text:
Is Buddhism in conflict with manliness?
Is Buddhism in conflict with manliness?
I don't mean macho manliness but being a real man. To be man we have to compete, obtain resources and protect our families.
Could it be all achieved reasonably and with compassion? Could a man following Dhamma be a real, good man?
This is a question I ask myself for a very long time.
Thank you for your responses :)

OP: To be man we have to compete, obtain resources and protect our families. Could it be all achieved reasonably and with compassion?
  Could a man following Dhamma be a real, good man?

What you describe here is basically known as a householder or the head of a household in old times, and maybe even today.
The Sigalovada Sutta has plenty of good advice:

The wise endowed with virtue
  Shine forth like a burning fire,
  Gathering wealth as bees do honey
  And heaping it up like an ant hill.
Once wealth is accumulated,
  Family and household life may follow.
  By dividing wealth into four parts,
  True friendships are bound;
One part should be enjoyed;
  Two parts invested in business;
  And the fourth set aside
  Against future misfortunes."
"In five ways should a wife as the western direction be respected by a
  husband: by honoring, not disrespecting, being faithful, sharing
  authority, and by giving gifts.
"And, the wife so respected reciprocates with compassion in five ways:
  by being well-organized, being kindly disposed to the in-laws and
  household workers, being faithful, looking after the household goods,
  and being skillful and diligent in all duties.

From the Dighajanu Sutta:

"And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
  the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
  wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
  penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
  my outflow will not exceed my income.' Just as when a weigher or his
  apprentice, when holding the scales, knows, 'It has tipped down so
  much or has tipped up so much,' in the same way, the lay person,
  knowing the income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood
  in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus
  will my income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my
  income.' If a lay person has a small income but maintains a grand
  livelihood, it will be rumored of him, 'This clansman devours his
  wealth like a fruit-tree eater.' If a lay person has a large income
  but maintains a miserable livelihood, it will be rumored of him, 'This
  clansman will die of starvation.' But when a lay person, knowing the
  income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune,
  neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my
  income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my income,'
  this is called maintaining one's livelihood in tune.

From the Anana Sutta:

"And what is the bliss of having? There is the case where the son of a
  good family has wealth earned through his efforts & enterprise,
  amassed through the strength of his arm, and piled up through the
  sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained. When he
  thinks, 'I have wealth earned through my efforts & enterprise, amassed
  through the strength of my arm, and piled up through the sweat of my
  brow, righteous wealth righteously gained,' he experiences bliss, he
  experiences joy. This is called the bliss of having.
"And what is the bliss of [making use of] wealth? There is the case
  where the son of a good family, using the wealth earned through his
  efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of his arm, and
  piled up through the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously
  gained, partakes of his wealth and makes merit. When he thinks, 'Using
  the wealth earned through my efforts & enterprise, amassed through the
  strength of my arm, and piled up through the sweat of my brow,
  righteous wealth righteously gained, I partake of wealth and make
  merit,' he experiences bliss, he experiences joy. This is called the
  bliss of [making use of] wealth.
"And what is the bliss of debtlessness? There is the case where the
  son of a good family owes no debt, great or small, to anyone at all.
  When he thinks, 'I owe no debt, great or small, to anyone at all,' he
  experiences bliss, he experiences joy. This is called the bliss of
  debtlessness.

From the Adiya Sutta:

'My wealth has been enjoyed,
  my dependents supported,
  protected from calamities by me.
I have given supreme offerings
  & performed the five oblations.
I have provided for the virtuous,
  the restrained,
  followers of the holy life.
For whatever aim a wise householder
  would desire wealth,
  that aim I have attained.
  I have done what will not
  lead to future distress.'
When this is recollected by a mortal,
  a person established in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones,
  he is praised in this life and,
  after death, rejoices in heaven.

By practising the five precepts and other things, the householder can achieve stream entry. Please read the Gihi Sutta for more info on this.

To a Buddhist, the word 'manliness' usually means something completely different than what you think. To a Buddhist, 'manliness' means the ability to swim against the current. Not to get swept away by it. This is called "patisothagami patipada". The ordinary worldling is weak and easily defeated by the current of craving. Craving is their master and they spend most of their lives doing it's bidding like obedient slaves. This is one reason why the Buddha is considered the pinnacle of manliness as he swam against the current and reached highest point of humanity. I.e. the Buddhahood.
From a physical point of view, manliness is defined by the 32 great bodily features of a great man.

There's a book I've recommended, The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity. It has different chapters about different topics (e.g. finding a marriage partner, being a parent, earning a living), which contain advice for laypeople. It's written by Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula -- the book paraphrases (and references)) advice from various suttas which are intended for laypeople.
An example of one of those many suttas (for laypeople) is the Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) -- it includes advice on, as you asked, how to protect your family etc.
The author comments, in the introduction, that many suttas are spoken to (intended for) monks; but that Buddhism isn't intended to be (as you put it) "in conflict with" lay life, and that instead the sangha and lay society have a relationship.
I'm not sure though about your saying that "to be man we have to compete". I'm not sure that we should even compare ourselves ("he's better, I'm better, etc.")! I no longer have that book, so I can't quote from it for you, but maybe people are society are meant to cooperate rather than compete.

By the way, After being enlightened, later buddha had admitted his wife and son and foster-mother, all in his sangha, and all had become monks. So his family was protected in his sangha.

Now, coming to the main part of the question:
1) In Zen Buddhism, Shaolin temple has monks who learn and teach Martial arts. This is for attaining "physical power" and self-discipline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Monastery
2) Meditation has aim of enlightenment, and during the process you earn self mind control and discipline.
3) Ability to depending yourself on external factors for achieving your own happiness, this is your normal life. But now, you are slowly acheiving to be blissful in your might, without depending upon external factors.
4) If you want to compete in society, then do not become monk, just be a buddhist layperson. So you will have follow lesser number of percepts than monks, so you will be able to compete in society with lesser rules to follow. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dighajanu_Sutta#Dighajanu_seeks_householder_happiness   and also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Householder_(Buddhism)#Householder_ethics
5) see answers to this question Killing a terrorist by official government army consider as bad karma?
--> conclusion: One who has (1) mental power and (2)physical power in his control and ability to be (3)blissful in averse condition and then he is layperson combating ethically with other persons in normal life, Then who can challenge such person for a fight, who can stop such person from win over himself and competition.

also see "Buddha Taught Nonviolence, Not Pacifism" by Paul R. Fleischman( http://store.pariyatti.org/Buddha-Taught-Nonviolence-Not-Pacifism--PDF-eBook_p_2597.html ) . Although this book is on matter of violence, but you can derive message for finding balance in cut-throat corporate world. This will give you competitiveness

by the way, I am dharmic person:I see buddh dharma and hinduism dharma both as dharma.Hence, we see buddha as avatara of Vishnu (Supreme God in Viashnavite hinduism). Hence, Krishna's Bhagvad Gita(who is also considered avatara of Vishnu) gives message of doing task(including war) for dharma but without attachment. So, you can mix another avatara of same vishnu,ie Krishna message with Buddha message to get your path. But this is Sanatan dharma point of view. From buddhist mahayana point of view, you can see Krishna as avatara of Vishnu lokpala.So see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

also see https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/24422/killing-a-terrorist-by-official-government-army-consider-as-bad-karma and see https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/24834/difference-between-attachment-and-goals?noredirect=1&lq=1 and see https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7716/13138 and see https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/8570/what-do-buddhists-do-in-a-situation-of-war-where-all-able-bodied-men-must-become


text:
Contradictions from Monks regarding Precepts vs Commandments and punishment
Now this is often raised whenever a monk teaches and talks about the five precepts. They often say that these are not, like in the judeo christian faith, commandments and that no higher entity or something will punish one. Now to my question: These monks belief in post mortem rebirth (I do not) and they therefore employ wrong speech regarding the aspect of punishment. One is getting punished (hell realm etc.) if one is not in line with the precepts (based on their view on post mortem rebirth).
Can anyone explain this phenomena?

If you fall when you jump off the window, is it punishment?

Can you please answer my question?

Can you please clarify the contradiction

Gee. If they say that in Buddhism there is no punishment (like in the monotheistic religions) but in the same time they belief and teach rebirth, then there is punishment and therefore they are contradicting themselves that no punishment follows.  It's not an entity that causes the punishment, but nonetheless punishment. Can you follow now?

