text:
Girimananda sutta
The 10 perceptions in the sutta are meant to be meditated upon? Aniccasaññā is then not to be understood as empirical seeing the 3 characteristics, but contemplating on impermanence, right?

In the Girimananda Sutta, there are nine perceptions (sanna) preliminary to the development of direct seeing of Anapanasati.
The explanatory Pali word is 'paṭisañcikkhati', which means 'to think over', as follows:

Idhānanda bhikkhu araññagato vā rukkhamūlagato vā suññāgāragato vā iti paṭisaṃcikkhati:
There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy with regard to the five clinging-aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the perception of inconstancy.

Paṭisañcikkhati
paṭi+saŋ+cikkhati
to think over, to discriminate, consider, reflect

Also used in MN 19 and AN 3.38:

As I abided thus, diligent, ardent and resolute, a thought of sensual desire arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of
  sensual desire has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to
  others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs
  wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I
  considered (paṭisañcikkhato): ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me; when
  I considered (paṭisañcikkhato): ‘This leads to others’ affliction,’ it subsided in me;
  when I considered (paṭisañcikkhato): ‘This leads to the affliction of both,’ it subsided
  in me; when I considered (paṭisañcikkhato): ‘This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties,
  and leads away from Nibbāna,’ it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of
  sensual desire arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with
  it.

'Now I too am subject to old age and am not exempt from old age. Such being the case, if I were to feel repelled, humiliate and disgusted
  when seeing another who is old, that would not be proper for me.’ When
  I reflected (paṭisañcikkhato) thus, my intoxication with youth was
  completely abandoned

Similar to 'paṭisaṅkhā yoniso':

Paṭisaṅkhā yoniso piṇḍapātaṃ paṭisevati
Reflecting properly, they make use of almsfood:‘Not for fun, indulgence, adornment, or decoration, but only to continue and sustain
  this body, avoid harm, and support spiritual practice. So that I will
  put an end to old discomfort and not give rise to new discomfort, and
  so that I will keep on living blamelessly and at ease.’
AN 6.58

Thanks. So while these perception use thought, mindfulness of breathing does not, correct? Kind of confusing because the suttas state "... he discerns 'I breath short' ". Does this refer to thought or can it be ignored and just paying attention to the in and out breath in an ardent and alert manner?

There are only 9 perceptions. Anapanasati is not a 'perception'. To study sutta, one needs to learn how to investigate the Pali, which merely requires persistence rather than formal study. Simply google MN 118, click on Sutta Central https://suttacentral.net/mn118, go to Sujato translation, use the cog wheel to active the Pali-English functions. The Pali word is for "discerns thus" is "pajānāti". Its a wisdom word, which means to experience directly: https://suttacentral.net/search?query=paj%C4%81n%C4%81ti You can also place pajānāti in general search & examine how it is used in other suttas.

But yes, these perceptions use thought; that is; they begin with thought. The teaching of impermence is taken on faith & then one both thinks about & observes the five aggregates until confirming via perception the teaching is true. For example, one asks: "Is this body impermanent" and examines, thinks, ponders & observes until perceiving: "Yes this body is impermanent". Therefore, when Anapansati is practised, if any obstacle arises, the mind can quickly reflect: "This obstacle is impermanent" thus endure &/or abandon the obstacle.

Thanks DD! Always refined answers! Is there any chance to ask you questions privately? Thanks anyways

Sure. Anytime. Email dhammadhatu@bigpond.com


text:
Difficulty with Posture
I am noticing some pattern in my recent practice. I find that mental exertion, as directing attention to the breath, is quite easy for me; yet, when it comes to devoting an amount of time to formal practice, or even sitting formally and upright, I have trouble. For example, I will tend to meditate in a slouched or even lying position.
EDIT: There is no pain, or specific problem when I meditate upright, just a sensation of general discomfort, or an unpleasantness. But, I feel maybe it is more of an aversion towards sitting upright than an actual physical problem.
My question is: How can this resistance best be explained? What is the best way to counter it?
Thank you.

What's the difficulty/trouble/resistance, what are the symptoms -- does it hurt somewhere, do you get restless and distracted, does it interfere with breathing somehow ...?

The experience of discomfort and unpleasantness themselves can be great meditation objects, and it is mindful that you are distinguishing them from pain. Some traditions and buddhist communities expand their conception of formal sitting to include sitting in chairs with back support and lying down, so if it is of interest, know that there are paths that provide such options.
As to how the resistance can be explained, it may be fruitful to consider how your mind and body have been conditioned to relate to sitting and the time you are devoting to sitting (i.e. saṅkhāra meditations can help). For many people, such explorations illuminate habits and valuations that can themselves be fruitful meditation objects.
In terms of counter acting the experience, you'll probably find most teachers encouraging you to grow more curious about the experience. For example, if discomfort is arising from the experience of the stillness, you can examine the nature of the stillness. For instance, you might begin to noice that the posture is not really a static pose, even when you remain quite still. Blood is coursing through your veins. Air is moving in and out of your lungs. Electrical impulses are happening throughout your body. I would encourage you to examine the nature of your discomfort and allow that to guide some portion of your meditation practice.

I had this problem and was told this happens due to lack of exercise.
Simple activities like walking or jogging before meditation should help.
Also, try doing qigong-style improvisations before meditation.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to increase my potential in daimoku?
What if i cant chaant on a regular basis ? I want to increase my number of hours and i don't understand how to do it ?

Daimoku simply refers to the reciting of the title of the Heart Sutra. While this is a Tendai tradition, all Tendai monks would have been intimately familiar with the actual content of the Sutra. What you are asking is similar to "how can I get a better grade on my book report by just reading the cover?".
The Heart Sutra states: there is no gain. Daimoku is a method, a vessel to get you to the other side. There's no point in finding a bigger boat as you won't be carrying it on your back once you reach the other side. Like you would leave the boat on the shore, Daimoku will just drop away. It's not a question of how much you recite, but of how.

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

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


text:
Is insecticide treated mosquito nets against 1st precept?
As part of my charity action I was going to donate to Against Malaria Foundation. But after reading that 100% of the money is going to buy long-lasting insecticidal nets for the prevention of malaria, I am not so sure if that conflicts with my buddhist practice.
For those who don't know, insecticidal nets are mosquitoes nets that are sprayed with insecticide, which is said to be twice as effective as unsprayed nets.
Against Malaria Foundation website:
https://www.againstmalaria.com/
Wikipedia on Against Malaria Foundation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Malaria_Foundation

The Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) is a United Kingdom-based charity that provides long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) to populations at high risk of malaria, primarily in Africa. As of July 2016, the foundation has raised $86.6 million and distributed or committed to fund 19.3 million LLINs since its founding in 2004.

Wikipedia on insecticide-treated nets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_net#Insecticide_treated_nets

Mosquito nets treated with insecticides—known as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) or bednets—were developed in the 1980s for malaria prevention. ITNs are estimated to be twice as effective as untreated nets, and offer greater than 70% protection compared with no net. These nets are dip-treated using a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide such as deltamethrin or permethrin which will double the protection over a non-treated net by killing and repelling mosquitoes.

Yes, it is against the first precept since it kills. What you can do is, instead of giving money, buy normal nets and mosquito repellent lotion and donate.

Yes  - and if you cant do that  or dont want to put that effort  - you have a ton of other causes to donate to  - there is no shortage in stuff you can donate to


text:
Avoiding Triggers that can generate negative karma
I have a problem that I am currently facing. There is a certain person in the family that triggers me and due to their actions I feel very angry and generate negative mind-states. The strategy I have adopted is to avoid this person all together , to the point of not even seeing them. I find that this helps me to keep calm and avoid negative mind states. Is this a good way to go about this situation? Can we avoid all triggers that generate negative mind states. Does that help in spiritual development?

I don't know, but it seems like running away from the problem.. not solving it.

From the Zen perspective and referring to the first comment of user5954246 below your question, it is absolutely ok how you deal with this situation. There is no real right or wrong here (if they exist at all). Remember… if you're not able to adopt a state of peacefulness and calmness for your own, you won't be able to share this with other people around you. So for the moment everything is fine.
Let's assume this Status quo will last for the next period of time, may be you will notice how this distance to the mentioned person will relax you and your thoughts and in one or two months you'll become much more laid-back during the next encounter with him or her.
In my opinion it is very good invested time to ask yourself the same questions, you mentioned above, on a regularly interval. Give yourself and the other one a new try when the right time has come.
Hongzhi Zhengjue, which had great influence especially on the Sôtô Zen wrote in his "Cultivating the empty field"

Senses and objects merge; principle and wisdom are united. When self and other are the same, mind and dharmas are one.

Yeah, I admit, it is hard to allow the own mind to play with the me-and-the-other-one-dualism in such mind states, but it helped me more than once in similar situations to remember, that I share more similarities with all other beings around me, than differences that separate me from them.

Avoiding trouble is good, but don't over do it and create an awkward situation for your family members and relatives. Make it look natural.
Practice Metta(loving-kindness) meditation every day. Whenever you get upset about that person, chant lines of Metta in your mind until it goes away. It's extremely hard at the start, but it becomes very easy after a while.
I'm assuming that you  have already tried to talk to him and sort out the differences, but failed.

there is a beautiful answer here:
Should I do what I don't want to do?
by @AndreiVolkov
I agree with @mle answer above, it helped me tremendously to have space for my own thoughts, away from some people in my life. however, in my case, simply avoiding them without resolving it (at least within myself, if not with the person in question), led to echoes elsewhere in my life. (as described in Andrei's message)
it has been much better not having them around, but there is pain if you don't get rid of the residual within yourself too.
be gentle with yourself...

