text:
Given that Buddhism could accommodate people's prior religious beliefs, why is Buddhism itself now described as a religion?
Read somewhere that Buddhism does not advocate to go away from the beliefs of a person. Or in a way accommodate one's rooted beliefs from childhood. The main objective of following the path of Buddha is for self-realization. That too not disturbing others and their beliefs.

Since Buddha advocated for education to all humankind without considering race or color, will it be like a revolutionary thought came before centuries (like communism, socialism ...)?
But most of the world refers to it as a religion. Is it because of the transformation to idol based community from a spiritual community created by Buddha?
Does Buddism has more affinity towards a free-thinking society based on modern science OR towards a ritual-based society based on fears that remind the mind to do good acts?

As with anything else, that completely depends on what you consider a “religion” is, or what is a “religious belief”.
When westerners first came in contact with Buddhism they considered it a “philosophy” as they could not conceive of a religion that did not have a “god” at its center. The idea of an atheist religion did not make sense. You can see that such bias still exists in modern dictionaries.
But when does a philosophy become a religion and when is a religion a philosophy? Is Nihilism a religious idea or a philosophical one? What about philosophical skepticism? Can science itself be considered a religion?
Although Buddhism is very flexible and personal, it is very clear that to progress in the Buddhist path you have to accept a set of beliefs (e.g., Samsara and the eight-fold path) and reject others (e.g., atman/soul ).  It is possible to enter the path while still holding to incompatible beliefs, however sooner or later these beliefs will conflict with the teachings.
It is also very hard for most people to let go of the idea of a “god”, of atman, and many others. This sets a limit to progressing on the path.

Since Buddha advocated for education to all humankind without considering race or color, will it be like a revolutionary thought came before centuries (like communism, socialism ...)?

Yes, the Dharma taught by the Lord Buddha was definitely revolutionary at his times, hence all the knowledge pertains until this day.

But most of the world refers to it as a religion. Is it because of the transformation to idol based community from a spiritual community created by Buddha?

Over thousands of years, the preach have transformed and therefore arrives at different "Schools". But what is an Idol? Is a teacher an Idol? And if one follows a good teacher's teachings, does that equate to worshiping an Idol?

Does Buddism has more affinity towards a free-thinking society based on modern science OR towards a ritual-based society based on fears that remind the mind to do good acts?

Neither.
The gap in principle between Science and Dharma is "Drive a conclusion base on what everyone can visually see" VS "do not drive a conclusion based on only what everyone see".
The freedom in the Dharma is freedom from Dukkha. Not absolute freedom to do anything one wishes.
The teaching is not to inflict Fear, but do speak of the truths. Doing good deeds as a means to be "skillful" and noble, not because purely out of fear. (although there are some who only do good deeds out of fear, but that is not the point)

Re. whether it's revolutionary socialism, yes and no:

Yes the Buddha in the suttas challenged some conventional/social hierarchies, especially the idea that someone (e.g. a Brahmin) is or isn't holy because of their social caste.
But no I think that the Vinaya obviously makes an effort (several efforts) to not cause conflict with lay society -- don't break the "king's laws", and regulations about when and how to go on alms rounds, and asking parents before ordaining, etc.
Also I think it's meant to help everyone, universally -- not just help the poor, or help the rich, or the priests or the warriors, or the men, or even only the human beings.

Re. whether it's called a religion, does it matter what it's called? What else would you call it, what do you call "mathematics" for example (art, science, practice, doctrine), or what do you call "family" (society, way of life, relationship, vehicle)? I guess it's called a religion because it shares some properties with "religions" (or "other religions"), for example:

Belief, faith, confidence.
Moral/social rules
Soteriological theory, a doctrine of liberation or salvation
Uniforms (at least in monastic society), and rituals, special places, special days

I guess it's called that because people like to generalise or classify, make analogies (e.g. "X is like Y") and reuse existing words (like "religion") -- especially when thy encounter something new, they might want to compare it with what they "know" already.
Also some of the things I mentioned (e.g. ritual, uniform, the iconography and architecture of special places like temples) is public and visible -- and that's what (perhaps that's all that) someone who is not a Buddhist will see. Even more so if they don't know any Buddhists.
And if Buddhism is mental practices, states of mind -- not only rituals -- maybe that's less evident to the world at large. Maybe it's not even considered uniquely Buddhist (e.g. you might think of someone, you might recognise that, "he's a kind person", instead of, "he's a Buddhist").

Nyom veenusAV,
It's probably a believe and rendering of communist, socialist that the Buddha "advocated for education to all humankind without considering...". We already know that outcome called "Khmer rouge", (Khmer, pali khema, "person or land at peace", epic for Arahat), to give one of many samples, by adding red to wise, desire/aversion to calm.
As he told, his teachings are just for those "ready to be tamed" and of course it is a strong religion (i.e. binding, robe to something), but without an idea of "re" like others may advertise with certain anchors for pride. One hasn't been bond to liberation before the path to master.
So if one calls it "ligion", such would be probably better.
Is Buddhism has more affinity towards a free-thinking society...
The Buddha did not much care about ordinary society but only for his Re-ligion, Legion, the Sangha. Although he was open for good individual advises, he had neither the idea to lead nor to feel responsible for what societies are doing or not.
He also taught on and on on how one should thinks, even on what, so it can not be said at all that the Sublime Buddha was a "(Pseudo-)liberalist" but one who gave strict advises on how to gain real liberality.
And he rebuked the Scientist very often and he taught of what one should incredible fear and what not.
Since it is a very black and white way out of Samsara, his Dhamma will probably not fit even a little to modern ideas. It's just that trades are good in selling new things people are not able yet to know it a original or a market-fake.
As for Buddhism, that is housholder-stuff... they love to build their own things and sand-castles.
(Note: this is not given for Buddh-ism, exchange, stacks, trade and gain binding to world and common societies but for liberation)


text:
How death anniversaries take place by Buddhist rituals?
My loving grandma passed away on 1st April 18 so we want to have death anniversary.
So I want to ask when should we arrange ceremony, on first April or first March?
We tribute a person with chanting Refuge and  Panchashila.
So is something missing?

Sadhu, Nyom. What ever day, is a good day to show respect toward the ancestors, to give Alms to the Sangha to benefit them, to listen to the Dhamma by your self.
Don't forget, if it had not been done in the past by your ancestors you would not ever had met the Dhamma.
Of what one should not miss when giving: Sila, virtue, what ever dedicating, is just the good given, if it does not harm others.
Invite many to take part on the merits and share them with all.
Mudita

Thanks a lot Bhante @-}--

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Despairing About Meditative Regularity
I have set the amount of time I meditate (focused attention/shamatha) at merely 15 minutes per day. Despite this, despite all my best efforts, I seem to still skip a day or two now and then.
Why is this? Would changing the type of meditation help?
I had read positive emotions help develop a habit. When I meditate mindfully on the breath, there are no such emotions; doing compassion meditation, positive affect arises. Would this affective benefit motivate a meditative practice?

There can be several reasons.
If you are only training concentration ie; tranquilizing the breath or observing thoughts, feelings and perceptions arising and ceasing, then it is possible that you would incline to laziness because you are not cultivating perceptions which would lead to aroused effort and willingness.

If the monk intent on heightened mind were to attend solely to the theme of concentration, it is possible that his mind would tend to laziness.
  http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/03/an03-103.html
Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of unpleasantness in impermanence and abiding much in it, a keen perception of fear, for laziness, distraction, negligence and non-reflection gets established, like to a slayer with raised sword.http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/mnl/an/07_sevens/an07.046.upal.mnl.htm

You can try doing 15 minutes but cover more bases.
Perhaps experiment with something like this;

5 minutes - Inconstancy, Unpleasantness, Unattractiveness of Worlds
or Death Contemplation
5 minutes - Uplifted Energy, Appreciation, Sympathetic Joy, Metta, Equanimity or Recollection; of The Buddha, The Dhamma, The Sangha, your own virtue or Devas
5 minutes - Develop Concentration; if restless tranquilize breath
   formation and if sluggish train mindfulness observing feelings,
   thoughts and perceptions as they arise, persist and cease

Having spend a mindful day with dana, a day having begone with refuge, spend with Sila, one is able to rejoice:
Buddhanussati, 2 min remembering the Buddha
Dhammanussati, 2 min remembering the Dhamma
Sanghanusati...
Remember ones Generosity
Remember ones Virtue
Remember/reflect ones virturs equal the Devas
Having given causes, one gains concentration. Not having given causes, trying to concentrate by effort will always be just developing wrong concentration.
Useless to invest in a roof when foundation is not given.
Duties first: this is not a path for lazyness's fruits. Not the path of demanding and claims.

