text:
Why the emptiness brings fear in to our mind?
Time to time , feeling emptiness, do not see any value in goodness and badness. Some time, getting the question what is happiness, everything seems to be happiness, everything seems to be annoying. Feeling like to cry some times. But at the end, feeling some kind of fear in my mind whenever i get feel the mentioned above.
What is the practice, or what is that  have to be done to understand or overcome this fear?

It's hard to answer this kind of questions without seeing the questioner upclose. But from what I can see, here is what I can say:
The reason Emptiness brings fear, is because it removes simple direction: go this way, do this. Indeed, if the world had simple moral imperative, or simple value imperative ("so and so is the best") - it would be simply a matter of pursuing that. Instead, to accept Emptiness means to accept that responsibility for making decisions lies upon ourselves. There is nothing in the world that has absolute value. So we can't just figure out what it is and thereby win the game!
Sounds like you need to learn to trust yourself. Trust your own judgement of goodness and badness, of happiness and suffering.
If you are very confused, you can use Buddhist precepts and principles as the first approximation. But eventually you have to discover your own source of wisdom, your own Buddha nature.
Trungpa Rinpoche said, "the bad news is we are falling -- the good news is, there is no ground". This is what it means to take the leap into Emptiness, to take responsibility. There is no guarantee that what you do will get you to a good destination -- so you have to keep your eyes open and rely on your own fundamental sanity.
Or, as Buddha said:

Monks, be islands unto yourselves, be your own refuge, having no other.

When I was an early teen, I too had the same issue. I believe this is due to non compatibility of the deepness of what he practices and what he is capable of at the moment. Have the big goal but divide it into chunks and start small. Start with restraining from all evil deeds and do a simple form of meditation like metta meditation where you do not need the help of a teacher. You can find some videos how to do and practice alone. Even reading and memorizing the story and qualities of the triple gem is good.
I was also just like you, was unhappy with no apparent reason. A friend reminded me this, "health is the greatest gift, contentment is the greatest wealth trusted friend is the best relative, Nibbana is the greatest bliss" as preached by Lord Buddha to king Kosol. So never underestimate happiness, it is a thing you should meet on the way to nirvana. And merits roughly mean the happiness you get after doing something good. So if the happiness you get is low, you actually reduce the strength of the merit.
As preached by Lord Buddha, when you get any fear, remind yourself the qualities of Lord Buddha. The nine qualities. If not working, remind the six qualities of dhamma, even if not working, remind the nine qualities of Sangha. You will be fine. You can listen to Ratana sutta often, the sutta contains many of the qualities of the triple gem. The sutta was specially preached to relieve fear. You can read the sutta, listen to the chanting etc. I am so sure it will work.


text:
Why should we stop the Samsara?
Throughout the holy texts it is implied that the reader is looking for a way to stop the cycle.
Why should the reader want to stop the cycle?

Welcome to Buddhism SE. We've put together some tips for new users on asking questions on the site. Also we have a page of useful resources that you may also find useful. Best wishes and I hope you have a positive experience on the site.

I remember asking the same question about 20 years ago... You know who is asking? It is your own Buddha-nature asking :) Welcome and good luck!

@AndreiVolkov Thanks for welcoming :) ... Should the reader want to stop the cycle just because it seems to be difficult enough to spend a lifetime on?

Samsara can't be stopped by spiritual means, you can escape it. If and when every being escapes it, it would be empty but not "stopped".

I think that dukkha is the reason why the reader is looking for a way to stop the cycle.
I think that, because the "four noble truths" were the first thing that the Buddha explained, during his first sermon after enlightenment (with dukkha being the subject of the first of these four noble truths).
The fact that dukkha is the cause of the search (i.e. that "the search is the result of stress") is also stated explicitly, in the Nibbedhika Sutta:

"'Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play should
  be known. The diversity in stress should be known. The result of
  stress should be known. The cessation of stress should be known. The
  path of practice for the cessation of stress should be known.' Thus it
  has been said. In reference to what was it said?
Birth is stress, aging is stress, death is stress; sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stress; association with
  the unbeloved is stress; separation from the loved is stress; not
  getting what is wanted is stress. In short, the five
  clinging-aggregates are stress.
"And what is the cause by which stress comes into play? Craving is the
  cause by which stress comes into play.
"And what is the diversity in stress? There is major stress & minor,
  slowly fading & quickly fading. This is called the diversity in
  stress.
"And what is the result of stress? There are some cases in which a
  person overcome with pain, his mind exhausted, grieves, mourns,
  laments, beats his breast, & becomes bewildered. Or one overcome with
  pain, his mind exhausted, comes to search outside, 'Who knows a way or
  two to stop this pain?' I tell you, monks, that stress results either
  in bewilderment or in search. This is called the result of stress.

Saying that dukkha is the reason for the search might seem like a one-size-fits-all answer: if several/many people want to stop the cycle, do they all have the same reason for wanting to?
For that reason, dukkha is a broad term with apparently several meanings or usages; the WIkipedia article starts with ...

Dukkha (Pāli; Sanskrit: duḥkha; Tibetan: སྡུག་བསྔལ་ sdug bsngal, pr. "duk-ngel") is a Buddhist term commonly translated as "suffering", "anxiety", "stress", or "unsatisfactoriness".[a] The principle of dukkha is one of the most important concepts in the Buddhist tradition. The Buddha is reputed to have said: "I have taught one thing and one thing only, dukkha and the cessation of dukkha."

... and then continues, with many various categories (and translations) of dukkha.

Unless we have great faith, we don't actually start with wanting cessation of Samsara. If we started out truly not wanting Samsara then we would be starting out almost enlightened, wouldn't we?
We start out practicing because we  want smaller attainments and realizations within Samsara(smaller than Nibbana) because we can only see things from the ego's point of view and to the ego, Nibbana looks very scary. At some point in our practice we drop our false ego view and can truly see deeply in our   hearts why we should get out of this endless prison towards freedom from suffering.
 A little correct meditation practice will show that a little of the Buddha's teaching is in harmony with a little of the meditator's meditation experience and so the meditator gets a little faith in the rest of the Buddha's teaching that has only been read about. A lot of correct practice will result in a lot of the meditator's experience being inline with a lot of the Buddha's teaching and so the mediator gets a lot of faith in the  rest of the teachings not yet experienced.

The reason is to stop the samsara is we are having more, more and more dukkha than the happiness in the samsara.
It cannot be measured with only concerning one life. we have to consider massive collection of lives (example- billions of lives). After analyzing those massive number of lives Load Buddha have seen that largest portion of the lives we were in the hells (4 hells. narakaya, thirisan, pretha, asura. Sad but that's the truth). Because of the desires in creatures they always trends to make pleasure out of things. So the possibility of doing bad karma is very high. So out of Billions of lives, creatures come to human and heavens very few times that can be counted with fingers in one hand. That means time we spent in the good times are neglectable.
If we had a teachings of a Lord Buddha we can get rid of usual cycle for a time. But if we didn't take actions to attain nibbana, we have to face usual cycle again.
So we have to stop this cycle now or suffer from the sadness for unlimited number of times. Intelligent people understand this tragedy and get rid of samsara as soon as possible.

Well there are things which all living beings undergo. Birth, Aging, Illnesses, death, loss of loved ones, company of disliking ones. Well people tend to believe birth is a good thing, but none of the babies smiles just after birth. No one is happy with aging, getting ill or dying. When you are done with all these four and loss of loved ones and company of bad ones, you again undergo this. You are a victim of something. That thing(Greed, aversion and delusion) have made you a servant of them. I explained this assuming a human life or something higher.
Let us take a life in one of the four hells. Infinitely long times beings get so much harsh punishment. And what should a human do to have a birth in the hell? He just has to have a thought of greed, aversion or delusion at the moment of death. None of us know what will be our last thought. Although we have a control over it. A being in a hell is very unlikely to have a thought free of greed, aversion or delusion at the moment of death. So he gives a cycle of countless rebirths in a hell, it is an extremely lucky event for such a being to have birth as humans which is a very  unlikely event.
Some sentences like above cannot convince you why the samsara should be stopped. You have to really think deep on this case. Remember, a birth of a being in a hell is extremely punishing. And having birth in a hell is not a difficult thing at all. So we should all try to stop samsara. On the top of everything, human life is also not a place of happiness, even a heaven or higher is also the same.