Analyze it with a "Cause and Effect" rule. Once you find out the cause, analyze what are the root causes and why your negative minds are being triggered.
Ask yourself some of these questions:
Is it only you that are experiencing the Anger, or both?
If both, is there some fundamental difference that can never be settled?
If only you are experiencing this mind state, try position yourself in his/her shoes?
Do your family members know? what are their thoughts?
Is there a win-win solution?


text:
Om - meaning and "significance" of it in Buddhism - esp. in theravada?
Many buddhist mantras have Om/Aum in starting of it. In buddhism, esp. theravada, what is the meaning and "significance" of "Om"?
(note:although I am open to mahayana,vajrayana interpretations too as an "additional" input)

There is no OM or AUM in Theravada to my knowledge. It's found only in Mahayana and Vajrayana.
The 14th Dalai Lama explained here the meaning of OM in "OM MANI PADME HUM" as:

The first, OM, is composed of three pure letters, A, U, and M. These
  symbolize the practitioner's impure body, speech, and mind; they also
  symbolize the pure exalted body, speech and mind of a Buddha.

In Thailand, although the majority of Buddhists there are Theravada, there are many verse invocations or 'thai kathas' for various protective verses, amulets and occult practices which adopts the 'Om' as its beginning or in the middle mixed with verses from the Pali Suttas.
https://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/archive/index.php/t-1114.html
Hence atleast in thai theravada, I could find very prevalent usage of Om. So your assumption is wrong in thai theravada. But I do not know about Srilankan brand of theravada though.

@zaxebo1 OM is a Hindu thing. In Sri Lanka we are usually clear about what is Buddhist and what is Hindu. Even in Thailand, I doubt if OM is used by any serious Theravada monk.

@zaxebo1 I am a thai. I confirm that om/aum is not theravāda. There is no pali-grammar support to  om/aum.


text:
Is OM an imported religious term from Hinduism?
OM or AUM is used in "OM MANI PADME HUM" and some other mantras.
To my knowledge, OM is found only in  Mahayana and Vajrayana schools. It's not found in Theravada. The 14th Dalai Lama explained the meaning of OM here: On the meaning of OM MANI PADME HUM.
It's an extremely important and venerated word in Hinduism -- see "What is the significance of ॐ (Om/Aum)?" on Hinduism.SE.
Is OM in Buddhism an imported religious term from Hinduism?
Or like "namo" which means "salutations" or "adoration", does OM have an ordinary meaning and therefore not considered an imported religious term?

It doesn't mean what else it means elsewhere  and not it's not imported it does mean Om (Pride / Ego) by Buddhism. Or may my just question would answer your question

does OM have an ordinary meaning
Although it's hard to prove a negative, people don't explain its "ordinary meaning" when they explain it, so I assume the answer is "no".
I guess it has two actual meanings.
The first "actual meaning" IMO is that people explain that it has three syllables (or four if you count the silence afterwards); and, that each of the three syllables refers to different things ... but, there are diverse explanations of what those three things are.

The Hinduism.SE topic says they refer to:

"Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva"
and/or to "creation, preservation, and annihilation"
and/or to "satva (goodness), rajas (passion), and tamas (ignorance)"

H. H. The Dalai Lama's explanation says that they refer to:

the practitioner's impure body, speech, and mind
the pure exalted body, speech and mind of a Buddha

So the symbolic meaning seems to be "three syllables representing three things" -- but (importantly) what those three things are, what the symbol represents, differs.
So (perhaps like other words, karma for example) it's a word repurposed by Buddhism. If it has a different meaning in Buddhism, I don't know whether you'd want to think of it as the same word.
The second "actual meaning" of it is (or comes from) where and how it's used, its positional or contextual meaning -- i.e. it's used to begin mantras. I think that, in the real world, people tend to learn words from hearing them in place, in context, in practice (and not from dictionary definitions). So the basic meaning of "om" is "here starts a mantra" and/or "prepare to be conscious of a mantra".
It's hard to think of an equivalent in English ... possibly "Amen" which has an overtly religious origin but may possibly be used in other contexts to mean "I solemnly agree with what was just said."
Perhaps this could be called a "formulaic" meaning -- possibly for example like:

"Evaṃ me sutaṃ" -- prepare yourself to hear a sutta
"Once upon a time" -- prepare yourself to hear a children's story
"Dear sir" -- prepare yourself to read a business letter
Ringing a little bell at the beginning of a period of silence

Namo Buddhaya. Aum stands for states of consciousness. A , U , M stands for wakened consciousness , dreaming consciousness , sleeping consciousness.
Hinduism and Buddhism share a common heritage of the great sages who discovered OM and many other Truths. It would be inappropriate to say those sages were Hindu or Buddhist. Therefore Aum is not an imported religious term from Hinduism. Aum is not a religious term. Aum predates religion.

The Buddha actually rejected Brahman, Atman, Vedas and other ideas from Hinduism. The way he used the words "dharma" and "karma" is also different from Hinduism. I think the word AUM or OM cannot be found in the Buddha's discourses (the suttas).

I am not sure about the existence of OM Mantra in Suttas. But AUM is a great idea. And it is as great as Self. However we know that ultimately Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Ultimately AUM is not me, AUM is not myself AUM is not mine but that is true even for Earth ,Fire and Niravana !! Overall Buddha rejects every Dhamma as me, myself or mine. But AUM is wholesome. Different people interpret it differently. Some people call it Brahman but that doesn't make it Brahman.

OM is basically associated with Shaivya tradition of Hinduism i.e. those hindus who worship Shiva. And according to hindu mythology Shiva's abode is Kailash mountain which is in tibet. So inhabitants of that part of Tibet were using the word AUM or OM either for purpose of meditation or as ordinary word to  mean Consciousness. Hinduism was mostly rooted in Afaganistan, Pakistan and the Gangaitic plains of India during ancient time.
With this line of reasoning there is a heavy possibility that Hindus themselves adopted OM from Tibeteans.
OM is not used by Theravadins only by Vajrayana Buddhists and Mahayana Buddhist whose roots are in Tibet. So basically Tibetians are using it and it belongs to them.
So I wont say it is imported.

The lotus is a symbol in Hinduism.

One who performs his duty without attachment, surrendering the results
unto the Supreme Lord, is unaffected by sinful action, as the lotus is
untouched by water.
— Bhagavad Gita 5.10

It is used as a defining feature of Gudwaras in Sikhism. So it's use 'imported'?
The mantra is found at it's earliest in 4th CE Mahayana Karandavyuha Sutra.
Mani jewels are mentioned in the Pali Mahasudhassana as one of the attributes of a Wheel Turning King. As a spiritual symbol they also go back to pre-Buddhist Hinduism.
Buddha practiced in the Hindu tradition. Yes he had specific critiques, and in the Pali Brahmanjali Sutra gave a teaching to Maha Brahma where he explains to the being that it was not the Creator but only the first being reborn into these realms. But Hindu thought has always been diverse and varied. Buddhism, like Jainism and Sikhism, is different to Hinduism, but from it.
The mani jewel has a special deeper significance in Mahayana thought. But the symbols belong to all of sanatana dharma, perennial wisdom traditions.

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


text:
Do thoughts influence everything? Or is this an illusion?
What does Buddhism think about/or is it accepted in it that we influence everything with our (un)conscious thoughts and emotions and impressions (because these are also some form off thoughts right?) and can't not influence the universe we live in. Lately I have the fear that my thoughts influence everything around me and happening in my live. Last night I couldn't even watch a movie because I was paralyzed by the fear or thought of having a negative influence on it and making it worse. Then I came to the thought that maybe our universe is refreshing every millisecond and that everything we do or think generates another outcome.
The thought is making me crazy because this would mean we have an immense responsibility on ourselves that everything we do does has an influence. I have this fear lately sometimes to watch the live news also fearing that I might in some way influence the newsspeaker with my nervousness. I can still imagine that this all is BS and not true. But there are so many weird impressions that I've had that my awareness like when watching a movie does have an effect on the scene. Or is this all an illusion and I'm I suffering from delusions? Also does Buddhism believe in different dimensions? And also Buddhism does accept consciousness is non-local right? So it's entirely possibly that my awareness does influence a news speaker?

Ego, self-important thought. Discard.

You are very much scaring yourself. Have you properly tested that a news-speaker was influenced by your thought? If not, why do you believe you can? Don't overthink and get all caught up with self-imposed fears.

Well I just can't help but feel it's not coincidence. It's not persé the newsspeaker being influenced by my thoughts, well in a way it is, but by thoughts I mean mym mindstate, for example nervousness or stressfullness, and I've noticed when I feel nervous and watch the news I project this feeling on the newsspeaker and make him nervous. The same for live debates. If I watch a live debate when I don't feel so well and a little nervous I feel and see that the people debating in some way sense this.

This isn't that farfetched, seeing if you believe that consciousness is non-local. Your awareness and state of mind can be felt by other people, just as if you might have the feeling that someone's watching you, you can sense that also or when ur high on pot, ur surroundings well sense this. Either I'm right or it's just an illusion that it seems that way that I have an effect or it really does... and I'm guessing the later.