Observe the breath carefully - in/out - rising/falling - long/short breaths
train in the breath this way, until mindfulness is achieved. Practice:
mindfulness of the body (kaya);
mindfulness of feelings or sensations (vedanā);
mindfulness of mind or consciousness (citta); and.
mindfulness of dhammās.
As a result one should develop clarity of mind, alertness, clear thinking as a result. As the saying goes: "Cooler heads prevail" - we should develop a cooler head.
If you can't feel yourself breathing via body, sensations, mind, dhammas, then we come back to the mindfulness, regulating mindfulness to follow the breath in these four bases. Just feeling the in/out breath with body alone should be sufficient to feel the cooling effect. This is not insignificant, stay with it.
Study the suttas - Ānāpānasati - Satipaṭṭhāna
Check your practice against these texts - it should work.
Download Insight Timer for your smart phone
Load the Presets with 15 minute, 20 minute, etc. sessions
Use the unguided meditation method
track your daily, weekly, monthly progress, aiming for stability and getting established.
Or get an actual timer and a meditation bell. It's good to have a zafu. All the props do actually help. Go to sangha meetings. Over time, increase your daily sessions, the more you give, the more you get.

really, it's worth the effort to cultivate the practice enough to overcome the frustration level

Why is this?

The goal of attention meditation is to increase the length of time you can successfully focus on your meditation object (the breath) without breaking that attention. The gauge you should use for success here is not how often you meditate, but how long you hold your attention during those sessions. There is nothing wrong with skipping a day or two, for the goal is not to sit consistently. The goal is to extend the length of time you can concentrate on an object of your focus.

Would changing the type of meditation help?

If you change the type of meditation you are doing, you will be no longer cultivating your skills in concentration. If your goal is to increase your concentration abilities in order to gain insights into the true nature of experience and therefore work towards becoming enlightened, I do not suggest you switch. If your goal is not enlightenment but something else, there is no problem with you switching the type of meditation you do.

Would this affective benefit motivate a meditative practice?

If your goal is to simply sit and meditate, no matter what the type, it would make sense to switch. A type of meditation you enjoy will most likely be one that you come back to more frequently. But if your goal is to become enlightened, the type of meditation you do is very important, and I do not suggest switching. Instead, I would suggest re-examining what the goal of your sessions are, and change how you measure a successful succession of sessions.

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


text:
Meditating on Public Transport
I saw there was one post about mindfulness on public transport. However, I felt these posts dealt with being mindful on public transport rather than meditation. I wonder:

Is meditation itself possible/recommended on public transport?
Would the quality of such meditation, if lesser, diminish the quality of general meditative practice?

Meditating on Public Transport
Is meditation itself possible/recommended on public transport?

Proper practice revolves around an integration of mindfulness meditation into daily life. Sitting (cushion) meditation practice is meant to develop mindfulness to such a degree that it can be transferred into daily life and ultimately into constant mindfulness until one can ultimately become free from Samsara. Walking meditation is another great way of bridging ones practice into daily life.
Meditation in gradually noisier environments will be challenging but that's the idea. If one only practices at home but can't use the practice outside of ones sitting practice, then it's not beneficial.
It's beneficial to meditate everywhere and all the time.
As an example; when I have patient consultation, I'm mindful of my abdomen rising and falling with each breath, the feeling of my lips moving when talking, the sound of my own voice, the seeing that goes on when seeing a patient, the feeling of pressure from sitting on a chair, the sound of birds chirping outside etc. One object at a time.
Even though it might be difficult to practice in public transport it should be done and with time it will become effortless. Don't worry about the quality it will become refined with practice. It's like learning to shoot a bow. With time and consistent practice one will finetune the movements, reduce energy consumption and eventually be able to do it effortlessly. It's the same with meditation practice in noisy environments.
At some point the mind will begin to incline towards being mindful due to the purity and simplicity of being in the present moment. When that happens there will be a strong momentum driving the mind towards mindfulness and away from unmindfulness. At that point it begins to become effortless. One does not have to apply and direct (vitakka and vichara) the mind anymore.

Would the quality of such meditation, if lesser, diminish the quality of general meditative practice?

No, never. It will build, develop, cultivate and add to "general meditation practice".
A doctor who specializes in a field will be good but a doctor who specializes in several fields will be even better.
A fighter who specializes in one school of martial arts will be good. A fighter who specializes in several schools of martial arts will be even better.

I practice Samatha meditation when I am traveling on the plane.
If shot distance travel it is better to practice Vipassana otherwise you might miss the place to get off from the bus.
Buddhists are expected to practice mindfulness throughout the day.

I felt these posts dealt with being mindful on public transport rather
  than meditation

I don't feel like there is necessarily a distinction between being mindful and meditating. In my experience, the goal of meditation is to get insight, and the way to practice meditation is to be mindful of what happen in the present moment in the frames of reference, which are the body, the mind, feelings and dharmas.
That being said, the context and the environnement surrounding you matters a lot, and you can take advantage of that. There will not be the same kind of activity in your mind if you are on a public transport rather than in your room. There is stuff to be aware of that can happen only when you are on public transport, so don't miss your chance to get insights by being distracted !
The whole purpose of formal meditation in a quiet place is to train yourself to be able to meditate anywhere throughout your day, you have to do it otherwise you will not make any progress. As the musician knows that doing his scales everyday is necessary to make music but is not music itself, we should know that formal meditation is only a mean to an end. So to answer your questions :

Is meditation itself possible/recommended on public transport?

Yes ! Go for it any way you like.

Would the quality of such meditation, if lesser, diminish the quality
  of general meditative practice?

If you feel weird while doing it fearing what people might think of you, or unable to calm down your mind, great ! Finding out ways to relax in the present moment in these difficult conditions will enhance your ability to meditate in any situations.
Meditation is a skill that develops over time. Don't worry about the quality of your meditation. You might not feel like this is going anywhere when you meditate in awful conditions, but keep at it and you will be rewarded !


text:
What happens if you drop and break a plate of fruit from the Buddha's altar?
What happens if you drop and break a plate of fruit from the Buddha's altar?

You will have to pick up the pieces and clean the mess. Kind regards!

Is it bad karma? Well, karma is about intention. If you did not intentionally drop and break the plate of fruit, then there is no consequence for you, from the perspective of karma.
Is it a bad omen? Definitely not. The Buddha did not teach his followers to believe in omens. In fact, we should not cling to unskillful thoughts like superstitious belief in omens.
How should I interpret the incident? All conditioned things are impermanent (sabbe sankhara anicca). Everything that arises, must eventually cease. That applies to the plate of fruit too. If you leave the fruit where it is, in due time it will rot and dry up, even without your intervention.
What should I do? It would be skillful, virtuous and thoughtful of you to clean up any mess that you created, even if done accidentally.
What should I not do? You should not carry remorse or regret for breaking the plate. It's unskillful to cling to remorse. Instead, you should resolve to be more careful next time - that's skillful. You should also not deceive others into thinking that you did not break the plate, as lying is against one of the five precepts.

What happens is the possible realisation of impermanence & the true nature of rupa (materiality).
SN 22.79 says: "Why is it called rupa (form)? Because it is deformed or broken (ruppati), thus it is called form (rupa)".
There was a Thai leader & teacher of many monks named Ajahn Chah. who had a drinking glass. He would always tell his disciples the drinking glass is already broken.
Similarly, it is the true & inherent nature (sabhava) of the altar plate that it must inevitably break (sooner or later).

You should take responsibility.
Someone commented ...

"You will have to pick up the pieces and clean the mess.

That's an answer of a person who has at least such as shame and a feeling of responsibility for his deeds; but nevertheless, it's not the place to play "the cool one" if hurting somebody else.
One may read or listen to "Sensitivity through generosity"
It's a very praiseworthy reaction to feel remorse, even if having unintentionally broken someone else's possession or something another loves. And it is praiseworthy, even if would not having a debt to repay something, to simply use such occasions for training one's generosity -- without long asking who, and why.
Bringing Ajahn Chah here in the right way into this, he said:

"When you see some dirt, sweep it away. When there is something to do, do it. No need to argue around who's duty."

Don't just imitate equanimity (by saying for example "it's just rupa"), or use that as an excuse not to work on the very basics, on defilements.
(Note that this is not given to make anybody a favor, for exchange, trade, gain and bonds but dedicated for release not only from fools but also from debts in this world)


text:
Remaining in first jhana, while walking, talking, eating
Is it possible to attain the first jhana, then remain in first jhana, while walking, talking, eating and performing other daily activities?
Or does one remain in first jhana only while in sitting meditation, then he has to leave the jhana and meditation, before he is able to perform daily activities such as walking, talking and eating?

From AN3.63:

With the giving up of pleasure and pain, and the ending of former happiness and sadness, I enter and remain in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness.
When I’m practicing like this, if I walk meditation, at that time I walk like the gods.
When I’m practicing like this, if I stand, at that time I stand like the gods.
When I’m practicing like this, if I sit, at that time I sit like the gods.
When I’m practicing like this, if I lie down, at that time I lie down like the gods.