It is actually the cycle of dukkha/afflictions that is stopped (initially).
The interesting thing that should motivate everyone to work towards enlightenment is this: it is due to these afflictions/dukkha that we are forced to take on certain rebirths--as punishment/reward for our action... even the smallest action.
Also, nothing is actually "stopped"... There is no end to the Buddhist quest, not even Buddahood! As a Buddha one still takes on rebirths but now these are intentional rebirths! One intends to be reborn in such and such place and such and such place in order to accomplish Compassionate Action 924,322,322...
That is a Buddha's existence. Being perfectly at ease with the universe, free from dukkha and forced rebirth, emanating only to complete their vow to help all  beings and solve the universe's karma -- one of the many reasons that they have such power in the first place!
Buddhism places no strict timeline and potentially one can become a Buddha anytime (because one is fundamentally so). (Although this is like saying one can definitely win the lottery any time.)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the difference between fear and anxiety?
I've always experienced a lot of anxiety. In many ways that was and remains a driving force in my practice. More recently I've experienced more fear. I feel fearful and under threat. They do feel different but I'm still working with them and will be for a long time. In terms of the Buddhist texts and psychology what is the difference between fear and anxiety? Are they spoken about as different things? Are there different Pali/Sankrit terms for them? Is there different ways of working with them?

In traditional Pali, fear is bhaya-bherava (lit. Fear-Panic), while anxiety is udhacca-kukucca (lit. Worry-Wrongdoing).
As I understand from the way these are used in suttas,
Fear is defined as an acute sense of danger. It is rather specific, like fear of something coming out of jungle and attacking you. Even if it is uncertain what exactly may happen when you sit in the middle of jungle, fear still has a very clear sense of directionality, there is no expectation that something good may happen, only bad -- otherwise it would not be fear.
Panic is defined as the accompanying sense of helplessness, or sense of our inability to deal with the object of fear.
(More about these two can be found in Dharmafarer's great analysis of Bhaya-Bherava-Sutta.)
While anxiety is defined as either a wavering remorse of something you should or should not have done (kukucca), or a wavering expectation of remorse you suspect you may experience in the future because you are not doing enough of something you feel you should be doing (udhacca). So unlike fear, anxiety involves wavering back-and-forth; there is an element of uncertainty in it. Also, the object of anxiety is yourself, your own acts, while the object of fear is external.
(More about anxiety is also available on Dharmafarer. See also one of my favorite suttas, Second Anuruddha Sutta.)
As explained by Buddha, the recommended way to deal with fear is by switching focus from obsessive waiting for the object of fear to appear, to getting ready to deal with it should that actually happen. While the recommended way to deal with anxiety is by developing one's wisdom, esp. understanding of Dharma, Three Marks of Existence, and (in Mahayana) by deepening one's realization of Emptiness.

Good distinctions. If the OP is experiencing fear then planning and action are called for. If anxiety, I would say that self-care is needed: make sure you have adequate food (brain low on glucose feels like an emergency), sleep (cannot think straight if too little or poor quality), rest (not working all the time) and balanced enjoyment (uplifting). When I feel uneasy, it is almost always from not eating enough.

@nocomprende there's nothing wrong with anxiety that you need to go out of your way to do anything about it. if you're open to it, it flows on and does it's thing like any other experience. eating in response to discomfort only reinforces the habit of aversion to it.

@Ryan: I was talking about situations where a person is not getting what they need. I would actually starve if not for eating when I feel wretched. I simply do not have an interest in food, so it is a faulty mechanism or something. If I cannot think straight due to hunger, it is like a car low on oil: damage ahead. So, yes, I do need to do something in that case, not because I have aversion to anxiety. Perhaps it is an underlying aversion to eating? "When I am hungry, I eat. When tired, I sleep." Zen Story

i see where you're coming from now.

Andrei's answer defined "anxiety" as "remorse" or "expectation of remorse".
Assuming that's so, then the "way to work with it" might be sila i.e. virtue.
The Kimattha Sutta says,

Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward.

Or the Cetana Sutta,

For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.

As a layperson you presumably have a lot of responsibilities towards various people (which is perhaps why some people choose to ordain instead).
Still I suppose the theory is that if you meet those responsibilities then you have nothing to feel remorseful about.
Maybe those suttas are intended for bhikkhus, whose responsibilities (and therefore whose virtues) are a bit different from laypeople's. For example, this introduction to the Vinaya starts by quoting,

Discipline is for the sake of restraint,
  restraint for the sake of freedom from remorse,
  freedom from remorse for the sake of joy,
  etc.

Still, maybe something analogous (i.e. practising virtue as an antidote for remorse and anxiety) is true for laypeople also.

Anxiety is also one of the translations of dukkha, so the nature of anxiety (and its cessation) might be fundamental.

Virtue and skill, yes, as practical counterparts of prajna (wisdom). I would not take "anxiety" as translation of dukkha though.

I think people have warned not to try to translate dukkha because it doesn't translate easily; and apparently dukkha has a physical (not just mental) component, which I'm not sure "anxiety" has. Nevertheless the word "anxiety" appears 12 times in the Wikipedia article including as a translation attributed to Chogyam Trungpa. Why wouldn't you take "anxiety" as translation of dukkha? And what is sukkha if not the opposite of (or absence of) anxiety?

I can only speak form my own experience anxiety feels like i cant hardly breath and move, but when fear something i feel like you can deal with it better. In someways they are the same . I feel the best way to deal with is to open your hearth be more sosial and open.

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


text:
Is being entertained always considered a negative thing?
I was surprised by the answers to the question Are actions in computer games bad for karma?
Specifically, @BuddHo's answer which takes on the question

Why must entertainment be eschewed?

I thought it was a great answer that clearly explained how being entertained could be a means of escape - to get away from being bored and relying on outside influences to create happiness.
However, I had some questions I had left in the comments, but thought I should perhaps expand them into a new question here.

I am still struggling with your explanation for "Why must entertainment be eschewed?" Is not any action we take, even mentally, technically a source of entertainment - even practicing mindfulness?
I think its the definition that causes me to struggle. "Entertainment is the distractive cure for fear masked as boredom" - I consider boredom and entertainment to be opposites, but that definition suggests otherwise. If one was doing nothing, yet was fine (not bored) - I would consider that as being entertained. If it is not one or the other, what is it when one is not bored, and not being entertained?

Is being entertained always considered a negative thing?

There are wholesome actions that are not caused by boredom.
Any action arising out of compassion (karuna), loving kindness (maithri), sympathetic joy (mudita), equanimity (upeksha) is not born of boredom. (See: Bramhaviharas)

Being resident in the rupa jhanas (absorptions of form), and even deriving joy from them is not considered unwholesome, because it leads to insight.
When one enters a state of abhaya (fearlessness) one notices a total cessation of boredom. The mind is very content to stay idle, and do nothing. It isn't searching for peace in someone or something, it finds peace within itself.
The mind thus stilled doesn't engage in thoughtless action, such as humming a tune, or thinking about the past or future, or making idle gestures with the limbs and so on.
A mind thus stilled has no need for sensory entertainment, and will find it an idle and wasteful use of energy.
Dreams and intellectual or ambitious ideation can occupy one's mind too, but it is unwholesome, and could be viewed as forms of entertainment.
Hence my statement - "Entertainment is the distractive cure for fear masked as boredom"

