text:
Sexual Ethics in Buddhism
I have a couple of questions regarding the Viewpoints of sexuality in Buddhism for lay people.

Why is lust seen as being unskillful? Lay-people are lay-people because they don't want to renounce worldy life; they strive for 'heavenly realms' instead of nibbana. What's unskillful in a natural urge? Non-engagement won't decrease the urge either.
In a sutta the Buddha said the consequences of an action are important, and this is the reason why he abandoned thoughts of sensuality, because it harms others and himself. It obstructs wisdom (this is true because it hinders Nibbana), but why are sensual/sexual thoughts dangerous? If I lust after a woman in a healthy, non pathological way, I see no danger there. As long as I don't sexually harass her? Maybe she has sexual fantasies as well?
Samadhi is 'achieved' by the momentarily stilling of the 5 hindrances. Elsewhere it was stated that past sankharas influence present sankharas, and present sankharas in turn condition future sankharas. If past sankharas were 'kama chanda' it is likely that I engage in the present in such a manner. Suppose I do, isn't it possible to cleanse present sankharas during meditation (after some while) in order to concentrate the mind, resulting in seeing things as they are ('vipassana)?

Why is lust seen as being unskillful?
Your question goes directly to MN1, which is a difficult sutta:

relishing is the root of suffering.

Briefly, the delusion of lust assumes that one can separate lust from the suffering and loss that follow. In other words, one might ask "how can this good feeling cause suffering?"  But look at how much effort we devote to peculiar practices such as "maintenance sex" or "faking it". Seeking the eternal, we might try to immerse ourselves in lust. But it always ends. We can never escape the suffering. It is unskillful because the more you lust the more you suffer. Do addicts look happy or lost in suffering?
The urge is real. It is a biological chemical imperative to procreate honed to compel over generations of successful breeding. And when followed heedlessly leads to overpopulation. Which means that we should, perhaps, skillfully consider that very urge as "not my self".
If I lust after a woman in a healthy, non pathological way, I see no danger there.
The danger is subtle. Women will have friends, some "pretty" and some "un-pretty". And will you be kinder and more devoted to the pretty woman and less kind and devoted to the un-pretty friend? That is the trap of pretty. That we should blindly value someone for the shape of their skin rather than the clarity of their heart.

Seeing a sight with the eye, you linger in the neighborhood of a sight that’s a basis for happiness or sadness or equanimity...Therein, by relying on the six kinds of renunciate equanimity, give up the six kinds of renunciate happiness. --MN137

This will take time...
isn't it possible to cleanse present sankharas
Your question is on detailed practice with a cleansing focus. However, it might help to inform that practice with a broader knowledge of vital conditions. Also, since your inquiry is based the mechanism of delight, you might find it interesting to explore the exact point where the hook of delight sets itself in the middle. Practice might proceed better with more focus on relinquishing and not getting hooked.

Being human, of course we look rather on attractive beings than on unatteactives ones. If I see an attractive woman, then that's all one is seeing. On the other hand, if I engage in a "not so good looking" woman and her charakter appeals to me, then of course 'love' & lust may arise. Humans are that way. We usually treat the opposite sex, older people, and people to whom we're atteacted to better. Same goes with bodily constrained persons. But if, let's say, an old men is being unfair to me, then my position towards him naturally changes.

Good point. Added MN137 for reference. One can  be freed from human impulse.

We don’t know what exactly Buddha’s intention when he said all those...
Over a period, people gave different meaning from their own understanding...
Same way now, from my perspective your questions are valid... but shouldn’t one be informed of superior taste... I am not saying lust is unskillful... what I am saying is one can have sex but the question is does he really need? Or can he live without it...
Eg: Buddha didn’t say to renounce eating or breathing... because he knows if one stops to do either he dies but not in the case of sex... it’s additional man can live without it... so may be that’s what Buddha might have intended...
And for the second question... yes many doesn’t want to just live with eating and breathing they want some extra pleasure which is also again given by nature, nothing wrong in it... but as you said if it is done with mutual acceptance...
Again seeing in the angle of the person who said it... yes it hinders ones vision, which you can feel it practically when people become gruesome when it comes to sex... not everyone is alike... and if we allow it in ourselves even we might become disturbed... everyone has the potential to become both angel and demon... it’s in ourselves to what we give attention to... knowing that something if not constantly checked leads to evil consequences why not remove the equation in the first place...
I am stopping here since all things cannot be said at once...
This is personal view.

I downvoted this answer because it is opinion based. No sutta reference was given.

For a sutta reference, the Bhikkhuni Sutta (AN 4.159) says that eating is part of the way ("This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned") -- but not sexual intercourse.

@Mr.Jabato A metaphor... If I say ‘I went to a temple and met the god himself’ no one believes that even I went to a temple, everyone need is a proof but if I take a selfie in front of the temple just when crossing some temple on my way to some dance club everyone believes... so before Buddha said anything there is no sutta reference... it’s our understanding about our being and surrounding that is more important... if that happens we can be reference to some...

Why is lust seen as being unskillful?

In Buddhism there are teachings for laypeople and teachings for monks. 'Lust' is generally unskillful for monks. For laypeople, my impression (yet unverified with research) is the emphasis is upon 'greed' being unskilful. As long as laypeople manage their 'lust' in skilful compassionate relationships (such as 'marriage'), its OK. However, for laypeople, lust without compassion is unskillful because it leads to rebirth in the animal (psychopathic), hungry ghost (addiction) & hell (suffering) realm.

Lay-people are lay-people because they don't want to renounce
  worldy life; they strive for 'heavenly realms' instead of nibbana.
  What's unskillful in a natural urge? Non-engagement won't decrease the
  urge either.

Lust without long-term commitment (such as marriage) leads to many kinds of sufferings, social problems, personal problems & even STDs. Refer to DN 31.

In a sutta the Buddha said the consequences of an action are important, and this is the reason why he abandoned thoughts of
  sensuality, because it harms others and himself. It obstructs wisdom
  (this is true because it hinders Nibbana), but why are sensual/sexual
  thoughts dangerous?

Sensual/sexual thoughts hinder Nibbana. They are also suffering (frustrating). That is why the world is full of frustrated, tormented & desperate sex & porn addicts.

If I lust after a woman in a healthy, non pathological way, I see no danger there.

The above is impossible.

As long as I don't sexually harass her? Maybe she has sexual
  fantasies as well?

Women generally have casual sex because they are lonely. Healthy women have sex to have babies and be mothers; or otherwise long term relationship. Refer to AN 6.52.

Samadhi is 'achieved' by the momentarily stilling of the 5 hindrances.

No. Samadhi is achieved by dissolving hindrances. AN 10.61 says the food of the five hindrances is the three wrong actions.

Elsewhere it was stated that past sankharas influence present sankharas, and present sankharas in turn condition future sankharas.
  If past sankharas were 'kama chanda' it is likely that I engage in the
  present in such a manner. Suppose I do, isn't it possible to cleanse
  present sankharas during meditation (after some while) in order to
  concentrate the mind, resulting in seeing things as they are
  ('vipassana)?

No. AN 10.61 says action is the food of the hindrances. If sex is no longer engaged in, past kama chanda will arise and, when not nourished by more action. will starve and die; but only when there is wisdom.
A person that ignorantly believes: "If I lust after a woman in a healthy, non pathological way, I see no danger there" is probably wasting their time pursuing Buddhism because to practise Buddhism requires wisdom. The world is full of wounded, desperate, heart-broken, suffering, damaged &/or feral women; what the Buddha called rebirth in defilement & degradation. If this can't be seen, one is blind. 25% of Western women over 40 years old take some type of anti-depressant.
I once saw an article & video on the world's most famous porn star, who gradually became nut case due to drugs, alcohol, plastic surgery, broken marriage and loss of custody of her children. These things occur because wrong sex wounds women but women have the defilement of 'saving face' and hide their wounds from blind & gullible men (until they hit the wall over 40 years old).
In Buddhism, we view women as mothers, daughters, wives & sisters. The Buddha said sexual promiscuity is rebirth as an animal in the animal kingdom:

Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world... the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs and jackals..."
AN 2.9

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

"who gradually became nut case due to drugs, alcohol, plastic surgery, broken marriage and loss of custody of her children. These things occur because wrong sex wounds women" How do you know that pornographic 'wrong sex' (as you asserted) is the cause? That's ridiculous. If a woman divorces & loses custody that doesn't "make" her an alcoholic/drug addict. It's her nutty thinking. Similarly, "plastic surgery" doesn't make one "nut case" either. You have strong value judgments & your views sound like a typical christian to me. Parental neglect CAN often be a reason for depression butnot porn

Best wishes with your explorations of buddhism and overcoming the hindrances.

Non-engagement won't decrease the urge either.
I think your question turns on that assumption, and perhaps it's untrue.
Other urges (anger, drugs, selfishness, self-pity) increase through engagement or repeated practice, habit -- and decrease accordingly, don't they. So sexual urges may too, imo.
I'm sure you can find counter-examples, of people who are celibate and have urges, but I doubt that's universal.
There is a sutta (AN 4.159) which talks of "breaking off" or "cutting of" sexual intercourse.
You probably already know that, e.g. when you write in the OP that ...

"Lay-people are lay-people because they don't want to renounce worldy life; they strive etc."