There are some who find the above an indication that walking meditation in jhana is possible. There are also those who find the above impossible given the depth of absorption in which senses recede and physical processes such as breathing stop.
There is also the matter of the Vinaya, which prohibits public discussion of attainments. To illustrate the difficulty of translation for those bound by the Vinaya, note that where Bhante Sujato uses "walking meditation", Bhikkhu Bodhi translates the section on walking in AN3.63 with more ambiguity. Both are bound by the Vinaya:

Then, brahmin, when I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion my walking back and forth is celestial.

Discussion of jhana attainments is problematic given the prohibitions of the Vinaya. In other words, the monastics who understand jhana are forbidden from discussing it. Therefore, this question can never be answered definitively in a public forum such as this.

Thanks! AN 3.63 is interesting.

Actually, the parajika regarding claims of jhana are only for those who make such claims not having attained that state e.g. https://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227/4pk.htm

@000 I think monks aren't supposed to claim superior attainments even if that's true, to a lay audience e.g. https://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227/92pa.htm#ch-----8

Interesting.  Especially when you consider that laymen are more likely to be interested in jhana practice these days!  ;-)

It's possible to reach Jhanic states while not formal sitting, yet can be certain "dangerous". (while not serious, actually serious warning). Walking is perfect, but one should not train such in a "dangerous" environment for one self and others but only when already walking renouncing ways.
A will of change (sitting, walking, standing, lying), how ever, requires to leave the state, but if good trained, quick may continue.
It might occur, but would not be prompted by one knowing what he is doing, while doing other things concentrated.
[Note: not for trade, exchange, stacks and gains binding to world but liberation given]

According to Sutta Jhana formula, you have to sit cross-legged and keeping your body erects, keeping your mindfulness to the front when you are in first Jhana. In first Jhana you have abandoned five hindrances and acquired five Jhana factors vitakka, vicara, pithi, sukha and ekagata. your speech has ceased and no body pain.
Hence walking, talking and eating do not satisfy the Jhana formula.

Do you have any sutta quote where the rupa jhanas explicitly require sitting cross-legged with body erect? Please provide quote. Thanks.

I have posted this topic in Dhamma Wheel.https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33930

Perhaps you can stay in Arahattaphla Samadhi while you are walking, talking and eating.

No, it's impossible.  That isn't to say that you can't practice walking meditation (or any other technique) in a way that develops the five jhana factors, however.  These can be cultivated to quite a significant degree especially if they are done as a supplement to seated meditation.  Unfortunately, it's simply not possible to develop one-pointedness to the degree required by full jhana when one's attention has to be split between the object of meditation and the act of walking.  By definition, one-pointedness cannot coexist in the midst of multiple objects of attention.

The First Jhana is just sustained thought and attention on the object, with some sukkha (pleasure, bliss), and some piiti (rapture, ecstacy) which are
"First dhyāna: the first dhyana can be entered when one is secluded from sensuality and unskillful qualities, due to withdrawal and right effort. There is pīti ("rapture") and non-sensual sukha ("pleasure") as the result of seclusion, while vitarka-vicara ("discursive thought") continues" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhy%C4%81na_in_Buddhism
"you will be overcome with rapture, euphoria, ecstasy, delight. These are all English words that are used to translate the Pali word piti. Perhaps the best English word for piti is “glee.” Piti is a primarily physical sensation that sweeps you powerfully into an altered state. But piti is not solely physical; as the suttas say, “On account of the presence of piti, there is mental exhilaration.” In addition to the physical energy and mental exhilaration, the piti will be accompanied by an emotional sensation of joy and happiness. The Pali word for this joy/happiness is sukha, the opposite of dukkha (pain, suffering). And if you can remain undistractedly focused on this experience of piti and sukha, that is the first jhana." Leigh Brasington - https://www.lionsroar.com/entering-the-jhanas/
It must be possible to experience these during sitting, standing, lying down, and walking, because they are standard positions for meditation. Eating is also used for meditation so that also. Conversing activates the discrimination mind, rather than the mind moving towards equanimity, so it will diminish the effect of the First Jhana. It is excellent to stabilize samadhi by doing these things, whilst in jhana, but preferably with Noble Silence.
"Huisi taught two different forms of the lotus samadhi. The "practice devoid of characteristics", or the practice of ease and bliss, is based on the fourteenth chapter of the Lotus Sutra.[22][23] Huisi explains, "While in the very midst of phenomena [the practitioner discerns that] mental characteristics are quiescent and extinguished and ultimately do not arise. (...) He is constantly immersed in all the profound and wonderful dhyana absorptions because in all activities - walking, standing, sitting, lying down, eating or speaking - his mind is always settled [in samadhi]." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanyue_Huisi


text:
Can anyone follow Buddhism if the person has had drinks & ate non-veg in the past?
Can anyone follow a Buddhist life-style or philosophy even If the person has been violent or ate non-veg in the past or has drank wine.
If yes then what are the beginner steps?

As long as a person gives up violence and drugs & alcohol, they can be a Buddhist.
The ideal step is to clearly see why violence & drugs/alcohol are harmful and do not bring happiness.
As for vegetarianism, it is not strictly Buddhist, even though it helps nurture compassion.

Yes. You can become a Buddhist, no matter what you were in the past.
In many schools of Buddhism, it is not compulsory to be a vegetarian, as long as the meat that you consume was dead (and usually frozen) long before you encountered it.
The first step is for you to understand the basics of Buddhism. You can learn the basics of Buddhism by reading the booklet "Without And Within" by Ajahn Jayasaro.
The second step is for you to take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma or Dharma (teachings of the Buddha) and the Sangha (the "ideal" monastic order of sincere enlightenment seekers). You don't need a ceremony for this. This is basically you deciding that you will trust the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha to lead you on the path to freedom.
The third step is for you to voluntarily undertake the five precepts, which are basic training rules and not prohibitions. You undertake the five precepts because you believe that they are good for you, not because you're forced to. Refraining from alcohol and drugs is the fifth precept.
If you cannot perfectly fulfill the five precepts, it's okay, but you should try your best to stick to it. If you broke a precept, don't be remorseful - just endeavour to stick to the precepts next time.
The fourth step is for you to learn more deeply about virtues (sila) in Buddhism (including Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood) and also try to follow them.
The fifth step is to deepen your Right View further, by studying the Dhamma (teachings) in detail. Please see this answer on how to proceed.

Seeing ones fault of the past (note that just eating meet is actually not harmful as long not active (by mind, speech, deeds) involved in killing, but of cause wishing or agree that beings are killed on ones desire after it, would have been), hearing the Dhamma of the Buddha, rejoicing on virtue, taking precepts, no matter how much wrong has been done in the past, wise people take refuge into the Tripple Gems (The Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha (the monastic Disciples)), and by doing so one is right on the change into another Ancestor-ship that leads upward and beyond. Just by this, if coming form pure heat, one has already grown to "be" one of the less saints in this world.
muditā
To take refuge by heart, based on joy in virtue and metta, is not at all a "beginner" step, but connected with much scarifies in the past to ever come so far and advanced Upanissaya (Paramis).
It's beloved to share the famous story of Angulimala, the serial killer in this relation.
Since not easy finding proper access for many, here also an opportunity for those in far outer-lands: Refuge and requesting Silas online.
[Note, not given for trade, exchange, stacks and other bonds in the world but for liberation]

Buddha taught "skillful means" or upaya-kaushalya, and the precept is about not killing animals for food. He said that if a monk was offered meat - that's okay. But to sacrifice an animal for the monk, he was refuse it. The general accepted practice is to never kill animals, buy meat, fish, poultry, or to prepare food with it. Not harming the animals and not supporting the harm of animals. Not all Buddhists do this, however. It is one of the precepts, but many lay followers only follow precepts for special occasions. Being a devotee, a servant to Buddha, is different and the precepts are followed. Like a monk (bhikku) or lay follower (upasaka). Or attending a retreat, pilgrimage, or similar situations. Alcohol is pretty much the same, but there's some distinction between consuming alcohol (5th precept) and being intoxicated/drunk. A drunk loses conscious control over their behavior, and is more severe that simply drinking a bit. Either way its against the precept. It is good to train ourselves in "skillful means" which reaps many benefits.

