text:
Watching a stream of thoughts from the mind?
Watching bodily sensations is simple ,there is always a sensation to recognize in the present moment .Same with breathing ,hearing and seeing.Always a reception exists realtime.

For example:-
In breathing: there is a slow breath ,heavy breath ,refreshing breath.
In the body:There is comfort ,tightness ,discomfort.

But the mind as a sixth sense isn't as easy .It doesn't seem like it always keeps receiving a continuous stream of thoughts to recognize in the present.
Is there a meditation practice that can help recognize thoughts continuously ?.Or do thoughts pop out erratically and according to ones interaction with the aggregates?.
Edit
What I mean by thoughts as in ideas coming to the mind.

Are not those sensations just part of the mind-stream?  It seems to me little practice is required to 'recognise thought continuously'. It's what we naturally do. It's not doing it that takes practice. Perhaps this is not what you're getting at. In the practice of apperception we just do it more carefully, for instance by examining where thougths come from.

The part of your mind that is seeing thoughts is mind. Therefore you have awareness of mind. As you watch mind, thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions, perceptions, all this arises then passes away. There isn't a special need to watch thought-stream. It's just one of the things happening, so its recorded and detailed in meditation instructions merely to help you become aware.
middle discourses 10
Mindfulness Meditation - Satipaṭṭhānasutta
3. Observing the Mind
And how does a mendicant meditate observing an aspect of the mind?
It’s when a mendicant knows mind with greed as ‘mind with greed,’ and mind without greed as ‘mind without greed.’ They know mind with hate as ‘mind with hate,’ and mind without hate as ‘mind without hate.’ They know mind with delusion as ‘mind with delusion,’ and mind without delusion as ‘mind without delusion.’ They know constricted mind as ‘constricted mind,’ and scattered mind as ‘scattered mind.’ They know expansive mind as ‘expansive mind,’ and unexpansive mind as ‘unexpansive mind.’ They know mind that is not supreme as ‘mind that is not supreme,’ and mind that is supreme as ‘mind that is supreme.’ They know mind immersed in samādhi as ‘mind immersed in samādhi,’ and mind not immersed in samādhi as ‘mind not immersed in samādhi.’ They know freed mind as ‘freed mind,’ and unfreed mind as ‘unfreed mind.’
And so they meditate observing an aspect of the mind internally, externally, and both internally and externally.They meditate observing the mind as liable to originate, as liable to vanish, and as liable to both originate and vanish. Or mindfulness is established that the mind exists, to the extent necessary for knowledge and mindfulness. They meditate independent, not grasping at anything in the world. That’s how a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the mind.
https://suttacentral.net/mn10/en/sujato

I don’t really understand what you want to watch,.
Do you want to watch the mind or the mind objects (thoughts)?
There are a lot of ways to observe the mind.
Here some questions you can ask yourself for practice, but also in daily life:

How am I feeling right now overall, pleasant, unpleasant or neutral?
Are there any unwholesome states, like anger, greed, frustration, restlessness, uneasiness, irritation, boredom, impatience, clinging, distraction, and so on?
In case of wanting: Can I see if it’s a wholesome desire or an unwholesome one?

Point I’m trying to make is that the mind is so much more than thoughts.
Of course, watching thoughts can help in determining what state the mind is in. But watching them is not the same as getting to understand the mind. The mind is more than it's objects.
Another thing that might be useful to know is that what someone means when they say thought can differ.
Some mean stories in their head, others impulses that come up, and so on. I’m sure you can see that there is a significant difference here. So, it might be useful to always figure out what one means with the word ‘thought’.
Hope this helps a bit.

Thanks for the answer ,yes I was also wondering about that but what I meant was thoughts as in ideas coming from the mind..

But the mind as a sixth sense isn't as easy. It doesn't seem like it always keeps receiving a continuous stream of thoughts to recognize in the present?
In Tibetan tradition they say that the watching mind is also a kind of thinking. So the impulses like "let me watch this", "let me watch that", and recognitions like "I see this", "I see nothing" etc. - are all examples of thinking.
Also, the quality of the watching mind is something you can notice. Like, is the watching mind clear, or slow, or sleepy, or irritated, or restless, or suppressing something etc.
Is there a meditation practice that can help recognize thoughts continuously?
(Indirectly) watch the watching mind, and see how its opinion about what it watches becomes the next thought.

One is not asked to go further then rupa when not knowing rupa in and of it self, and once having come to a state where home and house is no more interesting, having understood rupa, as it is actually "separated", better distinguished from mind, the question will already have done it's cause by the right training.
If one starts at mind or switches to the mind to fast (e.g. while still a householder) he/she will ever confuse rupa and nama, develope housholder-equanimity and gets easily lost and downwards, having not penetrated form first.
(Note: that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and what binds to the world but as a tiny exit for those seeking for such)

Trying to control the mind or try to be immediately super mindful can't work. Also practising just in the temporary formal meditation sessions is never enough.
The key is practising mindfulness all the time without trying to control the mind. This is the path to liberation.

Mindfulness is the way to the Deathless (Nibbana); unmindfulness is the way to Death. Those who are mindful do not die; those who are not mindful are as if already dead. Fully comprehending this, the wise, who are mindful, rejoice in being mindful and find delight in the domain of the Noble Ones (Ariyas). The wise, constantly cultivating Tranquillity and Insight Development Practice, being ever mindful and steadfastly striving, realize Nibbana: Nibbana, which is free from the bonds of yoga; Nibbana, the Incomparable!

https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=021

Is there a meditation practice that can help recognize thoughts continuously
Yes. Count your breaths. Counting requires a bare minimum of thought. "One" is a thought. "Two" is a thought. Remember the current count and proceeding to the next properly is actually quite difficult to sustain over the course of a meditation session. Distractions cause us to lose count. Those distractions are also thoughts. In this simple way, counting breaths provides a measure of mindfulness.
Eventually counting succeeds and one knows by counting how long one has been meditating. Perhaps 100 breaths is half an hour. Perhaps it is more. Perhaps it is less. That time will be individual. However all those who count while meditating will be able to relinquish stray thoughts by holding on to the count.
I have meditated for almost 40 years. I still count.

If you are see a thought, then you are thinking.  If you don't, then you are not.  It is quite easy to tell the two apart.

Since "watching" & "thinking" are antagonistic, it is not possible to watch a stream of (discursive monkey mind) thoughts from the mind.
The only thoughts that can be objectively watched are: (i) deliberate thoughts (such as when giving a speech); and (ii) very minor occasional thoughts (which form the basis for contemplating Dependent Origination, for example).
In Anapanasati, for example, the 9th step called "experiencing the citta (mind)" does not involve watching thoughts because the 9th step is done with knowing each in breath & each out breath. The 9th step involves experiencing non-verbal residual defilement energies/stains & also their absence.

[9] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the mind.'
MN 118

In his brief commentary on the 3rd tetrad of Anapanasati, the Buddha says:

I don't say that there is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing in one of
  lapsed mindfulness and no alertness...
MN 118

A 'stream of thoughts' only happens when there is lapsed mindfulness & no alertness. Therefore, the delusional fantasy of "watching" (rather than "drowning" in) a "stream of thoughts" cannot occur.
Generally, the American "Vipassana" Tribe, such as Joseph Goldstein, Mark Epstein & Jon Kabat-Zinn, teach this kind of non-sense for monkey-mind clients.

I agree with your last point, but let's appreciate that they helped a lot of people, especially Jon Kabat-Zinn, although not adhering to a scritpural Buddhist approach.

So if one is in a job where he continuously needs to be creative and figuring out new ideas there is no way he can be mindful about the thoughts ?,Just mind wandering all the time?.

I posted: "The only thoughts that can be objectively watched are: (i) deliberate thoughts.... " regards


text:
Resources to learn about yogacara buddhism
What are the best resources to learn about yogacara buddhism? Online resources, books, anything would be fine.

One of the best introductory books I've found is called Living Yogacara.  It's fairly straightforward and reasonably accessible.  Another book that I found helpful is entitled Context and Dialogue.  While this is a comparative study of mutliple notions of the unconscious, I found the author's explanation of Yogacara (specifically the alaya vijnana) pretty thorough and very easy to follow.  Past that, you'll need to get into the writings of Asanga and Vasubandhu.  These are not easy.
Of course, the best way to explore yogacara is to practice it.  Rinzai Zen is probably the last existent school that makes yogacara notions of the mind its centerpiece.

Can you give some information about the works and translations (in English) of Asanga and Vasubandhu?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Dependent Origination in terms of conventional truth or teaching (Vohara Desana) and Ultimate truth or teaching (Paramattha Desana)?
It appears many of my doubts and questions about Buddhism is the result of not being able to marry the teaching of conventional truth and the ultimate truth. For instance, when we take Jati in Dependent Origination, in terms of Vohara Desana it applies to the physical rebirth of a person. However, in the ultimate sense, there is no person then who is re-born? Ultimate sense what is re-born is the attachment, aversion, and ignorance.
We can apply this duality to all 12 links of DO.
Actually, this dilemma is very similar to the problem of scientists who are trying to understand the relation between the universe and the atoms.
Does Dependent Origination cover both conventional teaching and Ultimate teaching?

