality with the Buddha-nature.

...

The earliest shentong views are usually asserted to have been presented in a group of treatises variously attributed jointly to Asanga and Maitreyanātha, especially in the treatise known as the Unsurpassed Continuum (Uttaratantraśāstra, also called the Ratnagotravibhāga),[22] and in a body of Mādhyamaka treatises attributed to Nāgārjuna (e.g., the Dharmadhātustava, "In praise of the Dharmadhatu").

...

Rigpa has two aspects, namely kadag and lhun grub. Kadag means "purity" or specifically "primordial purity". Lhun grub in Tibetan normally implies automatic, self-caused or spontaneous actions or processes. As quality of rigpa it means "spontaneous presence". It may also mean "having a self-contained origin", being primordially Existent, without an origin, self-existent.

...

Buddha-nature is immaculate. It is profound, serene, unfabricated suchness, an uncompounded expanse of luminosity; nonarising, unceasing, primordial peace, spontaneously present nirvana.

...

The practical training of the Dzogchen path is traditionally, and most simply, described [as:] To see directly the Absolute state, the Ground of our being is the View; the way of stabilising that view, and making it an unbroken experience is Meditation; and integrating the View into our entire reality, and life, is what is meant by Action.

In Chan and Zen schools this is generally discussed under the heading of Buddha Nature and "One's True Nature":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

... the ultimate universal ground also has always been with the Buddha-Essence (Tathagatagarbha), and this essence in terms of the universal ground has been taught by the Tathagata. The fools who do not know it, because of their habits, see even the universal ground as (having) various happiness and suffering and actions and emotional defilements. Its nature is pure and immaculate, its qualities are as wishing-jewels; there are neither changes nor cessations. Whoever realizes it attains Liberation

...

This "dharma of the one mind", which is the "original tathagatagarbha", is said to be "calm and motionless" [...] The tathagatagarbha is equated with the "original edge of reality" (bhutakoti) that is beyond all distinctions - the equivalent of original enlightenment, or the essence.

2. Does the Pali Canon support the notion that "Nirvana is the ground layer"? Does this relate to "amatogadha" some how? What's that?
I believe it does. There are many pointers spread around Dependent Origination teachings, and all the descriptions of Nibbana, with references like amatogadha and amata-dhatu, the Buddha's story about him getting "to the end of the world" etc.
3. The ground layer concept sounds similar to luminous mind. However, we know that Nirvana is unconditioned, while the luminous mind is conditioned. Does this "Nirvana is the ground layer" concept connect to the luminous mind in any way?
I don't know why you say "we know" that luminous mind is conditioned. In Mahayana, the fundamental luminosity of mind is considered unconditioned (see Rigpa, Clear Light).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigpa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_mind#Vajrayana

In Tibetan Buddhist Dzogchen literature, luminosity ('od gsal) is associated with an aspect of the Ground termed "spontaneous presence" (Lhun grub), meaning a presence that is uncreated and not based on anything causally extraneous to itself. This term is often paired with 'original-purity' (ka dag), which is associated with emptiness (shunyata), and are both seen as inseparable aspects of the Ground.

Not wanting to confuse but I note that's in contrast to this answer describing "groundless".

Well, yes, this is why it's known as "the groundless ground" (blush)

The answers to this question say luminous mind is conditioned but this could be a Theravada perspective.

Did you find any relevant/informative result from that Google search?

No idea, i posted the search to show that it's a known expression and I'm not making it up.

Well then, when you received it was it from Zen (like "gateless gate"), or Tibetan in origin?

Tibetan, definitely

I found this answer very helpful. Regarding Conifold's comment I'd note that any explanation is going to be difficult because of the dual-aspect nature of descriptions. Thus we have the 'groundless ground',  'gateless gate', 'beginingless beginning' and so forth. The Two Truths doctrine explains these apparent contradictions. Ultimate Reality cannot be positively desctibed so a fundamental analysis must say there is a ground and is-not a ground depending on the level of our analysis, our use of the words etc. True words seem paradoxical.  .

I have never seen this discussed before but it is something i've been interested in as far as expression and meaning goes. There are several meanings which can be arrived at;
 1. There is ultimate mind of all beings, we are all one.
 2. There is a state of mind which is impetruble, immovable, unaffected, such that is the ultimate goal ultimate security.
 3. There is that which is mind and that is mind-made. With the cessation of mind which is mind made there is discernment of not mind, whereas that which can be taken to be a mind of a being would be extinct and not in play.
The #3 is the one that can be further is explained that mind of a being exists in as far as the aggregates exist, if there are no aggregates, in a context where they are not in play "have no footing" there can be no talk about the world let alone a person or a person soul.
If there is with the cessation of the mind made a discernment of a discernable reality which isn't included in the aggregates then the question can not be posed; 'Isn't this discernment then a consciousness of some sort?'

The answer would be that consciosness per definition is associated with contact and three types of fabrication. With the cessation of mind-made phenomena, the context presumes that it isn't consciousness but a discernment of it's cessation that is being talked about.
That which is discerned is cognized!
What is cognized there is the cessation, extinguishment; Nibbana, resolution of all fabrication..

Thus the perspective of the observer or the one who experiences is contained to context where existence of the aggregates is affirmed for this or that person who sees for that is in as far as his existence is affirmed.
Nibbana as ground quite interesting because the curious thing is why are the Dhamma amatogadha if, how and when vinnanam anidassanam is also taken to have the unconditioned as it's referent.
Which is of course extremely interesting because in the context of vinnanam anidassanam the elements are said not to be said to be ceased but are as not gaining footing, which also can be taken to be a way to navigate the context between existence of aggregates being in and out of play, affirmed or not-affirmed.
That is the gist of it, further i think there is a good explaination because the paraphrasing of Kevatta's question reflects very well the need to contain the narrative of a person and associated aggregates and their cessation and arising to one side and that which is discerned as highest pleasure as another.
The fact is that the notion of an Arahants discernment exists only in as far as his life force faculty persists, when it is extinguished the discernment faculty ceases. So if ie Arahant's last perception is that of extinguishment, then even that is ceased with his death because dead people don't meditate.
As for this controversy there is the AN10.58 which literally says that sabbe dhamme amatogadha. Thanissaro translates it as footing and so does Piya Tan. Sujato and Bodhi translate it as 'culminating'. Sujato acknowledges that the literal translation is like Thanissaro pins it but according to his own conjecture he thinks it is an idiom and should not be translated as is expressed.
Bodhi is also inconsistent because he translates one place that discernment does gain a footing in the deathless but not all phenomena do that basically. It is inconsistent.
Sujato considers the matter solved as far as i know and nobody really discusses this.
I've written some posts on this if you are interested.

In this question we solved the vinnanam anidassanam problem. It's not "consciousness without surface". That's a mistranslation. It should be "that which could be cognized" i.e. referring to Nibbana.

If you have external posts, you can link them to your answer as a reference.

i already posted it in posts. the vinnanam anidassanam can be translated and explained in different ways and several versions work when explained in detail. From what i've seen the interpretations based on chinese texts are also somewhat different. I don't think i can be easily convinced that either is the one true interpretation. As i see it, i don't know what exact expression Buddha uses there and meaning is ambiguous enough so that i can see how several interpretations are made to make sense and fitting the text. Curious about what you make of it.

Yeah, many Mahayana texts seem to imply Advaitin Brahman with Buddha-dhatu, Buddha-nature, tathagatgarbha etc. I encounter a lot of such terminologies while reading texts of supposedly 2nd or 3rd turning wheels. In section 1, chapter 3  of Mahayana Parinirvana Sutta -

“Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman]. This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine. The same is the case with the Tathagata. For the sake of beings, he says ’there is the Self in all things’. O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!" [Emphasis added].

Devoid of any interpretation, In this text Buddha talking about the self as a sentient self-aware entity common ground of all which is the same as Brahman of Advaitins. It is not ego-substance or anything that can belong to any individual like Atma of dualists. He himself clarified what he meant by Self in the same chapter as follows -

...Common mortals and the ignorant may measure the size of their own self and say, 'It is like the size of a thumb, like a mustard seed, or like the size of a mote.' When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus. That is why he says: 'All things have no Self...