This is a very interesting question.
In psychological interpretation of Buddhism, our perception of reality is mediated by our mind's modeling and representational activity. In this perspective the state of our mind - our biases, preconceptions, emotional condition - form the interpretative/evaluative framework through which we perceive reality. This perception of reality then determines our reactions and choices, which lead to immediate and latent effects (karma). This works as self-fulfilling prophecy or a self-reinforcing vicious circle: negative mindstates => negative interpretation => negative action => negative effects => negative mindstates.
In ontological interpretation(s) of Buddhism the structure of reality is understood to be different from what we normally assume, and its relationship with mind is not just that of modeling and observation.
In one such interpretation, reality consists of multiple planes ("realms") between which we can shift depending on our state of mind, each of these realms looking like a complete world with its own consistent logic. In other interpretations, reality is either multidimensional or quantum, with our mind either able to change the focus along the extra dimension(s) or collapse the quantum function. In yet another interpretation there are no fixed planes as such, and whatever we perceive is assembled by our minds from some sort of multidimensional strings of energy.
As far as I know, there is no one who seems to be able to explain exactly how this stuff works... Two of my Buddhist teachers insisted that reality is literally a reflection of our mindstate. In other words, they claimed that Buddhism is not a psychological metaphor. One of them alluded to the "multidimensional worlds" interpretation and the other mentioned "multidimensional strings" - but none gave exhaustive explanation. The other Buddhist teachers I interacted with or studied under, remained ambiguous on the matter. Most of the time, the attitude I get is: "it does not matter what it is as long as you know how to navigate it."
The Buddha himself remained famously ambiguous on the question with his Safe Bet theory:

"As you have not found an agreeable teacher, you should adopt and practice this safe-bet teaching, for this safe-bet teaching — when accepted and adopted — will be to your long-term welfare & happiness.
If there is the next world, [karma, causality], then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world [karma, causality],
  this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view. If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the observant here-&-now; and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.

From my personal side, I used to be an adherent of the psychological interpretation for many years, until some recent events in my life that screamed of the ontological interpretation. So now I'm a bit uncertain myself and am sticking to the Safe Bet until I can figure it out. Or I guess, I think I know the answer (it's ontological) just not ready to fully accept it yet.
In response to your concerns about your mind affecting the universe or the newsspeaker etc. I suggest that you stick to the Safe Bet and try to eliminate this worry and these negative states of mind. If there are no other dimensions, you don't want to develop a psychosis that will turn your life in a nightmare through the mechanism of vicious circle. And if there are other dimensions, you don't want to shift to a bad one by being negative, are you? ;)
I hope one day we will figure it out. Until then, let's stick to the Four Right Efforts:

... monks, you should apply effort toward:
  - non-arising of bad, pathological states of mind that have not yet arisen.
  - abandonment of bad, pathological states of mind that have arisen.
  - arising of wholesome states of mind that have not yet arisen.
  - maintenance and development of wholesome states of mind that have arisen.

Or is this all an illusion and I'm I suffering from delusions?
I think it's a mixture:

Some of what you said agrees with what I understand of Buddhism
Some of what you said seems to me to be delusions

These kinds of thoughts seem to me to be delusions:

my thoughts influence everything around me
last night I couldn't even watch a movie because I was paralyzed by the fear or thought of having a negative influence on it
I have this fear lately sometimes to watch the live news also fearing that I might in some way influence the newsspeaker with my nervousness

And from a comment:

Your awareness and state of mind can be felt by other people, just as if you might have the feeling that someone's watching you, you can sense that also or when ur high on pot, ur surroundings well sense this.

I think these are symptoms of what people call "paranoia", and possibly "drug-induced psychosis".
If this state of mind is persistent (which you say it is), if it bothers you (which you say it does), if it interferes with your life, IMO you should tell (complain of) these symptoms of mental health, to your medical doctor.

Conversely the following statements have some correspondence in Buddhist doctrine (i.e. even if they're not Buddhist doctrine, they remind me of something that is).
we influence everything with our thoughts
This sounds like the start of the Dhammapada:

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.
All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, happiness (sukha) follows him like a shadow that never leaves him.

I think it's not that you directly influence other people (or movies) though; it's that you influence your own mental state (mental phenomena): including feelings, perceptions, formations, etc.
It's to that extent and in that way that we "influence the universe we live in".
We can also have some on affect other people, but I think that requires actions (not just thoughts); so for example Buddhism recommends the Five precepts (for everyone, not just monks) so that you're harmless (don't cause harm).
N.B. that the fifth precept probably advises to stop being "high on pot", see for example How do different traditions define "intoxicant"?
You also affect people (and yourself) by giving gifts and practising generosity; by right livelihood; by accepting good advice from good friends, and avoiding bad advice from bad friends; and so on.
our universe is refreshing every millisecond
I think that's Abhidhamma doctrine (which I have tended to avoid, I started with the Suttas instead) -- see for example this answer.
I think that's not "the universe" refreshing, rather it consists of "mind-moments" or the process of consciousness.
I haven't investigated that doctrine, I'm not sure that the purpose of it is.
Buddhism is often described as a Middle Way between extremes. Perhaps it has some practices or doctrines, for people for whom the world seems too real; and a different set, for people for whom the world is unreal (who don't have a solid grasp of "reality").
Also does Buddhism believe in different dimensions?
Yes and no.
I think that Buddhism teaches that other "realms" exist, e.g. various "heavens" and "hells", and "ghosts", and the animal world.
I guess that partly to explain the workings of karma ("what happens to bad people, especially after they die?"), and partly because some people (and/or some scriptures, doctrine) say that those realms exist.
I find it better to understand that realms as being states of mind (e.g. when you're confused and anxious and so on that's a bit hellish, when you're greedy or unrestrained, unthinking, that's maybe animal-like).
So it's entirely possibly that my awareness does influence a news speaker?
I don't think so (that sounds to me like a delusion), but I do think you can affect on your own awareness.
If you stop watching the news, for example; if you make a new habit of not watching the news ... that won't make the speaker (the person) disappear, or anything ... but they (the sense-impressions, memories) will fade from your awareness (and may be replaced by however else you start to spend your time instead).
I think that what's called "guarding the senses" or "guarding your own mind" is a fundamental practice; see for example these answers:

Do five precepts protect?
How does stream entry occur?
Food and other cravings, and guarding the senses
“Guard the sense doors”- What does this mean, and what is it's application?

With regards to the human realm ...
Psychic influence of worldly phenomena and the thoughts of others is possible only by those who have acquired such powers from certain spiritual practices, and they are not conducive to enlightenment. The Buddha could do a psychic transmission of messages to some of his disciples, according to the suttas.
I don't think the thoughts of ordinary people have a lot of psychic influence on the world around us, just as if one person or even all persons jump simultaneously, they would not cause the Earth to change its rotation. Similarly, your unexpressed thoughts are not going cause someone else to get influenced.
However, through the ordinary medium of transmitting thoughts to others via speech and other ordinary communication, societies can evolve a collective mind. This forms the basis for the development of culture in societies and nations.
In other realms, it may be possible that beings there have psychic communication.


text:
Can the mind be trained to maintain equanimity in the face of compulsive urges/cravings (without giving in / acting out)?

Are there any practices or habits that one can employ, either frequently or on a daily basis, to train one's mind to remain still and equanimous in the face of compulsive urges or cravings, without giving in to them / acting them out?
Can this skill be developed in a general sense, applicable to all types of urges/cravings, or does one need to train a different, tailored technique to handle each type of urge/craving individually?

Can you give specific examples of what urges or cravings you are suffering with? Different types of urges/cravings have different ways to treat.

@user13190, please read the second point of the question

Please refer to my answer on "How can I forget my old girlfriend?"
Urges and cravings come up because we seek sources of external energy. We assume that these things can give us something: make us happier, elevate us, entertain us. So all these cravings even though they seem different are really cravings for one thing - energy. However, if you look at them really carefully you will see that obtaining these things does not give large amounts of energy for a long time. It's like browsing Facebook: we hope we will see a post that will be interesting, educating, motivating, and will improve our day - but most of the time we just keep scrolling and scrolling, and most of the posts don't give us more than a few seconds of joy, so the entire experience is very frustrating. But we still keep craving, funny huh? Because we are so confused!
The real source of energy is only our own strength. Giving in to the urges will never give enough energy. Only authentic challenges that we really believe in can give us what we are looking for. So the only way to obtain that energy that we crave for is to sit down, meditate, and see what we really want deep inside. Which personal weakness we want to overcome to get something we dream about. Then go ahead and overcome that weakness and achieve that goal. That will give you energy that will be real, and all small urges and cravings will be so obviously hollow comparing to that, that they will all subside by themselves.

1. Acknowledge that you have a craving (be honest with yourself and try to watch it in a curious manner)
2. Realize, that you dont have to give in immediately
3. Acknowledge that you have a choice (to act or not to act)
4.Reflect on the Drawbacks (long and short term) in giving in. (write them down on a sheet of paper and go over them)
5. Counter positive reasons why it's supposedly good to give in (rationalizations). Again, do that on a sheet of paper/ app etc. and go over them.
Regarding point 4+5: Preferably, you should write both aspects down and concentrate at 2 points for each side (these aspects that are most negative or important to you). Really see that the positive reasons to give in are usually just of short term benefit and then they bite you back BY PERPETUATING THE HABIT/URGE.
If you like you can also reflect on the positives for NOT GIVING IN, LIKE: You weakened the habit by a little, building self confidence, you overcame a challenge rather than a problem etc.. etc. Be creative.
One more point: Try to create an acronym like A-R-A-R-C or something like that in order to memorize it and then to employ it when necessary.

Are all steps (1 through 5) supposed to be performed in sequence in response to an urge/craving? If that's the case, then what about a more regular, daily practice? Because, a craving could arise, say, once every 3 days, or maybe once every 5 days (it depends on the craving nature and the person), therefore there would be days without cravings/urges. So what kind of regular practice would you recommend for those "easy" days?