I have posted the same question in Dhamma Wheel.https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=34227

The Buddha did not teach Dependent Origination has a "conventional truth". Dependent Origination, as taught by the Buddha, only explains the arising of the ideas of "beings" ("satta") which cause the arising of suffering.

In the course of the future there will be monks who
  won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep,
  deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are
  being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing
  them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But
  they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works
  of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of
  outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and
  set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as
  worth grasping & mastering. In this way the disappearance of the
  discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
  meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

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


text:
What is this electric feeling
I have like an electric current passing through my body during meditation. It is like in the whole body or maybe not just in the body like in my sphere. It is a fine-tuned electric current that comes for a couple of seconds. It stops for a fraction of a second and there is nothing and then it starts again. It feels like it is changing direction.
It is not unpleasant it just is. What is this? What can I do with it?

It may be piti, an emotion that can be aroused during meditation.
It can also be a phenomenon accompanying meditation, since a lot of different unusual sensations can appear as a mere side effect.
...or it may be something else buddhism doesn't have a saying about. Meditation clears the path for a lot of things.

It is like electricity like if you have your fingers on 12 volt, a steady electric wave and for just a halv of a second it stops and then starts again. It doesen´t feel like a feeling. In OBE it is stronger and not like this.

I like this answer because it covers all the surprising stuff that happens.

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/piti-joy-rapture/2970 :
"Pīti is a sense of joy or uplift that occurs during the course of meditation. It is best understood as an emotional response to the pleasure experienced in meditation. It may have physical manifestations, such as goosebumps or hair-raising, but is primarily a psychological quality. Since it is a subtle excitement or thrill in response to pleasure, it is moderated by passaddhi, and drops away in the deeper states of samādhi.
It is common for meditators to experience such joy occasionally. In deeper meditation the sense of pervasive joy may last for many hours without interruption."
"In modernity, pīti may be related to the psychological phenomena known as frisson or A.S.M.R.,1 and moreover, in a case study, researchers have reported strong dopamine reward system activations in the brain of a long-term Buddhist practitioner during meditation""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_sensory_meridian_response :
"Autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR) is an experience characterized by a static-like or tingling sensation on the skin that typically begins on the scalp and moves down the back of the neck and upper spine. It has been compared with auditory-tactile synesthesia and may overlap with frisson.
ASMR signifies the subjective experience of "low-grade euphoria" characterized by "a combination of positive feelings and a distinct static-like tingling sensation on the skin". It is most commonly triggered by specific auditory or visual stimuli, and less commonly by intentional attention control."
Piti and sukha arise with directed and sustained thought during practice, and will lead to "one-pointedness" (horrible translation) and equanimity. As you already know, these are not visualizations, but rather actual spontaneously arising phenomenon. Sukha is more like a generalized euphoria, but piti is like electricity with goosebumps, but it can also be very dramatic like a thunderstorm with lightening.
Some Buddhists will claim because there is an experience here, it must be a wrong experience. Mostly modern, western converts to Buddhism who have been taught that every experience that arises in meditation is distraction. I can't find any support for this teaching in any meditation texts until the modern era. In fact almost all meditation texts from any branch of Buddhism involves calm/insight, stopping/seeing, tranquillity/Wisdom, through which one moves through dhyana/jhana and samadhi/samāpatti.

sukha is soothing, piti is energizing, neither arise from sense gratification, but from skillful practice

What is this? a sensation caused by kamma (action)
What can I do with it? watch it coming and going, whether it last and might be worthy to go after it as refuge.
A just "This has come into being"-approach is not that unwise as letting go of it with it.
Does Nyom even know why "Buddhist" try to get toward meditation?
(Note: this is not given to trade you to come for another binding thought question, something to grasphold, trade, exchange or to increase stacks but as a tiny door to escape form this wheel toward unbound)

I have like an electric current passing through my body during meditation. It is like in the whole body or maybe not just in the body like in my sphere

These are subtle sensations and likely piti also. These are caused by the mind being happy with the stability of attention. There are several books that talk about it. You can check out Leigh Brasingtons or Culadasa's writings to learn how to progress from here.


text:
Mindfulness when playing chess
I want to start with this Buddha quote from the Dhammapada

As rain breaks through an ill-thatched house, passion will break
  through an unreflecting mind.

Ch. 1: The Twin Verses, verse 13
Last night I was playing chess with a close friend and he beat me 4 times consecutively .The first time I almost beat him but my performance worsened linearly .The last time my performance was the worst.
Aside from realizing that each time I lost the more I wanted to beat him ,I realized that while playing I was constantly thinking about the possible moves and wasn't mindful or aware during the game.Its almost like I was constantly surprised by unanticipated moves
Its during the game that the feeling of defeat struck me and during this I was thinking about the plan .
How can watching and strategic thinking occur,if when I watch there is no thinking?.
A fellow here stated that thinking and watching are antagonistic .I think this has some truth as when I watch the thread of thoughts subsides.
I think this leads to a more general question and that in any sport or activity that requires a certain skill .How can mindfulness be incorporated during that activity?.
I know there are already related questions but,there doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer.

In contrast to the other answers, it is my perception that mindfulness and deep intellectual thinking complement each other.
Sports are not about defeating the other team but rather raising your own performance to a higher level.  The higher level of physical or mental (chess) performance is a result of this alignment between the mind, body and spirit.
As a skilled chess player, my best games come not from furious concentration but rather from an openness to the possibilities and patterns of the board. Indeed many chess players compare their state of mind to Zen or Taoist mindfulness.  As with a koan answer, the right move often comes as lightning.
The mind can be trained to be present and creative at the same time. Both take a lot of practice however.  A novice chess player will be looking for the next move and confused by all the possibilities.  Just so, the novice meditation practitioner will be confused by all the stray thoughts.
I'd encourage you to quiet your mind and emotions during a competitive chess game (not easy) perhaps the deeper possibilities on the board will be revealed.

Thanks for the answer .I also recognized that aspect ,Its like its more based on intuition and real intelligence than Intellect.But cant seem to keep it in creative actions,you have an idea how it can be cultivated ?.

Well, you need to master basics of chess. Common opening, tactics,  basic positional play.  That is a tall order just to begin.  While playing, It is the non obvious move that engenders the Zen.  Clearing the thoughts allows new possibilities to arise.  Basically play chess and mediate a lot and it will come :)

You note that 'furious concentration' is not the same as 'openness' and this seems a crucial point. I'd put it as the difference between concentration, usually thought of as a narrowing of attention, and awareness, usually thought of as an open and global attentiveness.   .

The vast majority of the ordinary human thoughts are repetitive. Most of the humans don't even have their own thoughts(even that would be don't beneficial) but they have the thoughts that come from the collective culture's conditioning. So a person that belongs to a culture, society(and now with internet it can mix up more with others) is just chewing the same thoughts that the society that s/he belongs to. That's why real creativity is very limited or completely absent in most of the humans.
Mindfulness makes it possible to have more creative thoughts and can make the actions(like sports) more effective. "The legend of Bagger Vance" movie is about this subject. So potentially games like chess can be played more effectively with mindfulness. But to do that the art of playing chess must be mastered and then mindfulness can increase the effectiveness of playing the chess. Being "in the now" has great benefits.
That being said, a Buddhist meditator must question his/her desire to engage in activites that has intention to defeat others. Watching or playing football or other sports and even wonderful games like chess includes the desire to defeat others. And it is feeding the self/ego and the "harmfulness" of the humans. I remember that Thich Nhat Hanh said in one of his dhamma talks that sports/activities that have the desire to defeat others are not good. For many people this is totally unacceptable or meaningless but because they are completely stucked in the illusion of self. But Thich Nhat Hanh is an enlightened master and is a very pure being and has great wisdom. He said the truth.
This is what the Buddhist meditators must never forget:

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.

https://inspirational.ly/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/0H6tPbQ-1.png

A person who is mindful on the four frames of references (trains right mindfulness) and knows the teachings of the Buddha would either stop things like chess, sports, shooting, games... right at the moment he might gain awarness or not even have the idea to such entertainments, not even the slightest desire for such if ever having gained right mindfulnesss.
So one can be sure that ALL who are engaging in sports (with a opposite), games, playing, chess, shooting are far away from the Dhamma, from the path and also can not be considered as being real faith followers.
It's not possible to train right mindfulness while engaged in such, but again, a person who remembers the Dhamma while engaged, the first time, might be able to change in direction path, leaves such and turns toward mindfulness as path factor.
As a person who has faith and desires a training toward path and fruit before death would abstain from part-taking on such entertainments, even to watch such. (one might be reminded on the Uposatha Silas)
One can compare a playing person with a young dog: it's simply learning and increasing skills and intentions to harm and win, and how "funny" and pleasing entertaining it seems, it's the nourishment of staying a killer:

As rain breaks through an ill-thatched house, passion/aversion will break through an unreflecting mind. (a mind that does not remember the basic "no goes")

And no, right mindfulness does not require to sit silent but can/should be done in every of the four positions, but having skillful object/hobby as aramana (room,space) for the mind, i.e. a proper nimitta, task (not harming, not after sense pleasure, conductive for liberation).
And yet one can use the skills of a "Noble warrior" likewise for the singe path skills, as the gain, upholding and betting of warrior skills is not much different for the use on the path. The opponent is now Mara, ones defilements and the aim to win the highest battle. One who battles and plays around in the world is nothing but a loser for sure.
So mind:

A man may conquer a million men in battle, but one who conquers himself is, indeed, the greatest of conquerors. The Story of Theri Kundalakesi

to help you to restrain from "animal-entertainments". Or the story of the gamblers
(Note that this is not given to play around, battle meaningless in debates, trade, exchange, stacks, but as a liberating exit out of this wheel)


text:
Majjhima Nikaya 152 Indriyabhāvana Sutta
In this sutta, the Buddha teaches how different people should approach sense-restraint. Here, the enlightened ones can perceive objects in a different light (positively, negatively or dwelling in equanimity), whereas beginners should be repelled in sense-objects.
My question:  (i) What does "repelled/disgusted" mean literally?
                         (ii) Isn't everyone capable to perceive the good in the bad and the bad in the good? Why did the Buddha made such a distinction?