Although I was not present, it sounds like the monks were not referring to "punishment" in the sense of being "punished for sins" by some divine arbitrator.  Instead, the fruits of karma (cause and effect) ripen and cause what we name a "rebirth" in a higher, lower, or equal realm.  In the Buddhist tradition, anything that is not a human rebirth is perceived as not desirable as the human experience is the one most able to approach enlightenment.
Since the fruits of karma come about from one's own actions, it would be self-inflicted "punishment" - perhaps not the best choice of words but not wholly inaccurate.  Is it punishment if you fall to your death after jumping off a cliff?  We might say it is gravity "punishing" an individual in such a situation - such is the verbiage here.  In Buddhism, it is up to you to experience your own karma.  Nobody judges you for it or can change it for you, but karma will allow you suffer the consequences of your decisions.
Interestingly enough, the Buddha contradicted himself on a number occasions depending on the crowd he was speaking to.  This was due to the skillful use of words to explain something to his listeners in a way that they could understand.  Have you thought that perhaps the monks in this case were employing skillfulness in a similar manner to describe these things in such a way that it would cause you to wrestle with these concepts?
As an aside, it sounds like the real problem may be with the question of rebirth and a desire to object to any language centered around it.  If indeed rebirth existed, then would you still have an issue?  There are a number of highly realized individuals throughout history that have claimed either experience or insight into other planes of experience.
That said, I have wrestled with the concept of rebirth in the past and can't say that I have solved it but I would put forth a few thoughts:

The base (most subtle in Buddhist terms) awareness we experience seems to be the exact same awareness that animals and even insects experience.  I am not talking about intellect or cognitive abilities but the simplest base sense of "experiencing the world around us".  Personally, meditation on this concept has helped.
"Hells", "Heavens", and the like could simply be states of mind.  In some ways, we are born, live, and die moment to moment as each moment causes the next, and a bad mindstate in any given moment could indeed be considered "hellish".
Modern neuroscience has not been able to pin down if human experience is indeed purely physical or if it is perceived by the brain.  I have corresponded with numerous neuroscientists on Quora and have found a consensus that this is still the elephant in the room.  Sure, we can see how the brain uses nerves to send a signal to my fingers to tap the keys on my keyboard.  But the actual experience that decides to initiate the tapping?  That is still elusive.
Modern quantum physics involves reality coming into being when there is an observer.  Perhaps our experience is the observer when a quantum wave collapses?  If so, it is independent of the physical universe it observes.  (On yet another side note, the overlap between Buddhism theory of mind and quantum physics is a fascinating study)

And so on, I could keep going, but I think you can see there is much more here than a simple materialist approach can resolve.

It would be wrong view not wrong speech if in fact they were wrong.
Karma is not punishment it is cause and effect.
There is no "post mortem", there is no death. All that there is is moment by moment awareness of mindbody experience.
Also, you are forgetting that there is faith in Buddhism. It's an important faculty that needs to be balanced with wisdom.
All the proof is found inside us, moment by moment. Nobody else can see this proof so those who's religion is science
can't understand the concept of ineffable proof. If they can't go after the proof with tools in a laboratory then they believe this proof can't be real. The laboratory is the mind and why does proof need more than one person?
So, it's not wrong speech for one to speak as though one believes in things that are wrong, it's wrong view but who says? Believing someone has wrong view or wrong anything, is a view,  wrong view. All views and any views are **wrong views*_, ultimately.

My view, my opinion in a way is right view but in another way any view is wrong view...because a view or opinion that is made up of words is not experienced directly. Words and concepts are not exactly real.

"There is no "post mortem", there is no death. All that there is is moment by moment awareness of mindbody experience."  You are aware that the ending of mind and body is called death, right? I'm not here to go into philosophical debates. You can agree or not, but the ending of bodily and mental phenomena is what I call death. Furthermore, I am aware that faith is important, but not blind faith. It's more like: "it seems kind of logical let me try it out without judgment and test it out". I somewhat familiar what kamma is. Sorry but your answer was dukkha to me. Regards

I'm not saying that Kamma is punishment. I'm saying that not following the precepts will cause punishment if they believe in physical rebirth. Now in detail: "If you don't follow the precepts you are going to feel bad now (this is obvious) and will get into a lot of troubles (obvious too, since other humans also defend themselves if threatened). "And you will inevitably suffer in your next life due to your misbehaviour". So it is in this way no different than the monotheistic religions. So the monks initially said the precepts are not like commandments. Contradiction? You decide.

@Val Scrutiny is important but I think it's a good thing to scrutinize what we take for granted too. Like prepackaged materialistic logic ideals that are affected by subtle emotional & egotistical bad habits... Buddhism when practiced correctly is not philosophy it is applied science. Objectively looking at the subjective moment by moment to see the most subtle processes of our mindbody. When I say "death doesn't exist" you filter it through a very "materialistic only" belief system. Obviously I didn't mean there is no such concept as death.

@Val If a guy's body gets blown into little tiny pieces were is the evidence that  the guy is dead?  How convenient that materialists only have to worry about the easy and obvious gross material phenomena. A lot of scientists say that the mind doesn't exist...only in the make believe material only paradigm but that is just concept not the ultimate truth.

Rebirth doesn't mean things stay the same.

Nowadays, the Mind is more than just the activity of the brain and all well known scientists regard the mind. The Buddha never said that the mind is independant of the body. This is completely absurd and goes against dependant co-arising. Compounded things are impermanent and so is the mind 1) dependent on something and 2) impermanent. How should rebirth worth if there is no substantial self? What gets reborn? By which measurements (does the mind do its deduction and then calculates the good and bad deeds, lol). Soul transmigration implies to atta.

Again, the Buddha never spoke of "re"birth. "Re" refers to something happening again. The buddha spoke of pubbe nivasa, literally "past homes", "past dwellings". Mental rebirth can be experienced here and now, whereas your claims cannot and iirc, adhering to blind belief is silabbatupadana.

Oh yeah? I've heard that. What your going to get canonical now? Your too much fun.

It appears preachers of post-mortem rebirth are engaged in false speech, which is defined as follows:

If he doesn't know, he says, 'I know.' If he does know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I have seen.' If he has
seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' Thus he consciously tells lies for
his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of a certain
reward. He speaks out of season, speaks what isn't factual...
AN 10.176

An explanation of this phenomena is these monks have an unreflective & materialistic faith in the sutta teachings, which causes them to misinterpret what they read in scripture, as follows:

There are two kinds of language.  One is the conventional language that ordinary people speak, what I call "people language." People language is used by the ordinary people who don't understand
Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so dense that
they are blind to everything but material things.  Then, there is the
language which is spoken by those who understand reality (Dhamma),
especially those who know and understand reality in the ultimate
sense.  This is another kind of language.  We can call it "Dhamma
language." You always must take care to recognize which language is
being spoken.
Ajahn Buddhadasa

Thus, when these monks read words such as "birth", "death", "kaya" ("body"), "heaven", "hell", etc, in the suttas, they interpret them materialistically or physically rather than mentally. For example, about "hell" that is directly knowable, the suttas say:

I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose … Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable.
SN 35.135

Another explanation of this phenomena is the minds of these monks are polluted by the five hindrances, which causes them to misinterpret what they read in scripture, as follows:

Why is it, good Gotama, how does it come about that sometimes sacred words I have long studied are not clear to me, not to mention those I
have not studied? And how is it too that sometimes other sacred words
that I have not so studied are clear to me, not to mention those I
have studied?
Well, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires... ill-will... sloth-and-torpor ...
worry-and-flurry and doubt... then he cannot know or see, as it really
is... Then even sacred words he has long studied are not clear to him,
not to mention those he has not studied.
Sangaravo Sutta

Another explanation of this phenomena is these monks are engaged in false speech however they believe the false speech will benefit the audience because the audience is so dense that the audience are blind to everything but material things.

OP: If they say that in Buddhism there is no punishment (like in the monotheistic religions) but in the same time they belief and teach
  rebirth, then there is punishment and therefore they are contradicting
  themselves that no punishment follows. It's not an entity that causes
  the punishment, but nonetheless punishment.

Firstly, there is no punishment or "cosmic justice" system in Buddhism.
Rather, it's cause and effect. If you knock your head on the wall, you will feel physical pain. That's cause and effect. Not punishment.
Even in your current lifetime, you can experience cause and effect according to the Sigalovada Sutta:

Bad friends, bad companions,
  Bad practices — spending time in evil ways,
  By these, one brings oneself to ruin,
  In this world and the next.

So, you don't have to wait till the "next world", bad companions and bad practices can affect you in this life itself.
The same sutta explains the effects caused by intoxicating substances:

"These are the six dangers inherent in heedlessness caused by
  intoxication: loss of immediate wealth, increased quarreling,
  susceptibility to illness, disrepute, indecent exposure, and weakened
  insight.

The same sutta explains the purpose of the other four precepts both for this world and the next:

The Buddha said this:
"Young man, by abandoning the four impure actions, a noble disciple
  refrains from harmful deeds rooted in four causes and avoids the six
  ways of squandering wealth. So, these fourteen harmful things are
  removed. The noble disciple, now with the six directions protected,
  has entered upon a path for conquering both worlds, firmly grounded in
  this world and the next. At the dissolution of the body after death, a
  good rebirth occurs in a heavenly world.
"What four impure actions are abandoned? The harming of living beings
  is an impure action, taking what is not given is an impure action,
  sexual misconduct is an impure action, and false speech is an impure
  action. These four are abandoned."