Further, there are different degrees of cutting off ... perhaps (only) of actions initially, and eventually of urges (and/or "effluents") and so on too.
If you want to say "sex is fine for lay-people", I guess the 3rd precept is for you, is meant to be the minimum standard -- not to avoid dukkha and so on altogether, but perhaps to minimize being harmful.
Also I think that, per this answer, "external appearance" is considered an "unreliable" although "traditional" way to choose a partner, and that you'd do better to consider their character, compatibility, similarity instead.
Maybe she has sexual fantasies as well?
Does trying to fulfil people's fantasies work out well -- does that lead to eventual happiness?
If past sankharas were 'kama chanda' it is likely that I engage in the present in such a manner. Suppose I do, isn't it possible to cleanse present sankharas during meditation ...
I don't know? Maybe ask that as a separate question?
In terms of general advice I've read people say that it's good (maybe necessary) to improve or to perfect sila before training for samadhi.
And the sutta which sticks with me (i.e. which I remember) is AN 10.1, which starts with sila leading to "no remorse" and so on.
I don't know how that works with someone who doesn't feel remorse when they should -- perhaps they're described somewhere as "untrainable"! :-) That begs the question though, e.g. perhaps you're asking, "why should I feel remorse?"
There are Buddhists, perhaps schools of Buddhism too, who maybe talk about having relationships without undue attachment (how "lust" might fit into that doctrine, I have no idea). And I think there are others who say that isn't possible.


text:
New Year to Buddhists on 1st January?
Buddhists have a new year ,But it is not January 1st.What is the reason they celebrate the new year of January 1st.It is based on a religious basis or something else...

You've mentioned that "Buddhists have a new year ,But it is not January 1st." If it is so, may I know when it is?

@Damith Google says it varies, i.e. in some countries it's the first full moon of April, and in others it's the first full moon of January.

In sri lanka, April consider as New Year Month.  But now it is changing to January

You can choose to celebrate new year any day you like but you have to find many people to agree with you. Otherwise, you have to have an one person party.

...it is based on on something else...called Wisdom.

The Heart Sutra
O Sariputra,
Form does not differ from Emptiness And Emptiness does
not differ from Form.
Form is Emptiness and
Emptiness is Form

And

The Kalama Sutta sometimes also called the common sense sutta.
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are
good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the
wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and
happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

And

Dukkha

There is suffering in life and it is unsatisfactory. In there if you find little reason to celebrate then celebrate without breaking the eight fold path. Afterall the Buddha never said 'dont look at the fireworks and feel happy'

Annicca

Its all impermenant anyways. New year- No new year - Christian- Buddhist its all going to change. So dont take stuff too seriously. Live mindfully in the present moment. If the present moment brings you a celebration of new year then go for it.

If you meet a Buddha on the way kill the Buddha

Live like a lotus in mud. Dont get too much attached to ideas. Dont indulge into clinging, even for the Buddha. You have to let-go of everything. Even of Buddhism. Nirvana is in state of letting-go.

Mudita

Buddha taught us to have sympathetic joy that is to rejoice in happiness of others. So if a Christian next door is gonna be happy for his New Year, Buddha told to go and enjoy his cake.

It's good to have a day that reminds one that another year has gone, has been wasted. That date differs also in traditional countries but in most of them people rush to celebrate it around the 13-16 April this days.
In nearly all regions it's related to a certain circle of decay in natures run around, seldom really "religious".

I'm from Sri Lanka and also a Buddhist. In Sri Lanka people consider Start of a new year to be 13 or 14 of April. But its not a Buddhist thing, Hindus in Sri Lanka also celebrate this on April. I think most Asian countries do this on April.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the Buddhist Perspective on Dreaming?
I met my family who has already died in my dream. He told me something bad about my partner.
Should I believe him?

A few years ago, my uncle passed away. On the morning of his death, my mom said he came to her in a dream to say goodbye and she knew before the hospital called that he had died. I wouldn’t know if you should believe your deceased family member in your dream or not but it wouldn’t hurt to look into it.. IMO.

No, don't believe it without examining your own attitudes. That would be superstitious. It can be that family attitudes influence the way you judge your partner (that would be a symbolic interpretation). Do not tell your partner the dream. That would be to lay an unfair burden on your partner, ascribing the criticism to a "ghost" instead of admitting your own attitude or suspicion. If you have a complaint about your partner, address it directly and honestly, without reference to the dream.

According to the Milindapañha there are six causes of dreams:

vātiko supinaṃ passati - one with winds sees a dream
pittiko supinaṃ - one with bile sees a dream
semhiko supinaṃ passati - one with phlegm sees a dream
devatūpasaṃhārato supinaṃ passati - one possessed by a devata sees a dream
samudāciṇṇato supinaṃ passati - I don't know what this one means, maybe something to do with memories?
pubbanimittato supinaṃ passati - one sees a dream as a prophetic vision

tatra, mahārāja, yaṃ pubbanimittato supinaṃ passati, taṃ yeva saccaṃ, avasesaṃ micchā”ti.

Of these six, only the last type is true, the rest are false.
I think it is possible that possession by a devata could lead to dreams containing truth, but it is just as likely to be misleading. How would you know if your were being deceived? Much better to rely on waking experience. Nagasena says mostly dreams occur when one is kapiniddāpareta - afflicted with monkey sleep.
Source: milindapañha, anumānapañho, vessantaravaggo, supinapañho

"samudāciṇṇato supinaṃ passati" --> In Sinhala, this is translated as "පෙර පුරුදු කතාසල්ලාප ක්‍රියාදී විසින් සිහින දක්නේ ය." which means "One may sees a dream due to previous habits, talks, and deeds". And yes, Reverend Yuttadhammo, it's something to do with memories.

I was really surprised to find something that might help in my search for dreams. From SN25.132:

All is vain for someone who doesn’t guard the sense doors, like the wealth a person finds in a dream.

From the above advice of the Buddha, I'd say that you might be better off seeking a quiet place to reflect mindfully and peacefully on your relationship without grasping, aversion or delusion. The wealth found in dreams doesn't pay the bills. Nor does it offer clear advice.

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


text:
Breach of precept term
What is the Pali or Sanskrit term for a breach of a precept?
I have checked http://dictionary.tamilcube.com/pali-dictionary.aspx and found
breach of morality defined as sīlabheda . Is there a broader or more inclusive term?

sīlabheda is not a common used term, I don't think. More common is sīlavipatti - transgression of morality. Another is vītikkama - transgression.

tattha katamā sīlavipatti? yo kāyiko vītikkamo, vācasiko vītikkamo , kāyikavācasiko vītikkamo -- ayaṃ vuccati sīlavipatti. sabbampi dussilyaṃ sīlavipatti.
  (dhammasaṅgaṇī, nikkhepakaṇḍaṃ, suttantikadukanikkhepaṃ)

The common Pali term for an offence against the rules of the vinaya is āpatti. Another common, related word is dussīla, a person with bad moral character.


text:
Moderation in meditation for lay people
Vipassana-style meditation has been adapted to treat patients to prevent recurrence of depression and anxiety through MBCT, and to treat chronic pain and stress through MBSR. More info on this can found in this answer.
On the other hand, there have been some reported cases (see here) of people who attended the 10-day Goenka vipassana retreats and became psychotic and suicidal.
I have also heard that such negative effects may be a normal part of a meditator's progress, called the "dark night" or "death of the ego" (according to this answer). These could be part of the sixteen stages of insight (according to this page), namely bhaya nana or "knowledge of the appearance as terror" and adinava nana or "knowledge of the contemplation of disadvantages".
Questions:

Are episodes of psychosis resulting from 10-day vipassana retreats the result of something not right (e.g. pre-existing mental conditions, the side effect of combining other techniques such as mantra or tantra with vipassana), or is it a normal part of progress in vipassana meditation? If the two are different, then what is the difference?
For lay people, are the Goenka retreats considered too intense and thus out-of-moderation? Is it better for lay people to attend weekly sessions and spend less than an hour daily in meditation, rather than the intense and rigorous Goenka retreats?
Is it better for lay people to practise in such a way that they will not reach the "dark night" stages because these stages are more suited for monks?
Is it required for lay people to find a teacher who can determine what is moderate for them, or can they just follow generic instructions?

It seems to me all answers to this will be very much opinion-based. I know we have historically been very liberal with "soft" answers that are based on one's general understanding rather than on scripture, but I'd like to keep this site somewhat close to its original Q&A format and avoid going too far in the direction of a generic web forum. That said, I will not close this question and will let the community decide where to draw the line on this.

If there can only be opinion-based answers to a question, then I think it's not good. However, for this question, I think there can also be experience-based answers, so it should fall within the scope and rules of Buddhism.SE.

Vipassana is not thought as temporary cure like the whole Noble path isn't. It's likely that misuse or "mis-selling" may lead to effects not really objected..., and yes, vipassana is not useable for housholder in it's full sense. No use of answering on "for lay people" (e.g. householder) at all. Either one leaves house for the path or not and there is not any advice in regard of householder-homeless relation and tread, since nonsensical.

Daniel Ingram writes a lot about the 'dark night' and working through it. In an interview (Buddhist Geeks I think - sorry no exact reference) he said that dark night will be encountered by

Intense meditators who really go for it - many hours a day over months
Committed but steady meditators who meditate every day for around 30 minutes and maybe go on a week's retreat once a year. Then after 20 years - bang - they are in the dark night

So according to Daniel you don't need to be a intensive meditator to get the dark night effects. You just need to be reasonable committed and practise over a long enough period. So advising lay people to moderate probably wouldn't be effective - at some point they are going to hit something unpleasant. Perhaps the best thing would be to make them aware and give them tools to cope. That approach is one of the major themes in Daniel Ingram;s book.
On a personal note - My practice is firmly in the second category but I have banged up again some crappy stuff. Not "dark night" but crippling doubt and inability to move forward for extended periods. I think it just happens.