(i) What does "repelled/disgusted" mean literally?

The commentary, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, says:

Although the sekha has already entered upon the way to final deliverance, he is still prone to subtle states of liking, aversion, and dull indifference in regard to sense objects. He experiences these, however, as impediments to his progress, and thus becomes repelled, humiliated, and disgusted by them.

The Pali words used are aṭṭīyati harāyati jigucchati.

(ii) Isn't everyone capable to perceive the good in the bad and the bad in the good? Why did the Buddha made such a distinction?

This is an interesting subject. Based on the abhidhamma it seems some states are to an extent intrinsically "attractive" and others are intrinsically "repulsive". How intrinsic these qualities are, I'm not sure. This sutta seems to affirm that they are intrinsic but an arahant is able to change their reactions to such experiences. These reactions would be for example reflex reactions to bad smells or tastes involving physical reactivity and mental association with smells of the past. They would not involve partiality, as an arahant does not like or dislike in the mental sense. The arahant could still perceive a bad smell as disgusting, or a beautiful flower as attractive, even though they didn't like or dislike either.
It seems to be this freedom from partiality that allows arahants to "play" with their reactions in ways that beings with mental partialities cannot. An ordinary worldling is bound by attachments both positive and negative that force them to see attractive objects as attractive and unattractive objects as unattractive.

As the Buddha told, ordinary people see nicca where there is anicca, an anicca where there is nicca and that is best seen in the "Isn't everyone capable to perceive the good in the bad and the bad in the good?"
So like in many parts, simply following the advices of the teacher has more effect then to doubt around (like to be mature) before enter the school.
And again, it's not a teaching for householders but requires the beginn of outwardly training of one how is, or up on, to leave home (world, sense). So not for non-sekhas-nor-asekha.
A householder minds (even in robes but still a householder) defilements will use this "repelled/disgusted" just for nurishing hindrances and excuses to restrain from duties and good.
"repelled/disgusted" means turn away, reject home, house and go forth, again, and again. (even not into a robe carrying householder domain).
The beginners advice is nothing but an encouragement to leave home first, reject householder signs and means.
The Sutta shows also well that the usually teaching of dwelling in equanimity for householders is, again, not the teachers advice, not taught, since it's all about dangerous for a householder, here and here after. Consider this when thinking to approach another householder to householder coaching...: stay away from meditation teacher who teach nothing as meditation, actually not knowing path and it's means that condition samma-samadhi.
(note to entertain with assume for and back, trade and exchange, but for an exit out of the wheel)


text:
Theories and Doctrines
It is common practice to speak of Nagarjuna's theory of emptiness and Doctrine of Two Truths.
Why do we call one a theory and the other a doctrine?

Per Google they seem to be used about the same: doctrine of emptiness (19,900 results), theory of emptiness (19,000 results).

@ChrisW - Aha. I seem to have gained a false impression of the way these words are commonly used, perhaps a quirk of what I happen to have read. Common practice is not what I thought it was. All is explained. This seems a very satisfactory answer.

Should I repost it as an answer instead of a comment?

It's never called a "theory of two truths" though. I wonder whether "two truths" is a doctrine because it's saying something about doctrine (i.e. that there are two different kinds of doctrine); whereas "emptiness" is a theory in that it might be saying something about "things" even regardless of doctrine. Maybe the former is analogous to studying "Eng. Lit." (perhaps unfalsifiable), and the latter analogous to studying "Physics" (perhaps requiring proof), but I don't know.

@ChrisW - If you post it as an answer I'll mark it as a satisfactory one. The difficulty for your second comment may be that both 'emptiness' and 'two truths' explain Reality regardless of doctrine and are mutually dependent. (if one is true so is the other). After all, the 'two truths is also called the 'two worlds'. I feel your first comment nails it. Perhaps 'theory' is used more by those who suspect Nagarjuna was speculating, I would prefer to use doctrine in both cases since 'theory' in the sciences indicates merely a conjecture.or likely story.  .

This seems plausible to me -- When will Einstein's theory of relativity become a law of relativity? -- i.e. consistent with how physicists might use the term. See also Laws and theories -- and note that e.g. Newton's laws are merely "excellent approximations at the scales and speeds of everyday life" (i.e. non-relativistic).

I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference (between "theory" and "doctrine"), or perhaps not one which every agrees on.
Per Google these seem to be used with the same frequency/popularity:

doctrine of emptiness (19,900 results)
theory of emptiness (19,000 results).

It's never called a "theory of two truths" though.
If you use the Ngram viewer (which I think only searches books), then "doctrine of emptiness" is the more popular.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=doctrine+of+emptiness%2C+theory+of+emptiness&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3
So published (book) authors tend to call it a doctrine.

As an aside -- not about Buddhism but about the way the word "theory" is used in English -- the word "theory" isn't necessarily pejorative (e.g. meaning "speculative , unproven, and wrong"): especially when scientists used that word.
For example it tends to be called "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", not because that's wrong or unproven, but apparently because it's an explanation (perhaps even akin to a doctrine) not just an observation.
This seems plausible to me -- When will Einstein's theory of relativity become a law of relativity? -- i.e. consistent with how physicists might use the term.
See also Laws and theories explained on Physics.SE.
Also note that e.g. Newton's laws are merely "excellent approximations at the scales and speeds of everyday life" (i.e. non-relativistic) -- a "law" needn't be "more true" than a "theory".
But the shades of meaning are a bit subtle, perhaps you can't infer much about why people might use or the other.
Certainly "doctrine" though, anyway, right?

Thanks Chris. I think this deals with the issue. It seems we're free to choose how to use the words. I wonder why 'theory of two truths' is never used. .  .  .

A Theory may refer to any group of hypothesis or facts used to explain some aspect of nature.
The concept of Doctrine may overlap with the definition of theory, with the difference that the former might contain some prescriptive ideas or principles to guide some actions. In your question, the Doctrine of Two Truths might understood as a guide to study the Dharma, telling you how to interpret some of the teachings.
Kind regards!

Thanks Brian. This doesn't quite answer the question though. What would be wrong with calling them the doctrine of emptiness and the theory of two truths? .

Great question! I have no idea. That's why I used that many 'might's and 'may's. I just felt that my answer may (again) complement another future answer. Kind regards!

Why are the labeling of these ideas important? (I’m not trying to be sarcastic, it’s a sincere question).

@Erik - I write about this stuff and want to say something quite bold.  I'm checking my facts. .

@PeterJ Fair enough!


text:
Interspacing Meditation Practice
I have been practising breathing meditation for some time. Now, I feel compassion meditation would benefit me more. I was thinking of practising 30 min of each every day.
Would such interspaced practise (one session breathing, one session compassion, etc.) be beneficial, or discouraged?
In other words, is it better to stick to the same practice on the long term?

It is said that Brahmavihara leads to jhana, but I can't find canonical evidence of it. In most Buddhism, compassion practices don't lead to factual acts of compassion, but merely to creating a mood. I find that breathing practice leads to compassion which I can act on.

@brothereric I'm not trying to complain, and thank you for posting, but FYI When my answer is short, shall I post it as a comment instead? Generally a "good answer" is based on something -- perhaps a reference to literature, and/or personal experience -- so I think what you posted might be better posted as an answer instead of a comment.

While it is sometimes said that Brahmavihara leads to jhana, but I can't find canonical evidence of it. In most Buddhism, compassion practices don't lead to factual acts of compassion, but merely to creating a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness. While I think compassion practices are a good idea, translating the mentally felt compassion is more of a problem. Personally, I find that breathing practice leads to compassion which I can act on. (Chris edit as you like)
Here is a study concerning mindfulness meditation not making a difference in terms of prompting compassionate actions:
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/05/17/mindfulness-training-does-not-foster-empathy-and-can-even-make-narcissists-worse/
Here is an article saying more empathy isn't what we need:
https://www.fastcompany.com/40483014/actually-we-dont-need-more-empathy


text:
Can Generosity be Poison?
I read on the internet Mahasi Sayadaw once said:

"For example, if a generous person obtains something precious and
  valuable, his first thought is to offer it to someone else rather than
  to use it for his own pleasure."

So a person, in being devoid of craving, or in cultivating detachment, shows "generosity" in giving someone else the object of the craving and allowing them to bear the craving in themselves.
This seems both perverse and ubiquitous in the literature. Where is the "generosity" in spreading the disease of attachment?

