text:
Ignorance and the arising of dukkha
Some explanations of the second Noble truth emphasizes the three poisons of ignorance, attachment and aversion as the causes of Dukkha. There are probably many different ways to lay this out, but my question is about ignorance, our misunderstanding of the nature of reality.
What is the most basic and important deeply rooted ignorance about reality?
What is it – on the most basic level – that we don’t see?
What is it about the nature of reality that we are ignorant about?
What is it that this bewilderment about reality consists of?

In my understanding, the way it works, ignorance (confusion/delusion/bewilderment) is the root of idealizing (hence attachment, attraction, obsession) and demonizing (hence aversion, hatred, negativity) - and then these two manifest as craving to either get some experience, or to get rid of some experience - which, when not satisfied, generates dukkha (the painful feeling of wrongness) due to the mismatch between "this" and the craved "that".
A better translation of "ignorance" IMO is confusion or delusion - it's not just an absence of knowledge (that would only be half as bad) -- but an active presence of invalid knowledge, or invalid assumptions based on partial knowledge.
What does this invalid knowledge pertain to?
At most basic level, it pertains to (confusion about) real qualities of the object of our experience - on the basis of which then happens idealization or demonization.
More generally, it pertains to the way objective and subjective reality gets mixed up. Most of what we perceive as reality is projection of mind. (This mind itself is a function of interactions and not an entity nor essence.) Based on this confusion we posit all kinds of naive assumptions about reality, from existence of entities, to identification with living organism, to appropriation of various views, values and goals.
This identification with living organism and resulting taking of sides is said to perpetuate alienation, fear, conflicts, and suffering -- which only perpetuates alienation.
Even more generally, it pertains to not-seeing inherent limits of mind's modeling capabilities - which leads to invalid expectation that mind's models can ever be accurate representations of reality - which leads to trouble and suffering.
In light of the above, the only way to prevent or minimize suffering is to A) stay actively aware of the limited extent to which models can represent some aspects of reality; B) not hold onto outdated models as reality moves on -- but try to update and keep the models in sync with reality as much as possible; C) avoid reification falacy - instead pick a model as tool that better suits the job at hand - but also try to rely on nondiscrete holistic multi-faceted observation more than on the simplistic conceptual designations; and finally D) remember that no matter what we do we'll still have to rely on models at least to some extent - and as such they can never be 100% complete and in sync.

A definition of ignorance is as the first of the 'twelve nidānas'.
In the Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta it's described as follows:

And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.
Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. etc.

So there it's defined as ignorance of the four noble truths.

This article titled Ignorance (by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) is a commentary about Ignorance from the perspective of the four noble truths (which is what you were asking about). It says that vijja (the opposite of avijjā i.e. ignorance) means not only 'knowledge' of facts but also 'skill'; so non-ignorance means:

Knowing the four noble truths
Understanding them
Skill, resulting in cessation and liberation

Avijja, the Pali word for ignorance, is the opposite of vijja, which means not only "knowledge" but also "skill" — as in the skills of a doctor or animal-trainer. So when the Buddha focuses on the ignorance that causes stress and suffering, saying that people suffer from not knowing the four noble truths, he's not simply saying that they lack information or direct knowledge of those truths. He's also saying that they lack skill in handling them. They suffer because they don't know what they're doing.

The Sammaditthi Sutta concurs in equating ignorance with the four noble truths ... it says that not knowing about the four noble truths is the origin of ignorance:

And what is ignorance, what is the origin of ignorance, what is the cessation of ignorance, what is the way leading to the cessation of ignorance? Not knowing about suffering, not knowing about the origin of suffering, not knowing about the cessation of suffering, not knowing about the way leading to the cessation of suffering — this is called ignorance. With the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance. With the cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. The way leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration.
When a noble disciple has thus understood ignorance, the origin of ignorance, the cessation of ignorance, and the way leading to the cessation of ignorance... he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma.

If cessation of ignorance is right view, then presumably "ignorance" can be defined as or understood as the cause of 'wrong view'.
The Maha-satipatthana Sutta too defines 'right view' as knowledge of the four noble truths.

And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view.

There's a (closely) related term moha which is one of the three poisons and one of the defilements (I think that identifying three poisons is more Mahayana than Theravada, which sees aversion as a secondary cause, as in Sankha's answer).
When it's ignorance or illusion or delusion about the three characteristics, I think that means for example:

Seeing the non-self as self
Seeing the impermanent as permanent
Seeing the inherently-unsatisfactory as desirable.

Ignorance (like conceit) is one of the last of the fetters to be eradicated, according to the stages of the path (though identity-view is a wrong view and therefore one form of ignorance).

Craving is the cause of Dukkha according to the second noble truth.
Ignorance is the root cause of craving. Aversion is not discussed under the 2nd noble truth as it isn't a direct cause for rebirth.
The type of ignorance that leads to craving is the ignorance towards the three characteristics(Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta) of conditioned phenomena.