For lay persons and others, the Buddha prescribed the minimum set of training rules, which is the five precepts. These are not commandments or prohibitions. Rather, they are training rules. It is up to you whether to undertake the prescribed training or not.
For example, you may not be forced to join the army. But if you join the army voluntarily, you would have to observe the army's training rules. There's a purpose to those training rules, towards achieving the goals of the army.
Similarly, you are not forced to practise Buddhism. If you choose to do so, the minimum training rules would be the five precepts, towards achieving the goals of Buddhism.
Whether you practise the five precepts or not, you are still subject to cause and effect. No matter what you choose to believe or practise, there is still cause and effect in this world and in this life.
To me, the phrase "at the dissolution of the body after death, a good rebirth occurs in a heavenly world" clearly refers to rebirth. But as a secular Buddhist or even non-Buddhist, you may interpret it as a metaphorical mental reappearance from moment to moment, into another state of mind.
Regardless of how you interpret that, cause and effect definitely affects you in this life itself. It's up to you to choose to accept or reject the voluntary training rules of the five precepts, towards the Buddhist goal of ending suffering.

Why are you explaining cause and effect to me? I' m refering to the punishment coupled with rebirth. Actually rebirth was never mentioned by the buddha because the pre-fix "re" would imply that something happens again, but as we know nothing can stay the same for two conesecutive moments. Further, the Buddha said that this Dhamma can be experienced in the here and now. Your quote about the dissolution was most likely refered to a lay person or brahmin to convince him and/or motivate him to do good so that he avoids hell. Blind belief in "rebirth" is contrary to Dhamma. You're defiling dhamma.

The Sigalovada Sutta was directed to a lay person. So there the Buddha employs the use of literal rebirth, again to motivate him to do good.

If you would meditate correctly, you would realize that mind or consciousness cannot be born after death. Why? Because as we know, all 5 aggregates affect each other. If you calm the breath (kaya-sankhara) the body will also calm. The breath conditions the body and the body in turn will further calm the breath and the mind, too. You cannot say that the mind has a life of its own. It is dependent. This is nothing to be taken on faith. If you are dizzy due to cold or heat or due to alcohol your mind and consciousness is affected. Quite simple.

Why are you explaining cause and effect to me? Because this is the answer to the question. The question is essentially asking, "Isn't Hell a punishment?" -- and this answer is saying, "I'd call it (i.e. Buddhism would describe it as) an effect, or perhaps a result".

Cause and effect also happens in the judeo christian faith. If you do bad (cause) there will be an effect later on (by the agency whatever they call it). So it is no different. Punishment will ensue in both cases. At any rate, thread can be closed since I don't belief in literal rebirth and it is of no concern to me, since it doesn't quench Dukkha and therefore is superflous (as the Buddha said quite well).

@Val See also the comments underneath this question. It's probably better to avoid asking questions to which you don't want answers. And, more generally, FAQ index (summary of site policies).

@Val You implied in your comment that the Buddha lied to lay people about literal rebirth to convince them to live a virtuous life. Doesn't that contradict his precept of abstaining from false speech? BTW, you can find literal rebirth taught to monks in AN4.126.

Lying is not necessarily "bad" if it is beneficial. Otherwise he wouldn't teach lay people ordinary right view etc.  or he wouldn't tell to one of his lustful disciples that he should meditate in order to get nymphs after death. He lied as a skillful means. Wake up.

@Val Doesn't MN 61 seem to you like, you shouldn't tell a deliberate lie, ever? -- "In the same way, Rahula, when anyone feels no shame in telling a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I tell you, he will not do. Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself, 'I will not tell a deliberate lie even in jest."

"In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them."

@Val The mind can't be born after death? What is it born after then? I don't know if we disagree, I think it might be a semantic issue?? The aggregates only exist when awareness is there. There was never anything that is whole that  dies...that would be conceptual reality.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is intellect-consciousness and why is it different from intellect itself?
In SN 35.93 quoted below, it reads intellect-consciousness arises in dependence on the intellect and ideas, but if this consciousness is also a thinking about the work of intellect on ideas then it in itself is an intellect. and if so we have to look for another consciousness which higher and the search continues ad-infinitum.
This, of course, is not my own though it's a classic platonic thinkers response to Descartes's misguided saying Cogito ergo sum ( I think, therefore I am),  quoted below is from Plotinos Ennead Book Nine explaining the relation of intellect and consciousness.

SN 35.93 Dvaya Sutta: A Pair

"In dependence on the intellect & ideas, there arises
  intellect-consciousness. The intellect is inconstant, changeable, of a
  nature to become otherwise. Ideas are inconstant, changeable, of a
  nature to become otherwise. Thus this pair is both wavering &
  fluctuating — inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise.

PLOTINOS: - SECOND ENNEAD, BOOK NINE.

Though there be a difference between thinking, and thinking that one
  thinks, these two nevertheless constitute a single intuitive
  consciousness of its actualizations. It would be ridiculous to deny
  such a consciousness to veritable Intelligence. It is, therefore, the
  same Intelligence that thinks, and that thinks that it thinks.
  Otherwise, there would be two principles, of which the one would have
  thought, and the other consciousness of thought. The second would
  doubtless differ from the first, but would not be the real thinking
  principle. A mere logical distinction between thought and
  consciousness of thought would not establish the (actual) differences
  between two . Further, we shall have to
  consider whether it be possible to conceive of an Intelligence which
  would exclusively think, without any accompanying consciousness of its
  thought. If we ourselves who are entirely devoted to practical
  activity and discursive reason were in such a condition, we would,
  even if otherwise considered sensible, be insane. But as true
  Intelligence thinks itself in its thoughts, and as the
  intelligible, far from being outside of Intelligence, is Intelligence
  itself, Intelligence, by thinking, possesses itself, and necessarily
  sees itself. When Intelligence sees itself, it does not see itself
  as unintelligent, but as intelligent. Therefore in the first
  actualization of thought, Intelligence has the thought and
  consciousness of thought, two things that form but a single one; not
  even logically is this a duality. If Intelligence always thinks what
  it is, is there any reason to separate, even by a simple logical
  distinction, thought from the consciousness of thought? The absurdity
  of the doctrine we are controverting will be still more evident if we
  suppose that a third intelligence is conscious that the second
  intelligence is conscious of the thought of the first; we might thus
  go on to infinity

This is just bad translation. "Consciousness" is the common word for vijnana. A better translation of vijnana is "(subjective) experience". Meaning, you see something => you recognize it => you make sense of it => you experience it.
"Intellect" is how they usually translate manas or mind.
So "Intellect-consciousness" or mano-vijnana, is therefore the subjective experience of what's going on one's own mind. It's when you "see" what you're thinking about etc. I think it's called re-representation in modern cognitive science.
It does not require a higher mind or anything like that. Based on my meditation experience, it works as a cycle. Normally the input from sense organs goes to memory to find matching associations, this is how recognition happens, the basis of vijnana. With manovijnana, instead of the sensory organs, our attention grabs data from short term memory, finds matches in long term memory, puts that back in short term memory - voila, manovijnana.

Consciousness ('vinnana') is not thinking. Consciousness is experiencing or knowing.

Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite
  condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in
  the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks
  about, one objectifies.
MN 18

The term 'intellect-consciousness' is merely a name for a certain type of consciousness (knowing), similar to when describing different types of paint as 'red paint', 'blue paint', 'house paint', 'wall paint', 'outdoor paint', etc. Intellect-consciousness' refers to a consciousness that arises to experience the intellect & its products.
The 'intellect' (called 'mano') is not 'the power of knowing'. 'Mano' refers to the power of intelligence, reason, thinking & decision making, such as described in verse 1 of the Dhammapada:

Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā. Manasā ce paduṭṭhena bhāsati vā karoti vā Tato naṃ dukkhamanveti cakkaṃ'va
  vahato padaṃ.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
  follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

As described, above, 'mano' (translated as 'intellect') is that which thinks & acts rather than is that which knows & experiences.
It helps understanding to view 'consciousness' as a 'mirror' and to view 'intellect & ideas' as objects reflected in that mirror.

Could you please elaborate further ... if Consciousness is knowing ... how is that different from intellect which is the power of knowing?

isn't knowing the perception of a feeling?

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


text:
Are there any detail exposition of Consciousness without surface (viññanam anidassanam)?
I asked this question recently to understand why consciousness is different from the intellect itself and considering the answer given I now think that Consciousness is not something higher than intellect but just the working of intellect i.e. "consciousness of". But now I encountered another type of consciousness Consciousness without surface (viññanam anidassanam) which seems to be beyond the intellect itself, as Bhikkhu Thanissaro explain it here it is beyond the six sense media. I read somewhere else that it is consciousness of arising of Dhammacakka, The Eye of Wisdom.
Could you please direct me to a detailed exposition of this type of consciousness, if any.
Thanks a mil.

Related: What is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface?