Training your mind in vipassana, that is: Letting go of thoughts, feelings and sensations and seeing them as impermanent. Now, the more you do it the more conviction you get in "impermanence". This needs time of course, since it is a skill. The important point is, that you watch whatver is happening in a curious way (seeing how the urge grows, persists and wanes). This builds the habit of being non-reactive and observing curiously and impermanence as well.

And yes, these steps mentioned above should preferably be done in sequence, although writing down the drawbacks should be done before so you have them ready at hand. If you don't acknowledge the urge (point 1) you are actually giving into it or you have it at the back of your mind (surpressed) which makes it just harder! So you must be aware of it, do not hate yourself (!), and then you must realise that you have a choice (point 2). This delays the urge-behaviour response.

Yes, that is what the Satipatthana meditation is about. It works for all types of cravings. It makes you immune to cravings at first, but if you keep practicing till the end, craving wouldn't even arise in the first place.

Where exactly is Satipatthana explained in the provided link?

It's a meditation technique based on all four Satipattanas. i.e. Kayanupassana, Vedananupassana, Cittanupassana, Dhammanupassana. This is called the "ekayano maggo" . Which means the one way path or the one and only path to freedom from suffering. Here's the video for the booklet given above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLvU7ppM4vE

It's explained in first chapter : "

Body – the movements and postures of the body;

Feelings – bodily and mental sensations of pain, happiness, calm, etc.;

Mind – thoughts that arise in the mind – of the past or future, good or bad;

Dhammas....."

Buddhism teaches urges arise from ignorance therefore urges are eradicated by developing wisdom.

How can one develop wisdom?

By analysing the harmfulness of things.The mind does not have urges for things the mind knows are harmful. For example, it does not have urges to take heroin or eat poison because it knows those things are harmful. The basic Buddhist practise is described in MN 61: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html where the practitioner constantly reflects about whether actions are harmful to oneself or harmful to another.

Is this, how I call it, "Cost-benefit analysis", the only thing that is considered to be a wisdom factor? Wisdom in Buddhism is much broader then that, right?

Yes, wisdom has many genres of knowledge


text:
Form is not worth considering as self but is it worth considering as non-self?
Namo Buddhaya.
This question is regarding Anatta. Form is not considered worth identifying as Self because Form is impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering.
But can we identify Form as non-self ?

This question is regarding Anatta. Form is not considered worth identifying as Self because Form is impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering. But can we identify Form as non-self ?

"Not-self" (Anatta), is together with Anicca and Dukkha, known as the Three Characteristics of Existence (of Conditioned Phenomena).
The Five Aggregates, wherein Rupa (material form, physical phenomena) is listed, are subject to the Three Characteristics of Existence.
The uncontrollability of the Aggregates is experientially visible through direct seeing, ie. the practice of Vipassana Meditation. Here it can be seen with ones own eyes, how the Form-aggregate arises and ceases incessantly, based on impersonal causes and conditions.
In the Anattalakkhana Sutta, the Buddha explains how form can be regarded as not-self:

"... Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus..."
"...What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir...”
-- SN 22.59

In the saṃyukta āgama 34 sutta, Bhagwan says ** “Bhikṣus, regarding these impermanent and afflicting dharmas, easily subject to change, does a well-learned venerable disciple perceive in these a self or a non-self, and thereby dwell in appearances?” The bhikṣus addressed the Buddha saying, “No, Bhagavān,**  A monk does not perceive form as a self or non-self. Please clarify. Thanks.

This is a translational discrepancy. There is a double negation present in order to not fall into either Eternalism (self) or Annihilationism (non-self). Dosen't change the content of the sutta, ie. that The Five Aggregates are subject the Three Characteristics of Existence.


text:
Dispassion in Buddhism
Is something along those lines somewhere to be found in? I am aware of the drawbacks mentioned in MN.19 , but could this way of thinking, that is, the shortness of pleasure not lead to isolation/life rejection?
The Buddha frequently used the word dispassion towards the world, but I HIGHLY DOUBT HE HAD AVERSION to worldly things. This is a common phenomenom that many monks also display ,that is, that they feel aversion to the world. How does one deal with such a (mind) problem to not to drift into negativity to wordly affairs?

I am aware of the drawbacks mentioned in MN.19 , but could this way of thinking, that is, the shortness of pleasure not lead to isolation/life rejection?

Yes. MN 19, similar to AN 3.38, MN 26, etc, describes the experiences of the Buddha-To-Be (Bodhisatta) before enlightenment. For the unenlightened Gotama, his experience of life was happiness was not to be found in ordinary worldly life; thus he went searching. While Gotama did not know what Nibbana was; he already held the conviction that ordinary worldly life would not bring him true happiness.
If we ourselves personally have not had such an experience of disenchantment towards worldly life then teachings such as MN 19 may not be suitable for us or, otherwise, may need to be adapted into a reflection that focuses more on morality rather than on Nibbana.

The Buddha frequently used the word dispassion towards the world, but I HIGHLY DOUBT HE HAD AVERSION to worldly things. This is a common
  phenomenom that many monks also display ,that is, that they feel
  aversion to the world. How does one deal with such a (mind) problem to
  not to drift into negativity to worldly affairs?

There are subtle differences between aversion/hatred (dosa), disenchantment (revulsion; nibbida) and dispassion (viraga). Therefore, impressions can arise, which can be actually true, that monks can have aversion & hatred towards worldly things.
Aversion is an ordinary, natural yet unenlightened reaction towards evil worldly phenomena. For example, most people believe Hitler was evil, therefore they have a hatred towards Hitler. Thus, generally aversion occurs within some kind of moral outlook related to ideas of 'good' & 'evil'.
Where as dispassion, which arises from disenchantment, is related to impermanence (anicca) and the inability of impermanent things to bring lasting & true happiness (dukkha), as described in the Buddha's 2nd Sermon (SN 22.59). Dispassion is essentially a loss of craving that occurs with the view that worldly things cannot bring true happiness. Thus worldly things become unattractive & not worth craving.


text:
Vitakkasanthana Sutta

"in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it."

How does one pay no mind / no attention to thoughts? Diverting one's attention was the 1st method, but how is this meant to be?

When you watch a sad movie, you may feel sad at some points. But you won't carry the sadness with you and become depressed, would you? When you stop watching the movie, you immediately forget about it.
Similarly, you treat the evil unskillful thoughts here like they were some movie appearing in your mind, and ignore them.

The Pali here is asatiamanasikāro. Based on the translation of the monk Sujato, 'asati' (which often has a completely different meaning) means 'to forget' (i.e., non-mindful) and 'amanasikāro' naturally means 'non-attention' or 'to ignore'. Sujato translates:

Now, suppose that mendicant is examining the drawbacks of those thoughts; but bad unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate
  and delusion keep coming up. They should try to ignore and forget
  about them.

While I cannot answer the question definitively, my guess is the practise is to ignore the thoughts, which could include some thinking, such as "go away", "I want nothing to do with you", "I'm not interested in you", etc.


text:
How is forgiveness defined in Buddhism?
I am new to this topic so I may be asking a silly question. I have watched a lot of monk movies and after watching those movies to me it appears that forgiveness means if anybody does some harm to you you don't react and just try to pretend like it never happened to you. I tried to find out the meaning of this word got a similar answer.
Question: How is forgiveness defined in Buddhism?

You said, "Forgiveness means if anybody do some harm to you you don't react and just try to pretend like it never happened to you."
This is called "Kshanti-paramita", the perfection of patience.
In Buddhism, patience does not mean that you put a lot of effort to keep yourself calm. In Buddhism, patience means you do not have attachments. Because you have no attachments, you can not be offended.
The biggest attachment is Ego, the feeling of self-significance in the world. When you feel you are significant, and people do something that shows that you are not, you can easily feel insulted and lose temper. So Ego is like a big sore, very sensitive, that makes you very vulnerable.
Other types of attachments are attachment to religion, attachment to "we", attachment to some sort of theory, attachment to intellect, attachment to purity etc.
When you have no attachments, no Ego, no self-significance - you become very patient. You become unmovable, invulnerable. This is called perfection of patience.

So basically you just let people walk all over you, right? Are you sure that's how Wisdom is put into practice?

Yes..  I'm kidding! :) No, I meant you don't have emotional and conceptual attachment. You're open minded and truly objective in the highest sense of the word. Doesn't mean you don't have judgment, it's just that your judgment is not based on preconceptions and generalizations.

I am not deeply learned in Buddhist doctrine, but there are a couple ideas I discovered that I think add insight to the other responses to your question. The first idea is that human life is essentially suffering. I believe this is called the first of the four noble truths. It follows from it that you can, as a human being, feel compassion for any other human being. The possibility of forgiveness is inherent in this idea.
The other idea is that all phenomenon arise from causes and conditions. Violence is not exercised in a vacuum, but is a result of other events and conditions experienced by the perpetrator in combination with the perpetrator's not having risen above them. These events and conditions include, aside from the easily understood concept of 'violence begets violence', what my source termed "afflictive emotions", a concept akin to the idea that we are all programmed to an extent by our biology and so naturally feel emotions such as lust, anger, jealousy that might lead one to harming another person. Adopting this perspective of causes and conditions, I find, tends to dissolve the hatred and enmity I have felt towards people who caused me harm.

Good and insightful answer. Welcome to Buddhism SE.

Forgiveness explained in budhdism is tolerance. If someone does a harm on you it is non of your bussiness. That person will bring the karma for what he did. If you avenge it is something you are collecting. So tolerance is the best option.