Any experience in Sansara is unsatisfactory as:

Past experiences which gave result to Karmic result conditions our current experiences which arises to pass away hence unsatisfactory when the conditioning goes away
Any present experience arises and passes away hence unsatisfactory but ignorance conditions the future experiences if craving and clinging is present
Future experiences conditioned through our perceived reaction to sensations which is not satisfactory as the volitional thoughts may be unpleasant (any Citta with either physical or mental unpleasantness associated with it) if not they come to and end and what is to experience in the future is also not satisfactory as it will arise to pass away.

(Saḷāyatana Saṃyutta)
Ignorance is that we do not understand the true nature of our experiences. All experiences arise to pass away. We create new experience from volitional actions and reaction to sensation with craving and clinging. Being equanimous to sensation knowing it is impermanent (arising and passing away) you can overcome creating new fabrications. You need to see the true nature of things as they are. For this you need a collected or focus mind. For the mind to get collected you need a base of morality as experiences from negative Karma, blame and resentment can causes your mind to be scattered.

What is the most basic and important deeply rooted ignorance about reality?

Not seeing that any experience that is felt arises and passes away. Our current experiences are conditioned by the past. Any craving of clinging towards this cause fabrications which give arise to new fabrications. This give unsatisfactory when creating the Karma (volitional thoughts have sensation associated with them) as well as when experienced in the future. To stop creating new fabrication as well as actively calm past fabrication stilling our mind to see the arising and passing nature of all experiential phenomena. Also we have to lead a life style which is blameless and which we will have not regrets about. Also our action should be geared towards action supporting a collected mind like not doing negative Karma.

What is it – on the most basic level – that we don’t see?

Arising and passing and decay and the lack of control of this process which is unsatisfactory

What is it about the nature of reality that we are ignorant about?

See above.

What is it that this bewilderment about reality consists of?

You experience revulsion when you see true nature of things.
In short, not knowing the 4 Noble Truths and Dependent Origination is Ignorance.

What is the most basic and important deeply rooted ignorance about reality?

Wrong view that happiness is in satisfying desires. Consequently, wrong view in viewing happiness in sense pleasures (body, mouth, ears, eyes, nose, mind). Consequently, wrong view in searching happiness outside oneself.

What is it – on the most basic level – that we don’t see?

We don't see why volitional activities arise (mentioned above). Not seeing that with volitional activities, existence arises. Then, birth arises. Then, the entire mess of suffering arises.

What is it about the nature of reality that we are ignorant about?

Seeing good or bad and suffering because of it, when there is no good or bad.
Searching happiness outside oneself, instead of searching inside.
Blaming others for our suffering.
Not knowing what is changeable and what is unchangeable, thus constantly wanting to change the unchangeable.
Not knowing what is permanent and what is impermanent, thus constantly wanting the permanent in the impermanent.
Thinking there is a self or a soul.
Nothing ever dies.
There is no beginning nor end to anything.
Not knowing about suffering, thinking life is the ultimate happiness.
Not knowing the origin of suffering.
Not knowing about reality, thinking this reality is the ultimate, solid and real.
Not knowing karma.

What is it that this bewilderment about reality consists of?
  Why are we confused and puzzled by this reality?

Inexperience. The more experience, the more knowledge. The more knowledge, the less bewilderment. The less bewilderment, the better birth. The better birth, the better life. The better life, the easier to grasp the truth about reality. When truth is grasped, perfect knowledge is attained and bewilderment is extinguished. There's nothing else to be done.
Rare is birth in a human body. Big is suffering elsewhere ... Don't let this chance go by. In oneself all the truth lies.


text:
Are there any english translation of the Shobogenzo of Master Dogen?
Shōbōgenzō (正法眼蔵?, lit. "Treasury of the True Dharma Eye") is the title most commonly used to refer to the collection of works written in Japanese by the 13th century Japanese Buddhist monk and founder of the Japanese Sōtō Zen school, Eihei Dōgen.

There are several listed in the "External links" section of the Wikipedia article, and another edition available on Amazon.

I loved the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye: Zen Master Dogen’s Shobogenzo edited by Kazuaki Tanahashi.

Tanahashi's introduction is great. He explains how the Shobogenzo had been compiled, edited, and distributed through the years, (explained the number of fascicles, their order and grouping, and so forth)
He analyses shortly Dogen's style in relation to how this style (such as the use of contradictions, non-sequitur, and so forth) leads your mind to such and such a place
I compared many translations of the Genjokoan and found this one the most evocative

Tanahashi also edited a compilation of some of the fascicles of the Shobogenzo, grouped by way of themes. I found it most useful as well. The Essential Dogen: Writings of the Great Zen Master.