There are many types of Buddhists, with a wide range of faith and skill in the practice of the Buddha's teachings.
Many Buddhist consume alcohol and eat meat. Buddhist are not expected to consume alcohol even though many Buddhist followers consume alcohol.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=18611&p=261588&hilit=

I believe the fact that the Buddha spent his efforts teaching the path to enlightenment to the world tells us that beginning on the path is possible for anyone who honestly wishes to do so. If it was not possible, he would not have bothered to teach us the way. The only requirement seems to be the desire to start on the path and do the work. To my knowledge, he never said that anyone who was honestly seeking enlightenment was blocked from achieving it by their past. Harder for some, perhaps, but no one blocked.
By your question, you seem to show that desire. So in a manner, you seem to have already taken the first steps on that path.
As for the best way to continue, I'd suggest it might depend on the type of person you are.
If you are a 'book person' who learns by reading and studying texts, reading the suttas published in many ways (including free on the internet) might be a good way to start. (Searching this exchange for 'best texts to learn from' might also be a good way to find effective sources.)
If you are not, seek out a local monk or teacher who has a reputation as an honest and effective individual others have learned from. Due to the widespread nature of Buddhism throughout the world, you probably can find one if you look hard enough.
Personally, (and this might be controversial to some), I would not worry, at this time in your search, about the type of Buddhist teacher (Mahayana vs. Theravada vs. ?) to seek out. Unless you already have some ideas as to which you are more attracted to, that nuance you can figure out later in your learning. In my humble opinion, it is more important that you begin your general learning of the Buddha's teachings; and, not let your concern about your past stop you.
Best wishes on your journey.


text:
Nimitta - sutta references
Please provide references from the Pali suttas on nimitta.
Are they mentioned in the context of jhana?
In the article below, it is mentioned that nimitta is found in the Anapanasati Sutta, but I couldn't find it. Is it there?
In the article "Stepping Towards Enlightenment", Ajahn Brahm wrote about nimitta:

THE NINTH STEP OF the Anapanasati Sutta describes a very important
  creature that comes to visit the still, silent mind—a nimitta. Pali
  for “sign,” a nimitta is a reflection of the mind. This step is called
  citta-patisamvedi, “experiencing the mind,” and is achieved when one
  lets go of the body, thought, and the five senses (including awareness
  of the breath) so completely that only a beautiful mental sign, a
  nimitta, remains. This pure mental object is a real object in the
  landscape of the mind, and when it appears for the first time it is
  extremely strange. For most meditators this mental joy, is perceived
  as a beautiful light. But it is not a light. The eyes are closed, and
  the sight consciousness has long been turned off. Other meditators
  choose to describe this first appearance of mind in terms of a
  physical sensation such as intense tranquility or ecstasy. It is
  perceived as a light or a feeling because this imperfect description
  is the best that perception can offer.

Please provide references from the Pali suttas on nimitta. voice.suttacentral.net allows you to search the Pali suttas mentioning both nimitta and jhana. The listed suttas are sorted by number of matches.

SN 35.120:
Sujato

...And how does someone guard the sense doors?
  -- When a mendicant sees a sight with the eyes, they don’t get caught up in the features and details.
  (Idhāvuso, bhikkhu cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā na nimittaggāhī hoti nānubyañjanaggāhī.)

Bodhi

...And how, friend, does one guard the doors of the sense faculties?
  -- Here, having seen a form with the eye, a bhikkhu does not grasp its signs and features.

This is not in the context of jhana. The word seems to be used synonymically with "feature" or "detail". The other word, nānubyañjana (Sanskrit anuvyañjana) means "a secondary or minor characteristic, a secondary attribute, mark or sign".

Also, MN138
Sujato:

Take a mendicant who sees a sight with their eyes [, hears a sound etc]. Their consciousness follows after the features of that sight [sound, odor etc.] and gets tied, attached, and fettered to gratification in its features. So their consciousness is said to be scattered and diffused externally.
  (Idhāvuso, bhikkhuno cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā rūpanimittaanusāri viññāṇaṃ hoti rūpanimittassādagadhitaṃ rūpanimittassādavinibandhaṃ rūpanimittassādasaṃyojanasaṃyuttaṃ bahiddhā viññāṇaṃ vikkhittaṃ visaṭanti vuccati.)

Here, Mahākaccāna elaborates on a phrase uttered by Buddha that "A mendicant should examine in any such a way that their consciousness is neither scattered and diffused externally nor stuck internally, and they are not anxious because of grasping." Here, the piece about nimitta is a detailed exposition of how consciousness gets "scattered and diffused externally".
The consciousness "follows after the features" of a rupa, and gets "tied, attached, and fettered" to gratification in the rupa's features.
Here again, the meaning seems to be that nimitta is a specific attribute of a visual object, sound, odor, flavor, tactile sensation, or a mental phenomenon (dharma).

Also, in Visuddhimagga:

All [saññā] has the characteristic of recognition [sañjānana]; its property is the making of nimitta that is a condition of recognizing again, 'this is the very same thing' [...] its manifestation is the producing of conviction by virtue of a nimitta that has been accordingly learnt - [...] its basis is whatever object that has come near - like the recognition [saññā] 'people' that arises for young animals in respect of scarecrows.

Here it becomes clear that nimitta can play role of an identifying feature that the mind learns to associate with an object, in order to recognize it again.

In SN 46.51 Buddha speaks about nimitta in context of two of the five lower fetters, sensual desire and ill-will:

And what fuels the arising of sensual desire, or, when it has arisen, makes it increase and grow?
  There is the feature of beauty.
  (Atthi, bhikkhave, subhanimittaṃ.)
  Frequent improper attention to that fuels the arising of sensual desire, or, when it has arisen, makes it increase and grow.

In MN 5, the word is used in a similar context:

Take the case of the person who doesn’t have a blemish [sāṅgaṇa - issue, flaw] but does not understand it. You can expect that they will focus on the feature of beauty, and because of that, lust will infect their mind.
  Tatrāvuso, yvāyaṃ puggalo anaṅgaṇova samāno ‘natthi me ajjhattaṃ aṅgaṇan’ti yathābhūtaṃ nappajānāti, tassetaṃ pāṭikaṅkhaṃ—subhanimittaṃ manasi karissati, tassa subhanimittassa manasikārā rāgo cittaṃ anuddhaṃsessati;

P.S.
As you can see, in most if not all cases, the word is used in context of phenomenology of perception and the resulting emotional response - not in context of jhanas. And yet, in Theravada tradition there is a definite case of using the word to refer to experiences arising in meditation. Why?
Here is my theory:
One of the key doctrines the Buddha established is the doctrine of this-that conditionality. In my understanding, this doctrine does not refer to mere causality, but to the mutual co-definition of the object and its counterpart. For example, when we identify an object, we implicitly identify its background. When we identify "top" we implicitly identify the middle reference point etc.
This mechanism is behind everything: The 2nd and 3rd Noble Truths define suffering as counterpart of craving. Dependent Origination relies on this-that-conditionality for explanation of how development of the mind that recognizes external forms and learns to act in pursuit of them leads to development of Self as the counterpart.
So, in context of meditation, I think the idea is for the meditator to learn to see both the sign and its counterpart at the same time. This counterpart is dubbed "reflection of the thought" or "the mirror". Once this ability is acquired and refined, the meditator can directly see his or her issues that lead to suffering, and completely overcome them.

In DN Subhasutta, the 6 SatiSamvara (NimittagGāhī) is Sīla but Ānanda included it to AriyaSamādhi because this Bright light (PatibhāgaNimitta) can overlay the KāmaNimitta. If you recite this Sutta with understanding each character relations everyday for years, you can understand what I explained by yourself.

Fully sustained attention on beautiful breath
DN 10 SubhaSutta (I recommend this sutta to be the reference of Jhana because it is long enough and step by step. Notice, some part of this sutta is same as  KāyagatāsatiSutta which I refer to Ānāpānassati above):

‘And what, Ānanda, is this so noble body of doctrine regarding self-concentration (Samādhi) in praise of which the Venerable Gotama was wont to speak; to which he used to incite the folk, in which he established them, and made them firm?’
Restraint of the Sense Faculties
“And how, young Brahman, does the bhikkhu guard the doors of his sense faculties? Herein, young Brahman, having seen a form with the eye, the bhikkhu does not grasp at the sign or the details. Since, if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye, evil unwholesome states such as covetousness and grief might assail him, he practises restraint, guards the faculty of the eye, and achieves restraint over the faculty of the eye.
...

DN 10 SubhaSutta for Experiencing the beautiful Nimmita.

“Having abandoned covetousness for the world, he dwells with a mind free from covetousness; he purifies his mind from covetousness. Having abandoned ill will and hatred, he dwells with a benevolent mind, sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings; he purifies his mind from ill will and hatred. Having abandoned dullness and drowsiness, he dwells perceiving light, mindful and clearly comprehending; he purifies his mind from dullness and drowsiness. Having abandoned restlessness and worry, he dwells at ease within himself, with a peaceful mind; he purifies his mind from restlessness and worry. Having abandoned doubt, he dwells as one who has passed beyond doubt, unperplexed about wholesome states; he purifies his mind from doubt.

Remember someone may say this light is sunlight and try to refer sutta or commentary. Don't trust him because this is normal for the concentration meditation practitioner who practice hard enough only. They sit 12+ hours everyday for many months or years to get this light which can shine in their mind trough the dark night. It is shining breathe or meditation's object, not sunlight. Today, many of them have not been laying on a bed for 20 years. I know at lease 1 person.
Why this light is important?
DN 10 SubhaSutta (again):

Quite secluded from sense pleasures (escape from object), secluded from unwholesome states (escape from object's unwholesome recognition), he enters and dwells in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought and filled with the rapture and happiness born of seclusion. He drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses his body with this rapture and happiness born of seclusion, so that there is no part of his entire body which is not suffused by this rapture and happiness.