Also, Bodhidharma in his The Treatise on the Two Entrances and Four Practices says -

Many roads lead to the Path, but basically, there are only
  two: reason and practice. To enter by reason means to realize the
  essence through instruction and to realize that all living things
  share the same true nature, which isn't apparent because it's
  shrouded by sensation and delusion. Those who turn from delusion
  back to reality, who meditate on walls, the absence of self and
  other, the oneness of mortal and sage, and who remain unmoved
  even by scriptures are in complete and unspoken agreement with
  reason. Without moving, without effort, they enter, we say, by
  reason. - Page 3, Zen teachings of Bodhidharma

It seems Nibbana is described below; which does not sound like ground layer underneath:

“Suppose, bhikkhus, there was a house or a hall with a peaked roof,
  with windows on the northern, southern, and eastern sides. When the
  sun rises and a beam of light enters through a window, where would it
  become established?”
“On the western wall, venerable sir.”
“If there were no western wall, where would it become established?”
“On the earth, venerable sir.”
“If there were no earth, where would it become established?”
“On the water, venerable sir.”
“If there were no water, where would it become established?”
“It would not become established anywhere, venerable sir.”
“So too, bhikkhus, if there is no lust for the nutriment edible food …
  for the nutriment contact … for the nutriment mental volition … for
  the nutriment consciousness … consciousness does not become
  established there and come to growth. Where consciousness does not
  become established and come to growth … … I say that is without
  sorrow, anguish, and despair.”
SN 12.64

A way to think about it is considering the two elements Conditioned and the Unconditioned as a whole system, this occurs in the context of the conditioned which is subjected to past present and future phenomena and thinking about them.
Some people hold to the Idea that the Unconditioned has no Cosmological function and this is correct imo but even tho the Unconditioned is not a part of the Cosmology it is still an Integral part of the system as a whole, it is fundamental at that and if it wasn’t a part of the system then it would simply be a different system altogether and an imaginary one at that.
It is part of our language and it is among the discernable, if a person can think about how reality works he might ask prompt the questions;
* does reality exist in some sort of unreality, does it float somehow;) ?
* if unreality then unrelated to reality, thus is this reality like a dream, a self-sustained dream, a persistent self-sustaining ecosystem of a dream with lack of development as a supporting condition?
All these questions can be asked in the context of the world and aggregates, our referable reality can be said to give rise to these questions based on the assumption that there is an unmade unreality to be discerned.
Thus self-directing the ecosystem is set for development of discernment which leads to right intention for self-termination with pre-determined arising. It's termination and abscence; that very discernment of highest good.
If one then agrees that unconditioned element is a fundamental part of the system of language referring to things to be discerned as a truth somehow, part of such language system as a whole it is then natural to infer that what is fundamental could be spoken of as the fundament, a foundation or the basis of something; a ground.
i am saying is that the root of phenomena is desire and foremost supporting condition for their manifestation is Ignorance, so by removing the supporting condition, the phenomena are uprooted and do no manifest. If phenomena do not manifest there is only that which is ground, the unmade state. In this way ground is not brought into being nor is it conditioned but with cessation of suffering[the constructed] it is the primary happiness, unobstructed by any world, the beyond.
the first sentence declares cessation of the constructed, the second sentence declares the beyond as unmade dimension which is if the constructed is not. The most sublime constructed state is the state of neither perception nor non-perception with the cessation of the the phenomena present in that state there is no remaining constructions and thus;

There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor
  water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of
  space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension
  of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor
  non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor
  moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor
  staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1]
  unevolving, without support [mental object].[2] This, just this, is
  the end of stress.

It can be explained to be the ground because it is the most sublime and underlying reality to the beginningless cycle of constructs and an everpresent alternative [of escape].

There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If
  there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there
  would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made —
  fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an
  unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born —
  become — made — fabricated is discerned.[2]

A being is and is of the world, a being exists entirely in the world and both the world and the being are constructed and subject to change [evolving]. Thus a being is a construct which experiences the constructed. The constructed states occur in a system which facilitates the occurence of the constructed states, fascilitates existence of the world and experienced states. The constructed [dependently arisen by means of evolving] states that arise are to that extent states of the system. The system which fascilitates the manifestation of various states is in itself unchanging, being the same system all along the system is merely going from one state to another.
One can thus point out an unchanging constant of change.
In this way the system itself can be understood to be unchanging while the states of the system are changing, therefore one can say that the changing gains a footing in the unchanging. With the cessation of dependently arisen states of the system, the system is in the unmade state and the unmade state and the system are thus one and the same because Unmade state is not a state like the made state, it is the system itself without a state per se.
When the created is, only then and to that extent is it said to be gaining a footing. When the created is not, then there are no phenomena to talk about and even the word "created" is created and the word is certainly not 'it' nor is the word 'it' really it, 'it' is just another word for something uncognizable by the senses and mind.
Thus when created is not, there is essentially nothing to talk about because it is beyond the range of objects, elements and entities.
Therefore when one talks about unconditioned as something where what is existence gains no footing, one can only do so from the perspective of non-existence of the world and it's cessation because outside of that is beyond range and there the world gains no footing.
the problem with the matrix movie is that therein the supposed ‘real world’ could well be generated by matrix still, so neo actually has no way of knowing that the whole action movie playing out isn’t a simulation and that he isn’t still in the matrix thinking he has been unplugged.
if one was to remake the movie to address that problem the ‘real world’ therein would have to be ‘unmade’ without any ‘things/phenomena/information/entities/beings’ and no self or any part of the not-real world would be ‘coming out’ of the simulation after it’s cessation. One could never rightly express on film the ‘unmade’ because one can not express that which is beyond senses by media of the senses.
Furthermore that which is ‘simulation’ and ‘that which simulates’ would have to be conjoined to the extent that both are subject to cessation, as it would turn out the simulation therein would have to be self-sustained, self-simulated and self-directing due to internal causes and conditions, this is because only the made can be a cause for what is made, the unmade is uncaused and does not cause anything for therein there are no causes or conditions, thus no past, present or future either, therefore therein occur no acts of creating, directing, no eventuality at all.
So basically existence of beings is a delusional nightmare self sustained by lack of development, it is like a mirrage
afaik i should be able to give substantially consistent pali canon support for most of this reasoning so that it is more or less irrefutable by the canon itself but full list of references would be 20-30 discourses and excerpts alone 50+ pages. ask if want more details, also the way i express it isn't particularly good i think and can well contain philosophical mistakes.

sounds correct, and actually goes precisely along the lines of great mahayana scholars of the past debating the nature of the absolute. except there they make one fundamental observation, that the "system" or the "unconditioned" holds perfectly true even in the presence of the "created" and is unaffected by it. hence the whole samsara=nirvana thesis.

i like a simile of the flower and the earth, the earth being the basis is completely unaffected by the destruction of a flower. This analogy has it's limitation of course but that which is ground is unaffected and does not need substantiation from the flower whereas the flower does not exist without gaining a footing. So whatever is experienced by this or that being is in and of the flower, an expression of discernable causes and conditions. That which is ground is known only as such as far as flower analogy goes basically.

it is interesting that you would say mahayana because i think it is based on abhidhamma and the four nikayas + snp, dhp and udana. I don't think these are popular interpretations among modern Theravadins tho.

well, abhidharma and analysis of dharmas, especially the edge-cases like the unconditioned dharmas, is what we have in common and is where Mahayana was born from, so I'm not surprised.

Does the notion "Nirvana is the ground layer" come from Mahayana? From which Mahayana subschool or text?
It comes from the reports of those who explore these realms. It is the perennial claim of mysticism, although the names and words vary. It would be odd if different explorers discovered different truths.
Does the Pali Canon support the notion that "Nirvana is the ground layer"? Does this relate to "amatogadha" some how? What's that?
The definition of 'amatogadha' that I've found seems to say it is a process or movement, so I cannot see any equivalence. But I do not know this word.
The ground layer concept sounds similar to luminous mind. However, we know that Nirvana is unconditioned, while the luminous mind is conditioned. Does this "Nirvana is the ground layer" concept connect to the luminous mind in any way?
Nirvana would not be Mind in my opinion, although views may vary on this question. Plotinus clearly states the Ultimate is not Mind. I've argued this one a lot with Idealists and haven't yet found a reason yet to argue with Plotinus. As you say, for the unconditioned we need to reduce Matter and Mind.

One analogy or whatever it is, is such;
In as far as language exist, it exists as an expression of it's referents and known principles. Therefore language is like a model representation of that which one names with language namely it's referents.
Language is here one thing and has it's referents as basis.
That which is referable reality may thus be named or it may not be named that which is named by language may appear to exist independently of the existence of a particular language
In this way and by this line of reasoning one can maybe understand that the aggregates can be thought of as a self-evolving language. With the extinction of aggregates as is with the extermination of a language; that which was the basis for language may or may not persist.
Thus in the case of cessation of aggregates, such extermination will include all referent's of reason and language but that which was in and among the aggregates known as unmade element, that referent element which is only grasped by discernment, is unaffected by the extermination of everything including discernment faculty which perceives the state where there is nothing left to extinguish.
In other words in this way if unconditioned is the base, it is only such called in the context of the existence of the aggregates and is such for the aggregates. It's referent is also the only referent in the system of thought which is per definition not included in aggregates, there in their absence it is still affirmed of but is not named because it is in that context not associated with language or aggregates. In this context there is litereally nothing to name or objectify because in this context it is no longer an "element" to be known, it isn't discerned by any particular being who attains to such state.
Therefore reality and the thinking about reality is not a perspective external to that which gains a footing. It absolutely is that which gains a footing. That which is ground is not a part of that which gains a footing, as ground is not included in flower, so is unmade not included in aggregates even tho the word and idea is, it is neither described in terms of that which is aggregates nor is it's referent included under aggregates.
Earth may or may not be ground for a flower depending on context, so context is important. This is also in my opinion; why so many different names for attainment of Nibbana, i think it is because of the context identifying means of development from the frame of reference of existence.
Also on this basis i would say that it is incorrect to say that "The Unmade is the base layer of reality"; it would be as saying that the "earth is bottom part of a flower" when as a matter of fact it is not a flower, has nothing to do with a flower and generally in and by itself contains zero % of a particular flower.
Nirvana in general refers to the eventuality of "extinguishment of X". In some context maybe one can use the expression "nirvana is the base layer of existence" but in general i think it is disagreeable expression.


text:
How can I stop thinking about the clock when meditating? I meditate for 30 minutes every day
I normally meditate for 30 minutes but I cannot help but think about the time that the meditation is going to end and constantly thinking about the clock since normally you meditate to be in the present moment, but I am not in the present moment when I meditate. I appreciate any help.
Thank you :)

Your problem is perfectly normal. It will cease to be a problem at some point. .