The "dark night" stages are absolutely necessary to get to the point that thoughts, emotions and feelings does not disturb your peace of mind. Suffering is inevitable to have to reach the stages where peace, contentment, stillness becomes continous in daily life.  So yes, you can practice in moderation. But practising in moderation can lead you to be lazy in spirituality and you can fall back to the "normal" way of living, which is insane and only lead to more and more suffering. And then you'll experience the "dark nights" because of the "normal" way of living. Look to the news and you'll see that people are frequently having "dark nights" and they don't only hurting themselves but destroying other people's lifes without any drop of guilt and remorse. I think that suffering is inevitable for everyone who comes to the physical world. The physical body and the brain puts our beings to a prison that there is no escape from these energies. The low frequency energies that spirituality leads us to face is not something that is new to us. These dark energies have always been with us, we were born to this life with these energies and in our past lifes these energies were in our mind, causing us suffering most of the time. This is the truth of humanity.
Unless we go beyond the dark night(s) and reach to the spiritual stages that true peace, joy and contentment is continous in our daily life, these energies will continue to occupy our minds and will become even worse in time.

Meditation is much like a bullet train. Meditation is extraordinarily efficient at what it does. Going on retreat, one often ends up at new and unfamiliar destinations. These can be quite unsettling to the unprepared. I flipped out at my first retreat. The Roshi even asked someone to look after me personally for a day or so after the retreat out of concern for my mental state. Thank you, Stephen Kow, for looking after me.
So I got off the meditation bullet train and walked. And it took decades to get back to the same place the bullet train took me to. But by then it had become a good place.


text:
Looking for Buddhist story on Nirvana after being abused
I am looking for a Buddhist story from scriptures or otherwise real life, from any tradition, where a person is mentally abused, in a sense insulted, humiliated, looked down upon, etc who achieves Nirvana or Sotapanna or anything substantial towards the direction of Nirvana.
I found the story of Milarepa which fits my need but Milarepa apparently took revenge using black magic and did not forgive his wrong-doers, later on, he understood the uselessness of what he did and he followed Dhamma and got enlightened.
Another story is from the Akkosa sutta but that happened with the Buddha Himself post-Nirvana. I want something with good moral of forgiveness for others, for the perpetrators.

In Theragatha 12.2, we read the story of Sunita the Outcaste, who became an arahant:

In a lowly family I was born,
  poor, with next to no food.
  My work was degrading:
  I gathered the spoiled,
  the withered flowers from shrines
  and threw them away.
People found me disgusting,
  despised me, disparaged me.
  Lowering my heart,
  I showed reverence to many.
Then I saw the One Self-awakened,
  arrayed with a squadron of monks,
  the Great Hero, entering the city,
  supreme, of the Magadhans.
  Throwing down my carrying pole,
  I approached him to do reverence.
  He — the supreme man
  — stood still out of sympathy just for me.
  After paying homage to the feet of the teacher,
  I stood to one side
  & requested the Going Forth from him,
  supreme among all living beings.
  The compassionate Teacher,
  sympathetic to all the world,
  said: "Come, monk."
  That was my formal Acceptance.
Alone, I stayed in the wilds,
  untiring, I followed the Teacher's words,
  just as he, the Conqueror,
  had taught me.
In the first watch of the night,
  I recollected previous lives;
  in the middle watch, purified the divine eye;
in the last, burst the mass of darkness.
Then, as night was ending
  & the sun returning,
Indra & Brahma came to pay homage to me,
  hands palm-to-palm at their hearts:
  "Homage to you, O thoroughbred of men,
  Homage to you, O man supreme,
  whose fermentations are ended.
  You, dear sir, are worthy of offerings."
Seeing me, arrayed with a squadron of devas,
  the Teacher smiled & said:
  "Through austerity, celibacy,
  restraint, & self-control:
  That's how one is a brahman.
  He is a brahman supreme."

In Therigatha 5.2, we read the story of a prostitute named Vimala, who presumably people looked down at. She became an arahant:

Intoxicated with my complexion,
  figure, beauty & fame;
  haughty with youth,
  I despised other women.
  Adorning this body
  embellished to delude foolish men,
  I stood at the door to the brothel:
  a hunter with snare laid out.
  I showed off my ornaments,
  and revealed many a private part.
  I worked my manifold magic,
  laughing out loud at the crowd.
Today, wrapped in a double cloak,
  my head shaven,
  having wandered for alms,
  I sit at the foot of a tree
  and attain the state of no-thought.
  All ties — human & divine — have been cut.
  Having cast off all effluents,
  cooled am I, unbound.

The Therigatha might have examples of this. One I found was the verses of Sumangalamaata:

O woman well set free! how free am I,
  How throughly free from kitchen drudgery!
  Me stained and squalid 'mong my cooking-pots
  My brutal husband ranked as even less
  Than the sunshades he sits and weaves alway. (23)
Purged now of all my former lust and hate,
  I dwell, musing at ease beneath the shade
  Of spreading boughs–O, but 'tis well with me! (24)

Patacara is maybe another good example:

Wailing in her woe– 'My children both are gone, and in the bush
  Dead lies my husband; on one funeral bier
  My mother, father, and my brother burn,'
  she wandered around from that day forth in circles, and because her skirt-cloth fell from her she was given the name 'Cloak-walker.' And people, seeing her, said: 'Go, little mad-woman!' And some threw refuse at her head, some sprinkled dust, some pelted her with clods.

source
There's also the story of an old man who, after giving all his wealth to his children, is left destitute when they refuse to care for him in his old age, so he becomes a monk. I can't remember the name though.

(becoming a monk becauseof lacking fine livelihood would be ordaining by thief..not far from sg13 )Isn't the last story somehow Freud-ish confused... Wasn't there not the occassion that the Buddha encouraged the old man to blame his children public so that they come to mind? How ever, my person will leave you and the others alone in you ensnared firm bond relation over long long time. There is not much to provide for those up in turning arround, unattentive, with short lasting objectives and less proper fear. May you all find access to trace unsenseable, and it's path, for your self with ease.

Ven. Yuttadhammo, thank you for the answer. I was not really hoping to get an answer from you here. But this makes me happy. Some 7-8 years back I had left a potentially mildly-abusive post on one of your youtube videos. It's a strange way Karma works.

natthi loke anindito

You have chosen a difficult subject, literally a battle hard to win. The classic tale is of Bharadvāja, but the approach listed in the link applies for all of us targeted by anger.

When you don’t get angry at an angry person
  you win a battle hard to win.
  When you know that the other is angry,
  you act for the good of both
  yourself and the other
  if you’re mindful and stay calm.

Notably, the Buddha continues on with this somber advice that those who do not return anger for anger are healing both and will be counted a fool for their meekness. And that is what makes this a battle hard to win:

People unskilled in Dhamma
  consider one who heals both
  oneself and the other
  to be a fool.”

Notably, the Buddha spoke these words to Bharadvāja the Rude...after Bharadvāja rudely insulted the Buddha.
And Bharadvāja accepted the Buddha's words. This is perhaps the most startling thing about the sutta. Why did Bharadvāja accept the Buddha's words?
With a cycle of abuse, the abused often become abusers. Bharavadja was abusive because he had perhaps come to think that the only way to escape abuse was to be biggest abuser around.
Bharadvāja accepted the Buddha's words because even after being abused by Bharadvāja, the Buddha did not respond with anger. The Buddha won a battle hard to win. And he gave Bharadvāja the escape from abuse.


text:
How do you handle when someone tries to instill guilt in you?
From a perspective to hindrances to meditation this may fall under remorse and regrets, but not very apt in that sense.
Using Buddhist philosophy to get over and respond, how do you handle when someone tries to instil guilt in you, like trying to make you feel like you have done something wrong, you are a bad person, I am a victim, you are a perpetrator.
How to respond to such a person?
Sutta references are appreciated but otherwise, any workable answer adhering to keeping Buddhist precepts and practise is welcome.

The important thing to do is to have in mind that these people are puthujjanas, so they are bound to be awful, especially when they think something bad is happening to them.
now the puthujjana who receives this ''attack'' better have equanimity.
If this happens too much, then the solution is to no longer live around people who try to make you feel sad. It is hard, especially when it is people in the family, but separating yourself from bad puthujjanas in order to live with the meritorious puthujjanas and non-puthujjanas  who train for the noble path  is the way to have sati, and ultimately to be awaken, like the buddha tells Ananda in the Upaddha Sutta.
For the ''sutta reference'' you can read the Akkosa Sutta where the buddha is insulted by some puthujjana and the buddha replies that he does not take up the insults.

Then the Exalted One, realizing the turn their discussion had taken, entered the pavilion, sat down on the prepared seat, and
  addressed the bhikkhus: "What kind of discussion were you holding just
  now, bhikkhus? What was the subject of your conversation?"

The bhikkhus replied: "When dawn had broken, Lord, after rising we
  assembled in the pavilion. As we sat here, the following conversation
  sprang up among us: 'It is wonderful and marvellous friends, how the
  Exalted One, he who knows and sees, the Worthy One, the perfectly
  enlightened Buddha, has so thoroughly penetrated the diversity in the
  dispositions of beings. For this wanderer Suppiya spoke in many ways
  in dispraise of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, while his own
  pupil, the youth Brahmadatta, spoke in many ways in their praise.
  These two, teacher and pupil, followed closely behind the Exalted One
  and the company of bhikkhus, making assertions in direct contradiction
  to each other.' This, Lord, was the conversation we were having when
  the Exalted One arrived."