There are only 3 objects: sense pleasures (5 strings and associate), non sense pleasures, and illusion.
Sense pleasures person can't know non sense pleasure object and it's illusion until he can attain it.
What is non sense pleasure object and it's illusion?
Non sense pleasure object: Rūpa-jhāna/Bhava, Arūpa-jhāna/Bhava, Nibbāna and 8 Super-mundane paths.
it's illusion: It's concept and name, such  Rūpa-jhāna person and "Rūpa-jhāna person" word which refer to the real  Rūpa-jhāna (we can know  Rūpa-jhāna person and word but we can't refer it to the real Rūpa-jhāna).
So, the only left way to get "Quite secluded from sense pleasures (escape from object)" is developing sense pleasures illusion to be non sense pleasures illusion of RūpaJhāna (bright light) by meditate mind's quality. Better minds is lighter light. The lighter light can overwhelm below in DN 10 SubhaSutta (again) (the practitioner practice below  in moral discipline but it turn into professional/master by the light, patibhāga-nimitta because this light overwhelm "the sign or the details"):

‘And what, Ānanda, is this so noble body of doctrine regarding self-concentration (Samādhi) in praise of which the Venerable Gotama was wont to speak; to which he used to incite the folk, in which he established them, and made them firm?’
“And how, young Brahman, does the bhikkhu guard the doors of his sense faculties? Herein, young Brahman, having seen a form with the eye, the bhikkhu does not grasp at the sign (Nimitta) or the details. Since, if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye, evil unwholesome states such as covetousness and grief might assail him, he practises restraint, guards the faculty of the eye, and achieves restraint over the faculty of the eye.

Another, important of this light
DN 10 SubhaSutta (again):

“Further, young Brahman, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous passing away of joy and grief, the bhikkhu enters and dwells in the fourth jhāna, which is neither pleasant nor painful and contains mindfulness fully purified by equanimity. He sits suffusing his body with a pure bright mind, so that there is no part of his entire body not suffused by a pure bright (pari-odāta) mind.

This mind is bright because it's own power. The mind is not shining because mind has no color. However, this mind power create bright object and bright location base, hadaya-vatthu. It also turn the practitioner body bright as well, good health (depending on how strong of unwholesome karma in the past).
This bright light is for 8 Vijjā
DN 10 SubhaSutta (again):
Again, this is not a bright color mind. Mind has no color. This is a mind which has bright object and bright location base.

“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright (pari-odāta), unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision. He understands thus: ‘This is my body, having material form, composed of the four primary elements, originating from father and mother, built up out of rice and gruel, impermanent, subject to rubbing and pressing, to dissolution and dispersion. And this is my consciousness, supported by it and bound up with it.’
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body having material form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not lacking any faculties.
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of supernormal power. He exercises the various modes of supernormal power: having been one, he becomes many and having been many, he becomes one; he appears and vanishes; he goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space; he dives in and out of the earth as if it were water; he walks on water without sinking as if it were earth; sitting cross-legged he travels through space like a winged bird; with his hand he touches and strokes the sun and the moon, so mighty and powerful; he exercises mastery over the body as far as the Brahma-world.
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the divine ear-element. With the divine ear-element, which is purified and surpasses the human, he hears both kinds of sound, the divine and the human, those which are distant and those which are near.
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the knowledge of encompassing the minds (of others). He understands the minds of other beings and persons, having encompassed them with his own mind. He understands a mind with lust as a mind with lust and a mind without lust as a mind without lust; he understands a mind with hatred as a mind with hatred and a mind without hatred as a mind without hatred; he understands a mind with delusion as a mind with delusion and a mind without delusion as a mind without delusion; he understands a contracted mind as a contracted mind and a distracted mind as a distracted mind; he understands an exalted mind as an exalted mind and an unexalted mind as an unexalted mind; he understands a surpassable mind as a surpassable mind and an unsurpassable mind as an unsurpassable mind; he understands a concentrated mind as a concentrated mind and an unconcentrated mind as an unconcentrated mind; he understands a liberated mind as a liberated mind and an unliberated mind as an unliberated mind.
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the knowledge of recollecting past lives. He recollects his numerous past lives, that is, one birth, two births, three, four, or five births; ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty births; a hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred thousand births; many aeons of world contraction, many aeons of world expansion, many aeons of world contraction and expansion, (recollecting): ‘There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance; such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my span of life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance; such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my span of life. Passing away from that state I re-arose here.’ Thus he recollects his numerous past lives in their modes and their details.
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the passing away and reappearance of beings. With the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and reappearing—inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate—and he understands how beings fare according to their kamma, thus: ‘These beings—who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views, and undertook actions governed by wrong views—with the breakup of the body, after death, have reappeared in the plane of misery, the bad destinations, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings—who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, and mind, who did not revile the noble ones, held right views, and undertook actions governed by right views—with the breakup of the body, after death, have reappeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.’ Thus with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and reappearing—inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate—and he understands how beings fare in accordance with their kamma.
...
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the destruction of the cankers. He understands as it really is: ‘This is suffering.’ He understands as it really is: ‘This is the origin of suffering.’ He understands as it really is: ‘This is the cessation of suffering.’ He understands as it really is: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’ He understands as it really is: ‘These are the cankers.’ He understands as it really is: ‘This is the origin of the cankers.’ He understands as it really is: ‘This is the cessation of the cankers.’ He understands as it really is: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of the cankers.’
...

nimitta
'Having abandoned home,
living free from society,
    the sage
in villages
creates no intimacies.
Rid of sensual passions, free
from yearning,
he wouldn't engage with people
in quarrelsome debate.' Haliddakani Sutta
{Possible not given for anybody}

The Hāliddikānisutta does include the word nimitta -- not explicitly "in the context of jhana" though -- it says e.g. "One who is in bondage to the distraction of the society of form-impressions is said to be living in society" (I think Ven. Sujato's translation of that is, "Being attached to migrating from settlement to settlement in pursuit of sights, one is called a migrant going from settlement to settlement."), whereas the Tathagata eliminated that. It's a single (complex) compound word there, i.e., Rūpanimittaniketavisāravinibandhā.

In the article below, it is mentioned that nimitta is found in the Anapanasati Sutta, but I couldn't find it. Is it there?
Yes and no.

The word nimitta doesn't appear in the Pali version of the sutta's text
The word appears 44 times in Piya Tan's analysis of MN 118 (including but not only in footnotes which reference or paraphrase Ajahn Brahm)

Commentaries use Nimitta in DN Subhasutta to refer to the light (āloka, pariyodāta) in the same Sutta. This light is overlay the Kāma-Nimitta. This is known only when you recite this Pāli everyday with understanding each word over years.

Jhana nimitta is not mentioned in the suttas because the real jhana nimitta is connected to ekkaggata. The Buddha mentioned ekkaggata. The Buddha did not want deluded people thinking any bright light nimitta is jhana. The real nimitta is glued to & overrides the thought faculty of the mind. It is the sign of and a feature of ekkaggata.
This said, Ajahn Brahm does not know anything about Anapanasati because it seems he was a deva that immediately entered jhana. Whatever Ajahn Brahm says about the sixteen steps of Anapanasati should be ignored. It seems he does not know what they are and he has never experienced them.
It is illogical for Ajahn Brahma to say nimitta is step 9 when step 5 & 6 are rapture & happiness because the five factors of the 1st jhana, which includes ekkaggata nimitta, as Ajahn Brahm himself teaches, arise together.
The Commentaries correctly refer to three levels of concentration (which Ajahn Brahm dismisses), namely, preparatory concentration, neighbourhood concentration & attainment concentration.
Jhana is attainment concentration. Anapanasati is neighbourhood concentration.
If Ajahn Brahm was logical, he would not say there is no awareness of breathing in jhana but then say step 9 of anapanasati is jhana (because step 9 is done with awareness of breathing).
Please remember this answer as the correct explanation.
Also, please remember, puthujjana should not make more bad kamma by preaching there is no jhana nimitta. There is a jhana nimitta. While there is no such thing as "reincarnation/rebirth", there is a jhana nimitta. Individuals, such as Leigh Brasington , in the other post about jhana have not entered jhana (based on their descriptions of jhana).

Hi DD! Who, would you say, has its teachings the closest to the Buddha's about attainment of Jhana? I abandoned Samadhi training because of the sometimes contradictory methods given by some teachers. You have said that "letting go" is part of the orginal teachings, which is part of Ajahn Brahm's method. Which teacher teaches a meditation method as close as possible to the original sutta teachings?

I'm aware that the best thing to do is to read the suttas directly. But I'm kinda a slow learner, so I'd really appreaciate any information on handbook whose style (made for beginners and people unacquainted to the Dhamma) resembles Thanissaro or Brahm's books. Thanks in advance!

There is not much in the suttas to read. SN 48.9 and SN 48.10 describe the "letting go" method to reach jhana. Therefore, imo, Ajahn Brahm is the closest; for jhana. On Anapanasati, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa is by far the closest. As for the nimitta, it is not mentioned in the suttas but as i posted, it is real but part of ekkaggatta. Regards

Commentaries use Nimitta in DN Subhasutta to refer to the light (āloka, pariyodāta) in the same Sutta. This light is overlay the Kāma-Nimitta. This is known only when you recite this Pāli everyday with understanding each word over years.