Yes (I think some gifts may have a poisonous effect), and so perhaps should care who you give to, and what.
You might also be careful about what you accept -- someone who only accepts what they need might not have that problem.
Another problem (that could poisoning the giver) might be giving with or because of some attachment, e.g. because you want something in return.
Some of the famous Zen stories are about giving, e.g.:

The Giver should be Thankful
The Moon Cannot Be Stolen
The Thief Who Became a Disciple

and "Publishing the Sutras".

To blame a giver's generosity for a receiver's attachment, are we sure that this is the "right view"?
Agree that the "giver" needs to be skillful, i.e. with no malicious intentions when giving.

The giving of gifts is discussed in AN8.33

A person might give a gift out of favoritism or hostility or stupidity or cowardice. Or they give thinking, ‘Giving was practiced by my father and my father’s father. It would not be right for me to abandon this family tradition.’ Or they give thinking, ‘After I’ve given this gift, when my body breaks up, after death, I’ll be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ Or they give thinking, ‘When giving this gift my mind becomes clear, and I become happy and joyful.’ Or they give a gift thinking, ‘This is an adornment and requisite for the mind.’

Rather than focus on the poisoned outcomes of ways of giving, it might be simplest to simply focus on the best way to give a gift. Specifically, the giving of alms is

an adornment and requisite for the mind

If we conduct all our giving in this manner, then the problem of giving gifts unpoisoned is solved.
However, there is also the matter of receiving gifts that were given with unwholesome (e.g., poisened) intent. From AN4.78:

And how is a religious donation purified by the recipient, not the giver?
  It’s when the giver is unethical, of bad character, but the recipient is ethical, of good character.

This is quite significant, because the recipient receives the gift as given, without resentment and with full acceptance.


text:
Morally unwholesome deeds knowing the consequences but without unwholesome intentions
As far as I understand (of course I may be wrong), every act done voluntarily is born from some specific kind of intentions, and according to the nature of that intention, the act can contribute to perpetuate dukkha or to its eradication.
What happens when one acts without any amount of aversion nor passion, doing an action which in most cases is considered almost inseperable from evil intentions and almost objectively inmoral, let's say, consciously killing a child or raping somebody, while knowing the consequences?
Can those acts actually be executed without any amount of evil intentions? Is that even possible?
Thanks in advance for your time!

An evil act when constantly being reinforced over a long period of time might appeared to be carried out dispassionately (ie. mass killers become "numb" to the killing after a while). But that doesnt' mean there's no aversion or passion there. It's just that aversion/passion has turned into addiction. And that's why they aren't able to stop their killing. It's become a drug to get them high.

Hi Santa100! Do you think there is a possibility of someone killing people for reasons other than aversion/passion (kama, bhava and vibhava tanha)? What if someone kills someone else with the underlying purpose of overcoming the duality of judgement between good and evil deeds? I heard once that that was one of the means used in tantric practice to go beyond dualism, but I may be wrong. Kind regards!

Well there're quite some weird stuff attributed to Tantra like, doing some sexual thing to get to Nibbana and stuff. I thought that's wacky enough. Now comes the killing thing which I've never heard of before. My advice is when in doubt, stick with the suttas and vinaya as per the Four Great Referrals taught by the Buddha in DN 16 (ref: https://suttacentral.net/dn16/en/anandajoti )

I think the doctrine says there are three unwholesome roots: i.e. passion, aversion -- and ignorance (or delusion).
It's also possible to do things accidentally -- but that's not what you're asking about.
See also e.g. this answer about lying -- but maybe that's not without passion, nor considered "objectively immoral", nor without consequences.
It's hard for me to imagine another case, other than these.

I think you're trying to talk about a "dispassionate killer" -- I guess killers can appear to be dispassionate, but I'm not sure a killer (a real person) can be actually dispassionate except in fiction, though perhaps practised at controlling their emotions.
Another case might be a "sociopath" -- maybe they act for a reason of their own though, e.g. passion rather than aversion. Or a psychosis -- misunderstanding reality. I'm not really equipped to judge that.
I'm not sure about animals. I think they're understood as being passionate, but perhaps unreasoning. I'm not sure that the "lower" animals have a theory of mind which allows them to see others as "sentient beings" (and immoral to harm them), instead of simply moving objects (which might be killed for food).

This isn't a very good answer -- not based on much personal experience nor references.
I think that's because I tried to map the question -- "is it even possible?" -- to the doctrine, and didn't really succeed very well. So I think the answer might be: "in general, no".

Thanks Chris for your answer! I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices. If you see the world as non-dual, killing might not be seen as "good" or "bad", nor as "kusala" nor "akusala". I wanted to know if such logic is based on the suttas or if it's reasonable or possible according to our current scientific evidence. Kind regards!

I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices Perhaps you might have said so in the question. I can't really comment on that, from experiences or references (though maybe everyone has heard of some cases which are publicly understood as harmful).

I didn't want to write that without being sure about the logic behind tantra. I'm absolutely ignorant about tantric practices in general, so I didn't want to express my question based in mere hearsay, lack of information or misunderstanding. Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores I've read of e.g. drinking a small amount of alcohol (which Buddhists may consider "objectively immoral") -- not in order to get drunk, but in order to abandon an attachment to rites and rituals (i.e. the 5th precept in this case). That might be seen as relatively harmless too though -- killing people, and so on, even drinking regularly, seems to me a different category. I'm not very familiar with even the whole Mahayana doctrine, see e.g. Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of Mahayana.

Only harming others or oneself unknowingly can be done without evil intentions. It is not possible to intentionally harm others without having greed anger and delusion in the mind. Harmfulness is just the natural/scientific result of having evil intentions in the mind. And being gentle, good, harmless, happy, peaceful is the result of having a pure mind. Mindfulness and goodness support eachother, just like negligence/suffering and evil support eachother.
Killing, raping, stealing, cheating.. Abusing/harming partners, coworkers, family members, other living beings.. Taking advantage of a worldly position to use it for the unwholesome actions.. Constantly lying, manipulating people for selfish reasons or being an active internet troll etc.. The list can be very long. These actions all makes people's minds more mixed up and makes it impossible to realize Nibbana in one life time or maybe in countless of life times. In ultimate reality there is no judgement, no good or bad, no up and down. But these unwholesome actions naturally and inevitably make people more worlding, more greedy, angry and delusional. Make them suffer more internally and externally.
That's why some people's(meditator or ordinary people doesn't matter) disregarding the consequences of unwholesome actions(because the objectivity of the ultimate reality) is wrong because these actions have long lasting and heavy consequences for humans:
The Tangle by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu

Thanks for your answer! As I wrote to Chris under his response, I wanted to know if what I've heard is the reasoning behind some tantric practices was true or logically possible. It seems that to some practitioners, intention can be totally separated from the deed itself, and I wanted to know if that's possible. Kind regards!

Yes, some practitioners are not aware that intention and actions are not seperate from eachother and both intention and actions have natural results.

It's not possible to act unskillful while holding right view. That's a nonsensical idea.
If someone thinks he is free of passion and aversion and nevertheless, even fully consciously, takes existence, takes what is not given, speaks/thinks what is not fact, true, harms others and even rapes, such a person can bee sure to be on the highway to hell and such a person, holding grave wrong views, might be even incapable of growing in Dhamma in this existence.
As such delusion can always arise for a worldling, that is why faithful disciples hold very firm to Silas and have a lot of fear of wrongdoing.
So be even fearful to possible associate by thoughts with thoughts and actions of fools, since even if not acting outwardly, the kamma of thoughts have much more impact in long terms. That includes actually consciously thieves teaching Dhamma, especially if in Orange (put not exclusively) robes.
Note that a worldling is incapable either to recognize a immoral nor a moral person, since knowing only one but not the distinction and so stay firm by giving at right occasion, and Sila, do all your duties in frame of this and don't seek for the lazy short cuts and follow fools by it.
(Note: Not given for trade, exchange, stacks, bounds and binding to world, but as a tiny exit from the wheel)

I think it is not possible to kill or rape without any amount of aversion or passion. There are many kinds of "passion", including what the Pali suttas called "passion for Dhamma" ("dhammarāgena"). Therefore, in my opinion, to kill or rape for a higher ideal (such as in done in war or religious conquests) cannot occur without some type of passion.
The Mahayana people have ideas about Tantra & Wrathful Protector Deities and the Mahayana lamas or clerics often assassinate each other but this falls outside of the Budddha's Dhamma-Vinaya.

Will killing a child to save 10 people fit the scenario you are looking for? I mean the trolley paradox.
What is seen as "Objectively immoral" is a blurry line, at least for unenlightened, because our actions are tented by ignorance. The enlightened, on the other hand, has let go of the raft, transcend the Dhamma.
I don't know what Arhat would do if faced with the "trolley problem" but I think it's right to have faith that his/her action will be perfectly moral.


text:
Review of this "Bhaddekaratta Sutta - Liberation teachings on an ideal seclusion", and/or info about the author?
(Note that this is surely an experimental "question" for the usual use, although not different, just the purpose and circumstances)
Today the Sangha of the eight directions was given, aside of other Dhamma-Gifts, "Bhaddekaratta Sutta - Liberation teachings on an ideal seclusion", teachings by Ven. U. Dhammajīva Mahā Thero (may all also take part in rejoicing with the merits)
"Lacking" an introduction and review for this gift -- as well as a biography and a picture portraying the author -- my person thought of sharing the possibility to give such information via an answer posted here.
If wishing to make it an unbound gift toward the Sangha, with a complete text and material, feel free to make use of the pages linked for such -- also if looking for discussion on it -- and possibly link that into your answer.
A short summary of the "question":

A review, criticism, and/or "teaser" for the teachings given in the Bhaddekaratta Sutta - Liberation teachings on an ideal seclusion -- links to references elsewhere, or answers of your own posted here.
Biographical informations about the Ven. Dhammajiva -- links to pictures, relay-able sources -- possibly accessible to make use of it, since something bonded and not released toward Sangha can not really be used

What is the actual question being asked here? Are you giving your own review of a teaching and/or wanting feedback on it? If so, this is not the right place to do it. Please see How do I ask a good question? and What types of questions should I avoid asking?.