Bhikkhu Thanissaro was definitely wrong is explaining viññanam anidassanam is beyond the six sense media because SN 35.23 says there can be nothing experienceable beyond the six sense media.
Since Nibbana, in Ud 8.1, is described as a sense object (ayatana), how can Nibbana be an object of sense media but viññanam anidassanam is not an object of media?
Also, DN 11 says in viññanam anidassanam the four physical elements "have no footing" (rather than "cease without remainder") therefore viññanam anidassanam is not something completely disconnected from the four physical elements.
Also, viññanam anidassanam is certainly not a consciousness of arising of Dhammacakka, The Eye of Wisdom, because the Dhammacakka is described in many suttas (such as SN 56.11 & SN 35.74) relating to the Four Noble Truths and Three Characteristics.
In the two suttas where viññanam anidassanam is mentioned, namely, DN 11 and MN 49, no listener of the Buddha gains enlightenment. This shows viññanam anidassanam is not the arising of the Dhamma Eye nor related to Buddhism at all.
DN 11 and MN 49 are both suttas of Buddhist propaganda spoken against or mocking Brahmanism (and probably not spoken by the Buddha himself). The verse about 'viññanam anidassanam' is spoken to Brahmins & Brahma gods, who don't believe in the Buddha. The Buddha's reply is related to the Brahmnanistic doctrines, using Brahmanistic terminology. For example, MN 49 says:

Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water,
  fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā [1st jhana], the gods
  of streaming radiance [2nd jhana], the gods replete with glory [3rd
  jhana], the gods of abundant fruit [4th jhana], the Overlord and the
  All.

Now, MN 49 says viññanam anidassanam is not within the scope of experience of 'The All' yet SN 35.23 says anything not included within 'The All' is beyond range of experience. This apparent contradiction is explained simply by distinguishing that 'The All' in MN 49 is the Brahmanistic meaning of 'The All' where as SN 35.23 is the Buddha's debunking or redefining of 'The All' for Buddhist purposes.
It is important to know that certain pre-Buddhist Brahmanistic terms, such as 'The All' and 'nama-rupa' can have dual & different meanings in the suttas, namely, the original Brahmanistic meaning & the revised Buddhist meaning. For example, the Brahmanistic meaning of nama-rupa is 'name-form' where as the Buddhist meaning of 'nama-rupa' is 'mentality-materiality'. Thus in suttas directed to Brahmnins (example SN 7.6; DN 11; MN 49 and DN 15), nama-rupa retains its Brahmanistic meaning. Similarly, in MN 49, the term 'The All' retains its Brahmanistic meaning (rather than is the Buddhist meaning found in SN 35.23).
That the famous Western scholars such as Thanissaro, Bodhi, Sujato, etc, do not distinguish two meanings of nama-rupa and cling to the literal Brahmanistic meaning of 'name-form'.
This said, the monk Sujato provides his opinion at: 'Nibbana is not viññāṇa. Really, it just isn’t.', which is contrary to Thanissaro's ideas. In short, Sujato's view appears to be viññanam anidassanam is an immaterial jhana (although I personally may not agree).
While I have not examined the matter in depth (given it is an unimportant teaching), my initial impression is viññanam anidassanam is merely a teaching to Brahmins challenging them to abandon their existing ideas & doctrines. In short, it is later-day Buddhist propaganda typical of the dodgy suttas found in the Digha Nikaya. Most scholars accept the Digha Nikaya was compiled for the purpose of converting Brahmans to Buddhism.

This sounds like non-dualistic awareness without subject and object, called Rigpa in Dzogchen. You can read more about it here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigpa
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rigpa
http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Rigpa


text:
Most effective meditation techniques to develop empathy, love and compassion for others?
I feel like a very cold and sensual person. Easily attracted to sensual pleasure but very cold and numb when it comes to bonding with other human beings. I want to change, and therefore I want to make a meditation plan in order to develop empathy, love and compassion for other human beings, and possibly extend it to all sentient beings in general. However, I'm not sure about how to make such a meditation plan. Based on your experience / knowledge, which meditation techniques are most effective to develop these emotions?

There are different ways of going about this goal.
A problem with merely reciting the standard formula could be that it may feel like internally, you are actually experiencing the opposite intention.
Not being satisfied with oneself, even feeling aversion towards oneself, is quite common, especially in many Western cultures, and to extend metta from that position can be very difficult. The same thing is true when there are people you do not actually like, or even feel strong aversion or hate towards.
Personally, I suspect just reciting, going against one's actual experienced intention in the present moment could be counter-productive.
There are other methods to try.
You may first want to consider if there is anything or anyone that actually does bring up a sense of compassion and a wish for well-being inside of you.
Ajahn Brahm provides various suggestions: perhaps babies? Perhaps kittens or puppies? Some other animal? Perhaps somebody who showed you love and care when you were a child - one of your parents, one of your grandparents, etc.
Whatever or whoeever it is, is not so important, with the caveat that somebody you have been sexually attracted to is probably not the best choice.
The point is to find the feeling and amplify it as much as you can, before you start to extend the metta.
You can also use logic to strengthen your resolve. You can imagine what your situation would be like, and by extension, what the world could be like if people genuinely wished everyone else well.
Finally, there is a "backwards metta hack" that a kind monk taught me.
He explained that for him, metta had been the biggest challenge in his practice. He had a miserable upbringing and major problems with depression, even suicidal ideas, before he was introduced to Buddhism. So when he started out, he simply could not do it. He just couldn't find the feeling within himself.
However, as he started to learn how to calm the body and mind through meditation, he would experience increased peace and well-being within himself, and had a breakthrough at one time, as he was coming out of a very peaceful meditation and felt very calm, very soft and yet very clear and bright. At that moment, something inside of him clicked: 'What if I can radiate this state?' - and then he started the metta meditation. Immediately, it felt genuine.

I kind of identify with the monk you mentioned at the end, in the sense that I cannot "amplify" any feeling of love or compassion because I simply cannot elicit those feelings in the first place. I'm wondering, what kind of meditation did that monk practice to experience peace and well-being within himself in order to use the "backwards metta hack"?

He told me that he used anapanasati (mindfulness of breathing) with noting of direct experience in the present moment to start with.

I recommend you metta meditation. It is simple meditation you can do even when you are traveling in a bus etc. Basically what metta meditation does is, it help us to think about others well being and betterment with wishing their success.
We can do metta meditation direction wise or group wise. Read meththanisansa sutra and karaneeyametta sutra for further information.
First thing a person do in meththa meditation is hope the well being of himself
May I be happy.
May I be at peace.
May I live with ease.
May I be free from suffering.

Then you can move direction wise or group wise and wish well being of other people.
All the people in the direction of north,
be happy.
be at peace.
live with ease.
be free from suffering.

This way you can spread metta for all 10 directions or for parents, relations, neighbors ,people who are friendly, people who are neutral, people who are hatred etc....
From this meditation you can earn 11 benefits during this life..read them on those sutras.
In practical mannaer you can spread metta at any time.. for example, when you are going to work in early morning.. hope all people who are walking to work... going on bus.. going on train etc may they all happy today.. may everything they do be successful..etc.
When you see a person with a illness sadness or any problem, spread metta to him... may this person be recovered from the illness..may this person happy and peaceful etc....
When you hear of see an ambulance is passing by..in your mind think may this person feel well, may this person recover from illness.. may this person live long etc.
Developing these kind of thoughts will automatically brings those people's love , affection and kindness to you back too.

You can try metta meditation.
There are some guided metta meditation YouTube videos:

Ajahn Brahm's Guided Metta Meditation
Bhante Gunaratana's Guided Metta Meditation
Thanissaro Bhikkhu's Guided Metta Meditation
Matthieu Ricard's Guided Metta Meditation
Ayya Khema's Guided Metta Meditation
Mindah-Lee Kumar's Guided Metta Meditation

I cannot make a recommendation from the list above. It's up to you to find the one that you like.


text:
What did Buddha say about dysfunctional families for novice practitioners?
What did Buddha say about dysfunctional families for novice practitioners? What advice did he give for novice practitioners in order to have a good practice as being a novice such impediments as a dysfunctional and painful family can impact practice in a negative manner? What precautions should one take? Should one go no-contact, is that skillful?
Elsewhere, Buddha has mentioned that one cannot repay the debts of the parents and even in the Mangala Sutta it is mentioned that one should be helpful to relatives. However, if being in contact with dysfunctional families makes us lose our faith in ourselves and makes us angry and hateful all the time, this is a huge impediment to practice especially as a novice. I know that one should learn to have compassion for these people and see them as afflicted by delusions. However the transgressions are so huge and the fact that I am a novice makes me feel guilty that I cannot feel the compassion. I have tried Metta meditation and also analyzing them using the 5 ways to overcome hatred. At this point nothing is helping. I am just filled with this ball of anger and hatred inside me constantly. I am afraid that I am generating more negative mind-states by being in contact with this dysfunctional system. There is a lot of dysfunction and its so painful, to the point that I am losing my self-esteem and have started doubting my worth as a human -being. There is constant lies, manipulation, slandering... I am losing my faith in myself as a human being.
All advice to deal with this situation from the Suttas, and practical advice from personal experiences, will be appreciated. Please remember, this is for a novice. High spiritual ideals like compassion etc are great, but they are not helpful for me right now.