There are several ways to describe enlightenment [SN 35.204] - one can describe it as a lack of need for external entertainment, but there are other descriptions. I'll offer one more here.
Enlightenment as an energy conservation model of the central nervous system.
All actions are born out of some root emotion, even so called neutral actions.
Let's examine some principal emotions in ascending order of fuel efficiency.
At the least fuel efficient and even dangerous end, there are anger and fear.
Anger - this is perhaps the most energetic of emotions, but also the least fuel efficient - it offers a sudden burst of energy but can deplete one's vital energy reserve (some systems call it qi or prana) rather quickly.
As an example, notice that in boxing matches, and 100m sprints, the athletes typically produce a lot of energy through anger and bravado, and one even notices this in their pre-game interviews. However they cannot sustain this energy for very long, and grow tired quickly, thus these events are short and furious. At the opposite end, marathon runners are generally mild mannered and don't carry the same kind of hatred towards the opponent - an angry and furious marathoner will find it hard to even complete the event.
Fear is similar to anger, and anger is in fact derived from fear, but it doesn't end when energy runs out. One can be too tired to be angry, but one is never too tired to be afraid, and this leads to depression where the sufferer totally lacks any energy. An angry person who grows tired will sustain that anger as fear.
At the most efficient end there are the peaceful emotions of compassion, loving kindness, sympathetic joy and equanimity. One can sustain compassion for a long while (even indefinitely) provided one doesn't let other emotions like despair eat into the energy body.
There is a psychological concept of compassion fatigue, but this isn't pure compassion, it is compassion tinged with fear. The fear depletes energy reserves and even compassion becomes impossible. This is why there are records of field surgeons in WW2 committing suicide after saving hundreds of lives.
Thus enlightenment is about having maximum energy in the CNS through the wise use of highly efficient emotional states.
The unenlightened who are unwise in their use of emotions will need the use of CNS stimulants to sustain their energy levels. Caffeine is the most common, anti-depressants and pharma drugs are in the middle, and at the extreme end there are psychotropics like Cocaine and other drugs.

Entertainment is a CNS stimulant like coffee. Some people wake up to dance music to feel happy, or dull their emotional pain with death metal.
To one who has control over their emotions, and already conserves the vital energy of prana or qi, all entertainment is frivolous, because it messes with what is already perfect.
Enlightenment can thus be also viewed as a lack of need for CNS stimulants, including entertainment.
In Buddhism, anything that doesn't lead to enlightenment must be eschewed.

"anger is in fact derived from fear" I can think of times where I've certainly been fearful and acted with anger, but I couldn't say that most of the times I've been angry are down to fear. Why do you say it is so?

Anger is what happens when you or something you care about is threatened. I can't think of a situation where that isn't the case. It's hard to always see the connection, and working backwards it may seem like it is not so. Therefore if ever one encounters true fearlessness, one sees that everything arises from fear. Even sensory pleasure arises from fear. There is no pleasure without sorrow. JK says more about it than I can here: http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-text.php?tid=48&chid=56789&w=&s=Text

It's fear that is disguised as boredom, not entertainment.
If you're afraid and anxious you may not feel these emotions directly. An indirect way of feeling them is to be always searching for something to do to focus your atention away from the fear and anxiety. The constant search for something to do, and for entertainment in particular, may be confused with boredom.

Is being entertained always considered a negative thing?
Depend on the person's ideology it may vary.  Some are used to keep on entertaining irrespective of the result. Ideology might be "be simply happy"  Some may think in a religious way.  Some totally don't like entertainments or engaging an entertainment activities at all.  Anyway it's totally depend on the person that wish to entertain himself or herself.  Also, negative and positive are comparative words. It is totally depending on the person's personality or ideology that he compare the word within his or her knowledge.
I feel rather than negativity or positivity if we can consider the result gaining on their lives and the effect creating for their future lives it may sounds help them to understand what exactly good for them and the society.
"Entertainment" the word itself has a broad meaning.  Different people taking this word in a different ways.

Some of the people entertaining while engaging illwills.
Some entertaining carrying brutal acts.
some may engaging in religious activities
Philanthropists activities
social voluntary activities
Musical and Dancing etc.
some becoming priest or monks or any other religious leader.

At the end of the day these all are thoughts comes in to action in your mind. Your consciousness put them into action using your mind, words, and body.
These each actions creating your future word as a result of your consciousness process. It is very lengthy explanation combine together thought process, Karma, and the result of the Karma.  I will try my best to keep it short and explain.  So that you can make a decision which entertainment makes the heaven or hell.
I take this example it was mentioned in the question "Are actions in computer games bad for karma?"
Effects of the Computer Games in to one's Life
let us try to understand this through Buddhism.  Also the advantageous and disadvantageous of their samsara journey.
To answer your questions better we take Abhidhamma which is the simplest and easiest way that you can decide which thoughts you are generating while you are gaming. According to Buddhism we have 5 Niyama Dhamma's that influencing our journey of samsara.

Utu Niyama - physical inorganic order, e.g. seasonal phenomena of winds and
rains. The unerring order of seasons, characteristic seasonal changes and
events, causes of winds and rains, nature of heat, etc., all belong to this
group.

Bija Niyama - order of germs and seeds (physical organic order), e.g. rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar-cane or honey, peculiar characteristics of certain fruits, etc. The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order.

Karma Niyama - order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results. As surely as water seeks its own level so does Karma, given opportunity, produce its inevitable result, not in the form of a reward or punishment but as an innate sequence. This sequence of deed and effect is as natural and necessary as the way of the sun and the moon.

Dhamma Niyama - order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at the advent of a Bodhisattva in his last birth. Gravitation and other similar laws of nature. The natural reason for being good and so forth, may be included in this group.

Citta Niyama - order or mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of consciousness, arising and perishing of consciousness, constituents of consciousness, power of mind, etc., including telepathy, telaesthesia, retro-cognition, premonition, clairvoyance, clairaudience, thought-reading and such other psychic phenomena which are inexplicable to modern science.

In your question Karma Niyama and Chitta Niyama playing the vital role. Everything we do just because of the mind we call it consciousness. Though it is one as a whole according to its's actions it named in to 89 or 121 ways. Mainly, Wholesome, Unwholesome, Causes, Discauses, Supreme worlds.
In Buddhism what we are experiencing now due to our previous actions results even our eye, ears, nose, tongue, and body. There is no creator. We cannot blame any one for just because of our poverty or disability or not having a shelter etc. It is due to a result of our previous karmic actions.
Lord buddha Taught us about two worlds.

Conventional world - The world that we see.Example: Mother,Father, House, Tree, Car, Girl, Boy, River etc.

Where as

The objective world -Has only Four Ultimate realities
01. Chitta - 01 [but 89 or 121 in Action] [ Consciousness]
02. Chethasika - 52 [ Mental Factors]
03. Rupa - 28 [ Matters]
04. Nibana - [ Eternal Free from Birth]
According to each Consciousness our future birth will decide and it has a real affects of our actions now.

If you really interesting to learn about those follow this link and then their lessons one by one: Ultimate Realities Step by Step in simple language
While you learning you have to know about the "Karma" and their Stages.  The above second picture at the end of the page it has One mental process called "Chiththa Vithi".  It shows Karma Producing Intentions 7 Chithas we called them "Javana".
Those 7 Javana Chithtas the one making influence of our samsara journey next after the chiththa occuring till the Nibbana means we stopped the journey of this Samsara.
Now coming to your question when you are playing game hypothetically we say you are playing a war game;
Think what you are doing in your mind?

You are planning to occupy territories.
02 They have their own civilization.
You need to kill them to occupy.
So You are planning to kill them and how to kill them trap them which kind of weapons that have to use to defeat them so and so fourth.

Killing is a unwholesome act which occured due to anger and illusion. Nothing else. So as it creates bad karmic actions for you in your future life.
Similarly, If you build a house for farmer in a village.  You are creating wholesome thoughts.  Karmic thoughts act accordingly. This is a example for you to understand how it works.
We cannot predict or or give 100% explanation how exactly Karma is working except Lord Buddha. We Can give simple guidance according to his teachings. That is why he taught us 5, 8, 10, precepts to follow.
In all precepts the first one is not to kill even a insect. To Fulfill there are few thing to complete.