"If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to
  resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For
  if you were to become angry or upset in such a situation, you would
  only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If you were to become
  angry or upset when others speak in dispraise of us, would you be able
  to recognize whether their statements are rightly or wrongly spoken?"

"Certainly not, Lord."
"If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the
  Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should unravel what is
  false and point it out as false, saying: 'For such and such a reason
  this is false, this is untrue, there is no such thing in us, this is
  not found among us.'

"And if, bhikkhus, others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should not give way to
  jubilation, joy, and exultation in your heart. For if you were to
  become jubilant, joyful, and exultant in such a situation, you would
  only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If others speak in praise
  of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you
  should acknowledge what is fact as fact, saying: 'For such and such a
  reason this is a fact, this is true, there is such a thing in us, this
  is found among us.'

Brahmajala sutta
There is what people say, and how people say it. Concentrate on whether what they say is accurate or not, and act accordingly.
Past and present experience only offers two choices - suffering or learning. Guilt is mostly not useful in that it clouds a reasoned analysis of what the issue is - it embraces suffering over learning. Those that have learnt from their errors, don't feel guilty for their errors, as they have gotten all they can from them, and laid them aside.
If someone still demands guilt from you when you have already learnt your lesson, they likely need to learn that suffering is not permanent.

Householders,
may Venerable fellows, in front and behind, have the compassion for many to possible correct failures and also fill up graps if traced here.
After having put away foolish thought of believing that equanimity is the highest, even supportive, in such cases:
The first one may do in such a situation, when one gets touched unpleased, better feels that way, is to remind on the very importand Dhammapada stanza, that nobody is of more support as someone pointing out ones failure and in the case of even a wise person, one should stick and hold on such a person.
The second thought is possible given to remind oneself that there are actually very less how would tell one a fault, having other interests in the back and that it is also not so general possible to get the chance of a possible very releasing way for a even personal pardon of a transgression.
Being urged by those reminders one should take all his effort and capacity to reconstruct the case, piece by piece, and most importand, with sacca, ujju!, to get not cheated by ones defilement and miss a great opportunity. Possible ask an admirable friend to help in strong cross-questioning.
If, after real trought-full investigation, it is clear that it's either a missunderstood situation, a unlucky and not right blame, or what ever away from what was fact (done), one does not need to take the given and it will stay his/her's, or as a teacher here once told (a little to quick, on fb), "If someone calls you an ox, look if it is like that, inspecting your back" (retold in it's message, not sure if able to find the original, having been banned because of lifting certain critic on another "lost in short cuts").
The many proper approaches further and for each case, would require all detail case by case actions according the whole circumstances. But as already told by the Sublime Buddha to his son, good to clear such cases with an admirable (dhammika) friend/teacher/guide and it might be that the "insulter" actually is the proper one.
[Note: This here is not given for any worldly exchange, trade, stackes, commercial use, dirct or indirect, and may be needed to be deleted if the circumstances do not allow such gifts.]

You should respond with equanimity (upekkha), following the example of monk Sanghamaji in Udana 1.8.
This sutta is about a monk by the name of Sanghamaji, who, when seated under a tree, was visited by his former wife, carrying their infant son. She tried several times to get his attention, and having failed, left the son at his feet and went a short distance away, to observe his reaction. The monk neither reacted, nor said anything to the woman or her child. She then took back the child and left the scene, while lamenting about her former husband's lack of feelings for them, saying "the monk doesn't even care about his son."
The Buddha, who witnessed this supernaturally, praised the monk, saying (I paraphrase here) that he showed equanimity and is free from attachment, and is therefore a brahman.
Previously, I asked a question on equanimity related to this sutta.

You have to have the kind of pure objection and being no more householder, trader, to act taking this sample. It's most importand to know you self and where you are first... are you serious in assuming that either you or the questioner are pure? May your movie soon comes to an end where refuge can be taken.

The specific example may not be applicable to lay people, but equanimity or upekkha as one of the brahmaviharas is applicable to monks and lay people alike.

It's not the time for equaminity before having deep and honest investigated and it's not the time for any Brahmavihara if not firm in conduct and having cleansed faults and therefore first things first otherwise simple long journey in arupa realm or even right after straight upward. And this here is no place of upekka as well, as probably already traced, karuna ;-)

Speaking from experience: You will not feel guilty unless you have guilt or sense of obligation within yourself, so it is not the other person's fault; they cannot "make" you feel anything. If you are detached within, you can look on the other with compassion, since they are trying to manipulate you out of some negative emotion of their own. Or you can tell them in a neutral way, "You may be right." If through self-observation you see guilt in yourself, you need to work on that. There is healthy guilt that tells you you are wrong, and there is toxic guilt. Which is it?

I think it's like when someone tries to instil shame in you by insulting you -- i.e. don't accept it, don't participate. (Akkosa Sutta)
Or it's like when someone tries to tell you what the truth is, what the Dhamma is, like the The Four Great References ...

In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word

... i.e. try to determine whether it's true, whether what's said agrees with what you learned elsewhere. It may be that the criticism is well-deserved and worth paying heed to -- or maybe not, it depends, I can't tell from the question.
Someone saying "I am a victim, you are a perpetrator" might be an unreliable witness.
Some people are like that -- i.e. they blame others!
But the ability to feel shame and remorse is maybe a good thing, and lacking the ability to feel shame -- e.g. Āhrīkya -- not good.


text:
Buddhist marry a non-Buddhist
I'm intrigued by this concept. Can a Buddhist marry a person from a faith who believe in a God that created the universe?
I've got varying answers from Buddhists, some have advised that religion does not matter as it's personal, others have said it does. However I was also thinking as a marriage it 2 people, and then ramifications from that, be it extended family, children etc. Would it be recommended if the other partner's faith dictated that the Buddhist partner would not go to heaven and so creating a deep seated question of faith and tension between the 2 people. Also what would anyone learn from a couple who have disbanded their own faiths for mortal desires rather then an actual spiritual journey?

If the Buddhist way of life leads away from the world why do Buddhists get married?

Because you can embrace the Dharma as a laymen or as a monk.

@Rookie4Ever You should ask that as a new question:
If the Buddhist way of life leads away from the world why do Buddhists get married?

There is no problem for a Buddhist and a non-Buddhist to enjoy a married life together.
However, the Buddha recommended couples to be in tune in conviction, for best results, in the Samajivina Sutta:

[The Blessed One said:] "If both husband & wife want to see one
  another not only in the present life but also in the life to come,
  they should be in tune [with each other] in conviction, in tune in
  virtue, in tune in generosity, and in tune in discernment. Then they
  will see one another not only in the present life but also in the life
  to come."

Husband & wife, both of them
    having conviction,
    being responsive,
    being restrained,
    living by the Dhamma (the Buddha's teachings),
    addressing each other
    with loving words:
    they benefit in manifold ways.
    To them comes bliss.
    Their enemies are dejected
    when both are in tune in virtue.
    Having followed the Dhamma here in this world,
    both in tune in precepts & practices,
    they delight in the world of the devas,
    enjoying the pleasures they desire.

There is no prohibition on Buddhists marrying religious non-Buddhists. Of course, if a Buddhist who does not believe in a Supreme Creator God, is married to someone who thinks that belief in a Supreme Creator God is mandatory for a pleasant afterlife, this produces some lack of compatibility between the couple, but this does not make marriage impossible. It is simply not optimum.

So if religious then no?

@Rookie4Ever There is no prohibition on Buddhists marrying religious non-Buddhists. Of course, if a Buddhist who does not believe in a Supreme Creator God, is married to someone who thinks that belief in a Supreme Creator God is mandatory for a pleasant afterlife, this produces some lack of compatibility between the couple, but this does not make marriage impossible. It is simply not optimum.

I married a devout Christian in 1982, then took refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sanga in 2002. It is not ideal, since she believes I will spend eternity tormented in hell, but this is samsara, it was not meant to be ideal. She is a sincere practicing Christian with tremendous compassion for sentient beings. We are apparently bound together by karma and I consider her to be one of my spiritual guides. OTOH, if given the choice, I would recommend you marry someone with the same view. Samsara is difficult enough without arbitrarily making it moreso. And religious practice is easier and more productive with less obstacles.

Celibacy and being a monk is the best ofcourse but for those who are considering life-long relationships with people who are coming from different religious backrounds must becareful. Buddhist way of living and thinking leads you to non-self, liberation from the ego, doing good things to all living beings, purification of the mind, freedom from suffering and Nibbana while some of the belief systems leads people to the completely opposite direction. And these belief systems/cultures really influences people's minds deeply. Ignoring the truth is not benefical.

Not associating with fools,
  Associating with the wise,
  Honoring those worthy of honor;
  This is the greatest blessing.

https://buddhasadvice.wordpress.com/friendships/
Ofcourse everyone is free with their choices, Buddhist way is not banning people's free choices and desires. But especially those who are involved in spirituality/meditation must find right people to create friendships/any kind of close relationships.

This did not answer the question at all

Would it be recommended if the other partner's faith dictated that the Buddhist partner would not go to heaven and so creating a deep seated question of faith and tension between the 2 people

Depends on personality.
Not recommended if both are religiously extreme. This bi-polar of beliefs will eventually end up as arguments and a convert from either side is eventual.
Recommended if the Buddhist Husband/wife is very accepting and able to keep all the belief conflicts in his/her own thoughts. Or, another way is that the Buddhist can convince the Christian that Heaven/God/Godly beings are impermanent.