Householder, interested,
the question seems to mix up two aspects, one of the actor having done harm, and one of the receiver of harm from another.
As for the actor who had done harm it's important to recognize such and ask for forgiveness from the victim of his deed if such is possible. Even if not, what might be often the case, one should confess a wrong doing by speech or bodily deeds toward a good friend on the path (teacher, preceptor) and resolve to not doing again. Depended on the case and relation one also accepts a certain punishment for good rehabilitation if in an community. When this is done, one counts as clean again and has been "lift up from the transgression". Of course such would not make the deed undone and effect will nevertheless fall back on one, but one is able to progress one way upward and on the path. Such is not possible if not seeing a fault or not willing to confess it.
As for forgiveness, being one who was touched by a faulty deed, one aspect is to bear much as possible, which is called "metta" and "khanti" and look that no ill-will on such is nourished. Further, the second fool next one not seeing and confessing ones own faults is a person who does not except (even) a pardon. Such bearing of ill-will is a fault as well and also hinders one to progress.
If one holds wrong views and thinks in manners of rights, one will be always either the first or the second foolish person.
It's a huge and important topic, focusing not only on harmony but also on the prerequisite for the practice: Right view.
Some further aspects and sources are mentioned here.
See also:

Reconciliation, Right & Wrong, by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Wisdom over Justice
Justice vs. Skillfulness
Verdrängen ist nicht Verzeihen (German language)

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)


text:
When saying that the aggregate is not-self are we not predicting the existence of a thing called self?
Parmenides, a presocratic philosopher, said:

The only roads of inquiry there are to think of: one, that it is and
  that it is not possible for it not to be, this is the path of
  persuasion (for truth is its companion); the other, that it is not and
  that it must not be — this I say to you is a path wholly unknowable.

In short, we should bar our thought from an inquiry of what is not. Of course, we can say that "the apple is not red" there is nothing wrong with that, but unless a thing called an apple exist we can't say that "a thing is not an apple".
In the same way, when we say " the aggregate is not self" unless there is a self our statement is a wrong inquiry because as Parmenides says "we can only speak about what is: what is not cannot be thought of, and what cannot be thought of cannot be."

When saying that the aggregate is not-self are we not predicting the existence of a thing called self?
I think that perhaps "we" are not predicting nor denying the existence of a thing called self: for details see for example How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
Parmenides, a presocratic philosopher, said ...
I don't know him but it sounds like he's being a sophist. :-) I guess he's saying we should (or can) only talk truthfully about things that exist, because the non-existant is unknowable.
I think that Buddhism asks a slightly different question: i.e. is a belief beneficial, is it a skilful view?
unless a thing called an apple exist we can't say that "a thing is not an apple"
Can't we say that "a thing is not a unicorn"?
More importantly people generally do view the aggregates as self (at least more-or-less depending on what you mean by "self"): for example, "this is my body, it is mine, my body is me", and so on.
So if that's a common but an unskillful view (from which arises suffering and so on), perhaps it's worth contradicting.

Well, you can say: "a thing is not a unicorn"  but that will only count as making a random noise because a unicorn doesn't exist.

What if people think it's a unicorn, though? That's an idle question but not just an idle question, because I think that people sometimes understand or understood "self" to mean "soul" -- something immortal and permanent. So far as I know the statement is also stating that "the aggregates are not soul".

I found this (Of Emptiness and Being: A Comparative Analysis of Parmenides and Naagaarjuna) which compare Parmenides and Nagarjuna, I think to say something "is" is in itself one extream view.

Your response is somewhat the same as what Nagarjuna said as quoted below..still beyond my feeble mind..............    ..............        Impurity cannot exist without depending on purity so that we explain purity by impurity.
        Therefore purity by itself cannot be attained.

        Purity cannot exist without depending on impurity, so that we explain impurity by purity.

        Therefore impurity cannot exist by itself.  (Nakamura 61)

OP: unless a thing called an apple exist we can't say that "a thing is not an apple"

There is such a thing as a self, but it is not independent and standalone.
Please see this answer for details.
The Buddha used the analogy of a lute. There is such a thing as music, but if you break down the lute into its constituent components, you will not be able to find music. Music only arises out of the inter-working of the different parts of the lute, when it is assembled, constructed and tuned correctly.
There is music, but it does not exist standalone or independently of other things. The self similarly arises virtually from the interplay of other phenomena. To say that the music or the self do not exist at all, is incorrect.  "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means in all phenomena, there is no self, just as in all constituent parts of the lute, you cannot find something called music.

the analogy of the self as a music / Harmonia will not qualify easily in the West because it is disproved in Phaedo by Plato. If you follow the thought of self as music, a music that follows the lute but not leads you will end in a mechanistic view which denies the conditioned freedom of humans.

When saying that the aggregate is not-Self are we not predicting the existence of a thing called Self?
No, we are not predicting existence of Self. You are aware of what is Self. You identify Self as your body and/or You identify Self as feeling and/or You identify Self as consciousness and/or You identify Self as perception and/or You identify Self as mental fabrications. Self is already known to you.(If you do not identify your self with body, feelings,perception,consciousness,mental fabrications then you are already in the state of Anatta.) What we are saying is that your identification of Self with body , feeling , consciousness, perception , mental fabrications are wrong. Self is not body , feeling , consciousness , perception , mental fabrications. Now the question is what is Self?  That you will have to find out by yourself by doing meditation. You will ultimately find that Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. There is nothing worth identifying as Self not even Nirvana. Therefore Self must have been like an illusion or error or a dream. Self is like a misconception. A false understanding of Self arises and we cure that misunderstanding by practicing Anatta.


text:
No self and individual responsibility
If there is no self, no "mind" or "I" that can be found, then what does Buddhism call that faculty which exercises personal responsibility?

There is mind. Mind is not the same as self or I.

There is such a thing as a self, but it is not independent and standalone.
Please see this answer for details.
The Buddha used the analogy of a lute. There is such a thing as music, but if you break down the lute into its constituent components, you will not be able to find music. Music only arises out of the inter-working of the different parts of the lute, when it is assembled, constructed and tuned correctly.
There is music, but it does not exist standalone or independently of other things. The self similarly arises virtually from the interplay of other phenomena. To say that the music or the self do not exist at all, is incorrect. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means in all phenomena, there is no self, just as in all constituent parts of the lute, you cannot find something called music.
And there is also the mind.
"Sabbe sankhara anicca" means all conditioned things are not permanent. The mind and the self are not permanent. They are always changing, ceasing and arising, dependent on other things. Anicca does not mean that they do not exist.

I think I am starting to see. Even that faculty which exercises personal responsibility is itself conditioned, impermanent, changing and dependent on other things, and so "Whatever is not yours, abandon it". We do not identify with it as self, since to do so would be a form of "craving for becoming".


text:
How to practice ignoring identification with the body?
Namo Buddhaya.
I strongly identify with body. I see myself in the mirror and I immediately recognize that that is me. Such a identification is against Dhamma.
How can I disidentify with my body? Along what lines of thinking should I prove to myself that the person in mirror is not me or mine?
Note:- Dhamma means teachings of Anatta. Question is related to practice of Dhamma.

The question you asked is directly combined with the concept of saññā(identification).
From the day we born in this world, we sense things around us and recognize them according to the external world. For example, when you first see an object like chair, you don't have any idea that it is a chair. But the knowledge you get from the outside, lead you to believe that it is a chair. So, next time you see a similar shape, you understand that is also a chair.
That's how conventional world is built. But actually, what we see is not what exists. Everything in this universe is made of 4 fundamental things patavi,aapo ,thejo and wayo. Nothing is beyond that.Anything you see from your eyes is just a combination of these 4 elements.Only the outer appearance differs according to the element percentages.
As an example if you consider water => aapo is the dominant factor...
for a rock => patavi is the dominant factor. The names you use for them are just set of words nothing more.
When you consider about the body, first thing you need to know is, the name "body" is just a word. What you feel when you touch yourself and what you see from the mirror is just a combination of 4 factors mentioned above.
In the Buddhism human body is beautifully described. Human body is made of 32 parts.
Head hair, Body hair, Nails, Teeth, Skin
(Kesa, Loma, Nakkha, Danta, Taco)
Flesh, Sinews, Bones, Bone Marrow, Kidneys
(Masam, Naharu, Atthi, Atthiminjam, Vakkam)
Heart, Liver, Diaphragm, Spleen, Lungs
(Hadayam, Yakanam, Kilomakam, Pihakam, Papphasam)
Large Intestine, Small Intestine, Stomach, Feces, Brain
(Antam, Antagunam, Udariam, Kerisam, Mattagunam)
Bile, Phlegm, Pus, Blood, Sweat, Fat
(Pittam, Semhan, Pubbo, Lohitam, Sedo, Medo)
Tears, Grease, Saliva, Mucus, Oil of the Joints, Urine
(Assu, Vasa, Kelo, Singhanika, Lasika, Muttam)

Imagine you separate each of these from your body and see them individually. If you see these things separately, you don't consider them as a body or a human.You might recognize them as blood, piece of bone or piece of flesh etc.
But when they are together you recognize it as the body. That is the wrong saññā(identification).
Body never exist anywhere in the future,past or present. Only these 32 parts where there. If you go deeper you might realize each of these part is just combination of patavi,aapo,thejo and wayo. So ultimately, what really exists is 4 fundamentals, not anything else.
when you realize what you see from the mirror is not your body and just combination of four fundamentals.You will not recognize it as body and you will see it as a combination.
patavi is toughness it belongs to land.. everything in your body made of patavi will decay and added up to soil one day.
aapo is the liquidity and it belongs to ocean.. everything in your body made of aapo will wash away and collect to the ocean.
thejo is the temparature inside the body.. it will mix with the atmosphere once you dead and add to the fire.
wayo is the air inside the body and it will mix to the atmosphere and blow away with the wind..
So if you cannot control these four factors,obviously you cannot control a combination of them as well. So there is no point of telling "body" is mine.
correct your saññā(identification) about the "body" according to Buddhism then you will see the truth.