There is the object,
the intention,
the action and
the completion.
If all four of these variables are in the equation you get a very powerful, full effect karma, both virtue and vice.

Learn more cause and effect of Karma: Karma in Action
if you really interested on learning Abhidharma to understand the thought process and the journey of samsara: Abhidharma From the Beginning
Hope you get the fair answer for your question.

Was this Short briefing helpful for you?
If any clarification you need further please be feel free to drop a word below. so that I can attend it.
We appreciate your kind words. So that we can improve our answers accordingly.

May Triple Gem Bless You all!

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


text:
Social context of Buddhist rituals
I have a couple of questions about Buddhism rituals. Were Buddhism's rituals performed by a certain social class, or for a particular political end? Also what else was happening in the culture at the time the ritual was created or performed? Did Buddhism's rituals serve to bolster the political interest of the status quo?

To maybe clarify the question slightly, do you have an example or a definition of what is and/or is not "a ritual"? Is it the same thing as a "rite" or "ceremony"? Does ordination and/or any other act count as a "rite" and/or a ritual? Is there anything that isn't a ritual?

Second question, are you interested in any specific country and/or historical period? Buddhism has been in Asia for more than two millennia now. In some places it is or was more-or-less the state religion, at least the established religion, and at other times and places in history it isn't/wasn't.

Are you looking for an answer like, "Yes, during the last 2500 years the following social classes performed Buddhist rituals: ..." followed by an incredibly long list? Or looking for an answer like, "No, the practice of Buddhism is in some ways meant to be classless"?

Do we have a "homework" tag yet? ;)

Also I think it can be difficult to ascribe motive: for example if a king is involved in a public ritual, is that for a "political end" (e.g. to gain favour with people) or is it for some more private/personal/religious motive of the king's? And how can one tell the difference?

In a sense, this series of questions is probably too broad to be answered in this format. Given Buddhism's 2,558 year history, it's rich and varied traditions, and it's spread throughout Asia and much of the world outside of Asia, Buddhism's history is not homogeneous. It's been adopted by many different cultures and each of those cultures adds it's own flavor to it's practice of Buddhism.
But there are some things that can be said. Unlike Hinduism, the prevalent religion in the region when Buddhism originated, a follower of the Buddha's teachings did not need to be born into any particular class or caste to be ordained or to be considered a teacher or leader. So the answer to your question about Buddhism's rituals being performed by a certain social class is, no.
A section of the Dhammapada called "Brahmanavagga: The Holy Man" reinforces this in quotes such as:

Not by matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by birth does one become a holy man. But he in whom truth and righteousness exist — he is pure, he is a holy man.

and

I do not call him a holy man because of his lineage or high-born mother. If he is full of impeding attachments, he is just a supercilious man. But who is free from impediments and clinging — him do I call a holy man.

Perhaps the most universal Buddhist rituals are Taking Refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Also accepting a number of precepts, 5 for ordinary lay people, 8 for more serious or dedicated lay people, serious meditators, and ordinary lay people on an Uposatha day and hundreds of precepts for ordained men and women. Taking refuge and precepts might be considered a ritual in the sense that they are often stated aloud in a group; although these are equally valid when done privately. The fact that both of these "rituals" can be done privately without any connection to a religious institution or particular type of religious leader would seem to indicate no connection to furthering political ends or interests.
I think anything else that would be considered a ritual in Buddhism is more related to the particular culture practicing it; a cultural overlay if you will. In fact, in Buddhism, release from adherence to rites and rituals is one of the hallmarks of a person who has reached a particular level of attainment. From Wikipedia's page on Sotāpanna:

Clinging to rites and rituals - Eradication of the view that one becomes pure simply through performing rituals (animal sacrifices, ablutions, chanting, etc.) or adhering to rigid moralism or relying on a god for non-causal delivery (issara nimmāna). Rites and rituals now function more to obscure, than to support the right view of the sotāpanna's now opened dharma eye. The sotāpanna realizes that deliverance can be won only through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path. It is the elimination of the notion that there are miracles, or shortcuts.


text:
What is the meaning of 'defiled cognition'?
I have noticed in discussions of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy that the way ordinary folk see things is described as 'defiled cognition'. I would like some pointers on what this means and where to do some reading on the idea.
Also is there any cross-cultural equivalent, in Western philosophy or religion?

Welcome to the site. It's organized as question-and-answers: a question at the top of each page, and corresponding answers underneath. When you posted an additional question as an answer, instead I edited your original question to add the new question (and I deleted the answer, because it was a question not an answer). When you get a bit more reputation on the site then you'll be able to post comments too. Sorry that you may find the site a bit awkward to use until then.

In Mahayana, "defiled cognition" is ignorant apprehension of standalone (svabhava) entities, both internally (as personal self) and externally (as various quasi-separate objects).
It is on the basis of this that experience is then divided up into "wanted" and "unwanted", a necessary condition of suffering.

I know that Kleshas are translated as "defilements", and so I guess that "defiled cognition" means "cognition with kilesas".
I think that, at least from a Mahayana point of view, the principle kilesas are the three poisons (i.e. confusion, attachment, and aversion) ... or five poisons if you add pride and envy to the list.

Also is there any cross-cultural equivalent, in Western philosophy or religion?

Well perhaps there is something similar, in Christianity, i.e. a stereotypical Christian might be better off living without the so-called 'afflictive emotions', for example:

Instead of ignorance, faith and/or knowledge of God's will
Instead of anger, "peace-loving" and "neighbour-loving"
Instead of desire and greed, "thy will be done" and "treasures in heaven"
And, counsel against pride (the first deadly sin) and envy (the last of the ten commandments)

Although the symptoms (or lack of them) may be similar, the prescription recommended (by Buddhism and Christianity) is fairly different: especially on the subject of 'what is right view?' i.e. the opposite of ignorance.

In Mahayana, the cognitive defilements prevent 'reality as it is' (inherently empty and dependently arising) to be known fully. In other earlier schools of Buddhism, seeing through the illusion of an independent self was seen as enough. Mahayana takes this a step further and points to the inherent emptiness of any independent phenomena.
In the Yagacara (Consciousness Only) Buddhist school the 'belief in an independent self' is seen as an afflicted defilement and 'the belief in independently real phenomena' as a cognitive defilement. These work in tandem to obscure direct apprehension of reality.
For further reading I recommend Edward Conze - Buddhist Wisdom: The Diamond Sutra and The Heart Sutra
For Edward Conze ...

... Buddhist tradition distinguishes three types of hindrances: karmic, defilement-based and cognitive. Karmic hinderances comprise those residuals of past unwholesome actions that continue to seed the consciousness in unexamined ways. The defilement-based hinderences consist of those fueled by greed, hatred, delusion, and so forth. The third, cognitive hinderances include those that result from belief in things existing separately from the observing consciouness. The Heart of the Universe: Exploring the Heart Sutra

In Western philosophy this Buddhist views comes pretty close to the views expressed by some idealist philosophers who generally argued against a materialist view of reality. Idealism - Wikipedia
Interestingly, this idealist view is being expressed in modern science as well. A prominent proponent of this is Donald Hoffman, a neuroscientist, who proposes reality is actually a network of 'conscious agents', to use his terminology. Nice TED summary by himself here - Do we see reality as it is?

authors: ابراهيم الخولاني


text:
Trouble understanding "sensual misconduct"
Is this phrase analogous to over-indulgence in sense pleasures, or is indulgence in any sense pleasure at any level considered a form of misconduct? Thankya

are you in particular asking "is sensual misconduct only that which is over-indulgence, or does it extend to any degree of gratification sought after in regards to the object of desire? Judging by the varying answers, It seems as if there is some confusion as to what it is precisely you're asking, if only in my mind, perhaps.