Also what would anyone learn from a couple who have disbanded their own faiths for mortal desires rather then an actual spiritual journey?

Well. For the Buddhist to disband his/her belief, that means they might have disbanded the Dharma...Hence the worldly journey goes on, while the spiritual journey stops.
He/she may eventually reject the ultimate reality, and accept the worldly reality as truth. Ignorance continues to precede wisdom. The implications are of course...pretty obvious.

some have advised that religion does not matter
You might like this answer. I think it's based on suttas.
It doesn't say religion is important:

Leave aside unproven traditional criteria: including race, caste, gender, and external appearance (and creed)

Instead it says,

Find wise people who cause no fear or worry.
  Look for someone who is compatible in four ways:

Similar confidence in spiritual development
Similar respect for self-discipline
Similar respect for humanistic practices
Similar level of wisdom

These similarities are "so important for a peaceful marriage".

But the "confidence in spiritual development" might be exactly what you're talking about (e.g. confidence in the Dhamma) -- so maybe that is important -- better if your partner doesn't have no confidence in your (spiritual) development, and vice versa.


text:
Did any Indian Mahayana Buddhists have non-cognition as a goal?
I have found a page in which a sravaka seems to object to a mahayanist that, if those that aren't ordinary people have no cognition, then it's ultimately correct to have sexual relations with a forbidden woman

If he says: Madhyamikas make statements such as the following:
  "[Cognition] is not in the eye, it is not in form, and it is not
  between them or in both of them. Wherever it might be present, it
  neither exists nor does not exist". So no cognition is apprehended.

The footnote says that the source of the quote is unclear, and not from MMK or Aryadeva. Bhavaviveka then seems to explain that the sravaka's conclusion, that forbidden women would then be ultimately correct to have sex with, is not proven, because it is no different to saying that all women can relieve desire: both are examples of improperly denying all things.
Bhavaviveka and his Buddhist Opponents p129
So, I think the general argument is that ultimate reality does not deny conventional reality. Even if distinctions do not ultimately exist, but do conventionally, that does not mean ultimate reality denies the truth of conventional distinctions. The difference is about being and not truth.
It may be worth noting that "non conceptual cognition" crops up a lot in the book, I think as the goal of Buddhist practice.

I'm not sure if I've misinterpreted the argument: did any Indian Mahayana Buddhists, such as Bhavaviveka, have non-cognition as a goal? And, would that mean they do not seek knowledge, or just that cognition is empty of svabhava?

Are you assuming that cognition is the only source of knowledge? It seems so. Emptiness might be a subject for cognition but knowledge of it would be a realisation. Buddhists seeks knowledge that is not available through pure cognition. To depend on cognition would be to fail to seek knowledge. .   .

It's difficult to answer a question about the phrase ("could the phrase only mean that...?") when you don't quote the phrase or find the book in which it's published. I'm thinking that if can find the book, then someone might explain what it's saying.

that's what i'm asking for, a reference that says that @ChrisW

Apparently that was Candrakīrti's position.
From Mario D'Amato's "Why Buddha Never Uttered A Word", quoting J.D. Dunne's study of Candrakīrti and Vose's study of Candrakīrti's commentator Jayānanda:

...As Dunne points out, for example, “Candrakīrti [c. 600–650 c.e.] holds strong views on the impossibility of a buddha having conceptual knowledge” (1996: 540). While, according to certain Buddhist thinkers, such as Dignāga (c. 480–540 c.e.) and Dharmakīrti (c. 600–660), perception is without conceptual construction, according to Candrakīrti’s view, “even raw sense data are in some sense conceptual,” so “at the highest state of understanding where one’s knowledge is completely nonconceptual, nothing appears at all” (ibid.: 544). Dunne goes on to specify that, according to Candrakīrti’s account of buddhahood, for buddhas “the fluctuations of mind and mental functions” have “completely ceased” (ibid.). Jayānanda (c. 1100), the only known Indian commentator on any of Candrakīrti’s works, affirms Candrakīrti’s account and “explains that enlightenment is a process of ‘not knowing’ and is characterized by the elimination of the knowing instrument, the mind” (Vose 2005: 191–192). (Footnote: Jayānanda writes, “Since enlightenment is by way of not knowing  (anadhigama) at all, we assert that the activities of mind and mental factors— feeling and so forth—[all] having the character of experiencing, have ceased their engagement”.) But how can a mindless buddha teach the dharma? Dunne states that, according to Candrakīrti, “the dharma-kāya causes a didactic sound to emit from a buddha . . . [but] the production of this sound does not at all mean that a buddha is cognitively active” (1996: 549).
  Being mindless, a buddha is unable to use language in any ordinary sense; on this view, a buddha only appears to use language—what is actually occurring is that certain sounds emanating from a buddha are interpreted by unenlightened beings as words and language.

You can read the entire paper on academia.edu and it's included as a chapter in Mario D'Amato, Jay L. Garfield & Tom J. F. Tillemans (eds.), Pointing at the Moon: Buddhism, Logic, Analytic Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 41--55 (2009) - from where you can get the references to bibliography for Dunne and Vose works.
D'Amato has quite enough to say on "non conceptual cognition". If you are interested in that topic I suggest you check his this and other works. He provides interesting references too.

thanks for this!

i find the interpretation a bit problematic, just because "nirvana with remainder" is a standard term, in theravada at least, and i thought signifies some residue of the skandhas

Yeah, I suspect most real lineage Mahayanists would object to this idea, too.

yeah... i've read some scholarship on Jayānanda, and found it interesting at least

Venerable Nāgārjuna says that "all dharmas’ true aspect is defined as mental activity’s and spoken language’s ending."
(T1564.23c16)


text:
Pleasant feelings/Unpleasant feelings & craving/aversion
In dependent origination after sense-contact occured, craving is the next condition, which in turn forms attachment at its basis and so on...
Suppose I am eating something or taking a massage to get rid of pains, is this pleasant vedana immediately connected with craving?
Similarly with unpleasant feelings; Suppose I have a bike accident and I fall down the ground and my immediate reaction is: "Arghhh", and no other cursing; Is this considered aversion to unpleasant feelings?
Furthermore, if I go to toilett to take a pee is this good feeling connected with craving?
It seems to be quite difficult to discern whether one feels pleasant feelings (vedana) without craving,  pleasant feelings with craving & the same with unpleasant feelings & aversion.

After sense contact comes vedanā, after vedanā comes craving... Where did you read that after contact comes craving?

Short Answer:
When you think "it would be nice to have more(/less) future contact with object X" - then you have craving; when you think "this feeling is (un)pleasant and it came from object X" - then you are creating/sustaining potential for future craving; and when you think "this feeling came from the mind, it is empty, dependently originated, transient, ephemeral, unreliable, like a phantom - therefore craving to have more(less) of it would lead to suffering, and instead I keep training the mind of suchness." - then you don't have craving nor do you create/sustain potential for future craving.
Long Answer:
It is a popular misunderstanding of Dependent Origination -- to assume that it describes a process as it unfolds moment-by-moment. No, it does not. Instead, according to Mahayana (esp. Karma-Kagyu lineage), it describes a logical sequence of stages of development of individual mind.
The "contact" described in D.O. is not the momentary contact of sense organ with an external stimulus. It is a stage of development of individual mind when "contact with an object" is delineated, designated, and recognized.
Then, Vedana described in D.O. is a stage when "feeling that comes from contact with an object" is delineated, designated, and recognized.
Once this stage is reached, "Craving for feeling that comes from contact with an object" has a basis to develop on.
A more detailed description of this phase (vedana => tanha) is given e.g. in MN 18 as vedana => sañña => vitakka => papanca.
In other words, as one learns to separate the feeling that comes from contact with an object from the experience of contact itself, one learns to formulate ideas like: "it would be nice to have another contact like that, to bring that feeling again" or "it would be nice to avoid a contact like that, to not bring that feeling again". Eventually, such an idea gets simplified to something like: "It's nice and I want it" or "It's bad and I don't want it".
Then, holding such idea, mulling over it, and pursuing it in practice - making it one's goal and one's mode of operation - is what's known as upadana or grasping.
Suppose I am eating something or taking a massage to get rid of pains, is this pleasant vedana immediately connected with craving?
As I said, D.O. describes the development of mind in general, not one particular instance. So, most of the time, experience and craving do not follow one another immediately. Instead, most of the time craving occurs on the basis of remembering some past experience.
But generally speaking, when you're eating something or taking massage, and at that moment you experience a pleasant feeling, if you attribute that feeling to the external object, thinking "this food gives me the feeling" or "this massage gives me the feeling" - then, on the basis of this attribution, your thinking about that experience in those terms will fuel and sustain the potential of the future craving towards that object (food or massage).
If on the other hand, you think "this pleasant feeling is born in the mind, is a product of the mind" and you think "this comfort is mind-made, empty, dependently-originated" or "this discomfort is mind-made, empty, dependently-originated" - then on the basis of thinking in these terms you will not fuel and not sustain potential future craving towards the object and will instead develop the mind of sufficiency in suchness.
It seems to be quite difficult to discern whether one feels pleasant feelings (vedana) without craving, pleasant feelings with craving & the same with unpleasant feelings & aversion.
In my Mahayana understanding, it boils down to your frame of reference, your attribution of experience to an entity. if you attribute pleasant/unpleasant experiences to what you think are "external" objects, then you will develop and sustain future craving to them - and if instead you recognize that all pleasant/unpleasant experiences are mind-made, empty, like phantoms - and learn to control your mind's frame-of-reference, your perspective, your interpretation - then you are not developing craving and are developing the mind of bodhi instead.
As for detecting the presence of craving in the here-and-now, if your mind is leaking to imaginary past or future and grasping onto an imaginary experience (whether positive or negative) - then that's craving/aversion right there. And if your mind is not leaking anywhere but is seeing things as they are, then that's a moment of suchness.
Here, I explained craving (leaking), the root of craving (attribution of experience to external objects), and path to cutting the root of craving (learning to reframe the experience in such a way as to no longer reify it as something real coming from the external objects and to instead think of it in terms of D.O. and 4NT). I explained it according to my understanding and in my own words. Hope it helps.