Can I say body is me ? Can I say I am using my hands to type this question? How do you disprove that?

You are NOT the body.. not any part of it either.. when we are living in conventional world we are using conventions.. even in dhamma discussions we are using conventional terms. Yes you use your hand to type this but actually it is just moment of fundamentals... If i ask to divide your hand into parts and separate can you still see a hand there. No because hand is just a concept. It is a identification only.... actually hand doesnt exist. Only 4 fundamentals exists. How is it possible that something never exist became your hand..

In conventional world anybody will believe that you use your hand to type this. Even i do. But if you go deep and realize what happened it is obvious there is just moments and collisions of fundamentals.. dear read more on paramartha dharma and abhi dharma.... it is the key to get rid of concept of i my and mine.. because we don't belong anything never exists. It is just a wrong sanna...


text:
In what situations can letting go of attachments be painful?
From what I understand of the Buddhist path, letting go of attachments shouldn't be painful. Are there times when letting go will be painful and if there is, why are those times different than the usual?

From what I understand of the Buddhist path, letting go of attachments shouldn't be painful.

Working through deep-rooted states of stress and mental hindrances can be both unpleasant and painful. The pain is not really a problem. It's just another object to work with, to observe and to cultivate insights from.
The real problem is our reaction to the pain. The judgement, the inclination, the liking/disliking that goes on.
That behavior is what shapes the tendencies of the mind. It will like certain experiences and be aversed towards other experiences. In that way ones happiness and peace of mind, is dependent on a certain set of causes and conditions. The mind is not free as long as it clings.
This shows us that we have work to do and where it has to be done. The goal is to be able to experience the full spectrum of experience without falling into suffering.

Are there times when letting go will be painful and if there is, why are those times different than the usual?

The suffering one experiences, when renouncing an object, is directly proportional to the attachment one has cultivated towards that particular object/experience.


text:
Can a buddha communicate with someone in far away places?
Buddha says that he hears some god having foolish thought. I think it's the story of Bakka Brahma.
He "transfer" himself to the god's presence and lectures. And his disciples too.
That seems like long distance communication.
That seems to be well within the realm of science.
Now anyone test this?
Get a buddha, or a bodhisatva (buddha had many disciples, each can show up on Bakka Brahma tools). Ask them for one number and let the other guesses.
Would it works?

"Can a buddha communicate with someone in far away places?"

Question falls under the Four Imponderables, namely the first Acinteyya, i.e. the range of powers of a Buddha:

The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha];

The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana];

The [precise working out of the] results of kamma;

Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about.

--  Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77.

These imponderables the Buddha advices not to contemplate since they will only serve to agitate and destabilize the mind making it less suitable for meditation practice.

The psychic powers of a Buddhist monk cannot be tested by science because it is forbidden for a Buddhist monk to demonstrate psychic powers to lay people, i.e., to scientists.

Displaying psychic powers. A related rule at Cv.V.8.2 states that to display psychic powers to lay people is a dukka˛a. In the origin story
  leading up to that rule, the Buddha levels strong criticism at such an
  act: “Just as a woman might expose her vagina for a miserable wooden
  masaka coin, so too have you displayed a superior human state, a
  wonder of psychic power, to lay people for the sake of a miserable
  wooden bowl.”
Vinaya page 266


text:
What is Sang Hyang Adhi Buddha?
https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanghyang_Adi_Buddha
In Indonesia, due to muslim influence, believes in an "Esa" God is one of the founding principle of Indonesians.
The words "Esa" in Indonesia can mean many things. Some says it means one (as in islam), or united (as in christianity) or comprehensive (according to my hindu friends).
It seems that whoever wrote "Ketuhanan yang maha esa" wants to unite Indonesians under some open to interpretation terms.
The buddhists in Indonesia then have this concept  of Sang Hyang Adi Buddha which they called is "God"
Is it?
What is it?
Is it God? I thought God is more like Bakka Brahma in Buddha.
Is this just Indonesian thingy or is it common among buddha?
In that wikipedia article I found a strange paragraph

“Ketahuilah Para Bhikkhu, Ada sesuatu Yang Tidak Dilahirkan, Yang
  Tidak Menjelma, Yang Tidak Tercipta, Yang Mutlak. Wahai para Bhikkhu,
  apabila Tidak ada Yang Tidak Dilahirkan, Yang Tidak Menjelma, Yang
  Tidak Diciptakan, Yang Mutlak, maka tidak akan mungkin kita dapat
  bebas dari kelahiran, penjelmaan, pembentukan, pemunculan dari sebab
  yang lalu. Tetapi para Bhikkhu, karena ada Yang Tidak Dilahirkan, Yang
  Tidak Menjelma, Yang Tidak Tercipta, Yang Mutlak, maka ada kemungkinan
  untuk bebas dari kelahiran, penjelmaan, pembentukan, pemunculan dari
  sebab yang lalu."

I have no idea what  Udana Nikaya (VIII: 3) is. I wish we have something like biblehub for buddhism. Let me translate that to English.
Know Bhikkus, Something is not born, something doesn't manifest, something isn't created, something is absolute. Hi Bhikkus, if nothing is not unborn, not manifested, not created, not absolute, then we cannot be free from birth, manifestation (or incaranation/reincarnation), forming, and resulting out of previous causes. But Bhikkus, because something is not born, not manifested, not created, not resulting from previous cause, then there is a possibility to be free from birth, manifestation, forming, and resulting from previous causes.
Any Indonesian can say that my translation is about right. Am I?

Did you read the Wikipedia article you linked to? Isn't it clear, and doesn't it answer your questions?

I do not see any english version that fit with the indonesian article. Also most european countries do not have monotheism as one of it's country principle. Hence, it's politically correct to portray buddhism as another monotheistic religions in, and only in, Indonesia

So it's OK to answer this question (in English) with a summary of what the Wikipedia article says.

Or you can read Indonesian, have read the Wikipedia article, and don't need an English-language summary of it? It seemed to me that the article already contains the answers to your original questions.

You can find Udana 8.3 in English here. It's a description of Nibbana, and not Buddha.

The whole Wikipedia article is also available in English here.

All this time I thought the essence of Buddhism is that nothing is permanent. And yet here, Buddha says that something is permanent. Is he referring God?

It seems that this concept is only popular in Indonesian buddhism. Are other buddhist in other countries have monotheistic beliefs too?

According to Wikipedia, Indonesia has an official state policy policy/philosphy called Pancasila i.e. "Five Precepts" (which are not the same as the "Five (lay) precepts" of Buddhism).

Belief in the One and Only God (in Indonesian "Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa"),
A just and civilized humanity (in Indonesian "Kemanusiaan Yang Adil dan Beradab"),
A unified Indonesia (in Indonesian "Persatuan Indonesia"),
Democracy, led by the wisdom of the representatives of the People (in Indonesian "Kerakyatan Yang Dipimpin oleh Hikmat Kebijaksanaan, Dalam Permusyawaratan Perwakilan")
Social justice for all Indonesians (in Indonesian "Keadilan Sosial bagi seluruh Rakyat Indonesia").

My guess (I don't know) is that the first precept is designed to prevent sectarian conflict (if there's one and only one God, then hopefully people shouldn't fight about whose God is which and so on).
My reading of Wikipedia is that, for Buddhism to exist with that (Indonesan) context, in must fit in with those precepts, and therefore:

Sanghyang Adi Buddha is a concept of God in Buddhism in Indonesia. This term was used by Ashin Jinarakkhita at the time of Buddhist revival in Indonesia in the mid 20th century to reconcile the first principle of the official philosophical foundation of Indonesia (Pancasila), i.e. "KeTuhanan Yang Maha Esa" (lit. "Recognition of the Divine Omnipotence") that requires the belief in a supreme God, with Buddhism which strictly speaking does not believe in such monotheistic God.

I guess one way in which the Buddha might be like God is that the Buddha advises humans on what laws  to follow?
I don't know how else it's interpreted (I expect there are other interpretations).

I have no idea what Udana Nikaya (VIII: 3) is. I wish we have something like biblehub for buddhism.
https://suttacentral.net/ might be like what youre looking for, i.e. it has translations in many languages of many suttas.
Here is

Wikipedia's article about the Udāna
Suttacentral's list of Udāna suttas
A link to Udana number 8.3 (or "VIII: 3" as it's written in the Indonesian Wikipedia)
A link to the English translation of that sutta

Note that that sutta is talking about "Nibbāna", not about the Buddha; but the suttas teach that Nibbāna is the state which the Buddha attained.

All this time I thought the essence of Buddhism is that nothing is permanent. And yet here, Buddha says that something is permanent.
Buddhism teaches that all sankharas (all "conditioned things") are impermanent.
Nibbāna is an exception to that rule (not included in that rule), becase Nibbāna is unconditioned (these these topics for further details about "unconditioned").

Also some schools of Buddhism de-emphasise the importance of Nibbāna. Wikipedia's Nirvana (Buddhism) -- Mahayana aticle says,

The Mahayana (Great Vehicle) tradition envisions an attainment beyond nirvana, namely Buddhahood. [...] The Mahayana path aims at a further realization, namely Buddhahood or nonabiding (apratiṣṭhita) nirvana. A Buddha does not dwell in nirvana, but engages actively in enlightened activity to liberate beings for as long as samsara remains.