It is true, the precept reads "kāmesu", which literally means "in regards to sensuality", but in this instance as elsewhere, kāma refers specifically to sexual sensuality - it's one recognized meaning of the word:

kāmesūti methunasamācāresu methunavatthūsu vā.
"kāmesu" means either "in regards to sexual activity" or "in regards to the objects of sexuality".
DN-A 3.10.33

So, the meaning really is "wrong behaviour in regards to sexuality", and the definition of what is wrong is fairly specific; not all sexual behaviour is considered wrong for the purposes of this precept, and certainly not all sensual indulgence. This has been covered in answers to another question about this precept already.

As far as Buddhism and sila are concerned, "over-indulgence" is a bit redundant. To indulge is to gratify oneself with the object of desire; i.e. you desire chocolate, you then follow that craving and indulge in it.
There are obviously varying degrees to this type of behavior, but even one taste of the chocolate you desire, with an unwholesome state of mind, is acting against the spirit of the precepts that one aims to keep.
The precepts are kept as a solid foundation and basis for the meditation practice, helping to keep one in line with the basic behavior that is conducive to progress in the practice, and so a sense pleasure at any level could be considered misconduct, depending on the state of mind relating to the pleasure.
Starting out with the practice, you shouldn't beat yourself up over this stuff, because you WILL slip and mess up repeatedly. You will come to see through practice that these mess ups in keeping in line with your precepts actually do throw off your practice, and in this way you come to learn from your mistakes and see first hand the real value of keeping the precepts.
I hope this helps clear this up!

Since your question is tagged "5 precepts" I'm guessing you are referring to the 3rd precept?
It's generally translated from the Pali as:

Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami

I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.
source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html

So while there are lots of considerations to indulging or overindulging in sense pleasures; the misconduct referred to in the precept is sexual misconduct.
For additional context for the interpretation of the 3rd precept as such is AN 8.39 which describes the 8 rewards of merit (one each for taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha and one each for each precept) and the 5 great gifts associated with the precepts. It reads in part:

"Furthermore, abandoning illicit sex, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from illicit sex. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the third gift, the third great gift... and this is the sixth reward of merit...

Is indulgence in any sense pleasure at any level considered a form of misconduct?

Whether or not sensual indulgence can be regarded as misconduct we have to examine it from the perspective of the Noble Eightfold Path.
In here we have the Concentration Group in which there is a factor called "Right Mindfulness".
Right mindfulness means to keep the mind in the present and not let it stray off into the past or future or into processes of ideation. Right mindfulness when practiced correctly allows for what we call "bare attention". This level of attention is free from any extrapolations, thinkings, imaginings, judgings, ideations and other methods of conceptual proliferation that the mind can make use of.
Right mindfulness lets the mind be with the object as it is. Objectivity and non-interference is present. The object is apprehended exactly as it is and one will be able to see it's true nature.
When one does not practice right mindfulness the mind will only for a brief moment apprehend the true nature of the object whereafter it begins a cognitive process of mental fabrication in order to try to grasp the object. The mind will take the "raw material" of the object and thereafter bring forth subjective concepts and ideas about the object.
The mind then weaves together all these different concepts into more complex structures. These are embellishments fabricated by the mind and does not belong to the object. It's the mind superimposing qualities onto the object. This process of fabrication is fueled by the underlying latent defilements. The end result is an object which is now covered with a thick layer of mind-generated ideas and qualities. The original object is now hidden in a dense layer of subjective artwork that hides it true nature.
Because the object is not viewed as it is but instead from a point of view controlled by the latent defilements the conduct has now turned into misconduct. It is not considered right conduct if the mind has strayed off into the past of future or begins to superimpose qualities onto the object. One then begins to identify with object and thinking that "I am seeing" or "I am thinking". This kind of belief is called personality-belief (Sakkayaditthi). "Sakkaya" means the group of materiality (rupa) and mentality (nama) and how they exist. "Ditthi" means a wrong view of belief, i.e. believing in a Self regarding Nama/Rupa.
Right conduct is to guard the mind and guard the sense doors so that the defilements are not running the show.

The Pali text for third precept says:

Kāmesumicchācāra veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi is a standard phrase that means "I undertake the training rule to abstain from ..."
The key therefore is Kāmesumicchācāra, or, parsed out, Kamesu-Micchacara.
Kam-e-su is usually translated as "sexual" and Miccha-cara as "misconduct".
Miccha, the antonym of samma, generally means "wrong", "low quality", "sloppy" and literally "opposite", "contrary". Cara means "conduct", or literally "going about", "walking".
Kama, the root of kamesu, is often translated "lust" or "sensual pleasure" but its more precise meaning is fondness (combining such elements as love, desire, and taking pleasure in) for an object of material senses -- in other words "sensual fondness" -- not sexual but sensual!
The key to understanding this phrase though is -e-su in Kam-e-su, which gives it the meaning of "out of".
A more precise translation IMO would be "a conduct incorrectly motivated by desire to partake of sensual pleasure".
So whether the act itself is of sexual nature or sensual nature or not at all, as long as it is motivated by desire to attain mere pleasure, it counts as sensual misconduct.
At the same time this means, even a forbidden sexual act should not count as misconduct if it pursues a higher goal - such as engaging in kamayoga for the sake of Enlightenment.
Not everyone interprets it this way though. This is a very "Mahayanistic", or should I say, "Vajrayanistic" way of seeing things.

There are different gradients depending on your goal in Buddhism ranging from even sensual selectivity (a form of greed) being an evil (sin/error) all the way to consensual sexual promiscuity being quite alright! Read "The Six Dharma Gates to the Sublime" for information on the highly honorable former scenario. It is only meant for those aiming for bodhisattvahood or samadhi in this lifetime.
Read some pick up artist books for advice on the latter.
Across all traditions though, marital infidelity is considered wrong [although ultimately what does it matter because over millions of lifetimes how many vows of "love" are kept?].
This is a general moral construct created to help avoid bad karmas of many types--but not the bad karma of sexual suppression (that will eventually cause correlated rebirths).


text:
Buddhism and self-improvement
For a person to have a will to change, there must be some dissonance between its real self and a mental image of ideal self. To put simply, one must be dissatisfied with oneself somehow. This dissatisfaction, or "unacceptance", is the driving force that push people toward better, however they define it. Let it be a stronger physique, better social skills, greater knowledge, better money management, whatever.
One can think that such unacceptance of one's flaws is a good thing.
But here comes Buddhism, and tells you to 'let it go'. To stop focusing on your flaws, to stop creating mental images of yourself, to accept the world (including yourself) as it is. (I say generally 'Buddhism', since I believe this teaching is universal, although I was exposed to Zen mostly)
Now the question: how does Buddhism reconciles the teachings of dropping the ego with having goals to improve ones flaws? It seems contradictory to me, as I assume it's impossible to work on my flaws without focusing on them and relating them to the image of myself, which I'm supposed to drop.

Hi Keith and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

Fixing your ego isn't going to bring about lasting happiness.  That's the old Zen adage of polishing a stone to turn it into a mirror.  No matter how hard you rub, you are still going to have a stone.  From the Zen standpoint, at the core, we are already perfectly enlightened beings.  Compassion and wisdom is our natural state.  It makes no sense to try and improve the condition of our ego.  In fact, it's that very ego and its fears, attachments, and hang ups that gets in the way of our inherent, luminous nature.  The more you clear away those obstacles, and the less hold that your ego has on your mind, the more you your inner luminescence nature shines through.
The enlightened mind isn't something that can be reached by self improvement.  That's a contradiction in terms.  Enlightenment is something we find when our self is extinguished.

Buddhism is about enlightened self interest - to sharpen one's focus onto the important things - and not just the things that are efficient distractions for most people. So, self improvement or societal improvement is definitely not a problem with Buddhism.
If you woke me up at my deepest sleep, when I am the groggiest, I am of little use to anyone, until I wake up fully. Similarly, to be of use to anyone, whether ourselves or others in our lives, or the world at large, we must first be awakened to reality of life. Or we compound errors, like someone who's just woken up, and can't open his eyes too well.
Take the case of a professional, say a doctor. A junior doctor will likely lose sleep over a mishap, like the loss of a patient, she will agonize over what went wrong, what could have been done to save him, and so on. Whereas, a senior doctor would know nothing more could have been done, and goes about life after a moment's reflection. Nothing surprises the senior professional in her sphere of competence.
It may be a whole another story outside their sphere of competence - if the senior doctor lost a lot of money on the stock market, she may react like a child, crying over it, while the senior banker shuffles off home equanimously after a similar loss because this loss and gain happens to him every day.