Suppose I am eating something or taking a massage to get rid of pains,
  is this pleasant vedana immediately connected with craving?

Yes.

Similarly with unpleasant feelings; Suppose I have a bike accident and
  I fall down the ground and my immediate reaction is: "Arghhh", and no
  other cursing; Is this considered aversion to unpleasant feelings?

Yes.

Furthermore, if I go to toilett to take a pee is this good feeling
  connected with craving?

Yezzz :)))

Only 2. needs elaboration: Unpleasant feeling is also connected to craving. Why? Because unpleasant feeling established depends on pleasant feeling; pleasant feeling established depends on unpleasant feeling; neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling established depends on pleasant and unpleasant feeling. Like, long is established on short, cold on hot. This is called, roughly, dependent origination (DO).
What is DO? DO is an answer to the "1st cause", which frequently recurring in the Aristotelian philosophical system. Sometimes 1st cause is God, or in physics, the prime matter, the smallest, the indivisible, atom... etc. DO said there is no 1st cause. Seeking for 1st cause is a question generated by the intellect-mind (logic and reason), which itself is defective. A defective question cannot procure a faultless answer. But to let general humans (unenlightened) understand, within reason and logic, DO is taught. Eventually DO is also empty, when you advance to study the ultimate and complete teaching taught by the Buddha himself - Mahayana (excl. Tibetan).

It seems to be quite difficult to discern whether one feels pleasant
  feelings (vedana) without craving, pleasant feelings with craving &
  the same with unpleasant feelings & aversion.

Your confusion is due to incorrect understanding, perhaps the canonical text you relied on is incomplete1. Whenever there is Vedana, there is craving, plus the rest of all activities in the 12 Nidanas. It is like a bracelet with 12 beads, when one moves, all move. When you pick up a bead, the whole bracelet is lifted. In the same way when a bead is removed, the bracelet is broken. By destroying any one factor among the 12, you can destroy the 12 Nidanas and become a Pratyekabuddha.
But, it cannot happen when the teaching of a Samyaksambuddha is available, like now :). And, as a side note, being a Pratyekabuddha you will never have a name. Like, we have the name of current Samyaksambuddha: Shakyamuni. (My unique discovery, still pondering...)

Therefore, to answer your ultimate concern, which you didn't put to words, you cannot get rid of craving by trying to conceive pleasant feeling as unpleasant (so that you develop aversion to it), or unpleasant feeling as neither pleasant nor unpleasant. Neither is it legitimately Buddhist like the Goenka method to alienate yourself from your feeling, telling yourself "it is not me, mine, myself" - it will cause mental illness, split of personality, in the worse. The Buddha never taught such horrible thing, please study the Sutra/Sutta to verify.
If you want to cut off craving, you should work to stop Vedana.
But, what is Vedana? Vedana has got horrible translations: feeling/ sensation. It is not. The Chinese Tripitaka translates Vedana as 受, this single character has multiple meanings. "Feeling" is just the result of the activities of Vedana. Vedana 受 also means accepting, receiving, taking. That is, before the feeling generates, you allow it to happen. How do you allow it to happen? You accept the inputs (contact), you receive the stimulation (6 mediums), you take in the stirs (dusts, perceived external objects, name-form).
Addition:
The current question What does 'Not percipient of form internally' in Salayatana Sutta mean? confirms the analogy in this post. Salayatana Sutta arrays the interactions.
Therefore, if you want to cut the Vedana, you have to not accept it even it is making contact, you have to not receive it even it is stimulating you, you have to not take in it, remain undisturbed. When an Arhat is attained, often it declares: 諸法不受, meaning, he doesn't take in any phenomena. Therefore, even a Marilyn Monroe undresses in front of an Arhat, he won't find it exciting; even he takes a handful of Fentanyl, he won't experience euphoria.
My advice for proper cultivation is, discerning pleasant or unpleasant feeling is useless, rather, work on cutting off the Vedana.

Footnote
Early Buddhism or Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) is a hoax invented around the Colonization of Asia 100-200 years ago. Scholars advocating "Early Buddhism" in the early days - when Western colonizers after colonized the Asian countries they also needed a way to "colonize" their cultures, were Theosophists. Theosophical Society was the cultural warship sent overseas, which succeeded in "colonizing" Sri Lanka, and later Thailand, also Japan and, of course Tibet was more than willing to cooperate. This is a disease Buddhism has caught for more than a century, but not healed, only getting worse.

Feelings simply are. The point is how you act on them (or refrain from acting for that matter), and that in turn will tell you if your actions are wholesome or not. Any emotion can be both either wholesome or unwholesome, meaning that it's not really about the emotion at all.
For example: Sukha and piti during meditation can be described as a pleasurable experience. It would be wholesome to experience them as a step in your mediation practice, but it probably wouldn't be wholesome if meditation only came down to have those feelings (clinging to creating pleasure).
Another example: Being severely ill can be describes as a painful experience. It would be wholesome to avoid things that seriously hurt us, but it wouldn't be wholesome to strive for a completely healthy life in every situation (striving for the idea of health).
In order to be sure whether you're clinging/craving (unwholesome actions) one needs to develop mindfulness and concentration in order to reflect on the situation, and as a consequence act in a more wholesome manner according to the noble eightfold path.

Yes puthujjanas struggle with the sensitivity to lust, just like sensitivity to sankharas, and they always try to salvage the vedanas of the usual 5 senses, like the puthujjanas who invented mahayana who keep claiming that there can be contact without craving, even for sensuality.
Then some puthujjanas try to express the dependent origination through time, which results in ''models'' with 1 life, 3 lives and a few others, but that's not the point of the DO.
Then they ask what is reborn, is there a state between death and birth. But that's still not the point.
For the DO, there is a famous sutta where the buddha question the Arhat Sariputta https://www.sariputta.com/sutta-pitaka/498-kalara-sutta/english
When it comes to the 5 senses, lust follows from contact and there is always lust as long as you are not in the fourth jhana. Lust is suspended in 4th jhana. most Puthujjanas struggle to get the citta into the samadhi of the 4th jhana, because all they know is sensuality and lack of citta in samadhi, which makes it easy for them to claim that they do not have lust. They claim that they do not have lust for some object they cognize, like some rock or twig in their garden, but they forget to claim that they still lust  over other things that they cognize.
This obsession with caring about individual sensual objects and the individual tastes, likes and dislikes, is what make them claim that ''each person'' has a path to reach nibanna. They think that personal tastes matter, because they completely fail to see the big picture, that there is nothing to salvage when it comes to kama and that the only good relationship with kama to have is the one of upekkha. Kama is 100% dukkha. Vedana is 100% dukkha. There is not a tiny bit of rupa, of vendana, of jati, of karma, of anything conditioned that can be rescued form dukkha and converted into something non-dukkha.
Once you get your citta into  the samadhi of the 4th jhana, you reach for the first time upekkha. This is not upekkha like in sensuality where you do not care about one particular object (again like a rock in your garden or  particular tree in some forest), while still having plenty of lust for other objects (like plenty of other trees in the forest), but upekkha towards all the forest, all that is rupa, vedana and so on.
In terms of cessation the jhanas are expressed thus
Rahogataka Suttaṃ - Alone

"Then, bhikkhu, I have also taught the successive cessation of
  formations.
For one who has attained the first jhāna sa eech has ceased.
For one who has attained the second jhāna hought and examination have
  ceased.
For one who has attained the third jhāna rapture has ceased.
For one who has attained the fourth jhāna in-breathing and
  out-breathing have ceased.
For one who has attained the base of the infinity of space, the
  perception of form has ceased.
For one who has attained the base of the infinity of consciousness,
  the perception pertaining to the base of the infinity of space has
  ceased.
For one who has attained the base of nothingness, the perception
  pertaining to the base of the infinity of consciousness has ceased.
For one who has attained the base of
  neither-perception-nor-nonperception, the perception pertaining to the
  base of nothingness has ceased.
For one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling,
  perception and feeling have ceased.
For a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed, lust has ceased, hatred has
  ceased, delusion has ceased.