Maybe just remember the fact that a 15-minute high-quality meditation session is still much better than a 30-minute low-quality one.

Do nothing.  Maintain a daily meditation practice.  Time will do the rest :)

Focus on the clock, and you will find yourself getting distracted.

Notice that constantly thinking about the clock is stressful and that letting go of it can be much nicer and calmer. Then you simply let go of it. Do this with all thoughts and distractions.

Is it possible to be ok with the reality of this. Can one become aware, of I am thinking about the clock, agitated figity. Even thinking about, thinking about the clock? It's ok, that may be a perfect meditation when you realize that it is this not that. Even reading these words, this is the only reality, trying this advice later is not a reality. The conflict of what is and what should be is very real difficulty in the world, that difficulty is here, and now. So many people living in a rush, want to rush off to the next thing. Take pictures to enjoy later and always miss out on the powerful presence of reality. Whatever the reality is.

Use a timer/alarm so you do not need to think about it.
If you still think about it bring back your mind to the object of meditation.
One's mind may be checking the time as you desire the session to end. This can be due to:

session is uncomfortable
you desire to do something else

The above reaction can be very subtle.
Look at what your mind is doing and get a handle on it. Don't despair if it is uncomfortable and desire doing other things while meditating.

Yes, a timer is very helpful. In the past I would still sometimes find myself checking even the timer. The solution that worked for me is to 'note' the arisen thought/desire to check the clock. Simply acknowledge it, but don't check the time. Develop restraint, and watch this momentary desire pass away and then return to your primary object.

try what is in https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html
you can also think about the past, future and the currently changing phenomena. Experience changes as soon as it arises, like a monkey swinging from one branch to another, grabbing on to next one before letting go, so the expression of conditions coming into play is preceded by what has been and not of what is or will be.
Therefore the line of thinking; 'I am [feeling] bad because of this circumstance having to do with having sat for a long time is going to be changed eventually because the development i described counters both the perception of 'i am', establishes perception of inconstancy and changes how we think about time and how we think and what we know about that which is 'thinking'.
think about the thinking itself and of that which you think about; feelings, thoughts & perceptions.
This could calm it and give a new perspective on things.

Count your breaths.
For example, if you breath once every 15 seconds, then you would count up to 120 for 30 minutes.  After decades of meditation, I still count my breaths. This is actually how I know when to ring the bell at the end of meditation during zazenkai. I'm going blind and can't see any clock or watch.
After practicing counting breaths, you may find that you can simply sit for 30 minutes without counting and know when to get up. It is an aspect of mindfulness to gauge time.
That internal sense of time even works for sleeping:

And then the Buddha spread out his outer robe folded in four and laid down in the lion’s posture—on the right side, placing one foot on top of the other—mindful and aware, and focused on the time of getting up.
  DN33

Practice your internal sense of time.

That is default behaviour of mind, don't think about " I'm thinking about the clock " just focus on the meditating mind, if it still coming neglect that thought. Don't fight it just forget about the interfering thought.

Remember we are not our body. Our body is just a cloak we wear for this incarnation. Thus within us is a spirit. When we meditate, we leave our conscious surroundings and (hopefully) get into this world/this space. In essence, we are spirit. You are spirit, as am I.
Having laid that foundation, when I meditate if I want to time my meditation, or I have somewhere to be, I set a specific time /duration for my meditation by voicing it out within my mind. e.g. "I want to meditate for 30 minutes. At the end of 30 minutes I wish to get out of meditation". I repeat this at least 3 times for it to sink in.
When I started this, it was eerie to come out of meditation to discover the time was exactly as I had asked...
It is also one more point of proof (to yourself) if it happens again and again (skeptics will always doubt you, even if they're the ones asking for proof - without even putting in the effort to try it out for themselves). I just had someone in this group call/discount my (repeated i.e. replicable) experiences during meditation as "magic", asking for the 'confidence interval' of my 'scientific mathematical proof'. And yet, magic is nothing more than anything whose workings we do not understand, "Science yet unknown".
One tip is to do your cleansing breaths and relaxation first before setting the time. This will ensure that you are somewhat into the trance of meditation, to where the communication is effective.
It's also an amazing feeling. One second you're deep in meditation/trance, the next, you're out and wide awake/conscious. And then you look at the clock....
Once you achieve this, you can go into meditation any time, set your internal alarm, and let go completely, confident (from the result of previous experiences) that when it's time, you'll pop out of meditation.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Meaning of the Rooted Sutta
From the Rooted Sutta (AN 10.58) we have the following paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Sujato.
What does it mean? What are "things" or "phenomena" in this context? Please explain the whole paragraph.

‘Reverends, all things are rooted in desire. Attention produces them.
  Contact is their origin. Feeling is their meeting place. Immersion is
  their chief. Mindfulness is their ruler. Wisdom is their overseer.
  Freedom is their core. They culminate in the deathless. And
  extinguishment is their final end.’
‘chandamūlakā, āvuso, sabbe dhammā, manasikārasambhavā sabbe dhammā,
  phassasamudayā sabbe dhammā, vedanāsamosaraṇā sabbe dhammā,
  samādhippamukhā sabbe dhammā, satādhipateyyā sabbe dhammā, paññuttarā
  sabbe dhammā, vimuttisārā sabbe dhammā, amatogadhā sabbe dhammā,
  nibbānapariyosānā sabbe dhammā’ti.

The same paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi here:

“‘Friends, (1) all things are rooted in desire. (2) They come into
  being through attention. (3) They originate from contact. (4) They
  converge upon feeling. (5) They are headed by concentration. (6)
  Mindfulness exercises authority over them. (7) Wisdom is their
  supervisor. (8) Liberation is their core. (9) They culminate in the
  deathless. (10) Their consummation is nibbāna.’

The same paragraph translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu here:

All phenomena are rooted in desire.
  All phenomena come into play through attention.
  All phenomena have contact as their origination.
  All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place.
  All phenomena have concentration as their presiding state.
  All phenomena have mindfulness as their governing principle.
  All phenomena have discernment as their surpassing state.
  All phenomena have release as their heartwood.
  All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless.
  All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end.

NibbanaDhamma for the noble one is only for the noble one, even the Abhidhamma students also can't understand Rooted Sutta if they are never enlighten. This Sutta can't be gotten by reading exactly.
The origin of this sutta told us that the Buddha try to help the  other sects  to see their conceit, pride, by letting them listen to what they never heard and reached before, so when the professional Nettipakarana user read below first paragraph, he can guess the left content of the entire Sutta.

“Mendicants, if wanderers who follow other paths were to ask: ‘Reverends, all things have what as their root? What produces them? What is their origin? What is their meeting place? What is their chief? What is their ruler? What is their overseer? What is their core? What is their culmination? What is their final end?’ How would you answer them?”

If we can remember the Pali sequentially, it's easy because the previous Sutta already guided it out.

[57]   Dasayima   bhikkhave   sanna  bhavita  bahulikata  mahapphala Honti    mahanisamsa    amatogadha    amatapariyosana    katama    dasa aniccasanna     anattasanna    maranasanna    ahare    patikkulasanna sabbaloke   anabhiratasanna   atthikasanna   puluvakasanna  1-  vinilakasanna vicchiddakasanna     uddhumatakasanna     ima    kho    bhikkhave    dasa sanna   bhavita   bahulikata   mahapphala   honti  mahanisamsa  amatogadha amatapariyosanati.

That's why Every bold words below from  Rooted Sutta (AN 10.58) refer to MaggaCitt(a)Upada, enlightening moment, when they are used together.

[58]   Sace  bhikkhave  aññatitthiyā  paribbājakā  evaṃ  puccheyyuṃ kiṃmūlakā   āvuso   sabbe   dhammā  kiṃsambhavā  sabbe  dhammā  kiṃsamudayā sabbe   dhammā   kiṃsamosaraṇā   sabbe   dhammā  kiṃpamukhā  sabbe  dhammā kiṃadhipateyyā    sabbe   dhammā   kiṃuttarā   sabbe   dhammā   kiṃsārā sabbe   dhammā  kiṃogadhā  sabbe  dhammā  kiṃpariyosānā  sabbe  dhammāti evaṃ   puṭṭhā  tumhe  bhikkhave  tesaṃ  aññatitthiyānaṃ  paribbājakānaṃ  kinti byākareyyāthāti.

What is MaggaCitt(a)Upada, enlightening moment?
The reaching moment to the perfect practice of each 8 path together in only one moment.
It's a kind of absorption, Jhana, but the way to get  MaggaCitt(a)Upada must be included the insight meditation, professional seeing the Paticcasamuppada in advance.
Because it is an absorption, so every conascence condition, SahaJataPaccaya, at that moment must be perfect like  this...