@Lanka I think the question is -- this publication was given to "the Sangha of the eight directions" who put it on the "accesstoinsight.eu" web site. The OP is giving people people an opportunity to add to that, i.e. to post "reviews, criticisms, and/or teasers" from the sutta in question, either their own or links to other peoples' ... and/or "biographical information and/or pictures" of the author, i.e. of Ven. Dhammajiva -- preferably "given" i.e. unencumbered by copyright (because otherwise the OP can't use it).

@ChrisW. I see, thanks. I will reopen the question.

@ChrisW There's already an introduction and "about the author" section here. I'm not sure what really is the question here.

Closed because it doesn't seem to be a real question. What the question really is, is unclear. The cited document already has an introduction and biography within it. This is not a site to write book reviews, which would in fact be opinion-based.


text:
Mental Illness and the bardo and rebirth
I'm wondering if mental illness is carried over into the space between lives and then subsequently to the next birth?

Are  you looking for answers based on personal experience, or based on references to doctrine? :-) You're asking about Tibetan Buddhism, specifically, I presume -- I think that "bardo" is Tibetan, isn't it?

Wrong view can cause long repetition of bad existences, yes. So look always to straighten right view. to learn about what is right view and to stop ponder around about kamma, since such is one cause of getting "crazy". Beest right here and now!
(Its not given for your trades, stacks and to maintain exchanges, but as a tiny emergency exit out of the wheel you are, in if wishing so.)


text:
Does the actions of one's ancestors pass down?
I want to know whether the action of ancestors will be pass down to their children in the form of karma?..
A father's decision can affect his children like father quitting his job and staying at home can affect his children...but What i want to know is, if someone has a very crual father does atleast some of his bad karma gets pass down to his later generations not just to his childrens but maybe to great grand children...like for example a person's great grand father may have killed someone...and due to that this person is having a major disease...
Does karma works in this way?

People, beings find together of cause their inclinations. Relations usually as well. And grandchilden are often rebirth of their anchestors as well. Don't one forgeth that as well. So it would be not correct to say that there is no connection as there is a long time feed each other behind. So take care with whom you chose to associate. At least the smell will be on you.
That goes also toward your own behavior. Others, with similar origin may suffer from your possible behavior or benefit from your reputation according to their individual kamma in addition. There are no such as innocent phenomenas, people, as well as there are no "guilty" ones. Causes have effects and they lead all back to ones past and present deeds on touch.
But the fact that people, beings, are after the same food, certain conditions, does not mean that they act always equal. What ever one does identify oneself with it, is sooner or later suffering. So that's the reason why best possible relations are seeked to go beyond relations. It's not possible to say that you are lucky or in big misfortune to ever asked here, whether you get touched physical, or mental, right or wrong for your best, who could decide for you where to put attention on? Who could prepare your required foundation to receive what gives liberation?
See also Why beings take birth, even in most worse existences and circumstances?
So it's good to think on: Darkness here as well. "May all beings make the right choices to gain happiness for themselves with ease", is a good thought to leave it.
(Note that this is not given to leave one in trade, exchange, stacks bond, but as a tiny door for an exit.)

From AN 5.57:

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."

So for the case of the evil grandfather whose children or grandchildren having to face some terrible thing later on, it'd ultimately boil down to the individual's kamma: what negative kamma was committed by that individual such that s/he'd got reborn into the family of the evil grandfather to settle their kammic debt. Similarly for positive kamma, there must be some good kamma for an individual to be reborn into an environment where s/he doesn't have to suffer from oppression or violence, etc.


text:
How to 'Let Go' in Meditation?

"And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.
Indriya-vibhanga Sutta (SN 48.10)

What is exactly meant by letting go & how is this exactly done (in daily life & meditation) ?
Why is the breath not the 'object', if it's called Mindfulness of Breathing?

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

Great question, you hit the nail on the head with this question.
The goal of Buddhist path is liberation of mind. Liberation of mind is cessation of grasping and attachment. Cessation of grasping and attachment is letting go.
So when you meditate, you look at your mind, you see grasping and attachment (it is easy to detect because it always creates dukkha, the painful feeling of wrongness) - and you let go of it to gladden and liberate your mind.
Mindfulness of breathing (and of body in general) is a tool for seeing your mind, because the state of your mind is always reflected in the breathing and the body.
Starting from the most coarse and then progressively smaller stuff.
First, you let go of erratic behavior (violence, theft, adultery, intoxication, non-factual or divisive speech), then you let go of major cravings and aversions (incl. social), various conceptual attachments & stereotypes, then you let go of negative self-judgement, then let go of doubt - etc. keep going smaller and smaller until nirvana.

Nothing wrong with B.Thanissaro's translation you quoted, but here is Bodhi's for comparison, which makes something more clear:
SN 48.9

“And what, bhikkhus, is the faculty of concentration? Here, bhikkhus,
  the noble disciple gains concentration, gains one-pointedness of mind,
  having made release (vossagga-arammanam) the object.194
This is called the faculty of concentration.

vossagga, here is primarily referring to the release, "letting go", that is nirvana. That is, we use the samadhi faculty for the purpose of attaining nirvana. The pali grammar is ambiguous here, so it could have a secondary meaning in addition to the above, that the process of release or letting go is what we depend on to attain successively deeper levels of samadhi. But the primary meaning of that sutta passage is that the purpose of samadhi is to realize nirvana. That's what Bodhi's footnote explains the commentaries and exegetical tradition says, and in this case I agree with it, because of where vossagga appears in the 7 awakening factors formula, after "viraga nissitam, nirodha nissitam, vossagga-parinamim). Whenever you have a sequence with viraga and nirodha, the next term, whether it's vimutti, or some other word, is going to refer to the realization of nirvana.

"Letting go" simply means to "give up craving". The Pali word is "vossagga", which means " relinquishing", "giving up", "handing over", "relaxation", "surrender", etc.
Therefore, instead of greedily trying to focus on the breathing as an object of clinging or personal security & possessiveness, you give up this greedy selfish ambition. Instead, you sit with a completely quiet & non-ambitious mind. You "die" to all ambition. You "hand over" the meditation to the "natural" relationship & functioning of the mind & body.
What will occur if you can do this is consciousness will automatically became aware of the breathing because the breathing, in relation to the quiet mind, becomes the most gross or coarse sense object, automatically.
As for "anapanasati", a Pali equivalent of the English word "of" is not found in the Pali term "anapanasati". "Anapanasati" means "mindfulness with breathing".
You did not hit the nail on the head with this question. What happened is you totally missed the boat. Because of clinging to the breathing or clinging to the bank of the river, the boat never left the shore. Instead of the current or stream of the river taking the boat to the ocean of freedom, your anchor has the boat stuck on the shore. You splash yourself with some water, as you try to row the boat frantically that is anchored to the shore, yet you believe you are a Buddhist and believe you are practising anapanasati.
Any monk, scholar, Buddhist or other that translates "anapanasati" as "mindfulness of breathing" knows close to nothing about both Pali & practise.
The Pali word "sati" or "mindfulness" means "to remember" and "keep in mind" and consciousness or knowing of breathing is not dependent on "memory".
In the suttas, knowing the breathing is called "anupassi", "pajānāti", "paṭisaṃvedī", etc, and not "sati". There is no such thing as "mindfulness of breathing".
If you are curious about why there are so few, if any, enlightened Buddhists, the ridiculous translation of "mindfulness of breathing" provides the explanation.
If you are curious why Buddhism became extinct in India, it was because of the wrong non-Buddhist yogic translation of "mindfulness of breathing", which allowed Hindu Yoga to surpass Buddhism.
If you are curious why Buddhist countries such as Sri Lanka, Thailand & Burma are so degenerate, it is because of the wrong translation "mindfulness of breathing".
If you are curious why WW1 & WW2 occurred; or why Bolshevism took over Russia; or why the US govt did 9/11, it is because wrong translation "mindfulness of breathing".
Because of the wrong translation of "mindfulness of breathing", people are simply not able to let go. Therefore, every evil of the world occurs because of this.
In summary, the role of "mindfulness" or "sati" is to remember to keep the mind in a state of "letting go". When the mind is continuously in a state of "letting go" ("vossagga"), the breathing will automatically become the sense object of consciousness.
This is why "anapanasati" means "mindfulness with breathing" rather than "mindfulness of breathing". When there is "letting go", natural automatic awareness of breathing occurs. Thus, letting go & anapanasati are inherently related. The end of the Anapanasati Sutta says:

There is the case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent
  on cessation, resulting in relinquishment (vossagga).