When the citta is in the samadhi of the 4th jhana, what remains is the famous ''ignorance'', because the puthujjanas who do not have right view, sati, right resolve, and yet who manage to go into this jhana full of upekkha claim easily that this jhana is the end of the path.
This is what happened to the buddha with the famous legend that when he was a child he managed to get his citta into the samadhi of the first jhana. Fortunately, he was not stupid enough to claim he was awaken when his citta got out of this samadhi, but he did nothing with his first jhana.
Only decades later, once he wanted to end dukkha, and once he left all the wrong ways invented by the puthujjanas to get the citta into wrong samadhi (and yet that they claim is nibbana), the thoughts occurred to him that the good manasikharas are the ones of metta and nekkhama.
[at this point people today speculate whether he was a sotapanna, but the only explicit state mentioned is bodhisatta  and what people call today ''buddhahood'' but sometimes he used a phrasing like ''when I was still not fully enlightened'' so perhaps at this point, he was a sotapanna, or just a lucky puthujjana who managed to see what happened when thoughts of nekkhama are cultured to the end, or perhaps what he called bodhisatta in some places include sotapanna...]
Then he says that even with what later on he will call right intention, meaning culturing thoughts of nekkhama and metta, he still failed to get the citta into right samadhi.
After this, he continued the right use of mano which is judging your skills at knowing good states from bad states and he continued to use mano rightly, meaning to see the danger of sensuality. after that he got his citta into samadhi, then his citta knew about karma-rebirth, then how to end dukkha.
Some puthujjanas ask how to ''stop desiring with desire'' and how to make nibanna the object of meditation or contemplation, and ''is it possible to crave nibanna''.
The answer is that it is not possible for puthujjanas to crave nibanna, because puthujjanas do not know what nibanna is and is not (you have to find out, by yourself, the meaning of the various statements of the buddha, because nibanna cannot be experienced vicariously). Even for non-puthujjanas, it is not possible to crave nibanna. Non puthujjanas go mostly by being repulsed by anything conditioned, and more precisely by what is disgusting, so typically kama and they strive for peace.
Puthujjanas always use mano to turn mano into papanca and the unhealthy way for puthujjanas to ''desire nibanna'' always is in fact to cling to what they fantasize as nibanna. It is part of the fantasy of puthujjanas that ''intellectual knowledge'' is indeed knowledge.
The desire to reach nibanna is typically generated by puthujjanas who live around non-puthujjanas, because puthujjanas love to mime, envy, idolize people who are allegedly better than them, and non-puthujjanas brainwash the puthujjanas with healthy statement and activities. But of course, when there is no arhat, it gets difficult for puthujjanas to desire nibanna.
What you still can do is to focus on sensual object that you do not care about and then use the mano properly by wondering if it would be good if you had the same relationship of ''not caring'' with the objects that you love, then with the objects that you hate. Use the mano to see the danger of having lust-hate over sensual objects. Use the mano to see how good you are at not lusting over sensual objects [typically food]. This is what ''guarding the senses'' is all about, having ''sati sampajanna'', ''being mindful''. When you are ''mindful'', you get to be sensitive to future lust and aversion, and with the memory of the statements of the buddha, you strive to keep this sati sampajanna (puthujjanas love to claim that having love and hate is good and not having them is bad).
This is how close puthujjanas can go to desiring and mediating on nibanna.

"Non puthujjanas go mostly by being repulsed by anything conditioned, and more precisely by what is disgusting, so typically kama and they strive for peace." So this, in turn, is then viyapada, isn't it? Apart from that, I didn't quite understood the last paragraph of yours. May you clarify once again concerning love-hate towards sensual objects and sati-sampajañña? Thanks.

"When it comes to the 5 senses, lust follows from contact and there is always lust as long as you are not in the fourth jhana. Lust is suspended in 4th jhana." Response: I don't believe that there is always lust on sense-contact. There might be a lot of remainders be there, sure, but not, as you said, ALWAYS. Also you said that "Lust is suspended in 4th Jhana", but according to the Suttas this is definitely wrong. Jhana, no matter which level we're referring, always has the preconditioning of abandonning all five hindrances. Therefore, even in the 1st Jhana lust is suspended (temporarily).


text:
How can I practice mindfulness meditation with sound, not breathing?
I want to start practising meditation, but breathing exercises extremely psyche me out. I find any activity that involves intensely focusing on a part of my body distressing, sometimes nauseating. So the traditional "focus on your breath" mindfulness meditations aren't really ideal for me.
I like the idea of meditating listening to sound, for example the sound of rain or waves on my phone. But I'm completely new to meditation and am not sure how best to implement this practice. Should I wear over ear headphones, or is it best to have the music ambient and not directly my ear? Should I be sitting up or lying in bed? (I don't really have any other comfortable spots in my house besides my bed.) Should it be light, dark or semi-dark? Eyes open or closed etc.?
The basic question I'm asking is: what are the best practices and practicalities for mindfulness meditation using sound?

There are no rules. Either a method works for you or it doesn't. If you root around you'll find all sorts of approaches and methods. I tend to think mindfulness is best practiced while going about your everyday business and am a fan of the simplicity of Zen sitting, but each to their own. We all start in different places.  . . , .

It is best to meditate in a position that is not conducive to sleep. That is the only reason lying down is not recommended. The straight posture of the spine is said to be important. Eyes can be closed to avoid distractions, but Tibetans meditate with open eyes,so it may be your choice; eyes could be half open, not focused on anything. How about mantra meditation in which the sound is internal? Think of it as "sounding" the mantra in your mind. Or else chant it aloud and rest the attention on the sound. The important thing is concentrating on an object, in this method.

Sound is a valid object of mindfulness, one of the six sense objects, part of the fourth foundation of mindfulness:

"He understands the ear, he understands sounds and he understands the fetter that arises dependent on both; and he also understands how there comes to be the arising of the unarisen fetter, and how there comes to be the abandoning of the arisen fetter, and how there comes to be the future non-arising of the abandoned fetter." (MN 10, Bodhi trans.)

The point here is to observe sounds as something that gives rise to potential fetters (liking, disliking, conceit, possessiveness, etc.). Through mindfulness, one understands sound as merely sound, as impermanent, unsatisfying, non-self, and one relinquishes craving in regards to sound.
In my tradition, we remind ourselves "hearing, hearing..." as a means of cultivating mindfulness.

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

I listen to the suttas. Listening to the suttas fulfills many meditation requirements.

the mendicant thinks about and considers the teaching in their heart, examining it with the mind as they learned and memorized it.
  Or a meditation subject as a basis of immersion is properly grasped, attended, borne in mind, and comprehended with wisdom.
  --dn33/en/sujato

You can choose a sutta to listen to using SuttaCentral Voice Assistant, which offers almost 4000 suttas available in Pali and/or English. The suttas can also be downloaded for offline listening.
If you are interested in memorizing a sutta, you can choose to walk meditation on a fixed route. This integrates your memory of the sutta with a physical place and will allow you to "walk the sutta" in your mind at any time you choose.
Having counted my breaths during meditation for over a decade, I now prefer to listen to suttas during walking meditation. I currently listen to DN33. It is two hours long. Choose a sutta that suits your interest. They are all instructions of the Buddha.

I'd skip designing a sound-based approach and go with shikantaza or Silent Illumination. You can learn these at Soto Zen or Chan practices centers or from teachers. They are types of zazen and should fit your needs. The advantage of going with an already existent meditation is the support and having others for further questions, guidance etc.

In Buddhism, "right mindfulness" means " to remember to keep" the mind free from attachment, craving & other unwholesome states.
In Buddhism, "right mindfulness" does not mean "focusing on breathing".


text:
Where does the consciousness (cittas) originate inside the body?
I have heard that all consciousness arise in hadaya vatthu rupa (blood inside the heart) except the five doors perceiving consciousness (Cakku vinnana, Sota vinnana, Ghana vinnana, Jeevha vinnana, Kaya vinnana).
There are some research articles on the internet about the impact on the heart due to brain damage. So one can argue that the brain is merely an organ which supports the functionality of other organs and hadaya vatthu rupa is the place where consciousness originate. Another one can argue the other way around.
So my questions are:

Where does the consciousness (cittas) originate inside the body? Is it in the brain or hadaya vatthu rupa?
Consciousness is nāma (not material/formless). Then how can we talk about a place of origination of it?

Consciousness still remains when the heart is replaced with an artificial one.

Space is a derived quality of matter, so consciousness cannot be said to take up or exist in space. To say that the mind arises here or there is not really proper in an ultimate sense. Consciousness can arise based on physical entities, and hadaya vatthu is the base for both the mind element and mind consciousness element. This doesn't mean that consciousness arises in the hadaya vatthu.

According to the Pali commentators, the heart serves as the physical support for all cittas other than the two sets of fivefold sense consciousness, which take their respective sensitivities
  as their bases. In the canonical Abhidhamma the heart-base is not expressly mentioned. The Patthāna, the last book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, simply speaks of “that matter in dependence on which the mind element and mind-consciousness element occur”. The Commentaries, however, subsequently specify “that matter” to be the heart-base, a cavity situated within the physical heart. (Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma 144–5 , Bodhi et al)

Citta can arise everywhere inside the physical body because there are the body-senses, kāya-āyatana, in the whole body. However, it's just the automatic thought can arise at the physical body, no one can develop or practice anything at that sense.
It's not important that Citta arises at Hadaya-Vatthu-Rupa because in Abhidhamma said: "Hadaya-Vatthu-Rupa is not Inḍriya-Paccaya" and "Arūpa-brahma has citta but Hadaya-Vatthu-Rupa". However, thoughts arise at Hadaya-Vatthu-Rupa normally.
The factory-manager, Citta, can go everywhere in the factory, but the factory control center, the brain, is in the manufacturing room, head, only. The factory-manager must go to the sense doors to receive a new input, outside āyatana, of the machine, and the factory-manager can control the whole factory from everywhere in the factory. However, the office room, Hadaya-Vatthu-Rupa, is the best place for him to think and control the factory. And many control-command are processed at the brain.
It's not only Hadaya-Vatthu which originating Citta, actually, Cetasikas are originating Citta as well.
Mostly, we meditate Jhāna to see Nāma and Rūpa, before we talk about it in detail.