Related: I want to leave my mother

I can only agree with Dhammadhatu's last paragraph. Get yourself going first, for  if you are suffering inside you cannot help others and your inner rescources will become less and less. This is not about being selfish but I call it enlightened self interest.
Now, the Dhammapada is largely addressed to monks, but I think some of the quotes are still good reminders and something to strive for.
To quote from the Dhammapada:

Verse 160: One indeed is one's own refuge; how can others be a refuge to one? With oneself thoroughly tamed, one can attain a refuge (i.e., Arahatta Phala), which is so difficult to attain.

_

Verse 61: If a person seeking a companion cannot find one who is better than or equal to him, let him resolutely go on alone; there can be no companionship with a fool.

and lastly verse 43, which targets your issue and echoes Dhatus last point:

Verse 43: Not a mother, nor a father, nor any other relative can do more for the well-being of one than a rightly-directed mind can.

Apart from Buddhism, I can also recommend REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) by Albert Ellis who was the "father" of cognitive behavioral therapy. Especially Windy Dryden published countless books in how to overcome obstacles (search on Google Books, I learned most of it through Book reviews there). One of the most important hallmarks in REBT is self acceptance, and if possible other and world acceptance, where you differentiate between personhood (or supposed "self/other worth") and the doer. Basically "condeming the sin but not the sinner". It would definitely help with your self esteem issue you raised. On YouTube, Albert Ellis is also to be found. There are old lectures, but still on point and have a no non-sense approach which I like and is usually quite rare to be found in comparison to Buddhism, where lectures and talks go up to 2-3 hours with a lot of non-sense and rambling.

Verse 61 has a logical problem. The better companion candidate, by abiding to verse 61, won't ever accept the lesser one as a companion to him or herself. This always bothered me.

equal OR better.

You seem to have missed my point. If everyone that logic, "associate only with those that are equal or better than you", everyone would only associate with people that equal and never someone that is better, 'cause those that are better than you wouldn't want to associate with someone lesser. Thus, associating yourself with someone better than you that also follows the Verse 61 is impossible.

These passages are very inspirational , and I understand that working on my mind is more important than anything else. Now , the path ahead is slowly becoming clear for me.

What did Buddha say about dysfunctional families for novice practitioners.

There is a sutta (Iti 74) where the Buddha said a child can be morally/dhammically superior, equal or inferior to their parents. Here, the Buddha recognises there can be bad parents.

What advice did he give for novice practitioners in order to have a
  good practice as being a novice such impediments as a dysfunctional
  and painful family can impact practice in a negative manner.

When men become monks, they generally forgot about their families & often did not see their family again. In other words, family should not be an obstacle to practice. The Ratthapala Sutta provides an excellent example of how a monk responded to his unfaithful family.

What precautions should one take? Should one go no-contact , is
  that skillful.

Monks go non-contact, even when the family is not dysfunctional.

Elsewhere , Buddha has mentioned that one cannot repay the debts of the parents and even in the Mangala Sutta it is mentioned that one
  should be helpful to relatives.

I think the above suttas are not about dysfunctional families. For example, SN 37.29 & 30 say dysfunctional wives are expelled from a family. Dhamma practise is about developing virtue and maintaining that virtue in all circumstances. DN 31 describes have people in various relationships should ideally relate to one other. If people don't relate to each other properly, these relationship can be ended. In DN 31, it is said:

the friend who brings ruin, these four as enemies the wise behold, avoid them from afar as paths of peril.

However ,if being in contact with dysfunctional families makes us lose our faith in ourselves and makes us angry and hateful all the
  time , this is a huge impediment to practice especially as a novice.

Even good families often do not agree with a child pursing Dhamma. Dhamma practitioners practise for their own salvation and do not allow any unnecessary impediments; including family.

I know that one should learn to have compassion for these people  and see them as afflicted by delusions. However the transgressions are
  so huge and the fact that I am a novice makes me feel guilty that I
  cannot feel the compassion .

It is best to start with equanimity, namely, see them as afflicted by delusions. This is easier than compassion or metta.

Please remember , this is for a novice. High spiritual ideals like compassion etc are great, but they are not helpful for me right now.

Your situation sounds very serious & difficult. You should leave your family & develop your life; until you are independent & established in proper living; particularly the ethical conduct factors of the Eightfold Path.

Leaving my family is what I realised also I have to do and the words of the Buddha towards which you have guided me will help me to be strong and continue my practice.

There's a "Rhinoceros Sutta".
I don't know any commentary on it, except Wikipedia.
It's not exactly about, it's not only about, families.
I guess I'd just want to add that:

It's a bit one-sided.
The reason (motive) it gives seems to be freedom: freedom from attachment; not aversion.

Another sutta might seem to say something opposite, e.g. "Upaddha Sutta: Half (of the Holy Life)".
Truth to tell, this sutta too wasn't about families; but anyway -- perhaps from personal experience if not from the suttas -- instead of (or as well as) concentrating on avoiding people who upset you, maybe try to find and try to emulate people you admire ... not to become attached, ideally, but to learn from a good example.
That (learning from some good example[s]) is true for everyone, but maybe especially for people from dysfunctional families. IMO a problem with "dysfunctional families" isn't only that they're vexing but that you don't learn from them various ordinary coping skills.

That is so true , and I never taught about the coping skills part. I will work on developing my coping skills.


text:
Dealing with Contempt and Social Comparison
I have been experiencing greater calm lately, yet at some moments I seem to judge others, as in public places or in general. I understand this as contempt, though I don't really believe it; I don't believe I am better or that people are worthy of contempt, but the thoughts arise anyways and I try to just observe them with equanimity. Often, I experience quite a few of these thoughts, and this impedes my calmness.
What is the best manner to deal with contempt, or just comparing oneself with others in general?

Does metta help, and what kind?
Should I watch the thoughts with equanimity or alter them?
Is there some other meditative technique that would help?

Thank you

See also How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

May I suggest a book: Only don't know by Zen Master Seung Sah. It is not directly related to your problem, but I think its title provides an answer to your problem.
The way I deal with these sort of judgmental thoughts, is by "not knowing". 99% of these judgements are based on our superficial assumptions about these people's lives, based on a few signs we can observe. If you think about it that way, it becomes clear that we construct an idea of these people in our heads, and then we judge that idea! We think we are superior or inferior than an idea we ourselves constructed. Isn't that funny?
In Buddhism, one of the key elements of applying Dharma in practice is becoming good friends with ambiguity. Normally we are used to clarity and the confidence that comes from clarity but in Buddhism we recognize that this clarity is illusory. In fact we know very little about the world, may be 5%, and the rest we infer ourselves. From this inference, which most of the time is not very accurate and sometimes outright wrong, come all kinds of problems. So one of the essential skills in Buddhism is remaining open, unconclusive, ambiguous with regards to people and the world. This is known as "beginner's mind", and is what's referred by Zen Master Seung Sah as "only don't know".
Thanissaro Bhikkhu at some point gave a very good talk (I listened to it in recording, it must be available online but I can't find it at the moment) on Ego and Egolessness. The gist of his message was that, basically, Ego is a giant overgeneralization that we make, a horrific simplification about ourselves. We create this caricature of who we are, and then struggle to fit that with (again) a caricature of the world that we likewise created. Instead, the Buddhist approach is to be free from generalizations, free from the caricatures. 99% of our judgemental thoughts come from these sort of generalizations or caricatures - of either ourselves or others.
So the main technique to overcome these thoughts of contempt and social comparison, whether in your favor or not, is to learn to challenge your own assumptions and generalizations. Perhaps talk to some people and try to really understand their personal world. It may not be the happiest world but in my experience it is almost always a world that has its own logic, its own sense of goodness, honesty, pride. It will usually have some samsaric elements to be sure: attachments, Ego, side-taking, karmic tangles - but within that setting there is always a sentient being that is doing their best to be good. The definition of "good" may be skewed in their system of coordinates, due to traumas and all kinds of karmic situations, and their level of skill and motivation may vary - but they always want something good and try to achieve that within their limits.
When you stop creating caricatures of people, and try to see the world through their eyes - nothing but compassion arises.