All phenomena are rooted in desire (DhammaChandaCetasika).
All phenomena come into play through attention (ManasikaraCetasika).
All phenomena have contact as their origination (PhassaCetasika).
All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place (VedanaCetasika).
All phenomena have concentration as their presiding state (SammaSamadhiCetasika).
All phenomena have mindfulness as their governing principle (AdhippatiCetasika).
All phenomena have discernment as their surpassing state (PannaCetasika).
All phenomena have release as their heartwood (Nibbana).
All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless (SaupadisesaNibbanaDhatu).
All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end (AnupadisesaNibbanaDhatu).

So, the "All phenomena" in this Sutta refer to every conditions relating to enlightening moment.
And that's why this sutta was answered like that.
See Abhidhamma for detail.

So your answer agrees with Dhammadhatu's answer. The term "dhamma" in this sutta refers to skillful mental states or qualities leading to liberation.

It's partially. Dhammadhatu doesn't trust in some possible  phenomena. He don't care of some possible phenomena, such as smallest  phenomena, past life's phenomena,   future life's phenomena, etc. It means his  term "dhamma" must cover lesser phenomena than my answer. For the example, he don't trust in Abhidhamma, so
if there are some real smallest  craving/pride/view-phenomena arising trillions in sec, he can't see it, left it inside, and never prepare any management for them. It's same in past life, next life. We never cease what we never see. Avijja and Tanha are hiding every where

This is what Sujato has to say;

No, “gain a footing” is incorrect. Amatogadha is a common term,
frequently used alongside amatapariyosāna and amataparāyana in the
sense of ‘culminate, climax, finish’.
The basic meaning of ogadha is to be grounded or gain a footing, but
here it clearly has an idiomatic sense. I think the root of the
metaphor may lie with a boat crossing a river: when it reaches the far
shore (parāyana) it is beached or grounded. Perhaps we could translate
something like “gains a safe harbor in the deathless”.

Which is imho not much of substantiation.
As for your inquiry it is somewhat noteworthy that 8 out of 10 points from 10.58 appear in AN 8.83 (which covers the first eight of the ten questions), commentary to the Sutta has it that "all phenomena" (sabbe dhamma) there means the five aggregates. This is important because it comes into play when people express their interpretations where some might say that sabbe dhamma refers to only "wholesome qualities" for example, this has happened.
This is not the only place where this disagreement between translators plays out, there is also AN7.48 wherein the amatogadhā amatapariyosānā occurs as well as sn48.44. It is the same disagreement however if one looks at Bodhi's translations one will see that he has previously translated it as footing for sn48.44.

Sabbe dhamma refers to only "wholesome qualities". Why? Because the suttas only support this interpretation; including the very AN 7.48 & SN 48.44 you posted.  Also, the oldest commentary actually says it means "wholesome qualities"; which is contrary to what you wrote about commentary. Kind regards

Yes, Dhammadhatu. Firstly, it says "chandamūlakā sabbe dhammā" using "chanda" (desire - which can be positive or negative) instead of "tanha" (craving - always negative). Secondly, the most interesting phrase is "vimuttisārā sabbe dhamma". "vimuttisārā" means "core of liberation" or from this PTS dictionary page, it means "substance or essence of emancipation". How could negative things like the clinging aggregates have the "essence of emancipation"?

Chanda here is only positive. Please refer to the 37 Bodhipakkhiyādhammā, which includes chandha iddhipada. Learn how to discern. When you come to a fork in the road, choose the right direction.

What i wrote about commentary isn't wrong. You are making false statements. Thanissaro writes about an8.83 commentarial position in the footnotes to 10.58. If you have alternative commentary to an8.83, you can post it. Also if you have a way of dating commentary let me know.

What are "things" or "phenomena" in this context?

This is all dhamma (sabbe dhammā).

Please explain the whole paragraph
mūla:
Literally, "root." The fundamental conditions in the mind that determine the moral quality — skillful (kusala) or unskillful (akusala) — of one's intentional actions (see kamma). The three unskillful roots are lobha (greed), dosa (aversion), and moha (delusion); the skillful roots are their opposites. See kilesa (defilements).

A Glossary of Pali and Buddhist Terms
This says all things (dhamma) has desire (lobha) as a root (mula). The rest is self-evident from this quoted paragraphs. Explanation is as follows:
Attention produces phenomena. Contact is the origin of phenomena. Feeling is produced due to contact, which intern gives arise to rooted phenomena. Though concentration one can suppress the phenomena. Mindfulness prevent their arising. Wisdom helps to go beyond phenomena by achieving Nirvana. Nirvana is also a Dharma and is at its core. The climax of phenomena when one nears Nirvana is deathlessness. They are extinguishment by realising Nirvana which is the end and final state.

First of all, when it is said eg 'All dhamma have feeling as their meeting place', if we assert that the meaning of 'dhamma' there is the same as 'aggregates' as comy pins it , we have to be very careful not to become confused because feeling is an aggregate and we can't say 'all feelings have feeling as their meeting place'.
As i see it, it should be read with mn22 in mind;

"Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress."

The Dhamma can be spoken of as that which The Buddha taught in general sense; or something particular among the Dhamma.
I will cross reference and comment.

All phenomena come into play through attention.

Attention is spoken of in the Sutta as appropriate & inappropriate.

All phenomena have contact as their origination.

These six are classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, intellect-contact. This is called contact.
"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness.  The
meeting of the three is contact...
Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The
meeting of the three is contact...  Dependent on the tongue & flavors
there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is
contact...  Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises
body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...  Dependent
on the intellect & mental qualities there arises
intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact.

All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place.

From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
With contact as condition, feeling comes to be;

"And which are the six feelings? A feeling born of eye-contact, a feeling born of ear-contact... nose-contact... tongue-contact... body-contact... intellect-contact. These are the six feelings.

All phenomena have concentration as their presiding state.

All states are presided over by concentration in as far as one has to concentrate on any task in order not to become distracted and to maintain the state to which attention was applied. Not everything is right-concentration but all percipience requires concentration.

All phenomena have mindfulness as their governing principle.

All states are governed by mindfulness in as far as one has to stay mindful of every task in order not to lose focus & becoming oblivious of the task & the goal.

All phenomena have discernment as their surpassing state.

This can be understood in the same way one can understand that neutral feelings are pleasant when they are connected to discernment. When the things that are present are grasped with discernment, that is in itself pleasant and then appropriate attention can be expected resulting in a surpassing state.

All phenomena have release as their heartwood.

In the sense that only suffering is taught & it's cessation. All that is not cessation in a definitive sense becomes suffering and having grasped any of these with discernment, there comes to be a directing to a surpassing state of cessation through appropriate attention. Therefore all things can be seen to have release [from them] for heartwood.

All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless.

In the Sutta gaining footing is used also in the sense of one crossing to the other shore would be gaining a footing.
Deathless is here used as a term denoting the seeing with wisdom associated with cessation of perception & feeling by which there is a destruction of taints such that is attained by Ariya attained to vision (not faith & dhamma-follower), in Mahavagga Ven. Sariputta proclaimed attainment of the Deathless as a penetrating to the asoka state.
This attainment is a release that is unsurpassed in principle and is only superseeded as to the purity of one who enters & emerges from it. One can emerge as one attained to view, once returner, Anagami or Arahant and all by attaining to the principal cessation of perception & feeling.
An Arahant can continue to enter & emerge from the cessation of perception & feeling but it is then not spoken of as a destruction of taints for him because of the purity of one who enters & emerges from it.
Therefore when it is said that all phenomena gain their footing in the deathless, it can be explained that this is something that one should see with intellect when grasping phenomena with discernment such that development can be directed to the attainment of the immediacy leading to the destruction of taints.
There is also an explaination where one would say that the unconditioned is the ground of all and not included in it. This can be disagreeable in meaning or agreeable depending on how it is interpreted.

All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end.

Final & complete extinguishment is the same extinguishment principal of release, nibbananirodhadhatu, a cessation of perception & feeling complemented by a breaking up of the body & faculties. Therefore one can't say that the Arahant is seeing with wisdom after death as if wisdom departed the Arahant.
This final end of all phenomena is something one show see with intellect when grasping signs with discernment, it's like the meaning of signs and something one should know when thinking about this or that dhamma, that one does for the giving of appropriate attention leading to an attainment of the final goal through a progressive extinguishment.

Not to miss the forest for the trees: the sequence is saying that the natural (VERY longterm over many lifetimes perhaps) arc is toward freedom. Eventually we recognize 5, that we are focusing on that; it isn’t just happening from the environment. Then 6, that mindfulness chooses what we focus on. Then 7, 8, 9, 10.

Each of these Western translators is certainly incorrect, here. Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda & Piya Tan can be added to this list of incorrect translators of AN 10.58.
The word 'dhamma' here means (supramundane) 'skilful qualities' or 'path factors'; as confirmed by many other suttas. Refer to discussion topic at Sutta Central: All things are rooted in desire, particularly posts by Deele and Piotr, who complete an extensive cross-referencing of other suttas.
Most translators appear bent by their doctrinal belief that Nibbana is the end of reincarnations, therefore they wish to impute Nibbana is the end of all things. Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda appears stuck in his usual 'solipsism'.
These incorrect translations show how much the belief in Hindu reincarnation and Vedanta (solipsism) pervert the True Dhamma.
The Buddha said:

Open are the doors to the Deathless to those with ears.
MN 26

The Buddha did not say: "Open are the doors to the Deathless to all things".