Life happens to all of us everyday but we cry like little children at
  life's agonies, and squeal at life's pleasures. We aren't very mature
  about life.

An enlightened Buddhist looks at all life like a senior professional. With maturity. If something needs doing it is done, if something remains undone despite doing everything, there is no panic, it is just life.
We are in no hurry to arrive, we are in no reluctance to depart.
Buddhism isn't only about denial of the self. That would be an extreme view. Just like belief in a self is an extreme view. Initially when people are unenlightened they can't even conceptualize the idea of a world without a self. At the next stage of awakening, they come to terms with the world that is empty of the self. At the next stage they come to terms with the world where a self is and isn't. They have successfully let go of either extreme.
At this final stage they are neither obsessed about lack of self improvement, nor are they lazing about without self improvement. They have developed a capacity to accept things for what they are, and react suitably. This doesn't mean they let life happen to them like an immobile rock, nor are they supermen who dodge everything life throws at them.
They are in one word - very mature. Like a consummate master of life who has seen it all, stepping out of the way of problems that can be avoided, and accepting what cannot be avoided as necessary.

This is easily reconciled by understanding that our flaws are all based on our desires. Enlightenment doesn't actually come through desire (though in early stages it may be wrongly pursued in such a way), it comes from the renunciation of desires, which, if you think about it, doesn't take desire to do away with. All it takes is wisdom.

paññāya parisujjhati
Through wisdom one is purified.
-- Sn 10

In other words, the simple abandoning of desire (including desire for self-improvement), through simply seeing desire as a cause for suffering, can be understood as the path to enlightenment.
Note, that enlightened beings do often appear to seek out self-improvement, but this should be understood as merely functional behaviour - a natural outcome of the enlightened state, whereby one acts simply out of purity of mind, not out of desire (and so would not be upset by failure or elated by success).

how does Buddhism reconcile the teachings of dropping the ego with having goals to improve ones flaws?
Very simple, it takes them as subsequent levels! Flaws are positioned as something that gets in the way of your happiness -- makes sense to get rid of them, right? Then you realize that your desire to get rid of flaws is your last remaining obstacle to happiness, you get rid of that and voila, you are done ;)
A lot of Zen teaching is for that last phase. A lot of Theravada teaching is for the initial phases. And then there are many levels of Mahayana in between the two.

"A lot of Zen teaching is for that last phase. A lot of Theravada teaching is for the initial phases. And then there are many levels of Mahayana in between the two." -- Nice observation, I'd never seen it quite like that.

This is a Tri-yana perspective, legacy of Jamgon Kongtrul

I would qualify the statement in regards to a lot of Zen dealing with the last phase.  The koan system in Rinzai is stratified.  For instance, you wouldn't give "Nansen's cat" to a beginner and an advanced practitioner would blow right past "Mu" or "Gotei raises a finger".  Zen is, I think falsely, often taken as the path of kensho or instantaneous enlightenment.  In actuality, it's also a gradual training.  Walking it, you don't always see where those steps are leading, but a good teacher always knows what brick to lay down next.

True, I agree. I guess I was referring to "pop culture Zen", as something the questioner could relate with.

shakes his fist at pop culture Zen  ;-)


text:
If a kind and generous Christian died 20 years ago, might their rebirth have resulted in there being a 19 year old person in the human realm now?
If a kind and generous Christian died 20 years ago today, 21July2015, might their rebirth have resulted in there being a 19 year old person in the human realm now? I want to assume that the kindness and generosity perhaps trumped the ignorance about samsara, resulting in a new individual array of aggregates and store consciousness inclined toward learning about Buddhism and Nibana. I wonder this basis Theravada approach to rebirth.

I think it's difficult to talk about rebirth as if it were a sure thing: for example because kamma comes from a being's previous life, but it also comes from the life before that, etc.
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma" is said to be unconjecturable.
Actually being able to directly see others' karmic destinations is one of the miraculous powers attributed to the Buddha:

Then, the records tell us, in the first watch of the night he directed his concentrated mind to the recollection of his previous lives. Gradually there unfolded before his inner vision his experiences in many past births, even during many cosmic aeons; in the middle watch of the night he developed the "divine eye" by which he could see beings passing away and taking rebirth in accordance with their karma, their deeds; and in the last watch of the night he penetrated the deepest truths of existence, the most basic laws of reality, and thereby removed from his mind the subtlest veils of ignorance. When dawn broke, the figure sitting beneath the tree was no longer a Bodhisatta, a seeker of enlightenment, but a Buddha, a Perfectly Enlightened One, one who had attained the Deathless in this very life itself.

Upvote, this is the best answer so far.

From the Tibetan Buddhism perspective this is a possible outcome. In philosophy David Lewis calls these possible worlds. It might even be true in the actual world. Which is the world we live in.
The bardo and rebirth would have to happen first of course.
Also human rebirth is considered to be rare,  rarer still is human rebirth that is interested in the dharma.
But it seems if the worldview is correct, that human rebirths would become more common.
But all that aside, the human realm is still Saṃsāra. Being reborn is rough, relearning everything takes time. Where they were born and to what families will determine what they learn and in what order.
I think that covers the first question.
As for the assumption after the first question, kindness and generosity is said to result in wealth, and being in safety respectively.
I do not understand what you mean in your last sentence though.
You mention one of the 3 vehicles.

Theravada Buddhism teaches an immediate rebirth after death, if I am correct, thus the age calculation.

Interesting. I did not know that.

@PaPa in that case wouldn't they have to be 20? Not 19?

The Buddha taught in many suttas the kind and generous go to heaven.

To be born as a human, you need to keep to the five precepts well. To be born to a Buddhist family, you need to dedicate your good deeds towards attaining Nibbana. If your friend died 20 years ago, he could be 20 human years old now, wherever he is born, unless he died again.

Thx for the reply. The individual in question probably kept the five precepts (as a "good" Christian). Assuming, per Theravadan death/rebirth approach, an immediate conception and a nine month human gestation, would not the resulting individual would be 19 years and 3 months old? I suppose that individual could be either male or female.

Usually Christians don't keep to the 5th precept, do they? He could be 20 years old, if he was born as a spontaneous being. Even for humans, conception is considered as the starting point in a life in Buddhism, even though conventionally, age is counted since the day you come out of the womb.

Thx, again, for the reply. If a "good and moral Christian" kept the five precepts in every detail EXCEPT killing animals for family meals (as in growing up on a family farm with chickens, etc.), does that preclude that individual from a rebirth in the human realm? I've not considered this before now! What realm would that individual's rebirth occur in? ... assuming no extenuating negative store consciousness "issues"...

Killing animals for meals can easily throw you in lower realms. Checkout the states of deprivation

Rebirth is using the conventional/conditioned truth of suffering, 'I, me, mine', to extrapolate, infer, into the unconditioned truth of the end of suffering, 'not I, not me, not mine'.
Majjhima Nikaya 27 does not allow for inference to grasp ultimate truth, only direct observation. In this respect, if you engage with rebirth, you are already one step away from the Tathagata's message of the cessation of suffering, as opposed to his message on suffering.
The issue is Dhamma is regular, without heights or extremes. Bardo naturally creates the extreme of existence and non-existence, as is therefore philosophically unacceptable. Spontaneous but memoryless continuation of the conditioned - that has NOT reached the unconditioned - is the only option that is not irregular.
That the conditioned randomly (not chaotically, that is still mathematically defined) wobbles around the mathematical approximate of emptiness that is '0', is irregular, so untenable for Dhamma.
Isms don't play any factor in the Newtonianesque law of kamma-vipaka. Intentional action and the result of intentional action, gives no concern for 'isms'.
Wisdom - the ideological space, and concentration - the supramundane path, are considered supreme within Dhamma, but that is different from the morality section.
There is no supremacy within Dhamma with respect to morality. Intentional action to non-harm, non ill-will, will bring benefit whether acted on by a murderer or by a saint.
A good Christian, within Dhamma - subject to accepting 'I' - will be reborn where they stand with respect to their morality.