Instead of judging others or looking down at them in contempt, you can use this opportunity to cultivate the brahmavihara of compassion (karuna).
Why are they the way they are? For e.g. if your grandmother who has senile dementia lashes out at you in anger or doesn't behave like normal people do, would you be judgemental or contemptuous against her? No. You would be compassionate towards her, because you understand that she has senile dementia.
Similarly, you can generate compassion by trying to understand that other people are suffering and there may be genuine underlying reasons for their suffering and condition. It could be their life situation (e.g. poverty or undergoing divorce) or even mental states (e.g. ignorance, or clouded by anger or other negative emotions).
By tending to your own renunciation, you may be feeling more calm, but by cultivating compassion, you can create the balance needed in dealing with others. Renunciation and equanimity is how you deal with your own suffering. Meanwhile, compassion is how you deal with others' suffering.
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in "The Balanced Way":

Like a bird in flight borne by its two wings, the practice of Dhamma
  is sustained by two contrasting qualities whose balanced development
  is essential to straight and steady progress. These two qualities are
  renunciation and compassion. As a doctrine of renunciation the Dhamma
  points out that the path to liberation is a personal course of
  training that centers on the gradual control and mastery of desire,
  the root cause of suffering. As a teaching of compassion the Dhamma
  bids us to avoid harming others, to act for their welfare, and to help
  realize the Buddha's own great resolve to offer the world the way to
  the Deathless.
Considered in isolation, renunciation and compassion have inverse
  logics that at times seem to point us in opposite directions. The one
  steers us to greater solitude aimed at personal purification, the
  other to increased involvement with others issuing in beneficent
  action. Yet, despite their differences, renunciation and compassion
  nurture each other in dynamic interplay throughout the practice of the
  path, from its elementary steps of moral discipline to its culmination
  in liberating wisdom. The synthesis of the two, their balanced fusion,
  is expressed most perfectly in the figure of the Fully Enlightened
  One, who is at once the embodiment of complete renunciation and of
  all-embracing compassion.
Both renunciation and compassion share a common root in the encounter
  with suffering. The one represents our response to suffering
  confronted in our own individual experience, the other our response to
  suffering witnessed in the lives of others. Our spontaneous reactions,
  however, are only the seeds of these higher qualities, not their
  substance. To acquire the capacity to sustain our practice of Dhamma,
  renunciation and compassion must be methodically cultivated, and this
  requires an ongoing process of reflection which transmutes our initial
  stirrings into full-fledged spiritual virtues.

Metta or mudita (sympathetic joy) might help but wisdom is of paramount importance.
In short?
• Reflect on the shortness of life
• Reflect on kamma (long term consequences what condemnation will give you)
• Reflect that they too will eventually lose family, friends and material possessions
• Reflect that they are subject to aging sickness and death
Long answer?

There are these five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained. Which five?
"'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging.' This is the first fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.
"'I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness.' ...
"'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.' ...
"'I will grow different, separate from all that is dear and appealing to me.' ...
"'I am the owner of my actions,[1] heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ...
"These are the five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.

AN 5.57 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html


text:
Drowsiness / Sloth & Torpor
Does drowsiness as a defilement only refer to a psychological state of mind? I know that emotions manifest also as physical phenomena, but how do I distinguish between physical exhaustion and psychological defilement?
If I am done with my job or school I'm feeling sometimes exhausted. How do I know if I have this defilement in me? Now of course if I ate a lot then it's clearly a defilement.
Just for convenience I was thinking that the next time I'm feeling  physically exhausted I am going to meditate even if just for 5-10 minutes to give myself the chance to have a sense of achievement and well.. maybe the sleepiness disappeared by then.
Any thoughts or sutta references? (I am aware that the Buddha advised to combat drowsiness and if everything fails one can take a nap)

Sloth & torpor is one of five hindances to concentration therefore it appears to imply being a psychological hindrance, particularly when some (partial) samadhi & tranquility has been developed.
For example, SN 46.55 refers to sloth & torpor as mental sluggishness & heaviness:

Again, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart (mind) possessed and overwhelmed by sloth-and-torpor... then he cannot know or see...
  Imagine a bowl of water covered over with slimy moss and water-plants.
  If a man with good eyesight were to look at the reflection of his own
  face in it, he would not know or see it as it really was...

AN 7.58 refers to some methods to overcome sloth & torpor and, given lying down is the final method, it would appear most methods pertain to mental sloth.

I have sent you a question via mail.

Does drowsiness as a defilement only refer to a psychological state of mind? I know that emotions manifest also as physical phenomena, but how do I distinguish between physical exhaustion and psychological defilement?
Drowsiness depends both on the psychological state and physical state. There is nothing purely psychological or purely physical. Both psychological and physical changes can occur simultaneously depending upon the choices you make regarding your mind and/or body.
If I am done with my job or school I'm feeling sometimes exhausted. How do I know if I have this defilement in me? Now of course if I ate a lot then it's clearly a defilement.
Yes. It is a defilement. It is the lack of energy which is causing you to exhaust quickly.
Any thoughts or sutta references?
Yes. Buddha understood this problem and came up with a great solution.
Please go through what I discovered here.

Furthermore, a mendicant has wandered for alms, and they got to fill
up on as much food as they like, coarse or fine. They think: ‘I’ve
wandered for alms, and I got to fill up on as much food as I like,
coarse or fine. My body is heavy, unfit for work, like I’ve just eaten
a load of beans. I’d better have a lie down.’ They lie down, and don’t
rouse energy for achieving the unachieved, attaining the unattained,
and realizing the unrealized. This is the sixth ground for laziness.

Next he says

Furthermore, a mendicant has wandered for alms, and they got to fill
up on as much food as they like, coarse or fine. They think: ‘I’ve
wandered for alms, and I got to fill up on as much food as I like,
coarse or fine. My body is strong and fit for work. I’d better
preemptively rouse up energy …’ … This is the sixth ground for
arousing energy.

The point is to think positively. Think in what ways now is advantageous for rousing up energy to fulfill the urgent goal of focusing on Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha. The sutta I have quoted covers 8 grounds for arousing energy I am sure you will find the one suitable for you.

The mind looks for ways to save effort, that is why the mind archives actions into automatic habits.
It doesn't matter how physically exhausted we are, we can always apply cyclic effort or the effort that comes from a good habit. Mindfulness Meditation is a good habit that makes many more good habits and lessens many bad habits.
One can do worldly work and meditate at the same time.


text:
Is eating fish eggs the same as killing?
Is eating fish eggs that we normally find in sushi dishes the same as kiling? Is there any life terminated when we eat them?

the biggest problem is that the fish species for which there is a caviar market are becoming extinct because they cannot reproduce. Many countries are trying to ban the import of the eggs to protect the species.
there are many fish for which the eggs are sold, for this question there are two categories:
1) the eggs are harvested from inside the mother fish. She is pulled out of the water, then to retrieve the eggs her body is sliced from tail to mouth to access the eggs, usually on the boat, often while she is still alive. The eggs may have been fertilized inside her (depending on species).
2) the fish lays the eggs, which are fertilized (either inside her or in the water), and then they are harvested.
either way there is death.

This is a question we cant draw a margin. So I will not give a direct answer. But if you can search, try to find these two stories.
1. Story of God "Sakra" helping to one of his wives who was born as a crane.
2. Story of the couple who organized an almsgiving laid a carpet and wished if Lord Buddha walked on it they will have a baby.
(These two stories will help you to find an answer at least to your satisfaction)

I suppose the "life is terminated" earlier: when the eggs are taken from the fish (prematurely), or when the eggs are refrigerated (I think that eggs, fish eggs too, need warmth to keep growing).
This may be more of a question about biology than Buddhism though ... so perhaps ask it on Biology.SE or Vegetarianism.SE ... I don't know that there's any answer that's specific to Buddhism.


text:
Judgment, Stereotyping, and Empathic Compassion
I am somewhat curious, following an answer to a previous question of mine, as to why understanding a person's background might inhibit judging them in a stereotypical way. I perceived this in my  practice and I have found it somewhat effective in my own case, but I am unsure why this is so. I feel as if such awareness of background is a bit superfluous, yet then again I feel empathy is less frequent when we don't understand a person's motivations.
Consequently, I wonder:

Why is understanding motivations effective against judging others according to Buddhism?
How can this idea be best applied in meditation? For example, how would meditating on the causes of suffering--to arouse compassion--be achieved?