I find this answer confusing -- because it seems to say that "dhamma" means "path factors", and, to "refer to discussion topic at Sutta Central particularly posts by Deele and Piotr" -- but e.g. in this post Deele and Piotr seem to be saying that "path factors" is a modern interpretation and a wrong one, cringe-worthy.

Yes, you find it confusing. Also, what Piotr appears to say is "cringe-worthy" is the "modern interpretation", i.e., the interpretation of Bodhi, Sujato & co. Instead of being "confused", i suggest to think rationally. Obviously, all things are not governed by mindfulness, obviously all things do not have liberation as their heartwood, obviously all things do not culminate in the deathless, etc. Regardless, the cross-referencing with other suttas cannot be refuted. It is nonacademic to claim otherwise.

Then I guess you're saying that you agree with or reference their research (i.e. their with list of relevant suttas), but not with their conclusion (i.e. that it doesn't mean path factors).

My impression is you are misreading the link. what Piotr appears to say is "cringe-worthy" is the "modern interpretation", i.e., the interpretation of Bodhi, Sujato, Piya Tan & Co. To me, it means "path factors"; although "dhamma" in this context is generally translated as "skilful qualities".

Perhaps I've understood "Deele"'s argument now -- i.e. that 51.15 through SN 51.20 says that desire is the basis for psychic power (iddhipāda), and that there when this sutta talks about "sabbe dhamma" being "rooted in desire" then "sabbe dhamma" probably means 'skilful qualities' or 'path factors' i.e. something more-or-less like iddhipāda.

Basically the only significant dhamma that can be regarded as unwholesome is chanda. Since all of the other significant dhamma as wholesome, the chanda should be regarded as wholesome. Yet the translator commentaries like the focus on the chanda, saying that all things are reincarnated due to chanda (or some similar non-sense).

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


text:
Metta's Intensity and Concentration
I noticed that in my meditation on compassion, the beginning is consistently potent (i.e. tears, strong feeling) and the ending is usually less apt (i.e. body agitation, distraction).
Would the emotional intensity of such a meditation depend highly on concentration? Or, perhaps, would some other aspect explain this, e.g. becoming saturated emotionally early in the meditation?

I noticed that in my meditation on compassion, the beginning is consistently potent (i.e. tears, strong feeling) and the ending is usually less apt (i.e. body agitation, distraction).
Most likely what is happening is when you think about different people

your perception of them
past incidents
their situations

Stir up emotions.
Would the emotional intensity of such a meditation depend highly on concentration? Or, perhaps, would some other aspect explain this, e.g. becoming saturated emotionally early in the meditation?
Emotional intensity most likely goes down with meditations as your concentration increases your mind becomes stable.

So would a more advanced type of metta produce less emotions?

I believe so. See when you do not distinguish among different groups and being reacting with like and dislike then you will be less emotional. It is this reaction which makes you emotional.


text:
What is bodily formation? Does it refer to the breath or the body?
'I will breathe in tranquilizing the bodily formation'; he trains thus: 'I will breathe out tranquilizing the bodily formation.'" ---Satipatthana (Bhiku Bodhi's translation)
What is bodily formation? Does it mean tranquilizing the breath or the body?

Possible duplicate of What is the true meaning of Kaya Sankhara, Vaci Sankhara and Citta Sankhara and How should the terms 'kaya, vaci & citta sankhara' be translated?

OP: What is bodily formation?
Kaya Sankhara - this what sustains keeps the body together hence the breath. If breathing stops the body falls apart.
OP: Does it mean tranquilizing the breath or the body?

To do this, you should decide to make the breath tranquil, and go on being continuously aware of the breath from beginning to end. You should
  do nothing else, otherwise your concentration will break and fall away.
The Visuddhi·Magga gives four factors for making the breath tranquil:
...

Concern (ābhoga): you pay initial attention to the breath, you apprehend the breath, you advert the mind towards the breath, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’
Reaction (samannāhāra): you continue to do so, i.e. you pay sustained attention to the breath that way, do it again and again, keep the breath in the mind, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’
Attention (manasikāra): literally ‘deciding to make the breath tranquil’. Attention is the mental factor that makes the mind advert towards the object. Attention makes the mind conscious of the breath and know the breath.
Reviewing (paccavekkhaBa): you review (vīmamsa) the breath, make it clear to the mind, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’

p35/36 Knowing and Seeing by Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw

Kayasankara is the breath (MN 44).
Kayasankhara is properly translated as ‘body conditioner’, similar to the meaning of ‘body sustainer’ or ‘body nourisher’.
The 3rd step of Anapanasati is properly translated as 'experiencing all bodies'. There are three 'bodies' or 'kaya', namely, breath body, physical body (rupa-kaya) and mental body (nama-kaya). In the Anapanasati Sutta, the Buddha says: "the breath is a body among other bodies". In brief, the 3rd step is to experienced how the three bodies interrelate with or inter-condition each other. For example, when the mind is calm, the breath will be calm, then the body will be calm; if the mind is agitated, the breath will be agitated; then the body will be agitated.
The 4th step of Anapanasati is training how to use the mental body (mind) to tranquilize the breathing body; which in turn tranquilizes the physical body; which in turn tranquilizes the mind and eventually makes the mind feel happy (step 5 & 6, rapture & happiness).
In summary, tranquilizing the kayasankhara means tranquilizing the breathing, which will simultaneously tranquilize the physical body.
Refer to Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's book: Mindfulness With Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life:
a Manual for Serious Beginners.


text:
Don't Arahats know Buddha?
While reading Bodhidharma's Two Entrances and Four Practices, I found Bodhidharma telling Arhats ain't enlightened.

Among Shakyamuni's ten greatest disciples, Ananda was
  foremost in learning. But he didn't know the Buddha. All he did
  was study and memorize. Arhats don't know the Buddha. All
  they know are so many practices for realization, and they become
  trapped by cause and effect. Such is a mortal's karma: no escape
  from birth and death. By doing the opposite of what he intended,
  such people blaspheme the Buddha. Killing them would not be
  wrong. The sutras say, "Since icchantikas45 are incapable of belief,
  killing them would be blameless, whereas people who believe reach
  the state of buddhahood."

Is it true or I am wrongly understanding Bodhidharma?

Note that Killing them won't be wrong is just a figure of speech. It isn't meant to be taken in literal sense.

I think it's not in Two Entrances and Four Practices -- instead I found the passage you quoted in something called Bloodstream sermon.

@ChrisW I have copy-pasted directly from the original book. I am reading it.

Is it true or I am wrongly understanding Bodhidharma?
I don't know about Bodhidharma or Zen, specifically, but I think that is inline with what you can read in or about some other "Mahayana" doctrines  e.g. Wikipedia -- Arhat:

Arhat is defined in Theravada Buddhism as one who has gained insight into the true nature of existence and has achieved nirvana. Other Buddhist traditions have used the term for people far advanced along the path of Enlightenment, but who may not have reached full Buddhahood.
The understanding of the concept has changed over the centuries, and varies between different schools of Buddhism and different regions. A range of views on the attainment of arhats existed in the early Buddhist schools. The Sarvāstivāda, Kāśyapīya, Mahāsāṃghika, Ekavyāvahārika, Lokottaravāda, Bahuśrutīya, Prajñaptivāda, and Caitika schools all regarded arhats as imperfect in their attainments compared to buddhas.
Mahayana Buddhist teachings urge followers to take up the path of a bodhisattva, and to not fall back to the level of arhats and śrāvakas. The arhats, or at least the senior arhats, came to be widely regarded[by whom?] as "moving beyond the state of personal freedom to join the Bodhisattva enterprise in their own way".

See also e.g. Śrāvaka -- Mahāyāna view:

In Mahayana Buddhism, śrāvakas or arhats are sometimes contrasted negatively with bodhisattvas.
In the 4th century abhidharma work Abhidharmasamuccaya, Asaṅga describes those who follow the Śrāvakayāna. These people are described as having weak faculties, following the Śrāvaka Dharma, utilizing the Śrāvaka Piṭaka, being set on their own liberation, and cultivating detachment in order to attain liberation. Those in the Pratyekabuddhayāna are portrayed as also utilizing the Śrāvaka Piṭaka, are said to have medium faculties, to follow the Pratyekabuddha Dharma, and to be set on their own personal enlightenment. Finally, those in the Mahāyāna "Great Vehicle" are portrayed as utilizing the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, as having sharp faculties, following the Bodhisattva Dharma, and set on the perfection and liberation of all beings, and the attainment of complete enlightenment.

Arhats don't know the Buddha. All they know are so many practices for realization, and they become trapped by cause and effect.

Don't forget it was Bodhidharma's Zen school which also taught that all famous PaiChang's fox story, a cautionary tale about the danger of horrific regression for those who thought they're already at the top of their game.

Note that Killing them won't be wrong is just a figure of speech. It isn't meant to be taken in literal sense.