"if you engage with rebirth, you are already one step away from the Tathagata's message" Not so at all... Apannaka Sutta: A Safe Bet. Right view is prerequisite. Maybe householder just expressed it not so skilful what was different thought.

changed to 'message of the cessation of suffering'.

I don't disagree there is a next world, but this is not nibbana as Ud 8.1 says. This is 'just the same world', of anicca. Engaging with this 'next world' of anicca, is no different to engaging with 'this world' of anicca.

As do philosophying and hold on as world on it, or? What was the first suggestion, quoting a sutta, that householder held up? So seems to be just an expression issue, right? Or a doing? Therefore: gate, gate, paragate...

I'm sorry, I don't understand your words exactly. I think grasping at a view of rebirth is philsophisising, and MN135 asks us to go against it (and I do engage in it!). The Buddha said, approximately, that trying to understand the exact workings of kamma is asking to fail. My first suggestion in the text was just that, if you accept 're'birth, you must naturally accept 'birth', which is accepting 'I', which is not the unconditioned side of Dhamma.

The is no Dhamma where there is no condition. But well now here, maybe another time. May householder spend a blessed day, with a lot of gate, gate, paragate...

Certainly Dhamma is the best of the conditioned elements, may you have a blessed day too!

Sadhu, sadhu, .

It's hard to say where he is born (whether in bad places, human world or hevans) by referring to what he did in his normal life. Why I'm saying this is according to the Sotaapanno Sutta: The Sotaapanna ('Stream-winner') (quoted below) only stream-winner (or above) has the guarantee that he will not go to hells. That means only stream winner (or above) will not get unhappy births which are Thirisan (animal's world), Pretha, Asura or Narak. This also doesn't imply that only stream-winners (or above) can get happy births. It's only about the guarantee.
There's a story of a lady called Mallika in buddha's days. She did a big almsgiving (dāna) called asu disi dāna those days. But her immediate re-birth was an unhappy one. Why? it's because she was not a stream-winner. So nothing can be guaranteed. But the good work she did has gone to her karma and she will get those back in one day. (if my memory is correct and she spent only 7-days in unhappy birth and after 7 days she got a happy birth again).
This is why being a stream-entrant/winner is so much in our life. And that's what Buddha has advised to do as the first thing in our life.

"And when, monks, the Ariyan disciple understands as they really are
  the arising and the passing away, the attractiveness and the danger,
  and the deliverance from the five groups of clinging, he is called an
  Ariyan disciple who is a Stream-winner, not liable to states of
  woe, assured of final enlightenment."

If you attain stream entry in this lifetime, your next birth as a human being is assured. Stream enterants take next birth at most 7 times, as a human being, before they reach ultimate enlightenment.
To reach stream entery you must duplicate, understand, contemplate and realize the complete teachings of Buddha. Then you must make 100 days of concentrated effort of meditation. This process is described in the ancient Taoist scripture, Secret of the Golden Flower. I recommend reading The Secret of Secrets vol. 1&2 for complete understanding of this process.


text:
How to discipline self to practice meditation everyday?
It's very hard for me to discipline myself to practice meditation every day. Every time I decide I am going to meditate every day no matter what, after a few days I cannot not keep it up. Sometimes it is due to lack of time, but mostly it is because of laziness.
I am not sure how I can get over it and keep practicing. What should I do?

I recommend a change of tag, as I think 'hindrances' should be reserved for the 5 hindrances.

Aim for token amounts of time- 1 minute or switch to a similar practice, like chanting or prostrations.

While meditating did you ever get distracted with a thought before eventually returning? Sitting meditation is the same - somedays you will run away with your impulses to not sit. Confront it, accept it, deal with it.
Meditating at the same time, and at the same place can help some people. Having an alarm that goes off when it is time to sit is good. Better still, have an alarm every 30 minutes, and take a minute to be mindful every time it rings.

This is a common problem. I'd suggest you get some inspiration and enthusiasm from reading online about meditation and start doing it for even say, 30 seconds.
But most importantly, don't force yourself to do it or feel bad about not meditating. The moment you start forcing your mind to do something, it mostly doesn't work. Let your mind be.
Also there could be external distractions apart from internal distractions. Try an early morning meditation sometime if that is the case.
Again, don't force yourself. Just sit down when you have the time/desire and let go of your mind. Let it wander aimlessly. But be with your mind. It's not what the mind is aware of, but how you are aware of the mind. Once this is done, start bringing the mind to your breath. This is a trick to deal with the mind. ;)
Also try mindfulness in your everyday activity. Say, your lunch or dinner time. It helps to get you started again.
Good luck.

Starting VERY small is what helped me. I could convince myself to do it for 1 minute. Eventually, it became a bit of a habit, and was easier to add time in small increments.

Take a deep breath. This is your moment of meditation. You're already living the most important and most powerful spiritual experience of your life.
Birdsong brings relief
to my longing
I'm just as ecstatic as they are,
but with nothing to say!
Please, universal soul practice
some song or something through me!
-Rumi

Try writing your resolve down (be very specific when you write it.) Perhaps with a cluster of resolves; make sure you feel very confident that you will be able to accomplish all of them (they can be a little bit more challenging once you gain momentum); make sure they all have a clear time frame and a way to measure when they are accomplished. (Cf. SMART goals)
Every day indefinitely seems to be too high a bar; begin with an easier resolve that you are certain you can attain to build momentum, e.g., 'I will meditate 2 times a week for four weeks.' Once you achieve this, you can reevaluate how that went and make another resolve, again, that you feel confident you can accomplish, e.g., 'I will meditate 3 times a week for four weeks.' Be super slow about increasing the frequency and build up momentum and confidence by accomplishing your resolves. Also, indefinite resolves are more difficult to work with because there is no clear end in sight. It is probably easier to work a resolve to do something for a specific amount of time, with the knowledge that you can reevaluate at that time.
Feel free to start with very very short sit times, as someone above recommended and maintain that until you are comfortable and stable in that, then increase very slowly
Although some accomplished meditators I respect sit every day, I only sit 6 days a week, giving myself a day to completely have no responsibility. Consider only trying to sit 5 or 6 days a week.
Find a teacher that you respect and find inspiring; if you can't find one in real life find one on the internet. Try to put their teachings into practice to improve. Ajahn Brahm is probably my absolute favorite; perhaps you can ask others to give you recommendations as well.

Happy sitting.

It's very hard for me to discipline myself to practice meditation every day. Every time I decide I am going to meditate every day no matter what, after a few days I cannot not keep it up. Sometimes it is due to lack of time, but mostly it is because of laziness.
I am not sure how I can get over it and keep practicing. What should I do?