Thank you

The answer to this questions points to an idea that is central for achieving Buddhist Enlightenment. This is the idea that mind has a built-in tendency for reification, stereotyping and overgeneralization; that all our suffering and confusion comes from this tendency; and that liberation from suffering and achieving clarity requires liberation from that.
Mind has this intrinsic function to delineate entities. As it observes the facts, it tries to connect them and create a consistent picture, a story, a model that explains the cohesion behind the facts. I suppose doing so has an evolutionary advantage, because constructing a model gives us a way to predict the model's future behavior.
However, this method has its flip side - which is, we tend to equate our models with reality. Indeed, outside of models there is no experience of the world. So, naturally we tend to assume our models are correct, and as long as they come from experience and have some forecasting power, we tend to attach to them. This gives us a quick way to make decisions about the world. We see something, we recognize it as one of the previous things we have seen, we classify it, and based on that automatically pick the reaction. It's a very efficient mechanism, great timesaver. Imagine if we had to reevaluate everything from scratch every time we saw things.
At the same time, assuming our models are reality gives rise to a sort of perceptual blindness. We end up seeing with our brains, not our eyes. We jump to conclusions. We become stubborn. We are judgmental. We are superficial. We are tone-deaf and blind to nuances.
So getting more details for our models - any details really - increases the chance to get some evidence that will uncover the holes in our model-building. This shows up in your example above, when getting a sense of persons's background, facts from their personal history, can helps us see beyond our mind-made model of them, and into the real person.
Buddhist Enlightenment is to go beyond models. Realization of "Emptiness" is seeing that all our models are mind-made. Buddhist tolerance, total acceptance, humbleness, is the social application of this realization. Buddhist suchness is the emotional state we get when we learn to live in a non-stereotyped inner world, not dragging any models from the past. Buddhist meditation is to see into our modeling process, and learn to go beyond that. Buddhist liberation is to liberate from the oppression of models.

If you judge someone or if someone does something to you we tend to look only that event. We do not see the bigger picture. There must always be a preceding cause for someone to think or act in a certain way. If you consider that we're all in the same boat and all have to face existential problems (the questions I mentioned in your last question) then a sense of empathy arises. This perception needs to be put to the fore via sati (recollection or mindfulness) and with this recollection the perception gets stronger and stronger.
If you are condeming a person there must be a preceding cause for that to arise. Maybe you were angry which resulted in a negative state of mind, which further gets strengthend by indulging in more negative thoughts, or you are telling yourself that you shouldn't think or feel in a certain way because you are a spiritual person etc. Every state of mind (whether wholesome or unwholesome) filters out unfitting information. I hope this makes somewhat sense? Don't believe this, look for yourself next time you feel good or bad and how the subsequent thoughts will be. When you feel positive how is your outlook in regards to life?
To answer your second question: You don't need to do formal meditation to do this, it can always be done via recollection in daily life but in formal sitting it's most effective. You just consider the basic predicaments which every human has to go through. Asking questions is more effective than just telling your mind certain "truths" , "teachings", "drawbacks". Whenever we pose a question our brain is forced to think (remember school?). Just reflect on causes and conditions that weren't developed just now. Every human being has to cultivate skills/behaviours, emotions and mental states. Whether wholesome or unwholesome. If one was raised in a negative environment and had no insight into cause and effect etc he is not to be blamed because he is a fallible human. This is equanimity and compassion.

Why is understanding motivations effective against judging others according to Buddhism?
I think that's human nature ... perhaps it's a truism of human nature ... but is not Buddhist doctrine.
Instead Buddhist doctrine is maybe about understanding or overcoming your own attachments and egocentricity, rather than trying to understand other people's motives. Sorry!
For example, there's a famous saying (in English) that "To understand all is to forgive all" -- that's listed as a Fake Buddha Quote. Usually the author (Bodhipaksa) would give passages from the suttas which are at least similar to the quote ... but he doesn't in this one, saying,

The Buddha doesn’t seem to have talked much about “forgiveness.” He talked much more about letting go of anger ...

Even so perhaps the cause ("why it's effective") is clear if you consider an invented example:

Someone steals something from your shop
You're angry at the loss, and blame the thief for being greedy and disrespectful
If you find they stole because they were hungry, perhaps you are then more inclined to forgive them (perhaps because it's selfless, i.e. their hunger didn't necessarily involve "yourself")

I suppose that "understanding motivation" is a type of, or a cause of, compassion.
And I think that "compassion" is a feature of Buddhism -- not exactly 'doctrine' (e.g. that "you should feel compassion"), more like an 'axiom' (e.g. "do this because of course everyone feels compassion, it's human nature"), some kind of "Golden Rule"-like thinking, for example,

All are afraid of the stick, all fear death. Putting oneself in another's place, one should not beat or kill others.

How can this idea be best applied in meditation? For example, how would meditating on the causes of suffering--to arouse compassion--be achieved?
My personal experience is that it doesn't work like that.
For example if I'm in conflict with someone because we both want something, or want different things, you might hope that my understanding their motive would make me more compassionate.
And in theory, intellectually, understanding the motives of the other person, and understanding our situation, works to some extent, sometimes ... but it's impermanent, not really stable ... because even if I understand or forgive them, I still can't get what I crave ... which fuels conflict ...
... so the more stable cessation of dukkha coincides with a cessation of my own craving, and cessation of fuelling own craving ... possibly replacing that craving with compassion ... but the generation-of-compassion alone (i.e. understanding other people's motives, without considering or reconsidering own motives such as craving) isn't enough.


text:
Does MN9 imply a cyclic causation? How does it work?
The Nanamoli and Bodhi translation of MN9 states in 2 excerpts:

With the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance. With
  the cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. .....
With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints.
  With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of the taints.

The same 2 excerpts from the Thanissaro translation of MN9 reads:

From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of
  ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of
  ignorance. .....
From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of
  fermentation. From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of
  fermentation.

When I took a look at the Pali version of Sammaditthi Sutta (MN9), I'm guessing that these phrases refer to:

Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo, āsavanirodhā avijjānirodho .....
Avijjāsamudayā āsavasamudayo, avijjānirodhā āsavanirodho

How does this logic work?
When A arises, B arises. When A ceases, B ceases.
When B arises, A arises. When B ceases, A ceases.
Does this imply a cyclic causation (similar to chicken and egg)? Why is this the case? How does it work? How can the cycle be broken?

Related: "What is effluent?" and "What is ignorance in Buddhism and what are examples of ignorance?"

Yup, it's a vicious circle. On one side we have Ignorance/Confusion/Delusion and on the other Stress, Negative Emotions, and Bad Karma.
It is like being born in a poor uneducated family: because you are poor, you can't get education, and because you can't get education you are poor.
When you are stressed, you don't have time to stop and seek solution, you keep rolling day after day, never acting as per your plan, but only reacting to your issues. Because you keep rolling uncontrollably, very stressed, your head is not clear, your will is damaged, your perspective is skewed, so you keep sowing seeds for future trouble.
This is called "bewilderment", or as my teacher said:

One misstep begets another, begets another, and on, and on.

Imagine someone walking on a trail of rocks in the middle of a swamp, carrying a heavy backpack. Once you lose your balance and misstep off a rock, you're at a danger of falling in the swamp, so you have to compensate by making another sharp step sideways, but it does not end there - the inertia of the heavy backpack keeps carrying you on, so you have to keep making these sharp steps. You are lucky if you can stabilize yourself, but very often you end up running out of rocks and falling in the swamp.
The opposite of this, as often portrayed in suttas, is the good cycle of Sila/Samatha/Vipashyana. The more you fix your karma, the calmer you get, the more clearly you see, which allows you to further optimize your physical and mental action, which leads to even more peace, and even more clarity of vision and so on.

Here I'm talking in general sense. But still, asavas (affects) are blinding - and avidya (blindness, ignorance) is intoxicating (asava).

Piya Tan writes that Bikkhu Ṇāṇananda wrote that it does involve a kind of cyclic:

79 Ṇāṇananda thinks that these two lines on ignorance and the influxes contradict the two in §66. In the former,
  he influxes” precedes “ignorance,” while in the latter, it is the reverse; but in the dependent arising, we see ignorance
  always appearing first (Ñāṇananda 2003: 104 f). We see here a reciprocal conditioning of the influxes (āsava)
  and of ignorance involves a kind of cycle, so that the influxes of ignorance (avijjâsava) is the condition for the arising
  of ignorance, and ignorance is the condition (avijjā) for the arising of influxes of ignorance. “The implication of
  this tendency could be to highlight the tendency of ignorance to perpetuate itself, the influx of ignorance [avijjâsava]
  representing the worldling’s habitual tendency to ignore the true nature of reality, a habit kept alive by its own
  effects, ignorant thought and action” (Analayo 2005 at M 1:54). Ñāṇavīra  notes: “avijjā…can have no anterior term
  that does not itself involve avijjā.” (1987:36)

Reading the original (i.e. page 104 onward of Nibbāna—the Mind Stilled), Bikkhu Ṇāṇananda says (my paraphrase) that the whole things is like watching a movie -- that ignorance is the dark theatre in/on which the movie is played, and the sankharas are the movie projected in the theatre; and with cessation of ignorance (light in the theatre) the sankharas no longer hold the spectator's attention.
Where the influxes come into that analogy seems to be that, in the original, it wasn't a movie but instead some kind of performance, a play or puppet show. So there are pauses in the production, while actors put on makeup, while the background is changed between scenes, and so on. It's due to the spectators influxes that the spectator enjoys watching the performance (perhaps, anticipating enjoyment) even during these pauses.