"Letting go" is mentioned as the path in the Anapanasati Sutta but puthujjana believe "letting go" and "Anapanasati" to two different things.
This is the only way to stream-entry; to leave the bank of the river & reach the ocean, handing over the sailing to the current of the river and to the wind.

Strong statements here. You posted "Instead, you sit with a completely quiet & non-ambitious mind. You "die" to all ambition. You "hand over" the meditation to the "natural" relationship & functioning of the mind & body". How is this quiet & non-ambitious mind established? Surely I must have an object of focus, such as the breath, the legs or a mental object.

Object of focus is the quiet mind. The object is letting go. Refer to this video from 4:33 to 5:47: https://youtu.be/qu7mtlbVBOA?t=273

If a person sits for meditation there is no quiet mind yet. So how can it be the object? That's confusing...

Sure. Its confusing for the mind with hindrances & confusion. Obviously stream-entry is not easy. Just becaue there are many people making money out of Buddhism by selling false promises does not mean stream-entry or anapanasati is easy. For the mind with hindrances, it should engage in wisdom training, as found in MN 19 sutta (https://suttacentral.net/mn19/en/bodhi); and practise "yogic" meditation on breathing; until the mind has some calmness. Watching breathing in an ordinary clumsy manner can bring some basic calmness. Regards

Yeah, you're right. So teachers like thich nhaht hanh, jayasaro, buddhadasa, etc. who teach to focus on breathing are wrong? How I personally would interpret your post is that it's advanced practises, that is, that first you calm the mind by whatever means & then the mind let's go automatically where the breath becomes the prominent object.

Yes. They are wrong. Difficult to believe! Note: Buddhadasa was the 1st teacher I ever heard, when he was alive. I listened to him speak at least 50 times. His book on Anapanasati was the 1st dhamma book I ever read. The "five skilful tricks" in his book can only bring limited results. I know. I practised his Visuddhimagga instructions for 5 weeks until they came to a dead end. Then I worked out the right way of practise by trusting in the teaching of giving up craving. If these teachers were right, you would be enlightened. Obviously their instructions are not working for you. Regards.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I think the context of the Sutta is important in understanding what is meant in the passage:

"And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called the faculty of concentration.

In a nutshell, samadhi requires that you let go of the thought-habits that prevent you from entering it, selfish self-centeredness, control freak behaviors, OCD meditation styles, as well as letting go of why we don't embrace the sila ethical behaviors. Let go, because our way of being attached to clinging and greed is in not letting it go. How to let go: deeply analyze that we are suffering because we are holding on to coming out on top, having the advantage, taking a percentage, controlling the outcome, demanding that our world serve us. Then letting it go.

Letting go is simply letting things unfold without intervention .So Whenever you practice mindfulness just let things be, don't think ,just feel whatever is there.Letting go is an art form ,you should be in tune with existence without needing to.By practice the skill it will shall be refined.

The method to let go is as follows:

investigate the feeling
know (theoretically), see (through insight) and understand (through empirical or experiential knowledge) that the experience is impermanent hence not worth clinging to.

Investigate Feelings

i. On seeing a form with the eye,

one investigates the form that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the form that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the form that is the basis of equanimity.

ii. On hearing a sound with the ear,

one investigates the sound that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the sound that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the sound that the basis of equanimity.

iii. On smelling a smell with the nose,

one investigates the smell that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of equanimity.

iv. On tasting a taste with the tongue,

one investigates the taste that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of equanimity.

v. On feeling a touch with the body,

one investigates the touch that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of equanimity.

vi. On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,

one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
Understand Feelings are Impermanent hence do not Cling or take Delight in them

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

“Nothing is worth clinging to”
When this was said, the venerable Mahā Moggallāna said this to the Blessed One: “In what way, Bhante, in brief, is a monk freed through the destruction of craving, that is, one who has reached total perfection, the total security from bondage, the total holy life, the total consummation, the highest amongst gods and humans?”
“Here, Moggallāna, the monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to. And, Moggallāna, a monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things [he directly knows the nature of the all]. Having directly known the nature of all things, he fully understands all things.
Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether pleasant, painful or neither painful nor pleasant.
As regards to those feelings, [Section on Disillusionment and Revulsion (Nibbida) follows]
he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;
he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;
he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;
he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).
When he dwells contemplating impermanence in them, contemplating dispassion in them, contemplating ending in them, contemplating letting go, he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.

Pacalā Sutta


text:
Is meditation necessary in Buddhism?
According to wikipedia article on the eightfold path,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

The Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union').[4] In early Buddhism, these practices started with understanding that the body-mind works in a corrupted way (right view), followed by entering the Buddhist path of self-observance, self-restraint, and cultivating kindness and compassion; and culminating in dhyana or samadhi, which re-inforces these practices for the development of the body-mind.

My question: Is meditation necessary in Buddhism? Is the practice of Buddhism incomplete without meditation?

Meditation and the Noble Eightfold Path is necessary for Buddhist enlightenment but it is not a compulsory practise for Buddhist lay people (non-monks). The Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta) says:

There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth [from the household life]. Which two? That which is
  devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base,
  vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to
  self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of
  these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing
  vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Nibbana. And what is the middle way realized by the
  Tathagata... Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right
  resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort,
  right mindfulness, right concentration.

For Buddhist lay people, they should ideally at least practise the five moral precepts of training in non-killing, non-stealing, non-sexual-misconduct, non-lying & non-drug-alcohol taking. Also, avoiding worse bad things, such as gambling, addictions to entertainment, indebtedness & laziness. Refer to the Sigalovada Sutta for the The Layperson's Code of Discipline.
Also, fully completing the last factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, namely, Right Samadhi, is not required for the 1st stage of enlightenment, called "stream-entry".
There is a preliminary level of right samadhi called "neighbourhood concentration". It does not reach "absorption" yet it is "right" because it has a foundation of Right Understanding or non-clinging. It is clear enough for the development of insight.

"Meditation is necessary for Buddhist enlightenment" It would be hepful if you can quote sources from Nikayas etc. to support this.

My teacher said, the key difference between those Buddhists that only speculate based on the theories they read in books, and those Buddhists that actually know what they are talking about, is meditation.

Right concentration is a factor that arises out of it's causes and not something that is pulled out or in. The path develops based on right view and right concentration is of course a part of the way to liberation. But it's of no use to pull in, put out effort right there. Therefore one with confidence focuses on right effort to straighten right view and make all conditions better to develop the path. And what is right effort as a path element?

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."
  — MN 117

To come their possible later or in other existances, one living in the house trains generosity, Sila, Dhamma-reflection (of the burdens), since even if good will mostly have a problem at right livelihood (of which the highest is nourish some happiness by dwelling in concentration, while living on alms for the bodies welbeing).
(That's not given for trade, exchange or entertainment but for liberation only)

Yes, it is if the layperson is aiming for awakening in this very life. Two of the factors of the eightfold path directly correspond to meditation - sati and samadhi.

Is the practice of Buddhism incomplete without meditation?

This might be a controversial answer, but yes. It is. Except for those who are born with immense conscious bandwidth, stable concentration and clear mindfulness meditation is an indispensable part of the spiritual path. This is the path of purification.
Over time, in certain Buddhist countries the goal of spiritual practice diverged between the laity and monastics.
The laypeople aim for a better rebirth and accumulate "merits". This is quite non-Buddhist in nature if you examine it closely as there is no one gaining merit, possessing merit or keeping track of merit. This is a modern adaptation and a very ego-self oriented one at that.
It is this divergence in certain Buddhist countries that gave rise to the belief that meditation is for monastics and the laity is there to support monastics and hope for a better rebirth.
It is an unfortunate misconception as teachers like most of the Thai Ajahns, Burmese Sayadaws, teachers of the Vipassana movement, Western teachers like Culadasa, and countless other teachers have spent their time to share the immensely valuable resources for us laypeople to practice. It is a blessing and we should not throw that away in the face of dogma.
Lastly, if you go into Mahayana , Vajrayana traditions there is no question that not only is meditation important to laypeople but laypeople can even guide other beings along the path.

All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness.

Meditation is necessary for the purification of the mind and freedom from suffering. If anyone has intention for these things, there is no other way than meditation to lead him/her to the right direction. Also it is better to be clear about what "meditation" really is: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/33048/700
But Buddha knew that the vast majority of the humans would never interested in meditation so he gave a teaching that in each generation few people would realize Nibbana in one life time and few others would start on the path of freedom from suffering although the real training on the dhamma starts after the realization of Nibbana.
Buddhism has all kinds of followers and it is not a Buddhist way to say that "you are not Buddhist" to the people who are not interested to meditation. The precepts and Buddhist principles makes the non-meditator Buddhists little bit better than many people in the world while things like "killing" is a natural and even admirable thing in many places of the world. But the truth is precepts/Buddhist principles and meditation(mindfulness) support eachother. If a person isn't interested in meditation it would be very difficult for him/her to follow the precepts and be a good person in general. In fact in the long term it would be impossible.


text:
Mindfulness of Action versus Perception
I noticed that when I'm mindful of what I'm doing, it seems different and even more helpful than merely paying attention to the senses, i.e. vision or sound.
Are there any noted difference between these two practices?