Sometimes it can actually be counterproductive when setting "absolute" goals such as "from now on i will meditate 1 hour everyday" or as you mention that you would like to meditate everyday no matter what. This can become a hindrance for one' practice when the bar is set too high compared to how much effort and energy is available. Maybe one is spending a lot of energy on work, relationships, training etc. Then there will be less energy for the practice and when one then sets absolute goals these goals can seem so high that they are not possible to reach. One's determination and resolution then turns into laziness.
It's like being giving a task that is above one's capacity at that given time.
Actually laziness occurs when there is an excess of concentration and too little energy to drive it. It's like wanting to run an entire marathon but only having the energy and stamina to complete half of the run.
What should one do then?
A way to deal with this is to set realistic goals for the time being. One can definitely get to a meditation practice that is once a day. That is far from impossible. That is actually recommended to practice as often as possible since the fruits will be bigger when practice is frequent and consistent.
But one have to start some place. Maybe a goal could be to meditate 2 or 3 times a week. Or maybe every second day and only for 15 minutes. As practice builds and concentration builds one can sit longer sessions or more sessions or do both if the energy and concentration is cultivated. It's better to have shorter productive sessions than long sessions where the last half of the session is dominated by dulness and drowsiness.
How can one then adjust one's practice?
Maybe you have heard the phrase "Balancing the faculties". We have 5 spiritual faculties that needs to be balanced. When the 5 faculties are matured they are called The 5 Powers. They are briefly; Concentration, Energy, Faith, Discriminating Wisdom and Mindfulness.
Energy and concentration needs to be balanced.
Faith and Wisdom needs to be balanced.
Mindfulness is general. It should always be cultivated and one can never get too much mindfulness.
If concentration is high and energy is low one will experience laziness.
If energy is high and concentration is low one will experience restlessness.
Faith and Wisdom i will not go into here since they are not the issue.
You need to balance your energy faculty, i.e. to arouse energy. There are several ways to do that. One can:

Splash cold water in the face before a meditation session
One can do walking meditation in a brisk pace before sitting meditation
One can go to a high place, e.g. a mountain or building and practice
One can make a firm determination to practice effortly and sincerely
One can do contemplation on Death as that will induce a feeling of urgency
One can reflect on the 5 daily recollections, i.e. That one will grow old, become sick and ill, die, loose everything that one holds dear and that one is the sole heir of one's actions.

These are all methods to overcome laziness and arouse energy, i.e. to balance the energy faculty so that one has the stamina to reach the goals that one sets forth.


text:
How much merit is lost if we miss chanting for a few days?
If we stop chanting a Mahayana mantra/dharani for a few days how does this effect the gathering of merits?
Is it a cumulative effect or multiplicative effect of chanting?
Or worse, does missing a chanting session reset the good merit?

Isn't this like any other meditation object, with vitaka and vicara the strength and sincerity of effort increases. To gauge sincerity, I rely on the generation of piti during recitation. No piti, no cookie.
I'd assume a single sincerely uttered mantra is worth more than a thousand mantras uttered as habit. I'd also expect to become the feeling or the emotion the mantra intends to generate.
If a sutta were located that offered the precise formula for the question you pose, would you trust it? How can it be verified? Unless there is a giant merit counter in the sky, how can we know for sure? It can become spiritual materialism like prayer wheel spinning.
The Buddha spoke of jhanas, and mindfulness, but he didn't say much about mantras. I can verify the prolonged or even permanent transformative efficacy of the former, but the efficacy of the latter beyond the immediate is less clear to my mind.


text:
Where are the references of Vesak in the Pali canon?
It is traditionally believed that the Buddha was born, enlightened and passed away on the date(tithi) of Vesak. Now it does not seem to be very probable that all three major incidents of one's life would occur on the same date. What is the earliest source of this information about Vesak in the scripture?

It really is a matter of faith. No archeological evidence can verify with certainty either claim, nor can any literary analysis claim to do the same. One is free to make up one's own mind, to believe or not to believe. It is incidental to the path of liberation in any case.

This book may be interesting to you. http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/en/displayimage.php?album=149&pid=2326#top_display_media

Without looking too deeply, it seems that the word "visākhapuṇṇamadivase" (day of the full moon of Visākha) only appears in the commentaries. I don't think there is any canonical reference to that date; though I can't think offhand of any sutta that is precisely self-dated.

You have to imagine whether you are in that time first, at the age of memorizing not reading like nowadays.
They almost always memorize all memories as approximation like we memorize as month, quarter, etc.
In pali, we called this kind of number as  approximated number, Anekasankya. It's one of 5 types of number using in Pali canon, missa, gunita, sambandha, sanketa, aneka.
I have no idea for the birth date however it's make sense to say the enlightened  month and the dead month are in the same month before VassaMasa (raining season) according to Tipitaka in VN Mahavagga Mahakhandhaka, VN Vassupanayikakhandhaka, VN Pañcasatikakkhandhaka, and DN MahaparinibbanaSutta.
It's make sense because in VN Mahavagga Mahakhandhaka and  VN Vassupanayikakhandhaka the Buddha enlightened before walking from ๑(1) to ๒๐(20), see below picture, and lived his first raining season, 8th-11th month, at ๒๐(20).
And in VN Pañcasatikakkhandhaka, and DN MahaparinibbanaSutta, the Buddha was dead before raining season as well.
When we count the raining season, 8th, and walking timing together, it's make sense to be some date around 6th month, Visakha.
Reading without caring of tipitaka memorizer is ruining the readers' right view exactly.


text:
Are those who haven't attained enlightenment 'psycho'?
There's a difference between 'please' and 'kindly'. Kindly don't take it otherwise, this is a question again very much important to me to be answered. Thank you so much for the support till now.
My question is related to myself and my kind of personalities (practically I've observed) are available. This planet and life is full of endless possibilities. I observed that if I am following Buddhism and then I see others sleeping through that very time, then I call them (others) 'psycho', and if I don't then they (others) call me a psycho.
I precisely want to know (from the point of view of Buddhism):

Is it right to consider the term 'Psycho' or not?
Is it always required to make others understand about 'what you are up to'?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YWTYFbBEds

First, the word "psycho" is actually slang, so it's not proper to use in any intellectual discussion. The word you are thinking of is "psychotic", which technically refers to a person who suffers from or behaviour that stems from a psychosis.

The term "psychosis" is very broad and can mean anything from relatively normal aberrant experiences through to the complex and catatonic expressions of schizophrenia and bipolar type 1 disorder. In properly diagnosed psychiatric disorders (where other causes have been excluded by extensive medical and biological laboratory tests), psychosis is a descriptive term for the hallucinations, delusions, sometimes violence, and impaired insight that may occur. Psychosis is generally the term given to noticeable deficits in normal behavior (negative signs) and more commonly to diverse types of hallucinations or delusional beliefs, especially as regards the relation between self and others as in grandiosity and pronoia/paranoia.

This definition could easily be interpreted loose enough to include all people with wrong views or conceit, but as the term is used in modern psychology, it wouldn't actually include most "ordinary" beings. So, as with all terms, it depends on who is doing the defining.
So, that should pretty much answer your first question - "psycho" is slang, but "psychotic" could be used to describe a non-enlightened person, though it would be quite a bit broader than what is generally accepted to be the meaning of the term.
As to your second, fairly unrelated question, in regards to how it relates to your first question, the fact that ordinary people are mentally deranged means that sometimes indeed you will be unable to make them understand you. In fact, really the only one you should be worried about understanding you is yourself. There is nothing in the path to enlightenment that requires you to be understood by others.

The commentary of Majjhima Nikaya ‘Papancasudani’ says that – “All worldly beings are deranged”, “Sabbe puthujjana ummataka”
So even if you get a green light by the contemporary mental health standards, you can still be called a psycho according to Buddhism as long as you are not enlightened. The level of insanity varies from person to person.

This is exactly the kind of dualistic thinking that has to be dropped on the way to enlightenment. "If I'm good, the rest of the world is crazy / and if the rest of the world is good, I must be the crazy one" - this is a kind of emergent-coarising ("if this is, that is, if that is, this is") that you need to figure out in your meditation.

I think Avidya is probably more direct than "psycho" .   ignorant of the 4 noble truths.
1) I would use Avidya instead. 2) I'm not sure about this question. I'm guessing, practicing Buddhism is strange in other people's eyes (at least people around you)? sure, but no need for argument. one characteristic of a stream enterer is avoiding quarrel or distructive confrontation.


text:
What must be done before rebirth in the hell realms becomes inevitable?
I once read a commentary by a Rinpoche talking about how the karma of killing a single fly grew at an exponential rate.
Since negative karma grows so quickly, what actions, and what amount of those actions, makes rebirth in a hell realm inevitable?

Five offences in Buddhism which are said to irrevocably propel the offender into hell are:

patricide,
matricide,
killing an Arhat,
injuring a Buddha,
creating schism in the Sangha

Smaller offenses like common murder, adultery etc. can still be "repaired" even if with great difficulties.