Well, since so many things in those Zen texts are figures of speech, maybe Bodhidharma's highlighted message was also just a figure of speech. Afterall, when in doubt, try to err on the safe side and heed the Buddha's advice in DN 16 about the Four Great Referalls.


text:
Killer Neighbors
Namo Buddhaya!
My neighbor is a hardcore Christian & is a very nice man, the only thing is that he goes outside every once & a while with a water gun & kills insects (and even shoots rabbits with the gun). He also really pushes his religion on others and expects people to be Christians, otherwise, they will suffer eternally in Hell. This makes me concerned about the amount of bad Kamma he may be accumulating from his actions, thoughts, & speech.
I had 3 questions:

Is it skillful to not intervene in his acts of killing, knowing he will not understand?
What is an appropriate response to him asking if I "love Jesus only" or if I'm a "good Chrisitan"?
Should I not worry about un-deluding his mind to help him understand the Dhamma?

Metta to all!

Is it skillful to not intervene in his acts of killing, knowing he will not understand?
If you wanted to, how about just saying, "Blessed are the merciful", see how he understands that?
I wonder if perhaps he'd understand better if you spoke from within the context of his (Christian) scripture.
I propose you shouldn't want him to perceive "conceit" however -- i.e. his perceiving you as comparing yourself to him, as your saying that you are superior.
See How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? for some description of conceit.
Instead it might work better if he perceives "love" (or mercy, etc.) which he is inspired to emulate.
What is an appropriate response to him asking if I "love Jesus only" or if I'm a "good Chrisitan"?
I don't know, how about -- "Jesus said to love God, and love thy neighbour".
I suggest that, not because it's a Buddhist dictum, but because I reckon you might want to speak using someone else's language in order to communicate with them.
Be careful not to lie, though.
Incidentally there are said to be four ways to answer a question

First the categorical answer,
  then the qualified,
  third, the type to be counter-questioned,
  & fourth, the one to be set aside.

For example:

"Yes" or "no"
"If when you say 'Good Christian' you mean 'X' then etc."
"How do you think you would recognise a good Christian?"
:-)

Anyway you might think you're required to give a categorical answer, but there are other ways to answer which might be better.
Should I not worry about un-deluding his mind to help him understand the Dhamma?
You asked about "skilful". One of the words translated "skilful" is kusala, try this essay for example, Kusala and Akusala (which seems to have been written for Christians, but anyway), one of the things it mentions is,

In the early Buddhist discourses, individuals are classified into four groups, in the following manner :

The individual who pursues neither his own (moral) well-being nor others’ (moral) well-being
The individual who pursues others’ (moral) well-being but not his own (moral) well-being
The individual who pursues his own (moral) well-being but not others’ (moral) well-being
The individual who pursues his own (moral) well-being as well as others’ (moral) well-being

I think that un-deluding another's mind is what a bodhisattva might aspire to.

The suttas say to teach Dhamma only to those who ask for it. Therefore, you are forbidden to preach Dhamma to your neighbour (unless he wishes you do).

Etadaggaṃ peyyavajjānaṃ yadidaṃ atthikassa ohitasotassa punappunaṃ
  dhammaṃ deseti.
And this is the best of friendly speech: to teach again and again
  Dhamma to those who wish for it and who listen attentively.
AN 9.5

As for Christianity, Jesus taught people go to 'heaven' & 'hell' as a result of their actions rather than as a result of superficial faith or allegiance. Refer to Parable of the Good Samaritan.

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

I empathize with you, having grown up around such people.
My advice would be to show this neighbor the same love and compassion you feel towards the rabbits and others. You may think of him as just another creature, acting out his natural tendencies, much like a tiger or alligator. Reflect on his positive aspects. Be mindful of your own reactions, feeling, or aversion toward him or his actions, and let go of that which you can't control.
Teach the Dhamma through your actions, they speak louder than words. Be compassionate towards the creatures under your care, and therefore be a friend to him. Change comes from within, so trying to teach at him or argue against his beliefs will never bear fruit. Show kindness, wisdom, positivity, and equanimity through your actions and the visible benefits of the Dhamma will become apparent to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Is it skillful to not intervene in his acts of killing, knowing he will not understand?

You should tactfully intervene. One should point out animals also feel pain and one should not do to animals what one does not like done to oneself.

What is an appropriate response to him asking if I "love Jesus only" or if I'm a "good Chrisitan"?

You can point out it is good to love Jesus. Also to be a better Christian one can practice:

morality
mastery over the mind
wisdom

Whatever religion or faith system one can practice the above 3 trainings.
You can then direct him to a course which teacher these:

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

Should I not worry about un-deluding his mind to help him understand the Dhamma?

You should not worry. One should just try and accept whatever outcome.

OP: Is it skillful to not intervene in his acts of killing, knowing he will not understand?
OP: Should I not worry about un-deluding his mind to help him understand the Dhamma?

Skillfulness applies to one's own thoughts, words and actions, and not those of other people. Of course the exception to this is that parents and teachers have the responsibility to correct their children, but this does not apply in your case.
In fact, if you think that you have to correct other people's actions, this is a slippery slope to feeling contempt for other people. Contempt is a type of aversion. I think we should avoid providing unsolicited advice to people who are not very close to us. Also see this question.
But if solicited, you can drop him a hint. For e.g. if he invites you to join him in shooting rabbits, you can decline by saying that you feel compassion for the suffering of harmless rabbits. (Luke 6:36)

OP: What is an appropriate response to him asking if I "love Jesus only" or if I'm a "good Christian"?

If he asks you if you "love Jesus only", you can reply "I love Jesus and all my neighbours too!" (Matthew 22:39)
If he asks you if you're a "good Christian", you can reply, "I try to be as good as Jesus wants us to be". (Matthew 5:48)
As ChrisW mentioned, it's important not to break the precept of not speaking untruth.


text:
Meditation on Awareness : objects and phenomena vs Awareness
On http://media.sbinstitute.com/courses/spring2016/91/ , there is an Awareness-based meditation where we are invited to observe the various objects that we are aware off : thoughts, sounds, sensations, etc...
Question 1 :
a/ do these objects appear IN Awareness ? (like clouds appearing IN the sky) ?
OR b/ do these objects appear FROM Awareness (and in this case my analogy with the sky is not correct; because clouds are not made of sky)
question 2 :
I more and more come across the statement that objects (thoughts, sounds, sensations) are in fact MADE OF Awareness; and hence are not distinct from Awareness. But my mind can't understand that...
Has anybody analogies or explanations so that I can understand this (apparently) paradox ?
Thank you all for your replies :)
Namaste

Note: The link provided says: Ask questions about this lecture on the Buddhism Stack Exchange or the Students of Alan Wallace Facebook Group. Please include this lecture’s URL when you post.

It does, yes. And this may be a question about the doctrine or terminology of Tibetan Buddhism.

Awareness is a big word, and lots of people idealize it, but in Buddhism awareness is considered something actually pretty simple.
When you look at an object (or a mental object), what really happens is, the features (signs) are recognized and checked against the storage of past experiences, and based on the matching associations an object is then identified. This process is cyclic, meaning, the features are constantly re-evaluated against the memories, and the results of the lookup are fed-back into the same process, finding secondary and tertiary associations and so on. This cyclic process is what creates the experience of "awareness".
When you turn attention to your own mind, nothing really changes, except instead of the external input (or a mental object input) you now have a re-representation of your own mind (your mind-model) as input. This proceeds in the same cyclic manner and creates the experience of "self-awareness".
On each iteration of the cycle, all we have is the content of mind, which is a result of looking up the input coming from sensory organ, plus the last content of mind from the previous iteration, against the storage of past experiences. So on every step of the cycle, the content of mind is literally mind-made, it is comprised of whatever past experiences that happened to associate with the input. And if you think about it, this content is not "seen" by any "awareness" or "witness" (like the Brahmins used to think). Instead, this content of mind is matched against memory, but as soon as the matching associations are found, they slowly supersede whatever content we had on the previous iteration, and become the new state.
So even though we are fooled into thinking that objects of mind are "seen" by "awareness", in reality this seeming "awareness" is just the next set of matching associations coming up from the memory. There is no "I" or "awareness" there, just a train of associations following one another, morphing from one to another.
If you look very closely, there are no full complete "objects" in the mind at any point in time. It's more like, whichever part or aspect of the object you focus on, that's what your mind pulls out of memory by association. If you try to assemble an entire object, the mind actually pulls out several "key" associations and cycles through them, creating an illusion of whole.
Each sensory modality runs its own associative loop, so each sensory modality gets its own "awareness" - which means they can work in parallel with each other. So if the object exists across multiple sensory modalities (like, it has visual AND smell components) - then the visual and smell associations can be active at the same time, without the mind having to cycle through them one at a time, which makes it easier for the mind to fake an integrated experience of a complete object.
It's like that videogame that renders the world as you come closer. The road and the trees are created right under your feet, creating the illusion of a complete world. Same with awareness, the features of objects we look at are instantiated by associations, as we turn our attention to them, creating the illusion of a complete object.
So, to answer your question, the objects are indeed "made of" awareness, and not only that -- there are no complete "objects" ever, only fragments (features) - and they are nothing but pure awareness, pure associations. At the end of the day, both the objects and the awareness are "empty" - there are just signs upon signs and associations upon associations - substituted right-in-time on-demand to create an illusion of "objects", "thinking", "awareness" and "self".