In the beginning the practitioner is generally learning the mindfulness practise. And this happens to everybody who starts this path. All of the mindfulness objects are valid and when the practitioner becomes trained in the practise, all of the mindfulness objects would be ok. for him/her.
Also in the beginning all kinds of thoughts can come to the practitioner's mind. "I'm not practising right" or "I must do something different" etc. Learning to live in the now is challenging because human mind is opposite of the "now", it is always running to the future or to the past. So it is better to be patient and insist on the practise. Seeing, hearing, washing the hands, walking, wearing the socks, washing the dishes, cleaning the house, driving the car, sitting on the bus, observing the feelings, emotions, thoughts, doing the job, listening to a dhamma talk, doing formal sitting or walking meditation etc. Every moment of life is a big opportunity to be in the now. The practise must be done all the time and If the practitioner forgets the practise, s/he must return to the practise any time in daily life. This is the only way to learn mindfulness and eventually realize Nibbana. Ofcourse becoming free from the physical and mental addictions, staying away from the crazy parts of the life and "being a good person" are parts of this process. The Buddhist precepts and principles are very helpful for a person to have these qualities so the mindfulness practise can be really fruitful.
It is better to not differentiate the mindfulness objects but keeping on the same mindfulness object/doing simples things(like just being mindful of "walking" instead of looking all around) makes the practise easier. But a practitioner must be ok. of all of the mindfulness objects.
So it is gradual process and learning to be mindful in daily life takes time. With practise and insistence mindfulness practise would become a learned habit for a practitioner.

Mindful action is more common to walking meditation, where coordination of senses with activity is required. If one is distracted, one runs into a tree or trips. When walking slowly, one must balance on one foot, etc.
Mindful perception is more common in sitting meditation, where subtler perceptions are involved.
Both are important. When the subtler mindful perception is overcome with drowsiness, active walking meditation helps. When the coarser active walking meditation prevents subtle study, sitting meditation helps. Adapt your practice according to circumstance as needed.

Actually those 2 practices are only parts of a much bigger and more comprehensive system of mindfulness training as detailed in MN 10, which divides into 4 main domains:
1. Body: 14 sub-domains: the breath, the 4 postures, 4 great elements, foulness of the body, etc.
2. Feeling: 1 sub-domain
3. Mind: 1 sub-domain
4. Phenomena: 5 sub-domains: Five hindrances, Five aggregates, Six sense bases, etc.


text:
What is known/taught about yawning during meditation?
At some point in life I learned I could focus on some bodily awareness that resulted in the following experience:

Piloerectus; Not once, but it stays throughout the meditation while I keep on focusing.
A smile is slowly coming on my face (slowly as in it could take 20 seconds or so). It intensifies when I focus on that particular bodily feeling. It feels mechanically. When I take a picture of this I genuinely look happy.
Yawning; I cannot suppress this yawning when I focus on that particular bodily feeling. I yawn almost every minute intensely.
Energy swirls through my body. which can even make pains go away. Like pains from stress as facial muscle cramps or so.

This all can instantly go away when I have thoughts of doubt, fear, resentment or any other negative thought.
The smile and energy swirls I understand. Why piloerectus and yawning occur I do not. I am not feeling tired at all when the yawning happens. And when I stop to focus on this particular bodily feeling, the yawning stops. I do not yawn during a whole day, for instance. To me the yawning is a reproducible sign that indicates whether I am focused or not during meditation. But why does it happen?
In this pubmed article it is described that yawning is controlled by dopamine release (amongst other neurotransmitters).
I was wondering if there is something written about this yawning during meditation in the teachings of the Buddha.

any increase in salivary secretion?

No. No that I remember. Me eyes get significantly more wet though.

Yawning usually occurs due to overeating or dieting/fasting .It can also be due to laziness/stress within subconscious mind. It can also be due to excessive thoughts .To stop yawning :: Either stop meditation & relax ur mind OR try to analyze picture & thoughts going-on in mind & try to detach from them (this method is called chittanupashyana/ चित्तानुपश्यना )

The sutta discourses in the EBT (early buddhist texts) don't say anything about yawning, that I've ever come across.
Just reading the word yawning in your post, caused me to yawn. And it's a common experience for people to induce yawning from seeing or hearing another person yawn. So maybe you just access that circuit directly with qigong, without needing external sensory activity to trigger it.

There are a whole host of phenomenon that happen at the early stages of meditation.  Some others you might experience are a feeling that your face is swelling, that your sinuses are filled with cotton, your muscles might twitch involuntary, it may feel like your hands or other parts of your body are disappearing, that your body is being twisted, that someone is messing with your hair, and so on and so forth.  None of these mean anything, but they are a good indication that you are just touching the edges of samadhi.  As your concentration deepens, all of these phenomenon will ultimately disappear.

"And when I stop to focus on this particular bodily feeling, the yawning stops." & "To me the yawning is a reproducible sign that indicates whether I am focused or not during meditation."
Great observation, try simply stay by the 1 in ways to do whatever that it stops, thinking "ugly, or "bad" or whatever. And if finding something similar, any "bad" habit, do the same, on and on. Try to be perfect in virtue, appearance, always sense controlled. And this "controlled the sense" is here the point.
It's that what the normal mind thinks as focused, actually is not, or with wrong attention, i.e. not pure but with added perceptions. But no need to ponder about that, just do of which keeps you by virtue, keeps you outwardly perfect.
Mudita
(Note: not given for trade, exchange, entertainment or stacks, but as a tiny door out of the wheel)*

Observe the yawns as a casual observer.

Physiologically, yawning is reaction meant to oxygenate the blood. It's a sure sign that your body has become energetically stagnant. That's probably why the yawning goes away when you focus your mind on some body part: the act of focusing your mind on a new place draws energy through the body to that point, stimulating everything as it passes. This will pass as you reach deeper states of meditation.
Piloerection (goosebumps, or hairs standing on end) is a natural reaction when you attention is drawn outside your body or to the surface of your skin. Hairs are part of the tactile sensory system, and standing up that way makes them more sensitive to physical contact. That will go away of its own accord as your body realizes there's nothing particularly interesting to sense, or you can turn the reaction off by turning your attention and energy inward.

Yawning during meditation acts as a fatigue flush for me. Practically all my meditations begin with periods of intense yawning accompanied by corresponding tears.

Do you also always experience intense energetic vibes throughout the whole body when you intensify the focus that induced the yawning and tears?

Yes, I get those energy rushes... but not always.


text:
What does 'Ignorance' mean in Dependent Co-Arising?
A while ago I wrote a question here about the relation between dukkha and the sense of self (whether from identity view, from conceit or both). There, most answers said that, indeed, that sense of self was at the root of all forms of dukkha.
Now I want to ask some things related to that: I know that that sense of self is part of what we call ignorance (avijja) in buddhism. And at the same time I know that the first link of the Dependent Co-Arising (or Dependent Origination, DO) is Ignorance.
Is ignorance only referred to the illusion of the sense of self?
Is ignorance in the DO just referring to that sense of self?
Are the rest of the distortions (vipallasa) of the mind (seeing the impermanent as permanent, the unsatisfactory as satisfactory, and the unlovely as lovely) included in the definition of ignorance?
If the answer to the last question is "yes", then can we say that not all forms of dukkha arise because of a sense of self, but rather from ignorance in general, i.e. from the distortions of the mind?
Thanks in advance for your time and patience.

From (Mahayana) Rice Seedling Sutra:

Here, what is ignorance? That which perceives these same six elements [earth, water, fire, wind, space, and mind] as a unit, as a lump, as permanent, as constant, as eternal, as pleasant, as self, as a being, a soul, a person, a human, a man; I-making or making “mine”, along with the many other such variations of misapprehension, is called ignorance. The presence of such ignorance brings desire, aversion, and delusion toward objects. Such desire, aversion, and delusion toward objects are the formations caused by ignorance.

...

They are called ignorance in the sense of obscuring.

...

Furthermore, not knowing reality, in the sense of not apprehending it and misapprehending it, is ignorance. If such an ignorance is present, three types of formations develop: those that lead to meritorious states, those that lead to unmeritorious states, and those that lead to immovable states. This is what is meant by ‘ignorance causes formations.’

...

There are four links that serve as the cause for assembling this twelvefold dependent arising. What four links? Namely, ignorance, craving, karma, and consciousness. Consciousness functions as a cause by having the nature of a seed. Karma functions as a cause by having the nature of a field. Ignorance and craving function as causes by having the nature of afflictions. Karma and afflictions cause the seed of consciousness to grow. Here, karma functions as the field for the seed of consciousness. Craving moistens the seed of consciousness. Ignorance sows the seed of consciousness. Without these conditions, the seed of consciousness does not develop.