This is the first time I've seen mention of "light" in describing concentration practice in the suttas. I have personally been visited by nimitta but have not been able to sustain it -- for the same reasons in this sutta: distraction, excitement, etc.
MN 128:

“Good, good, Anuruddha and friends! But as you live diligently like this, have you achieved any superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones, a meditation at ease?”
“Well, sir, while meditating diligent, keen, and resolute, we perceive both light and vision of forms. But before long the light and the vision of forms vanish. We haven’t worked out the reason for that.”
“Well, you should work out the reason for that. Before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I too perceived both light and vision of forms. But before long my light and vision of forms vanished. It occurred to me: ‘What’s the cause, what’s the reason why my light and vision of forms vanish?’ It occurred to me: ‘Doubt arose in me, and because of that my immersion fell away. When immersion falls away, the light and vision of forms vanish. I’ll make sure that doubt will not arise in me again.’
Etc... on through the hindrances interfering with seeing light.

Again, MN 128:
While meditating diligent, keen, and resolute, I perceived limited light and saw limited forms, or I perceived limitless light and saw limitless forms. And this went on for a whole night, a whole day, even a whole night and day. I thought: ‘What is the cause, what is the reason for this?’ It occurred to me: ‘When my immersion is limited, then my vision is limited, and with limited vision I perceive limited light and see limited forms. But when my immersion is limitless, then my vision is limitless, and with limitless vision I perceive limitless light and see limitless forms. And this goes on for a whole night, a whole day, even a whole night and day.’...

MN 128 is about the development of psychic powers and not about jhana nimitta

In the SN47.8 it's something like "taking note of a sign" in general terms.

They take the hint.
So taṃ nimittaṃ uggaṇhāti
https://suttacentral.net/sn47.8/en/sujato

As in a private chef taking note of master's preference; or a monk taking note of the inclinations of his mind.
Might not be relevant to your question tho.

You should refer to DN SubhaSutta because Nimitta and bright light (āloka,pariyodāta) is in this same sutta. And by this Sutta, you can refer to Pitaka Memorizer such as PaAuk Tawya too.


text:
First Effort in "Right Effort"
The first effort states to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states
How is this done? How can we prevent something beforehand? By avoiding situations? By trying to be in a rational and/or 'dhammic' frame of mind?
If there is contact with an object, either ignorance or wisdom arises subsequently in response, and AFTER THAT, we can use sati-sampajañña to get rid of the unwholesome state (2nd factor of right effort).
But how is the first factor to be practised?

The following theme for reflection from AN 5.57 (quoted below) can prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states. It encourages shame of evil (hiri) and fear of evil (otappa), which are mentioned as beautiful mental factors in the Abhidhamma.

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
  this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
  should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
  kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
  resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

Isn't that saying karma belongs to you mean that you have a self?

All phenomena is not self. Thinking karma belongs to me and I inherit my karma is a sort of clinging but in this case, it's one of the rare instances of temporary skillful clinging and it's for the purpose of increasing virtue. The same applies to clinging to the Dhamma (teachings). They must eventually be abandoned as one does to a raft after reaching the other shore. Please see this answer.

"to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states": the first in this regard is to do not associate with fools and further might then be learned elsewhere. Most difficult if not training already on the path. So better train right effort in looking after right view, effort and making the Sila section full.
(Not for exchange, stacks and trade but for liberation)

You might be able to answer this from your own experience: why don't you kill people, for example? Why avoid lying, stealing, sexual misconduct, alcohol?
I suppose it's:

Avoiding a situation where that might seem tempting
Not seeking that situation (and therefore never finding it)
Considering the danger in advance (because the dhamma tells you to) so that "that's a danger, I'll avoid doing that" is a "instinctive" reaction when there is any contact with a situation like that (except that I'd guess that isn't "instinct", instead it's training and habit, character)
Using conceit as a tool (e.g. "I don't want to see myself as being the kind of person who can do that kind of thing") -- possibly related to the sense of shame -- for example if the feeling of beginning to get angry causes the feeling of shame to arise (or if not shame then compassion, any awareness of the disadvantages), then you'll want to "prevent the arising" of anger.
Having better (more skilful) alternatives to use -- e.g. tell the truth, stay on-topic, or stay silent instead of lying or being "harsh" -- and so on.


text:
Help locating a widespread quote attributed to Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche
This quote is widely attributed to Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche:

The bad news is, you’re falling through the air, nothing to hang on
  to, no parachute. The good news is, there’s no ground.

Among the many instances on the web, the only pointer to an actual citation of Trungpa Rinpoche's work I can find is on page 239 of Sacred Groundlessness: Deepening the Ethics of Mindfulness in the Midst of Global Crisis by Lama Karma, chapter 13 of Handbook of Ethical Foundations of Mindfulness, edited by Stanley, Purser and Singh.
That pageless citation, however, is to The collected works of Chögyam Trungpa (Vol. 8) and seems to be incorrect. I have that book in electronic form, and searches on numerous words and phrases from the quote (ground, parachute, news, etc) do not turn up the quote or anything close. That's the only work of Trungpa Rinpoche cited in that chapter. The only other of his work in the edited volume is his very popular Cutting through Spiritual Materialism, and the quote is not in that either.
My question -- Can anybody identify a work or teaching by Trungpa Rinpoche that contains that quote or something like it, or say with some assurance that he did not actually say or write it. And if it's not his, who did say it?

This sounds very similar to the River Sutta.

David did you ever find the source of the quote?

@Michael Not really -- I think it must have been originally oral or not Trungpa Rinpoche's -- can't find it written anywhere clearly attributed to him.

In Smiling at Fear, in the chapter titled "Facing Yourself", Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche says:

The only way to relax with yourself is to open your heart. Then you
have a chance to see who you are. This experience is like opening a
parachute. When you jump out of an airplane and open the chute, you
are there in the sky by yourself. Sometimes it is very frightening,
but on the other hand, when you take this step, the whole situation,
the whole journey, makes sense. You have to actually do it, and then
you will understand.

Useful -- thanks! But with a parachute. ;)

I think I heard this line in a lecture by Ram Dass, probably from the 80's, that I may still have somewhere on cassette. I don't think he credits Trungpa in the lecture. My guess is that he got the idea from Trungpa and expanded on it. This could explain why it was posted by his association to their FB page in 2013 (link below) yet credited to Trungpa. I would ask them.
Note that Smiling at Fear seems to date the material for "Facing Yourself" to lectures given in 1978.
https://www.facebook.com/babaramdass/photos/a.173194809379259/554033074628762/?type=3

The myth of freedom. This sort of thing is referenced towards the beginning of the book. On egolessness.

Thanks! Do you think you may be able to find the exact quote?

I've searched a PDF of The Myth of Freedom for all the substantive words in the quote -- ground, air, fall, news, parachute -- and cannot find it. I'd love to see anything close, but am still drawing a blank.


text:
Happiness, rebirth, and the death of an arahant
I am new to Buddhism and have a question I am hoping someone can answer.
My understanding is that realizing enlightenment is universally desirable. In other words, it is considered “better” to realize enlightenment than to not (i.e. if a genie ever offered to magically grant someone the realization of enlightenment, no one should say “no”).
When it comes to what happens to arahant after death, my understanding is that Buddha did not give a very concrete answer. I've read a couple of answers such as, "it falls under the category of things that are not known" or "the answer will not end suffering so it is irrelevant” or “arahant are extinguished like a flame”, etc. He did seem to concretely say, however, that arahant are definitely “freed” from the cycle of death and rebirth. And when it comes to what happens to non-arahant after death, he seemed to have a very concrete answer with no hesitation: they/we die and are reborn in an endless cycle of dukkha (suffering).
My understanding is that both happiness and sadness are dukkha (suffering/impermanence). But isn’t happiness generally considered a pleasant feeling? And aren’t some non-arahant more happy than they are sad in life? I’m not saying I’m one of those people, but don’t those people exist? So for them, perhaps an endless cycle of death and rebirth isn’t that bad? Life can be net-positive in happiness for some, can’t it? For those people, does it make sense to exit out of this endless cycle of mostly-pleasant life and instead enter....nothingness? The unknown? Become an extinguished flame?
I have read that arahant experience “happiness” in an unfathomable way, far beyond the happiness of the laymen. Even if that is true, that “happiness” is only guaranteed for the rest of their current life is it not? After that, even the Buddha is not sure what will happen except that they will for sure not be reborn to experience that happiness again in the next life because they will have been freed from the cycle.
If it was just laid out as, “following the eight-fold path will end your suffering in this life” then that would be simple. But then there’s also that added bonus of “if you realize enlightenment, the illusion of ‘you’ will forever be nothing.” But what if I’m not suffering all that much? What if I have a pretty peaceful, happy life? Does it make sense for me to say “yes” to that genie?
Thank you in advance.