Wow thank you for your full explanation, with lots of details! Hopefully one day I'll fully integrate all what you described. Thank you again :)

I more and more come across the statement that objects (thoughts, sounds, sensations) are in fact MADE OF Awareness.

It's important to note that they never said objects are made Exclusively of Awareness. So while Awareness is an important factor/component in bringing the object into one's range/field of perception, it's certainly wouldn't make any sense to say that Awareness "creates" physical objects. A simple example is there's a flower in front of John and Jane. John sees it with full awareness, hence the flower object comes within range of John's perception; while Jane although seeing it, but her awareness/attention is completely absorbed into some other more important matter at the moment, hence she doesn't "see" the flower in front of her. So without her attention/awareness, the flower still exists, but it just doesn't exist in the field of her perception at that particular moment. This happens to us all the time. When there's something troubling your mind greatly and you focus 100% of your attention into that matter, at that moment, even the most beautiful face, or nicest musical tune, or tastiest food would completely escape your field of perceptions.

Thank you for your flower analogy perceived differently by John and Jane ! Regards

Awareness is not an object it is a quality an event,it causes a realization of the existence of objects ,the world exists for you due to awareness,like when you wake up then you become aware that you did wake up.
It shows up due to certain parameters check this answer out Which specific process determines where consciousness will alight?

Thank you for your reply, as wel as for the link you indicated. I'll have a read at it ! :)


text:
Don't teach Dhamma to those who can't appreciate it or aren't interested
I read in an answer that AN 9.5 states:

The best sort of kindly speech is to teach the Dhamma again and again
  to someone who is engaged and who lends an ear.

However, is there an opposite quote to this in the Pali Canon?
Does the Buddha say anywhere in the Pali Canon that we should not bother to teach the Dhamma to one who cannot appreciate it, or is not interested in listening to it?
What I'm asking for, is perhaps equivalent to the following quote from the Christian Bible in Matthew 7:6:

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If
  you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you
  to pieces.

I interpret: teaching the dhamma to someone who is engaged and who lends an ear as the same thing as: not bothering to teach one who cannot appreciate it, or is not interested in listening to it. They both imply the listeners receptiveness as a necessary factor for learning. Maybe i'm misunderstanding something.

See also e.g. Desanaa Sutta (SN 42.7) -- the Buddha's "sowing the excellent field first" (i.e. teaching his monks and nuns) doesn't imply that he won't also teach lay-followers, and wandering recluses and Brahmans of other sects.

Let's just stay here and sit  in a circle while the world burns. Maybe there isn't such a thing as teaching in self defense.

The Buddha not only stressed the importance of right speech but also the right time and occassion to say it:

"So too, prince, such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is unwelcome and disagreeable to others: the Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech.613 Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, but which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: the Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech. Why is that? Because the Tath›gata has compassion for beings.” ~~ MN 58 ~~

bool shouldSpeak() { if(unbeneficial) return false; /* ... */ } would eliminate half the mentioned branches ;-).

Actually that code was already part of the Buddha's original algo ;-)
public static boolean shouldSpeak(String period) {
if ("BC".equals(period)) {
applyVerboseAlgo();
} else {// if "AD".equals(period)
applyMachineAlgo();
}//end if
}//end method

Interesting it's translated "beneficial" (which I think of as a result or outcome), where the Pali says atthasaṃhita which might mean "relevant" or "on-topic" (which I think of as an intent or motive).

@PeterA.Schneider: Redundant combinatoric expansion is a general pattern in these teachings and probably served as a mnemonic device.

My person wonders whether there is understanding of what is meant by "right time"

In the Vinaya -- see the section "Three: The 16 Dealing with Teaching Dhamma" on page 554 of The Buddhist Monastic Code, Volumes I:

SN 6:2 records that the Buddha himself had the highest respect for the Dhamma
  he had discovered; that, as others might live under the guidance of a teacher,
  honoring and revering him, the Buddha lived under, honored, and revered the
  Dhamma. He enjoined his followers to show the same respect for the Dhamma not
  only when listening to it but also when teaching it, by refusing to teach it to a
  person who shows disrespect.
The following set of rules deals with situations in which a listener, in terms of
  the etiquette at that time, would be regarded as showing disrespect for a teacher or
  his teaching. As the Vinaya-mukha notes, a few of these cases—such as those
  concerning footwear—are not considered disrespectful under certain
  circumstances at present, although here the exceptions given for listeners who are
  ill might be stretched to cover any situation where the listener would feel
  inconvenienced or awkward if asked to comply with the etiquette of the Buddha’s
  time. On the other hand, there are many ways of showing disrespect at present that
  are not covered by these rules, and an argument could be made, reasoning from the
  Great Standards, that a bhikkhu should not teach Dhamma to a person who showed
  disrespect in any way.

And Teaching Dhamma:

Sixteen of the Sekhiya Training rules set down how and to whom a bhikkhu should teach Dhamma. These rules are also concerned with the etiquette of showing respect, respect not only for the bhikkhu but more importantly for the Dhamma that he is teaching. (The Great Standards would imply here that modern ways of showing respect and disrespect would be similarly covered by these rules.) These rules prohibit a bhikkhu from teaching anyone he considers to be showing disrespect to the Dhamma. Here is a summary of these Sekhiya Trainings:

"I will not teach Dhamma to someone who is not sick but who:
— has an umbrella; a wooden stick (club); weapon in their hand.
— is wearing (wooden-soled) sandals/shoes; is in a vehicle; is on a bed (or couch); is sitting clasping the knees; has a head wrapping (turban); whose head is covered; who is sitting on a seat while I am sitting on the ground; who is sitting on a high seat while I am sitting on a low seat; who is sitting while I am standing; who is walking in front of me while I am walking behind; who is walking on a pathway while I am walking beside the pathway." (Sekhiya 57-72; See BMC pp.505-508)

How these rules are observed may diverge in different communities. Some will strictly follow the above while others will be more flexible according to modern conditions. As Venerable Brahmava"ngso remarks:

"...These Sekhiyas ensure that one teaches Dhamma only to an audience which shows respect. One may not expound from a soapbox in the marketplace... to the indifference of passers by. However it is common these days in the West for a seated audience, wearing their shoes and maybe even a hat, to respectfully listen to a speaker standing at a lectern... and as the audience is considered to be behaving respectfully according to the prevailing norms there seems no reason why a monk may not teach Dhamma in such a situation."

Ibid. starts with,

The bhikkhu's life should be wholly preparing him to gain insight into Dhamma. Only then will he have the wisdom to communicate anything of real value to others when the time is appropriate and the audience properly receptive. (A monk will usually wait for an invitation to speak on Dhamma, so there is no question about him proselytizing.) Teaching Dhamma, however, is not easy. If it is badly done, it can cause more misunderstanding than understanding.
The fourth Confession Rule came to be set down when the group-of-six monks taught Dhamma to lay people by rote, which caused the lay followers to feel disrespect for the monks:

"If a bhikkhu teaches Dhamma to an unordained person (one who is not a bhikkhu), repeating it together word by word, it is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 4; Nv p.14)
"To rehearse the Dhamma word by word... was the method to teach others to memorize when there were no books. This method was formerly used in (Thai) temples and popularly known by the name 'studying books in the evening.' The aim of prohibiting pronouncing (Scripture) together is clearly shown in the original story of this training-rule which was to prevent the pupils from looking down on the teacher." (Paat. 1969 Ed. p.159)

[1] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
    step-by-step.'"
[2] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
    explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'"
[3] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out of
    compassion.'"
[4] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not
    for the purpose of material reward.'"
[5] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
    without hurting myself or others.'[1]
"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
    should be taught to others only when these five qualities are
    established within the person teaching."

Note 1:. According to the Commentary, "hurting oneself" means exalting oneself. "Hurting others" means putting other people down.

AN 5.159

I won't accept my own answer. I found the right sutta accidentally and intend to share it here.
From SN 9.3:

Now at that time Venerable Kassapagotta, having withdrawn for his
  day’s meditation, tried to advise a tribal hunter. Then the deity
  haunting that forest approached Kassapagotta wanting to stir him up,
  and recited these verses:

“A tribal hunter wandering the rugged hills
    is unintelligent, unthinking.
    It’s a waste of time to advise him;
    this mendicant seems to me like an idiot.
The tribal hunter listens without understanding,
    he looks without seeing.
    Though the teaching is spoken,
    the fool doesn’t get it.
Even if you lit ten lamps
    and brought them to him, Kassapa,
    he wouldn’t see anything,
    for he has no eyes to see.”

Impelled by that deity, Venerable Kassapagotta was struck with a sense
  of urgency.

What will householder take from it himself? Lighter?


text:
Is Nibbana joyful or not joyful?
I have noticed that it seems Nibbana has been described as "the peaceful".
I have had the impression that Nibbana is neither joyful nor delightful.
Is my impression correct?

Whatever it is, the feeling is certainly beyond all those that we've experienced so far, sorta like a flying bird trying to describe the impression of the nice gentle breeze in the high blue sky to a fish living down underneath the deep sea.

It's bliss rather than joy.