But if we are to understand the deeper implications of what the
  Buddha declared, with reference to the picture caraṇa, a film show
  or drama is produced, in the last analysis, by the spectator himself.
  When he goes to the cinema and the theatre, he takes with him the
  spices needed to concoct a film or a drama, and that is: the influxes,
  or āsavas. Whatever technical defects and shortcomings there are in
  them, he makes good with his influxes.
As we know, in a drama there is a certain interval between two
  scenes. But the average audience is able to appreciate even such a
  drama, because they are influenced by the influxes of sense desire,
  existence, and ignorance.

And

Now, for instance, let us think of an occasion when a film show is
  going on within the framework of darkness. In the case of a matinee
  show, doors and windows will have to be closed. Supposing the
  doors are suddenly flung open, while a vivid technicolour scene is
  flashing on the screen, what happens then? The spectators will find
  themselves suddenly thrown out of the cinema world they had created
  for themselves. Why? Because the scene in technicolour has
  now lost its colour. It has faded away. The result is dejection, disenchantment.
  The film show loses its significance.
That film show owed its existence to the dark framework of ignorance
  and the force of preparations. But now that the framework has
  broken down, such a vast change has come over, resulting in a disenchantment.
  Now the word rāga has a nuance suggestive of colour, so
  virāga, dispassion, can also literally mean a fading away or a decolouration.
  Here we have a possible instance of nibbidā virāga, disenchantment,
  dispassion, at least in a limited sense.

Interesting metaphor for asavas, as spices or drugs needed to perpetuate the drama through its gaps!

MN 9 includes both ignorance (avicca) & out-flows (asava) within the 1st condition of Dependent Origination however this does not infer any type of "cycle of causation". Instead, MN 9 is a common genre of Sariputta Abhidhamma found in the suttas which provides additional explanation to that provided by the Buddha.
The Buddha taught ignorance (non-knowing) is the 1st condition of Dependent Origination which conditions the 2nd condition of Dependent Origination, namely, sankhara. Sankhara is three-fold, namely, breathing in & out (kaya sankara), initial & continued thought (vaci sankhara) and perception & feeling (citta sankhara).
When these sankhara arise or are concocted (stirred-up) by ignorance, it is not merely ignorance preceding these sankhara. If it was only ignorance preceding these sankhara then the only type of distracting & discursive thoughts & memories (sankhara) would be thoughts of confusion.
But the Venerable Sariputta additionally points out that before sankhara arise, there are underlying tendencies (anusaya) that flow-out (asava) of the ignorant mind; and these out-flows (asava) also include defilements or drives of sensual desire and (past) becoming.
For example, if in meditation, an egotistical thought in relation to the past spontaneously arises, this is an out-flow of past becoming. Or if sexual urges spontaneously arise, this an an out-flow of sensual desire.
A child is born with in-born drives of sensual desire. The child has the natural urge to eat, be comforted, be touched, etc. These drives arise before the sankhara arise.
Thus, Sariputta is merely pointing out that the 1st link of ignorance is not merely not-knowing or blindness. The 1st link also includes the drives of sensual desire and (past) becoming.
Therefore, there is no cyclical causation involved at the 1st link. The fact that ignorance is also an asava shows there is no cyclical causation.
Including asava within the 1st condition adds a dynamic dimension to ignorance and describes how ignorance is not merely some static condition but describes now ignorance, sensual desire & past becomings erupt (asava) out of the mind & flood the mind.
When the mind of a child is screaming & crying due to its want for sensual pleasure to appease its sensual desire; naturally its mind is blinded by this sensual desire asava & is ignorant to the Four Noble Truths.
But this is not anything cyclical because when the child's sensual desire is appeased via getting fed or getting comforted, the ignorance remains in the mind.
Just because the asava of sensual desire may (temporarily) cease or the asava of past becoming cease, does not mean the asava of ignorance ceases. The asava of sensual desire & becoming may be stilled with samadhi but only vipassana can end the asava of ignorance.
The fact that the appeasement of sensual desire asava and past becoming asava may not end ignorance shows there is no cyclical causation between ignorance & the asava. Instead, ignorance & the asava are merely the same type of thing.
In AN 10.61, the Buddha makes clear that the five hindrances (which are asava) are the "food" ("ahara") of ignorance. By "food" or "nutriment", what is meant is as long as the five hindrances remain, ignorance will remain because the mind cannot see clearly when the five hindrances arise.
However, AN 10.61 makes it clear the five hindrances are not the preceding "cause" ("hetu") of ignorance. AN 10.61 merely states the five hindrances are a "condition" ("paccaya") that keeps ignorance alive:

Bhikkhus, this is said: ‘A first point of ignorance, bhikkhus, is not seen such that before this there was no ignorance and afterward it
  came into being.’ Still, ignorance is seen to have a specific
  condition.

Thus, the ending of the five hindrances in the 1st jhana does not automatically result in the ending of ignorance. The mind of a meditator can get stuck in jhana for a long time.
This shows there is no cyclical causation in the 1st condition of Dependent Origination as taught by Sariputta in MN 9 because, ultimately, the cessation of the only asava that can end ignorance is the cessation of the ignorance asava. Since the ending of ignorance (vipassana) is required to end ignorance, it sounds ridiculous to infer there is a circular causation of ignorance causing ignorance.
The idea of "circular causation" is "papanca"; of imputing upon the Dhamma something that does not exist or what ever taught.
When the Buddha spoke of "samsara" ("cycling"; "circling"), the Buddha spoke of ignorance (1st condition) and craving (8th condition) as comprising of samsara.
The 1st condition of Dependent Origination alone cannot be "samsara" or "circular causation".

It's not a cyclic causation, rather a linear regression leading to a much thicker ignorance. If you act following the taints, for example, sensual desire, a much thicker ignorance will arise. So, it's  When A  arise, B arise and when B arises then C arise. C is a much heavier ignorance that A.
As the Sutta you quoted explains the Noble Eightfold Path is the cessation of both ignorance and the taints.

The way leading to the cessation of the taints is just this Noble
  Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and
  right concentration.
The way leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this Noble
  Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and
  right concentration.


text:
How to get a nymph rebirth in deva heavens?
How exactly does that go down because I know male devas have nymphs.

The Buddha never taught to get anything. The Buddha taught us to loose everything in order to have true peace & happiness.

Practice Metta meditation and try not to get angry or upset.
Speak kind words. Avoid harsh words, divisive words etc.
Keep to the five precepts.
Do good deeds like donations, alms givings etc. and wish to be a goddess(better than nymphs).

In short, practice the ten moral actions and wish for heavenly birth.
By the  way, using Buddhism only to get a heavenly birth is like using a CT scan machine as a park bench or using a gold bar as a doorstop. Buddhism has a much higher happiness to offer than heavenly births.

Make lots of money.

Suppose, Māgandiya, a householder or a householder’s son was rich,
  with great wealth and property, and being provided and endowed with
  the five cords of sensual pleasure, he might enjoy himself with forms
  cognizable by the eye…with sounds cognizable by the ear…with odours
  cognizable by the nose…with flavours cognizable by the tongue…with
  tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for, desired,
  agreeable, and likeable, connected with sensual desire and provocative
  of lust. Having conducted himself well in body, speech, and mind, on
  the dissolution of the body, after death, he might reappear in a happy
  destination, in the heavenly world in the retinue of the gods of the
  Thirty-three; and there, surrounded by a group of nymphs in the
  Nandana Grove, he would enjoy himself, provided and endowed with the
  five cords of divine sensual pleasure.
MN 75

Making lots of money might turn one into Donald Trump but if that's heaven then that might have to do why it's best to become enlightened.


text:
Is vegetarianism compulsory/obligatory in Nicherin Buddhism?
I recently visited Japan and went to see a Nicherin Buddhist monastery and temple in Tokyo. There they were preaching that Buddhism is not just for the Japanese or Chinese or some particular race, it is for the entire humanity. The chief monk their would barely speak English but he said he is a follower of Buddha, Nicherin and Tanaka Chigaku. Then he invited me to his home and his wife served fish sushi and chicken meat balls for both of us! I ask, 'You are a Buddhist and an ordained monk, do you eat meat?' He replied that even Buddha and his followers ate meat!

There are three lineages of pratimoksha vows and none of them prohibits the eating of meat. Anyway, the transmission of the pratimoksha was lost in Japan, as attests the fact that the "monk" is married and lives with his wife.
He surely has the bodhisattva vows, however. There are also a number of lineages of bodhisattva vows. Some prohibit the eating of meat and some do not. For instance, in the Brahma Net Sutra, it says:

A disciple of the Buddha must not deliberately  eat meat. He should
  not eat the flesh of any sentient being. The meat-eater forfeits the
  seed  of Great Compassion, severs the seed of the Buddha Nature and
  causes [animals and transc endental] beings to avoid him.

The bodhisattva vows that I have (in Tibetan Buddhism) do not prohibit the eating of meat. Neither does it advise to restrain from eating meat.
Most Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese have the bodhisattva vows from a lineage rooted in the Brahma Net Sutra, and therefore are encouraged to restrain from eating meat.
Even then, practitioners do not adhere that strictly to the bodhisattva vows.