Most of your question revolves around your (expected) lack of knowledge about how Buddhism defines suffering, how it defines happiness, and how it explains one or the other occurs. That's why, when you talk about suffering, happiness, and what happens to arahant after death, you should understand the context within which these are seen in Buddhism.
Few thoughts here:

In Buddhism, happiness is rather like Peace, not like Euphoria. Specifically, peace of no-conflict and harmony (not "peace" of death). This peace may be quiet, or active and full of energy, but for one experiencing it everything is just the way it should be, so in that sense it is Peace.
In "normal" life (of non-Buddhists), happiness is not well-defined (which according to Buddhism is a big part of the problem, not knowing what's what - ignorance) - but it is usually either something "awesome over there" people strive for, or the euphoric feeling one experiences upon attaining that, - but few people define happiness as Buddhism does, which is Peace.
Yet, if a worldly person said they were happy with their life on the account of it being peaceful and harmonious (sort of like the idyllic Hobbit life in Shire) - Buddhism would agree that it is a valid (even if limited) form of happiness, so here we are on the same page, however...
As others pointed out, worldly happiness is conditioned on external circumstances, which rarely last long. True, sometimes it does last for an entire life, maybe even for two lives in a row, but I can hardly imagine a place or a family in the world that won't be disturbed with some issues and trouble for more than a few generations.
Even if someone were lucky to have relatively peaceful life, according to Buddhism, an unenlightened mind has tendency for creating suffering for itself, because of its tendency to get attached to various concepts, ideas, and expectations, which inevitably leads to mental micro-suffering when those ideas and expectations are not satisfied.
And if someone were lucky to have parents or mentor or circumstances that taught one to take life as it comes, to accept change, to keep one's mind open, and to not get too attached - and so would stay happy regardless of circumstances - well in that case Buddhism would say that that person or that family is partially Enlightened to whatever degree that they can manage to stay that way.
It's not that "Enlightenment is universally desirable" -- it's just that Nibbana is defined as the state where Happiness/Peace/Harmony are complete and perfect, therefore Enlightenment as the cognitive aspect of Nibbana would only makes sense to reject if one had something higher or more valuable to strive for, but what would that be? What can be better than "absolutely perfect to you"?
When it comes to what happens to arahant after death, Buddha said that "reborn" or "not reborn" is inapplicable. According to Mahayana interpretation, it is not applicable because Enlightenment entails understanding that entities are abstractions imputed by the perceiving mind, and that in reality what we call entities emerge from interaction of multiple processes operating at different scales and layers of organization, and that many, many of these processes keep operating regardless of individual birth or death.
Arahants are "free" from the cycle of rebirth because they no longer identify with any part of it, but the cycle itself keeps going at the macro level. Sentient beings keep dying and getting reborn.
"both happiness and sadness are dukkha" - not really. I mean, it depends on your definition of happiness, right? Complete Perfect Happiness, which is defined as peace, harmony, no-conflict, which is not subject to expiring or ending due to conditions/circumstances - is not dukkha.
"isn’t happiness generally considered a pleasant feeling" - if we think of happiness as something that has various levels then yes, coarse happiness is a feeling, but, according to Buddhism, refined happiness is without the feeling component.
"aren’t some non-arahant more happy than they are sad in life?" - that may be so, so for them, seeking Unconditional Happiness would naturally seem pointless. Until after sometime their external conditions change and they are no longer happy, and so they will be motivated to seek a solution. Buddhism describes this in its metaphor of "six realms" as a "realm of gods".

Most of your question revolves around your (expected) lack of knowledge about how Buddhism defines suffering, how it defines happiness, and how it explains one or the other occurs. In Buddhism (certainly in Mahayana Buddhism), suffering (dukkha) is understood to be a byproduct of mental configuration. So, liberating from suffering and achieving perfect happiness is a function of liberating from ineffective mental configurations. One of these mental configurations is the idea of I as something separate, an entity that moves through space and time. Other such mental configurations involve various over-generalizations, reifications, confusing subjective with objective, phenomenal with ontological, etc.
Therefore, Buddhist solutions to the problem of suffering are in the realm of changing one's mental configuration - which leads to a change in one's behavior, in one's personal environment, and eventually, in one's subjective experience (and indirectly leads to a change in behavior, environment, and subjective experiences of other people).
That's why, when you talk about suffering, happiness, and what happens to arahant after death, you should understand the context within which these are seen in Buddhism. When someone is liberated from death, they are liberated from the context in which death is defined and applies. Along the way, they are liberated from other cases of suffering that come from other such contexts. Yes, someone may have a quiet life for a while and not be interested in any of this, but we are talking about a whole different level of development here, aren't we?

Thanks. This made a lot of sense and mostly answered my question. However, since writing this I've learned that the Buddha unequivocally stated that there is no everlasting soul/self. This in itself makes my original question somewhat irrelevant but then raises a new question: "If there is no soul, what is being reborn and how is it tied to this illusory 'self' that I am experiencing now (if at all)?" And if it is not tied in any fathomable way, why does he talk about rebirth to laymen when nothing of "them" is reborn? To me, bringing it up confuses the issue. I'll ask this in a new question.

There were questions like that on here already. Try searching first, see if you like the answers.

Your question seems very sensible. Some thoughts...
I think you're wrong to suggest that the Buddha was 'not sure what will happen...'. There are some things that may be known but not explained. He advises us not to worry about metaphysical problems and just take the medicine, but this does not mean these problems are not understood or the facts not known.
If you are having a pleasant time, as you say, then you may not feel you are suffering and you may question the need for the medicine and have little motivation to take it. The Buddha was in this position early on but saw the suffering of others and recognised his own future death and suffering. His medicine is not just a cure for suffering now but forever, and while you may feel free of suffering right now this situation is not going to last. (Sorry about that).
Thus it is said that the Gods have such a cushy time they may lose their motivation to push on to full attainment, but in the end even they must give up the pleasant life and sink back into the mundane, making it more helpful to be a human being with the motivation to go all the way.
I doubt your pleasant situation will hold you back since it won't last for long. What you call happiness is not what the arahant means by the word. His or her happiness is unshakable and not dependent on conditions. When you are happy in a way you know nobody and nothing can diminish or destroy then you're properly happy. Usually our happiness can be destroyed instantly by a death in the family, an illness or even just a missed meal. Happiness is real happiness when it is permanent, at which point the word 'happiness' may become slightly misleading as a description.
It's a slippery and subtle doctrine and these issue take some time to sort out, and they cannot be properly sorted out without some 'empirical' evidence to inform the process.
Needless to say this is just some thoughts, not advice from a guru.

All of the answers are great and I will add few things. If you compare the bliss and happiness of the beings who lives in the spirit world(astral realms, heavenly realms, higher heavens etc.) or the perfect happiness of parinibbana- the earth is really a hell for the  beings who are not able to go beyond the limitations of their forms internally. A human's advantage is potentially having motivation to go towards freedom from suffering.
Just investigate the reports of the near death experiences, how amazing and blissful experiences they have when they are out of their bodies. You can investigate astral projectors experiences too. Also an enlightened being's deep peace and contentment(this is still temporary experiences in stream-entry but in once-returner stage it becomes a continous experience) is far greater than the ordinary people's limited and suffering mixed sensual pleasures. Any being who is stucked in a physical body with deeply corrupted minds(have suffering of maybe millions of past lifes) and who is not able to at least create temporary awareness for itself- experiences life as hell, but because they don't have awareness for 1 second in their entire life, they are not aware of what is really going on in their lifes, so they continously suffer and make others suffer from the moment of their births until  they die. A person can say others(or even to himself/herself) "I am very happy, everything is perfect in my life" and s/he can continously have a hell-ish experience inside his/her mind. This can also be the corrupted human mind's game of denying the truth of suffering and denying what is really happening in life.

Anybody who is not a puthujjana is sure what happens after parinibanna.
It's just that meaningless words invented by intellectual puthujjanas like ''exist'' or ''real'' or ''being'' or ''essence'' of ''real nature'', on  which those philosophers speculate a lot, generation after generation, already have no meaning when applied to a puthujjana, unless they are expressed as craving, clinging, grasping like the buddha said, and when it comes to the death of an asekha they are completely irrelevant, since, again, the only meaning those words have is craving and when there is no craving, like in the case of an asekha, well there is no craving and all is said.
So using the word existence or essence or real nature when talking about a buddha is idiotic, fruitless and waste of time. Same thing for the negations of those words.
For happiness, puthujjanas are people who are infatuated with what is dukkha, what is conditioned, the 5 aggregates. According to the puthujjanas who are addicted to sensuality, pleasant feelings are the best thing to experience and those philosophers always define those meaningless words like ''being'', ''real'', ''true nature'', ''self'' with respect to sensuality, with respect to what is heard, seen, touched, tasted and so on. Those people even invent that morality is  through the senses: they say that there are pure sounds and impure sounds, pure touches and impure touches and so on. Whereas the buddha claims that purity is achieved when there is no craving for anything, not for the senses, not even for what is there beyond the senses, which is when the citta is in (right) samadhi, or ''the jhanas'' from right intention and right effort.
This is what puthujjanas addicted to sensuality will never ever understand. When those people try to talk about nibanna, the best they come up with is their appalling  claim that nibanna is ''unconditional love'', because all they know in their life, all they have in their life is sensuality, feelings and emotions.
When a puthujjana becomes an arhant, there is no longer any craving for what is conditioned (nor about nibanna), and therefore there is no rebirth, which is good, because a birth is always blameworthy. There cannot be a birth without dukkha. THis is what puthujjanas who hate right view and right intentions will never understand. So no arhant prefers nibanna ''forever'', or  a birth where is this one already is an arhant, over parinibanna.