Thanks sir! I really like the analogy of factory manager and factory you've used to explain. I'd be thankful if you can give an answer for my second question also.

Conciseness build up in your mind. It’s an energy not physical brain
It can be divided din to 3
Raga -  All the attachments come in many forms
Dwesha – All the heartfulness’s  comes in many forms
Mooha – Confusion this will create within you because of Raga and Dwesha or Raga and Dwesha can be generated  because of Mooha. Works both ways


text:
I'm looking for a sutta which mentions nationalism
I remember a sutta which uses the word "nationalism" in reference to a taint to be removed. It was the last in a certain sequence of taints. I think i read it on access to insight.
However, when i search for the word i can't find any such sutta in either dhamma talks or access to insight. Or anywhere else for that matter.
Can someone *ahem* enlighten me?

Jati, usually translated as birth is even today the word for nation (a modern definition) or race. So it's up to the translator and when ever reading birth it can be transated to race as well.

On this page, you can find Thanissaro Bhikkhu's summary for MN 93:

The Buddha enters into a debate with a brahman on whether one's worth
  as a person is determined by birth or by behavior. Although some of
  the arguments he presents here deal with the specifics of brahman
  caste pride, many of them are applicable to issues of racism and
  nationalism in general.

Thanks. But i'm looking for one which mentions nationalism by name.

Maybe it can't exactly "mention nationalism by name" -- e.g. I suppose that "nation" is a modern word. Maybe it's a conceit though (see e.g. answers to this topic).

Possibly DN 31:

When a noble disciple is not prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity, and cowardice,
Yato kho, gahapatiputta, ariyasāvako neva chandāgatiṃ gacchati, na dosāgatiṃ gacchati, na mohāgatiṃ gacchati, na bhayāgatiṃ gacchati;


text:
Feeling Tilted During Meditation
Can anyone enlighten me as why I feels like my body is tilted around 30 degrees to the right during meditation?
This happens around 10-15 minutes after I've started.
I don't do any breathing technique, I just sit still.

There can be many specific reasons why this sort of thing happens but generally speaking it's because the body posture is only a conceptual entity in the mind, formed based on individual, momentary experiences. If for whatever reason your physical experiences are out of the ordinary, it is common for them to give rise to erroneous conceptualizations in the mind of how the "body" is situated, as the mind tries to relate the new sensations to old conceptualizations. Feeling like part of your body is bloated, twisted, tilted, or even disappeared are all commonly reported experiences.

Thank you for the insight.
I'd carry on the meditation, see if the tilting disappears or still present but won't be bothersome anymore.

@Greg yes, not something to be concerned by, though that's a given since nothing is worth clinging to :)


text:
How can we use the triple round model to understand dependent origination?
In the Visuddhimagga (but not in the suttas) and possibly other commentaries, we can find the triple round model, which can be used to explain dependent origination (paticcasamuppada).
The first round is called the round of defilement (kilesa-vaṭṭa) which includes ignorance (avijjā), craving (tanha) and clinging (upādāna).
The second round is called the round of action (kamma-vaṭṭa) which includes mental formations (saṅkhāra) and becoming (bhava).
The third round is called the round of results (vipāka-vaṭṭa) which includes consciousness (viññāṇa), name-form (nāmarūpa), sixfold sense base (saḷāyatana), contact (phassa) and feeling (vedanā). Sometimes, it also includes birth (jāti), death and the rest of suffering (jarāmaraṇa).
The meaning of vaṭṭa according to wisdomlib is:

Vaṭṭa, 1 (adj. -nt.) (pp. of vṛt, Sk. vṛtta in meaning of “round” as
  well as “happened, become” etc. The two meanings have become
  differentiated in Pāli: vaṭṭa is not found in meaning of “happened. ”
  All three Pāli meanings are specialized, just as the pres. vaṭṭati is
  specialized in meaning “behoves”) 1. round, circular; (nt.) circle
  PvA. 185 (āyata+); KhA 50 (°nāli). See cpd. °aṅguli.—2. (fig.)
  “rolling on, ” the “round” of existences, cycle of transmigrations,
  saṃsāra, evolution (=involution) (as forward or ascending circle of
  existences, without implying a teleological idea, in contrast to
  vivaṭṭa “rolling back” or devolution, i.e. a new (descending) cycle of
  existence in a new aeon with inverted (vi-) motion, so to speak)

Question 1: How can we use the triple round model to understand dependent origination, especially within this lifetime? What is the correct interpretation of the triple round model?
Question 2: How can we understand the link from the triple round to the Wheel of Becoming (bhavachakra)? (statement below from here):

So this Wheel of Becoming, having a triple round with these three
  rounds, should be understood to spin, revolving again and
  again, forever, for the conditions are not cut off as long as the
  round of defilements is not cut off.

Question 3: Is it true that ignorance is always the starting point to get the perpetual wheel-turning started?
Perspectives from different traditions are welcomed.

Actually, they all come from ṭipitaka if you memorize Tipitaka in pāli-language you will see it in everywhere. However, It's a very long answer. It maybe take a week to write it, so I give you this and this. And this is the way to read Visuddhimagga.

Does this model have a name?

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/33208/in-the-trisvabhava-theory-is-the-consummate-nature-inflected-by-past-present-an

As explained in oral Mahayana tradition, the twelve Nidanas schematically describe gradual process of emerging subjective experience of the world and a sense of self.
The actual process is not linear and does not have 12 well-defined steps. Instead, 12 links should be considered as key milestones or features. The process itself is made of thousands or even millions of events. Every event follows the same basic pattern: something is perceived, recognized, identified, categorized, evaluated, either liked or disliked, either craved  or avoided, then there is some action, then the resulting experience is aggregated. This basic cycle occurs thousands or millions of times - each iteration slowly, slowly contributing to the developing sense of self (and the world).
There are many ways this process can be analytically explained in order to aid understanding. The challenge any description must solve is to show how each iteration follows the same basic pattern, but at the same time, to show that the whole thing grows over time, becoming more and more clear. In the beginning, there are very vague tendencies for generalization, and then slowly, slowly, very blurry outlines begin to emerge.
Another challenge is to show how and why this process is self-sustaining and self-clarifying. What forces are at play that make the whole thing evolve. What we're trying to show is how the growing subjectivity shapes the agent-centric action and how action feeds the grows of subjectivity.
This is what the triple-round model tries to illustrate. In this model we say that basically, D.O. has three main forces at play: the force of  "murkiness", the force of action, and the force of growing subjectivity. These three forces support each other and push each other forward, thereby making the whole situation evolve.
Murkiness feeds and supports the growth of primitive, confused, naive subjectivity. Confused subjectivity feeds and supports defiled activity. Defiled activity feeds and supports murkiness. The three forces feed and support each other and help each other develop.

The first round is called the round of defilement (kilesa-vaṭṭa) which includes ignorance (avijjā), craving (tanha) and clinging (upādāna).

This part talks about the force of murkiness. When we look at the 12-fold description of D.O. we can see 3 features that can be primarily associated with murkiness. The initial ignorance is murkiness in its most obvious original form. Craving is murkiness in its developed phase. Updana is murkiness in its most active phase.

The second round is called the round of action (kamma-vaṭṭa) which includes mental formations (saṅkhāra) and becoming (bhava).

This part talks about the force of action. Murkiness contributes to propensity or tendency to act and react in a certain way. On the initial stages, when things are very vague and unclear, these propensities are very ambiguous generalizations, inclining to seek some experiences and to avoid others. On the mature stages of D.O. the propensity to act in pursuit of likeable experience and to avoid its opposite gets much more deliberate, so now we can talk about "bhava" or individual purposeful planned activity in
pursuit of personal plans. On this stage we actively shape our environment by achieving our dreams and making them come true - in other words we actively construct ourselves and our world.

The third round is called the round of results (vipāka-vaṭṭa) which includes consciousness (viññāṇa), name-form (nāmarūpa), sixfold sense base (saḷāyatana), contact (phassa) and feeling (vedanā). Sometimes, it also includes birth (jāti), death and the rest of suffering (jarāmaraṇa).

The remaining group describes the elements that develop to comprise our subjective experience. This is the gradually emerging experience of myself looking out, this is what we see: external objects slowly take shape, our feelings, the sense of the world and of self, and the interaction between the two.
In (protomahayana) Salistamba Sutra this is explained very similarly, except there they split the Defilement (Murkiness) factor into two separate factors: Ignorance and Desire:

... Four limbs of this twelve-fold Dependent Origination [are] ignorance, desire, karma and consciousness.
Here, consciousness [is like a] seed. Action [is like a] field. Ignorance and desire are defilement. Without these conditions, the development of the consciousness-seed does not occur. And so, the seed of consciousness grows, standing in the field of action, scattered by the wind of ignorance, watered by the moisture of desire.

A very valuable answer.

The short answer is that it is easier to understand the vital conditions since each of the 22 conditions is individually and directly verifiable through personal experience. The three rounds are organizational rather than strictly experiential. They are a framework for discussion. Personally, I favor the 22 vs. the 3 because I have found that the 22 are more useful day-to-day. For example:

I say that faith has a vital condition...you should say, "suffering".

The Buddha sums up the sutta like this directly answering the last two of your questions:

In the same way, ignorance is a vital condition for choices. … Freedom is a vital condition for the knowledge of ending.

Go look up Freedom in the sutta. The sequence is verifiable and amazing. And once your read and understand it, understanding the rounds and the wheel makes sense.