It seems that this concept is only popular in Indonesian buddhism. Are other buddhist in other countries have monotheistic beliefs too?
Some schools of Buddhism seem to me to be a bit like theistic beliefs -- see Pure Land Buddhism for example.
Some schools seem polytheistic (with many Buddhas, or at least many manifestations of Buddha).
And some schools are polytheistic but may de-emphasise the importance of "gods", and explain for example that a god, too, even a god (or, a god's time/existence in a divine realm) is temporary.


text:
Setting foot in two different boats
First some introduction:
I am in my ending teen years and like a normal teen would aspire for success, I aspire for it too. But there is a catch... I don't want to get too lost into material world, such that, at the end of the day I will be lost. In a sense I don't want to waste time.
I have desire to be a little above mediocrity which can take lots of time(and there is no guarantee that I will succeed), so I believe it would be better if I realize the pointlessness of it as(many gurus claim).
Some say to realize pointlessness of money(and any such desires like higher social status) it is important to have them first.
So is it like I have heard that at the end of tough road is a steep fall and for me to realize it I have to work hard and see for myself, is there no better choice?

Can't I move towards it(worldly successes) and in the meantime practice something so I realize it is not that important?

Right now I don't have courage to live like a monastic and even if I do, I'll be thinking of worldly pursuits most of the time and will have this sense of failure with me, that, I chose this path(spiritual) because I would fail in material path(this idea of choosing spiritual path because of failure in materialistic path is frowned upon where I live).
Note:
I know that I have to try to keep precepts and be moral, I want little bit advanced practice(while I try to build my career)
Thank you!

You can definitely pursue materialistic happiness while following the Noble Eightfold Path. Please see this answer for the question "Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business?". Also, please see this answer on the pursuit of happiness in Buddhism.
The first step in the Noble Eightfold Path is developing Right View and you need to do this by studying the Dhamma.
At the same time, you should learn about developing virtue (sila) and wholesome qualities, and practising them with heedfulness.
The most minimum set of training rules to undertake are the five precepts. But developing skillful living and skillful thinking exceeds the five precepts by far.
Meditation can come later.

Live your lay life according to the Singalovada Sutta. Dedicate one hour a day or as much as you can spare for meditation, listening to the Dhamma. When you get vacation, visit a meditation center and practice intensively. This way yo can succeed at both.

You can always build your "worldly success" while practicing Buddhism. There is no conflict of each other.
If you are talking about go the monastic direction and live like a monk, that's a totally different story.

Yes I know there is no conflict. But generally advanced practices are kept for monks and it is them who get insights. For example when asked how do I get some pleasure out of meditations the common reply is you have to ordain as a monk and have to spend 12 hours meditating. I do keep my precepts to my best possible, what else do I need? 12 hours of meditation? There ought to be some way!

I don't think you need to be a monk in order to realize the benefits (pleasure is not a good word) of Meditation. The time for meditation depends entirely up to you. If you feel your current allocation isn't enough, allocate more. Benefits can be realized but there is no "short-cut". The whole practice is step by step. There may be a time where you reach a plateau, in this case try retreat camps. The path of learning never ends.
Keeping the 5 precepts are great too, keep it up.

Aside meditation and keeping with the 5 precepts. You can also keep up with the 5 virtues. I.e. do the opposite of the 5 precepts. Consider different types of volunteering works. You may gain new insights through actual practicing of the virtues, if you haven't already done so.

Open yourself up to the world. Let the possibilities excite and draw you in. The greatest gift you can bring to the world is yourself, enlightened by your own spiritual practice. Whichever path you take, you will end up where you were meant to be. The lessons you need will find you, where ever you are. Allow yourself to look towards what inspires you, not only what is safe and has good financial prospects. Youth has magic to it (even if being young is not an accomplishment), you can breathe in possibility. Don't allow the disappointments of others to guide you to a lesser path with the idea that it is safer. There is nothing safe in unhappiness.
As you walk along your path, keep checking on whether your path has the aspects you need most.
Here is a list that I think is well worded, but you can craft your own. (I welcome edits if someone can make Right Livelihood clearer)
• Is what we are doing causing harm to others or suffering for ourselves?
• Is the way we live and the way we support ourselves causing harm or suffering?
• What are the purposes for which we work?
• What values do we express in our work?
• What consequence does our work have on the quality of our inner life?
• What consequences does it have on the world?
• Is the way we live our life satisfying and meaningful? If it isn’t, what can we change to create greater joy, satisfaction, and meaning?
(I copied it from here: https://www.care2.com/greenliving/how-buddhism-helped-me-find-a-better-career.html )


text:
how important is self forgiveness in karma ?
I am trying to understand karma, I have and continue to read about intention and letting go. I am struggling with something. Could you help me ?
A) If I acted (unwisely, unkindly, causing suffering), not knowing that what I was doing was wrong, and never realizing it to be wrong, I believe this is neutral.
B) If I acted (unwisely, unkindly, causing suffering), while knowing that what I was doing was wrong, and continued to understand it to be wrong, I believe this is bad.
C) If I acted (unwisely, unkindly, causing suffering), while knowing that what I was doing was wrong, and then saw that the act resulted in something good, I believe this is bad.
D) If I acted (unwisely, unkindly, causing suffering), not knowing that what I was doing was wrong, and later realized it to be wrong, I believe this is neutral. If (now that I understand) I harbor guilt and attach to this guilt I am doing bad. Here I am asked to forgive myself and move on. If I continue to wallow in the guilt then I am doing more bad.
(assuming I am correct on A-C) the problem I have with D is likely based in the faith of my birth (catholic), where I was made to believe that guilt is really like a payment and the worst the act the longer you need to pay for it (like a monetary value) by continuing to hurt yourself with guilty feelings.
in Buddhism, if attaching to guilt is bad, then how long do you need to feel it ? do you just move on as soon as you realize it was wrong ? If the suffering impacted someone else do they have a "say" in how long you cause yourself suffering (if not literally, then in some kind of moral equivalence that you calculate yourself ?)
thank you for sharing your insight.

I feel you. I am working through something similar. How long should you be holding onto the guilt. I get these thoughts of being selfish if I dont punish myself enough. Now the question is how much is enough ?

In my understanding,
The original action is one source of karma.
The hidden agenda (intention,attitude) behind that act is another source of karma.
Our thoughts reflecting on that after it happened is the third source of karma.
Our decision to explain what happened and why, in one specific way, is the fourth source of karma.
Each of the four components can be wholesome or unwholesome, so there are 16 combinations in total, or 16 gradations - from 100% unwholesome, to 100% wholesome. Also, the combinations vary by the timing of their effects, producing a complex mixture of some immediate and some latent results.
In context of this question, what we are interested in is the difference between the last two components.
The thoughts about the event (going over it, analyzing, evaluating oneself) can generate either pride and joy, or shame and guilt. This guilt, by itself, is a dukkha, disease. Maintaining oneself in a maimed and injured condition creates negative karma that keeps the vicious circle going.
The decision to explain what and why happened, in a specific way, is the most important component for the long term effects of the action. What is "specific way"? Usually, real life situations are not unambiguous. Instead, they usually have an element of ambiguity, a quantum element so to speak. In most situations we can come up with a number of narratives or interpretations, that will present situation and your role in it rather differently.
What often happens when we analyze a troublesome situation, is we can't decide which perspective we should take. So we keep going over it again and again, replaying it in our head, which can bring a lot of guilt and suffering. Instead, if we decide on one perspective, and make a firm decision to stick with it - then we can stop replaying the situation, and clearly describe what happened and exactly why, and based on this choice of explanation our future will change accordingly.
The perspective Buddha suggest we should take, is that of responsibility, but at the same time the one that will make us strong, not sick with guilt. Here's what happened, here are the attachments that were at play, here is the confusion that was at play, here's the lust and aversion that were at play. Here's why I thought it was a good idea to act like that at the time. However, now I clearly see how and why my actions created that harmful effect.
It is an important skill, according to my teacher, to never betray one's past decisions. If we decided to act a certain way, we must have done it out of our best understanding at the moment. Given our understanding at the moment, we could not have acted differently (if we could we would). However, if we act now, we will act out of our new best understanding, which may be different this time.
The only function of "taking the blame" is to admit that situation indeed happened the way it happened, and that our actions played a role in that. We were acting out of our best understanding, but because our perspective was limited, we participated in creating these negative results. With our new understanding we can see that a better action is possible, and we want to try it that way next time.
This is called "master mind" as opposed to "leaking mind". Leaking mind is the mind that betrays its own foundation, it's own past decisions all the time. Leaking mind says "oh I was so stupid yesterday" or "so wrong" etc. Master mind has an element of confidence and stability, it honorably inherits its past actions and choices, while never getting attached or stuck in the past and taking into account new information as it becomes available.

Are there any scriptural sources for the four components? "The original action is one source of karma. The hidden agenda (intention,attitude) behind that act is another source of karma. Our thoughts reflecting on that after it happened is the third source of karma. Our decision to explain what happened and why, in one specific way, is the fourth source of karma."

Three factors contribute to bad Karma.

Greed
Aversion
Ignorance

Not knowing that an action is wrong, does not redeem you from the Karma. It just
 makes it a Karma based on strong ignorance. To give an analogy, if you mix mud and milk thinking that it's going to create chocolate milkshake, it is still going to taste horrible even if you didn't know it was wrong. If you touch something hot without knowing that it is hot, it's still going to burn your hand regardless of your knowledge.
There is no self forgiving in Buddhism, because you are not supposed to look at Karma in terms of self in the first place. You are supposed to look at it in terms of causes and effect. What you should know is that actions based on greed, hatred and ignorance lead to unfavorable effects and actions based on non-greed, non-aversion, non-ignorance lead to favorable effects.
Feeling guilty makes the Karma worse. What you should do is reevaluating past actions and correcting them if they were wrong or improving on them if they were right.