There are lots of questions you addressed and I will try to touch on as many as I can. Please be aware that my background and area of expertise is not in Buddhist texts, but the process of insight. We may have very different definitions of particular words and concepts, but I believe I may have information that may ring true in your own life.

My understanding is that realizing enlightenment is universally desirable.

What is desirable is completely dependent on the mind who wants it. I am sure there are many people who have walked this earth who have had extreme aversions to deep insights. The reason most people are not enlightened today is because of personal desires and aversions.
I interpreted what you said above as perhaps enlightenment is "universally beneficial" or "brings universally positive effects".
The "value" of enlightenment and the mental states that occur afterwords can not be derived. Only the mind of the illusory self is capable of making such judgements.

When it comes to what happens to arahant after death, my understanding is that Buddha did not give a very concrete answer.

I can not speak about the texts that outline the Buddha's words, but I can only speak of my own experience.
We are getting into very indescribable territory here, so please do not take anything I say here at face value. I will wrap statements that are untrue, but the best i can do, in italics.

"it falls under the category of things that are not known"

This statement is neither true, nor false.
It is not true, because although what happens after death can not be known by the mind of the illusory self, it can be known by what lives beyond the mind.
It is not false, because only the mind is capable of knowing. What lives beyond the mind is not capable of knowing.
*It is only once the answer is seen by what is beyond, that the mind can begin to use words and concepts to (poorly) explain the non-explainable.

"the answer will not end suffering so it is irrelevant”

Irrelevant is not the word I would use here. What the statement is attempting to address is how the question is poorly formatted. Let me explain with an example. Say I ask this question:
"Why can't I see the second sun in our solar system?"
The question is asking about visibility. The problem with the question is that it is completely dependent on a belief in the existence of a second sun. The question has no answer because the principle understanding it was based on was untrue.
When asking the question "What happens to an arahant after death", you are asking about a being that does not exist. To be clear, I am not saying that there are no arahants, I am saying that there are no "separate illusory selves" that are capable of death.
"The Illusory self" is perpetuated by "The Mind". The Mind is a non-existent entity that operates with the sole purpose of ascribing agency to transient sensations that are fundamentally "not self".
Very simply put, the self you believe yourself to be is an illusion. An illusion can not die. Take the example of a mirage. A mirage does not exist as a separate entity. It is simply an illusion that has been mistaken for water. Once you walk closer and see there is no water, the misjudgment is known clearly. Just as you can not walk up to and destroy a mirage, you yourself can not die. Not because you are immortal, but because the concept of death does not apply to a non-existent entity.

But isn’t happiness generally considered a pleasant feeling?

What is pleasant, and what is unpleasant is completely dependent on interpretation.
Can you imagine a situation where you felt happiness, but believed it wasn't the appropriate response? Happiness and sadness are both equal candidates for desire and aversion. There are many who believe they deserve to be unhappy. There are many who believe they are "bad people" for taking joy in something they "shouldn't".

And aren’t some non-arahant more happy than they are sad in life? I’m not saying I’m one of those people, but don’t those people exist? So for them, perhaps an endless cycle of death and rebirth isn’t that bad?

Perhaps think about the cycle of death and rebirth not on a macro scale (over lifetimes) but on the micro scale. Who we believe we are has changed over the years. When we were children, we thought of ourselves differently than we do now. We now like and dislike different things. We believe we are constantly evolving and changing. If you buy into that belief, you are unknowingly placing a mask over your own face while looking in the mirror. Some people have a blessed life, and enjoy the face they see. Others, do not. Either way, it is not your face, and there is nothing quite like the overwhelming love and adoration you feel when you see your true face for the first time.

Life can be net-positive in happiness for some, can’t it? For those people, does it make sense to exit out of this endless cycle of mostly-pleasant life and instead enter....nothingness? The unknown? Become an extinguished flame?

What lies behind the mask of the illusory self is not nothingness as you currently understand it. It is sometimes described as "nothingness", but I do not like this description as I feel it only describes 1% of reality. From the point of view of someone who exists, nothingness can be terrifying. Let me attempt to explain the explainable, what is behind the mask.
When you look behind the mask, you see what you have always seen. The difference is, there is clarity in what is seen. It is unfiltered through belief and preconceptions. You only see what is. Many people talk of the concepts of "Creator" and "Creation". What is behind the mask is a contradictory separate union of these concepts. I will call this entity, Being. Being is the creator of all. Being is all that has been created. Being is the one who has been experiencing all your life. Being is the experiences you have been observing. Being is the creator of all concepts. Life, death, happiness, sadness, somethingness, nothingness, layperson, arahant, are all derived from Being. Nothingness, as you know it, can only be known through Being. Being is nothingness and everything else. Being is only unknown by the illusory self. Being can only be known by Being which is what you truly are. Enlightenment is not the extinguishing of a flame, but the absorption of the flame into the most brilliant and amazing star.

But what if I’m not suffering all that much? What if I have a pretty peaceful, happy life? Does it make sense for me to say “yes” to that genie?

Your peaceful, happy life will not end when you say yes. You will realize your peaceful, happy life has no end! You will no longer cling to happiness and see how there is amazing beauty and enjoyment to be found in all emotions.
Do you wish to discover you are undying? Do you wish to discover you are complete? Do you wish to discover you can not be harmed? Do you wish to discover you are beauty? Do you wish to view the world from a place of unity? Do you wish to know who you truly are?
If you answered yes to any of those, this path is for you. The fact you are here, asking these questions means the ball is already in motion. It is only a matter of time, brother, until you see what can not be seen.
From the bottom of my heart I wish you well on your journey. Nothing brings me more joy than the knowledge that you will get there soon. I hope some of what I wrote resonated with you, and if not, I pray you find what does. With love.

But isn’t happiness generally considered a pleasant feeling?
I think the doctrine says that there are e.g. "devas" (like demi-Gods) and so on who live in "heavenly" abodes, which are pleasant. Even they, however, have a limited (not infinite) time there, and eventually pass into "lower" (less pleasant) realms -- possibly analogous to dying out of heaven and being reborn on earth or worse.
So pleasant feelings are temporary (especially when those feelings are conditioned by contact with environment and body, given that environment and body etc. change).
Also delighting in pleasant feelings may (perhaps, inevitably will) cause attachment, and thus cause suffering when the feelings end.
I think there are two ways to read this doctrine ...

Literally, e.g. literal "heaven" and "after death"
Metaphorically, e.g. metaphorical heaven and "tomorrow" or "in the next instant"

... and that it makes sense either way, both ways.
And aren’t some non-arahant more happy than they are sad in life?
I guess so. And I guess that they're happy if or because they accord with Buddhist doctrine (regardless of whether they even know explicitly-"Buddhist" doctrine) e.g.:

Are they greedy? (if so perhaps they're not happy)
Are they angry, resentful, hostile? (again, not happy)
Are they virtuous, even generous (happy), or semi-criminal (not so)?
Are they attached (to things and experience) or more detached?

So for them, perhaps an endless cycle of death and rebirth isn’t that bad?
I think the doctrine says that you don't get reborn in heaven (nor even as a human) endlessly -- and that life in heaven may be (but not necessarily) a good place to learn or practice the doctrine.
For those people, does it make sense to exit out of this endless cycle of mostly-pleasant life and instead enter....nothingness? The unknown? Become an extinguished flame?
Maybe read the Fire Sermon -- or this translation -- I think it says that sensual objects (e.g. sights etc.) are impermanent and it's those that one should become disillusioned with and detached from.
I have read that arahant experience “happiness” in an unfathomable way, far beyond the happiness of the laymen.
Whatever it is (or isn't) I gather it's relatively stable, maybe unconditional (or unconditioned).
But then there’s also that added bonus of “if you realize enlightenment, the illusion of ‘you’ will forever be nothing.” But what if I’m not suffering all that much? What if I have a pretty peaceful, happy life? Does it make sense for me to say “yes” to that genie
I think that the "illusion of you" is associated with attachment -- for example, "my" feelings, my desires, my cravings, my possessions, my hurts, my body, my loved ones, my self, my sights, my powers, and so on -- and that it's that kind of attachment (i.e. to impermanent things) that can be unsatisfactory or a cause of suffering.