My commentary:
Here ignorance is explained as assuming person to be a lump, a unitary object. From verbal explanations I know this idea of "lump" refers not just to persons but to inanimate objects as well. This is why the texts says "The presence of such ignorance brings desire, aversion, and delusion toward objects." - because reifying experience as objects is the foundation of craving. We assume that experienced entities are solid, we see them as solid, while in fact they are transient bundles of processes. Because we see them as solid we assume they possess those qualities that give us pleasure and pain (instead of correctly understanding that pleasant and painful qualities do not belong to objects but arise from a certain context which among other conditions includes our state of mind). Assuming the objects give us pleasure, we crave them and pursue them. In Pali Canon this is called papanca - objectifying something and thus making it into an object of pursuit (or avoidance).
Other Mahayana texts (e.g. my beloved Lamp of Mahamudra) talk about something called primordial non-differentiation which refers to a complete lack of consciousness in the sense of differentiation or recognition of individual phenomena. At this stage even entities are not delineated yet, but once delineation starts to develop, it does not become mature right away but goes through many phases of developing, starting from the very childish delineation of entities and assuming them to be solid and all-important, and slowly acquiring ability to "see" the hidden processes and relationships underlying the coarse entities.
Objectification and a sense of self go hand in hand, which is the whole point of D.O. (according to Mahayana interpretation) - objectification of experience as "external lumps out there" co-arises with its logical complement, the objectification of the "soft" aspects of experience (thoughts, feelings, associations, impulses - traditionally known as the five skandhas) as "subject" or "me". The two sides co-develop in dependence on each other, and this is why it's called dependent co-arising.
So, not all forms of dukkha arise because of a sense of self, but all forms of dukkha arise because of the objectification (and more broadly, reified generalization) which is always approximate (=somewhat incorrect) and therefore prepares the ground for a mismatch aka conflict (between different models and between models and reality), by creating incompatible pieces of information that eventually clash in the same scope, which is then experienced as dukkha.

Is ignorance in the DO just referring to that sense of self?

No. The sense of self is 'born' at the 10th link of Dependent Co-Origination, preceeded by 'becoming/tendencies' (bhavā), that is, sensual becoming (kama bhavā), form becoming (rupa bhavā) & formless becoming (arupa bhavā)
Since the four noble truths are a condensed version of dependent-co origination, I would suppose that 'Ignorance' means lack of knowledge of the 4 noble truths, as follows:

Bhikkhu, not knowing suffering, not knowing the origin of suffering, not knowing the cessation of suffering, not knowing the way leading to the cessation of suffering: this is called ignorance, bhikkhu, and it is in this way that one is immersed in ignorance.

SN 56.17
This said, not comprehending the four noble truths also entails a lack of insight into the 3 characteristics (especially anatta & anicca), & obviously a lack of 'Right View':

The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises.
"Clear knowing is the leader in the attainment of skillful qualities, followed by conscience & concern. In a knowledgeable person, immersed in clear knowing, right view arises. In one of right view, right resolve arises. In one of right resolve, right speech... In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration arises."

Note: This is just sutta knowledge, but no personal verification of Dependent Co-Origination.


text:
Does any sutta talk about the right conditions for teaching the Dhamma?
I've read in other posts (such as this one) about the right way to teach the Dhamma.
But is there a way to know about the "when", i.e. when to reach out someone else to teach the Dhamma?
In specific, I'd like to know if one should teach only when asked for it, or if one should make assumptions about the other's needs or degree of knowledge when trying to help him/her (regardless if that person asked for that helped or not).
If you could provide information about suttas where this is talked about, I'd really appreaciate it. I'd even be grateful if personal experiences are given.
Thanks for your time and patience!

When somebody wants to know and is receptive. For the most part if you consider the way the Buddha taught, you notice he’s usually only directly addressing the sangha without being asked. Otherwise people usually come to the Buddha with questions. I don’t recall any texts were the Buddha goes out and engages people who are not part of the sangha without being asked. The only exception I can think of is when he initially taught to the five ascetics at Deer Park. After that everyone comes to him. I’m sure there are exceptions.

Hi! If that person does not ask you directly, how do you knoe if he/she is receptive? Thanks! Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores If you know something about there interests, maybe you see them reading certain books,  talking about certain topics, or engaging with others in certain ways, and by certain I mean subjects that would fall under wise matters in regards to Buddhist thought (something that may vary from Buddhist to Buddhist). Personally, I first learned about Buddhism in a middle school world history class, what I learned at the time made me receptive to the offering of some Buddhist books latter on in my life.

Part Three: The 16 Dealing with Teaching Dhamma
57. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with an umbrella in his hand who is not ill: a training to be observed.

I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a staff in his hand who is not ill: a training to be observed.
I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a knife in his hand who is not ill: a training to be observed.
I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a weapon in his hand who is not ill: a training to be observed.
[62.] I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing non-leather [leather] footwear who is not ill: a training to be observed.
I will not teach Dhamma to a person in a vehicle who is not ill: a training to be observed.
I will not teach Dhamma to a person lying down who is not ill: a training to be observed.
I will not teach Dhamma to a person who sits clasping his knees and who is not ill: a training to be observed.
I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing headgear who is not ill: a training to be observed.
I will not teach Dhamma to a person whose head is covered (with a robe or scarf) and who is not ill: a training to be observed.
Sitting on the ground, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a seat who is not ill: a training to be observed.
Sitting on a low seat, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a high seat who is not ill: a training to be observed.
Standing, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting who is not ill: a training to be observed.
Walking behind, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking ahead who is not ill: a training to be observed.
Walking beside a path, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking on the path who is not ill: a training to be observed.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/sv/bhikkhu-pati.html

What is the purpose of these particular conditions?

Someone shows that they are fit to receive the teachings by displaying humility (which is through a display of respect for the teacher). This is a common sense condition within all teaching situations, workshops

@KilayaCiriello Thanks, that clarifies a lot

Well then, Lord, does not the Blessed One teach Dhamma in full[1] to some, but not so fully to others?"
"I will reply to this question, headman, with another. Answer as seems proper to you. What do you think? Suppose a peasant farmer has three fields, one excellent, one middling, and one poor, sandy, salty, with bad soil. Tell me: when the farmer wants to sow his seed, which field would he sow first: the excellent one, the middling one or the poor one that is sandy, salty and with bad soil?"
"Lord, the farmer who wanted to sow his seed would sow the excellent field first. Having done that, he would sow the middling field next, and the one that was poor, sandy, salty, with bad soil he might or might not sow. Why? Well it might do for cattle-food."
"Well, headman, that excellent field is like my monks and nuns. To them I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter,[2] I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified. Why? Because these people adhere to me as their island, their shelter, their resort, their refuge.
"The middling field is like my male and female lay-followers. To these too I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified. Why? Because these people adhere to me as their island, their shelter, their resort, their refuge.
"The poor field that is sandy, salty and with bad soil is like my wandering recluses and Brahmans of other sects.[3] To them I also teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified. Why? Because if they only understand a single phrase, it would long be for their profit."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.007.wlsh.html

Hi Sarath! Thanks for your answer. If I'm not misunderstanding this sutta, isn't this referring about 'how' to teach the Dhamma instead of 'when' to teach it? Kind regards!

There are many restrictions in Vinaya when not to teach Dhamma. For instance, you should not teach Dhamma to a person who drives a vehicle.

See grave faults in the Bodhisattva-vows, since the questioner has lesser to no respect toward the Buddha-Sasana:

(11) Teaching voidness to those whose minds are untrained
The primary objects of this downfall are persons with the bodhichitta motivation who are not yet ready to understand voidness. Such persons would become confused or frightened by this teaching and consequently abandon the bodhisattva path for the path of personal liberation. This can happen as a result of thinking that if all phenomena are devoid of inherent, findable existence, then no one exists, so why bother working to benefit anyone else? This action also includes teaching voidness to anyone who would misunderstand it and therefore forsake the Dharma completely, for example by thinking that Buddhism teaches that nothing exists and is therefore sheer nonsense. Without extrasensory perception, it is difficult to know whether others' minds are sufficiently trained so that they will not misconstrue the teachings on the voidness of all phenomena. Therefore, it is important to lead others to these teachings through explanations of graduated levels of complexity, and periodically to check their understanding.

If one is not sure that a listener can grasp the idea of "voidness" they can be reminded of the temporary nature of all things and that clinging to unstable things exposes one to suffering.


text:
Looking for a Buddhist Monastery in UK, Ireland, Scotland or Australia - All traditions are welcome
I have a friend from Sri Lanka who is a Theravada Buddhist monk. He is 36 (soon 37) years old and have been a monk for 19 years.
He resides in SL and has just finished an english language course and have asked me if I could help find a Buddhist monastery, where he could stay for 2-3 years. His goal is to practice and improve his language skills to eventually be able to give a full Dhamma talk in english.
It must a non-Sri Lankan monastery. Bhante would like to work with all Buddhist traditions. If you want to know more about him he has a FB profile. He has also written a short description of himself (this description is part of an email that Bhante himself has sent to monasteries - I have taken the self-description-part and put here):

"Dear Venerable sir/madam
My name is Venerable Buttala Samithawansha and I am 36 years old. I currently reside in a monastery in Colombo Sri Lanka. I am a fully ordained Buddhist monk.
I grew up as a poor farmer's son and was not able to get my formal education particularly English, however I managed to join the British Council where I completed pre intermediate levels 1, 2 and 3, intermediate levels 1, 2 and 3 and upper intermediate levels 1 and 2.
I stopped school at 17 years old and was ordained at 18 years old.
I would be very grateful if you know of any scholarships or funding to facilitate people who are in my situation.I am keen to improve my English skills under guidance on the native English speakers. I would like to share Buddhist teachings in English language in the future.
My most humble gratitude .
Yours faithfully,
Reverend Samithawansha"

Does anyone know of a Buddhist monastery, where that would be possible?
Thank you.

Forest Sangha United Kingdom branches - Amaravati, Cittaviveka, etc.

Thank you. Will look further into it.