@sankhakulathanille (I am working on understanding your second paragraph, cause & effect, without a self) Is it similar to:  'I throw a ball up into the air (the ball being a wrong action, the throwing being the act of doing it) karma is the ball falling back down, and gravity acts on the ball regardless of my knowledge of the scope of my action. It falls not because I am standing beneath it, and I might move away or stay, the falling is not affected. If I am still there when it returns, it hits me, if I move away the ball still falls.

@sankhakulathanille (continued) My presence beneath the ball is the "false self" that feels intrinsically involved when the ball hits me in the head, but really, the ball is not aware of me, and neither is gravity aware of me.

On a conceptual level, you can think of Karma involving a doer and an experiencer. But in reality, Karma is just causes and effect. There's no 'I' throwing the ball. Wanting to do something is just wanting arising and ceasing. There's no self in 'wanting'. Doing something physical is just rupa(matter) arising as a result of the wanting.

Karma will result from 'Intention' + 'Action'. basically, any action will form karma, and intention behind will increase the strength of karma. Intention itself will also cause Karma.
Therefore:
A) Karma will result.
B) Karma will result.
C) Karma will result.
D) Karma will result.
In Buddhism, there is no such thing as "Payment" of karma through guilt. You will experience the Karma (good or bad) as long as you created it.
If you realized something you did was wrong, learn from it, refrain from repeating it, and do something about it if still possible.
No one has a "say" about the strength of your karma, as Karma itself is a manifestation of natural universal laws. No one can tamper with universal laws. Not even the Gods.

I understand suffering:
A) impermanent suffering: suffering given to other person and have time to heal that (person)
B) permanent suffering: no discussion. Simply don't create that, create something better.

Feeling guilty is not healthy. It obstructs you from learning. Sure, if you feel guilty it might be a motivator, but so is remorse. If one is guilt loaden one can barely think the bigger picture, ignores the fallibility of being human and over-generalizes with statements such as "I am bad", "I am worthless" etc.

Please if you have time try to find the book "Handbook of the Buddhist". This is written by Ven. Rerukane Chandawimala thero. In this book you will be able to find a good explanation about Karma. I think there is the solution you need. Following link is to buy the book. But try to find it online for free.
http://www.online.buddhistcc.com/books/handbook-of-the-buddhist-detail.html
If you can afford you can buy.
(Im not sure these kind of links are allowed here. But please understand that I'm not trying to sell anything here.)

thank you, I did look for it, I have written to the book seller. I did not think you might be trying to profit :) you will be pleased to know it is 2$ which where I am is less than the cost of a cup of tea/coffee, so it is a sum more like a tip than a burden. Thank you for your consideration.

I hope it will work for you. And if you get interested try to find other books written by Ven. Rerukane Chandawimala thero. All of them are really good. Also you don't have to worry about the accuracy too.

Also I want to let you know this too. The book isn't completely about the Karma. There is a little part. But I believe it's more than any of us can explain and also none of us will dig that deep to give an asnwer

The answer comes in the Lonaphala Sutta:

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

What developed in body and developed in mind means, is elaborated in MN36:

"And how is one developed in body and developed in mind? There is the
  case where a pleasant feeling arises in a well-educated disciple of
  the noble ones. On being touched by the pleasant feeling, he doesn't
  become impassioned with pleasure, and is not reduced to being
  impassioned with pleasure. His pleasant feeling ceases. With the
  cessation of the pleasant feeling there arises a painful feeling. On
  being touched with the painful feeling, he doesn't sorrow, grieve, or
  lament, beat his breast or becomes distraught. When that pleasant
  feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain
  because of his development of the body. When that painful feeling had
  arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his
  development of the mind. This is how one is developed in body and
  developed in mind."

Self-forgiveness does not play any role here.
The development of virtue (sila) allows one to think and act in ways that is wholesome. It also counters the ignorance of not knowing what is wholesome, and provides freedom from remorse.
Being developed in body and mind allows one to not react to both pleasant and painful feelings, and have it remain in his mind.


text:
Anapannasati - Why the breath?
Is there a specific reason why the breath is used as the object of anapanasati or to be more precise: Why did the Buddha chose the breath.
Does it mean then that in daily life our main object should also be the breath?

Seems that moderators are expecting a particular style in these answers, and so deleted my initial answer. I'll rephrase...
The reason that the breath is the most important meditation object is that unlike other objects they are always available. For example, you might forget your TM mantra or misplace your mandala. Other objects of meditation, such as decaying corpses, aren't usually freely available in the UK either :-)

Welcome to the site. Yes, thank you -- sorry I didn't understand your previous post as an answer. There is a bit of a particular style, notably (quoting from the Tour), "This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat. Just questions ... and answers." Within that there's a lot of variety, e.g. references are optional (it's said that a good answer would tend to be based on something, references or personal experience), short answers are OK -- just, it ought to be recognisable as an answer to the OP's question.

Being friendly is fine too -- but as well as, not instead of, answering the question.

I've worked with low ability learners for 40 years and have developed a style that avoids jargon and instead focuses on a more down to earth communication style. I also use humour as a tool. I originate from a London working class area, well known for this style - they call us Cockneys :-)
I am very friendly Chris, having run a Newspaper comment section sometimes attended by ex-terrorists I've learnt to be as uncritical as possible.

My accent was called mid-Atlantic, i.e. from "over the Pond". I tend to be kind of humourless, unfortunately, for the sake of trying to be literal -- a software developer. Don't mind me though, i.e. there are plenty of other people on the site. Not that I want to be critical but I was asked to volunteer as moderator of this site, so I see it as my duty to preserve its basic format, which is something like, "mostly Q&A, minimise hostility, and avoid 'extended discussion' in comments".

One of the funnier answers on this site was maybe this one -- that caused some discussion at the time. Anyway, sorry I didn't recognise your previous post as an answer, I read it as an off-topic comment that wasn't à propos of the question. I can see now that it was similar to this answer, which is clearer (this answer kind of spells out the connection between the answer and the question).

It's not only available, but it is touching, calling, hitting the practitioner every time. No other meditation act like this, so it is easiest meditation to achieve the concentration.

Does it mean then that in daily life our main object should also be the breath?
In the context of Buddhist meditation, there are 40 subjects of meditation (Kammaṭṭhāna). These are divided into

Samatha for concentration and mastery over the mind
Vipassanā for wisdom

The Noble Eightfold Path has 3 subdivisions:

morality (Śīla) - developed though recollection of morality (Śīla)
mastery over the mind (Samadhi) - developed through Samatha
wisdom (Paññā) - developed through Vipassanā

Anapanasati is one of the meditation techniques under Vipassanā to develop the 4 Satipatthana. Vipassanā is easier to develop in daily life as Samatha requires longer hours of meditation to develop concentration (Samadhi). Anapanasati helps develop both Samadhi and Paññā at the same time, but this is not the only technique at your disposal.

The Buddha did not chose the breath. Instead, the breath chose the Buddha.
When the mind surrenders or abandons craving, the sense organs/objects of sight, sound, smelling, tasting, external touching & pre-occupation with thinking disengage.
What remains, as the most coarse or gross sense object, is the breathing.
When the mind is quiet, empty & free, i.e., when "mindfulness is established to the fore", the breathing automatically, without choosing, becomes the natural object of meditation.
This is the meaning of Anapanasati, namely, 'mindfulness with breathing' rather than 'awareness of breathing'.
Those who attempt to practise 'awareness of breathing' may experience some samatha (calmness) but will not progress very far because the path of the Buddha is the path of abandoning craving.

So there is no volitional breathing involved? So is everyone teaching it wrongly? "When the mind is quiet, empty & free, i.e., when "mindfulness is established to the fore", the breathing automatically, without choosing, becomes the natural object of meditation."  Mindfulness means Sati in Buddhism but what exactly is set to the fore? Sati is recollecting something

Not everyone is teaching it wrongly but maybe 99% are teaching it wrongly. What is set to the fore is a mind without craving. Sati recollects the teaching of the Buddha to abandon craving. Mindfulness recollects right view. Refer to MN 117.

@Dhammadhatu Can you name some of that 1% who are teaching it correctly?

https://www.dhammaloka.org.au/files/pdf/Ajahn_Brahm-Mindfulness_Bliss_and_Beyond-Chapters1-4.pdf

The first good thing about the breath is that while you are alive, it is always available. Another good thing is that it is internal, not an external object. The purpose of this kind of meditation is to train the mind to be able to focus single pointedly. Ultimately, this ability can be used to meditate on the emptiness of self and all phenomena, eventually resulting in a direct perception of emptiness, AKA, Nirvana.

It's simple. Breathing affects body, feeling (or sensations) and mind.
When you breath, your abdomen inflates or deflates, and your rib cage also moves.
When you breath, you can feel the sensation of the breath on your upper lip, nostril and/or nasal passage.
If you breath fast, your mind becomes agitated. If you breath slowly, your mind calms down.
So, anapanasati includes realistic observation of body, feeling and mind, whereas meditation on bright white light or a mantra would only include observation and manipulation of mental objects.
Realistic observation of body, feeling and mind is needed to gain understanding into the nature of the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness) and dependent origination.

When I first started serious meditation in 1975, I heard the breath being called the maha mantra - 'the great mantra'. This was also a term used by Hare Krishna for a chant. At the time I was meditating on 4 objects/subjects: the breath, light, music and nectar. Breath was always my favourite :-)