Why not content with peace? That's and importand question. Nati santi param sukham "Not 'bliss' higher then (at) peace/release"

@SamanaJohann That's equivalent to saying "peace (santi) is the greatest bliss (sukkha)" (or, possibly, "is greater than bliss"). But Angus doesn't think that "bliss" is a good translation, because in English there's no clear difference in meaning between "bliss" and e.g. "joy" -- and I think that's what this question was about.

In the English language it seems that "joy" has been considered a synonym for "bliss". If Nibbana is not joyful then I know that any kind of joy is not what I am seeking. I've been wanting to know what I am looking for i.e. what Nibbana is like.

Perhaps you could ask that as a follow-on question if you're not already sure you understand -- e.g. because "joy" is one of the path factors.

So it seems wrong for me to say that "any kind of joy" is not what I am seeking. If the joy is a factor required to attain Nibbana then I am seeking it.
Is there a specific "follow-on question" function or would it mean just asking another question related to this one?

A follow-on question could be formal like, As a follow-on to [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/34694/254), what's the connection or difference between joy (piti), and the bliss (sukha) or peace (santi) of nibbana? Do you seek joy? Do you seek sukha, peace, or nibbana? If nibbana and joy are different then why is (or what's meant by saying that) joy one of the [path factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Factors_of_Awakening))? Or something like that. But comments e.g. here are inconvenient compared to specific question-and-answer: too small, and few people read them.

@ChrisW May I use what you wrote as an example or a slightly edited version of it in a question?

Yes do edit it to suit.

It's alright with me, yes.

*I think I might have edited it more than "slightly" are you alright with that?

I'm inclined to believe that Nibbana is not joyful.

OP: I have noticed that it seems Nibbana has been described as "the peaceful".
Nibbana is peaceful of blissful because it is not dependent on sensations/feelings.
The whole Shere of sensation regardless if it is present, unpleasant or neutral is unsatisfactory (dukkha).

pleasant feeling is pleasant when it persists, painful when it changes;
painful feeling is painful when it persists, pleasant when it changes;
neutral feeling is pleasant when there is
knowledge of it, painful when there is no knowledge of it.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
OP: I have had the impression that Nibbana is neither joyful nor delightful.
In terms of sensations, this is not pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. But since is it not dependent on the sensation it is not unsatisfactory.

AN 9.34, Ven. Sariputta says (in translation) ...

nibanna is bliss

... and that what's blissful about it is that there are no "feeling" i.e. vedana.
The word translated "bliss" is sukha.
The word translated as "joy" is (instead) usually piti and associated with meditation (and impermanent).

Yes, that's why I posted this answer.

Yes.
Whatever word you use to describe it, it will miss the mark, as Nibbana is free of concepts, perceptions, judgements, etc. If you label it "peace", that is based in your perception of peace, which cannot exist at Nibbana. If you label it bliss, that too misses the mark. It may be more accurate to say, "after the experience of Nibbana, I felt supreme peace and bliss of an otherworldly magnitude", etc. Nibbana is, by it's nature, nearly impossible to describe and conceptualize. Like a black hole, it is only discernable to the normal mind by the things surrounding it.
It may be more useful to learn how to experience it than to wonder too much about it, which may engender expectations and concepts that you'll have to let go of eventually anyways. ;)

On Nibbana

"This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana."

— AN 3.32
Its essentially peace within your being  .In Your experience of joy or sadness you are detached meaning not possessed by the experience .It doesn't mean that you are indifferent or passionless but truly alive ,cooperating with the experience ,being with the experience ,where there is nothing but experience ,ceasing to cause anything or interfere in your life process, because with every need to cause there is nonacceptance of an experience .Thus in Nibbana you simply are .
Its important to realize that you don't view Nibbana as a goal that your ego needs to achieve You don't gain anything from Nibbana because you become empty from all your conditioning and your ego with all its accumulations disappears.You let go of all the attachments including that of the body, you let yourself happen like you let a flower bloom.

Words aren't really meaningful unless they correlate to something connected to your sensory perception.
Having experienced higher states I can tell you that it's definitely joyful rather than peaceful...I think of peaceful as more like deep relaxation and joyful as more like happy with high energy.
MN 59 categorizes different types of pleasures (each one higher):

Sensory pleasures
1st jhana
2nd jhana
3rd jhana
4th jhana
Infinite space
Infinite consciousness
Nothingness
Neither perception nor non-perception
Cessation of perception and feeling

The cessation of perception and feeling seems to be connected to arahantship or nibbana or almost like the same thing.
Based on the suttas nibbana/arahantship/cessation of perception and feeling is the highest pleasure.
But I guess you would have experience it yourself to know...all I know from experience is that higher states resulting from destroying negative unconscious impulses is joyful beyond what you can imagine.
If someone really experienced nibbana they should be able to describe it in detail.
From my experience the highest state I've experienced was when the energy went above my forehead, above the top of my head, and even further I felt high energy, confident, fearless, unstoppable, like nothing is wrong...it is a joy like no other.
The arahant has their fermentations ended so to inspire fear in an arahant is impossible!
If having difficulty making progress then best to generate good kamma through the practice of metta (loving-kindess)

"Bhikkhus, whatever grounds there are for making merit productive of a
  future birth, all these do not equal a sixteenth part of the
  mind-release of loving-kindness. The mind-release of loving-kindness
  surpasses them and shines forth, bright and brilliant." (Iti 27)

Best to shine loving-kindness as opposed to negative emotions like anger, fear, sorrow.


text:
Is "doing according to one's best understanding" a protection from wrong-doing?
A common belief is that, if one conducts himself "as best he can" (in the best ways he understands and knows), then would be a protection from -- or an excuse for -- wrong-doing.
For example, "I answer with best effort and understanding..."
Under the context of truth, the Dhamma, is this just a naive thought of foolish people? Or can such be rightly justified as something an Awakened would approve?
[Not at all given for trade or keep people caught in corruption]

Please avoid asking loaded/rhetorical questions when you already have an answer.

Doing the best that you can, is not a protection against wrong-doing.
Why? Ignorance, or the lack of Right View and wisdom, may cause you to commit wrong-doing, despite doing "the best that you can".
Hence, gaining Right View, and gradually improving Right View and wisdom over time, through insight, will push the boundaries of your "best effort".
In the Salt Crystal Sutta (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu), the Buddha taught:

'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e.,
  painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in
  discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the
  immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

And there you have it. For protection from wrong-doing, one should be developed in body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment and dwelling in the immeasurable.
The same paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Sujato here:

What kind of person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it
  in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a
  lot? A person who has developed their physical endurance, ethics,
  mind, and wisdom. They’re not small-minded, but are big-hearted,
  living without limits. That kind of person does the same trivial bad
  deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left
  over, not to speak of a lot.

I cannot see how it would be possible to do any better than doing the best we can. If we do this but inadvertently cause suffering or harm then it would hardly be fair if this created bad karma.
Surely it is intention that matters, not the outcome of the action, especially since approximately all the outcomes of our actions cannot be known in advance.
The only proviso seem to be that 'doing the best we can' must involve the acquisition of knowledge, since ignorance is no excuse for wrong-doing where it is a choice.

Where is there no choice? 2. What about relaying of what's framed by sila as long no real view on mind, householder Peter?

@SamanaJohann - I meant that ignorance is no excuse where ignorance is a choice. That is to say, it would be an ethical duty to acquire knowledge in order to improve our understanding and better inform our behaviour.  If we make no effort to acquire knowledge then ignorance ceases to be an excuse for wrong-doing.

May my person assume that "where ignorance is a choice" does not say: "I did it the best way I could", good householder.

@SamanaJohann - Exactly.

So understanding is always a choice, as not is?

@SamanaJohann - Understanding is not a choice. Seeking an understanding is a choice.

Sure? Does Householder Peter likes to understand?

@SamanaJohann - I like to understand, yes. I do not understand your comments though. Maybe it's a language thing.

Does he.......?

Doing the best one can is relative to what one knows. If what you know is the method described in the Dhamma, then 'doing the best you know how at the time', if followed-up with a little review of the results will move you steadily from higher to higher and on out.

There are several suttas addressing the necessity in reflecting over consequences - besides our intentions - for the sake of benevolence.
From the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta:

All those brahmans & contemplatives at present who purify their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions, do it through repeated reflection on their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions in just this way.
Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself: 'I will purify my bodily actions through repeated reflection. I will purify my verbal actions through repeated reflection. I will purify my mental actions through repeated reflection.' That's how you should train yourself.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html
Also, one of the five rememberances from Upajjhatthana Sutta regards the consequences of our actions:

Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'? There are beings who conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that bad conduct in body, speech, and mind will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html
This is also addressed in the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta:

Beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html
A more thorough description of consequences is detailed in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta. At the end this is summarized as:

So, Ananda, there is kamma that is incapable (of good result) and appears incapable (of good result); there is kamma that is incapable (of good result) and appears capable (of good result); there is kamma that is capable (of good result) and appears capable (of good result); there is kamma that is capable (of good result) and appears incapable (of good result).

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html

Is this all according to householders best understanding and/or prevents him from bad effects on it?

@Nah, this is according to dhammas, with respect to your question. My personal understanding consist of other (off topic) stuff as well.