I like the translation I have at home, by Chodo Cross under guidance of Gudo Nishijima.
What makes this translation unique, it's goal was to stay as literal or as close to Japanese original as possible. So unlike other translations which are often overly idiomatic and make their interpretations for you, this one leaves it all as written by Dogen. Beside leaving interpretation of subtleties up to the reader, it also preserves the flavor of Dogen's speech - which makes for a more tasteful reading experience.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How does one explain consistency within phenomena if the mind generates phenomena?
I'm having trouble framing this question right so please let me know if it needs clarification. I'll first describe the issues surrounding the question and then ask the question itself.
I've been reading "A Buddhist Bible" compiled by Dwight Goddard. In one of the sutras the Buddha says that all perceived reality is like a dream. Essentially that all we touch, see, taste, hear, and feel is no more real than a dream. It's hard for me to see this because dreams don't seem to follow consistent rules as does the reality we seem to perceive. It seems that in our reality there really do exist laws of physics and mathematical truths and consistency amongst these things. From my understanding, the Buddha said that all phenomena is generated by the mind, but then why is there so much consistency within the laws of physics if it is the case that the mind generates it? I can easily imagine so many inconsistent things, not only that but I can dream them as well, so what distinction exists between activities of the mind such as those that "generate reality" and those that "generate dreams" such that one produces consistent laws of mathematical truths and the other does not?
Before I labor on and generate a confusing sequence of unrelated questions let me please clarify the question I wish to be answered: If it is the case that the reality that we perceive is no more real than the dreams that we have, what is the Buddhist explanation for what accounts for the consistency in the laws of physics and mathematical truths which we do observe? Secondly, since so many minds are generating this reality, how is it possible that everyone agrees upon laws of physics and mathematical truths? Doesn't consistency among observers imply an external reality independent of the mind? If consistency does exist then is there really only one mind? Or are there many? If there are many then how can consistency be satisfied?

FYI I've vaguely heard this before, that "Buddhism says that the world is unreal and/or like a dream"; and I didn't know/understand why people say that Buddhism says that, because I haven't been aware of the Buddha saying something exactly like that in the Pali canon. Anyway thank you for asking this question: and I'm posting this comment to add that the sutta which you're quoting is The Lankavatara Sutra which is a Mahayana text.

Possibly related question - I got some good answers: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5665/do-buddhists-see-reality-as-consensual-or-individual

I too had this question for a long time. Then I read Gil Fronsdal's translation of the Dhammapada, which begins (emphasis mine):

All experience is preceded by mind,
  Led by mind,
  Made by mind.

This use of the word experience, where phenomena is often used, is much more accessible. Remember, the Buddha did not say "all phenomena is made by mind"; he said "manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā". To say that much can be lost in translation would be an understatement.
I prefer Gil's translation of experience because it fits with what makes sense. It's not everything that exists in our mind, but how we experience everything.
Consider a simple example. If you and I stand beside one another and together look at a houseplant in front of us, we will both see the houseplant. It's not that our minds are simultaneously (and coincidentally!) creating a houseplant that isn't really there; the plant is a real thing that exists in the world. But our minds will experience it differently: we'll interpret different shades of green, we'll consider the scent of the soil uniquely, and we may even have different emotional responses based on any memories associated with this particular kind of plant. The plant wasn't created by our minds, but every aspect of how we experience the plant was.
And remember the broader point that the Buddha was was making in that opening chapter, which continues:

Speak or act with a corrupted mind,
  And suffering follows
  As the wagon wheel follows the hoof of the ox.

The point wasn't that everything we experience comes from our minds, but that because the mind plays a critical role in how we experience everything, the state of our mind set the stage for how (or whether) we will experience any suffering.

Thank you. Are you suggesting that the Buddha held the view that an external reality exists independent of the mind?

I don't know if that's a belief that the Buddha held. But I suspect that there is a strong connection between the Buddha's notion of "reality" and the concepts of dependent origination and the five aggregates, both of which the Buddha discussed quite a bit.

Citta, Cetasika, Rupa, Nibbana are the four ultimate realities. Everything else is just conventional or conceptual truths.
When you see the moon, it's basically the eyes sensing the secondary rupa called Vanna. There's no moon in the ultimate reality. Moon is just what the mind fabricates when rupa meets the eyes.
There's consistency because human senses are similar. Other animals see things differently compared to humans. Imagine what the world would look like if we had microscopic eyes.
Saying all phenomena are mind made is similar to saying that all pottery is made by a potter. Pottery is just clay in reality. But the potter(mind) shapes the clay into different objects.
When you start dreaming, it is not Rupa that is perceived by the mind. It's another thought or a memory perceived by the mind. So it is a fabrication of a fabrication. That has a higher chance of being inconsistent. But it is not unlikely that 2 people dream of the same object in the same way.
And it is not unlikely that 2 people see the same object differently even when the senses are similar. One person might see a beautiful woman, but a meditative monk might see her as a skeleton:
"Reverend sir, have you seen a woman pass this way?"
 And the elder said:

"Was it a woman, or a man,
That passed this way? I cannot tell.
But this I know, a set of bones
Is traveling on upon this road."

if consistency does exist then is there really only one mind? Or are
  there many? If there are many then how can consistency be satisfied?

Does a mango tree always give mangoes when fruiting? Or can it give apples as well? So if a mango tree always give mango fruits, should all the mangoes in the world come from one tree? Or can there be many mango trees?
Laws of physics are formulated by observing and hypothesizing. There's no direct knowledge involved. If laws of physics are ultimate reality, why do they change with time? Hypotheses are clearly mind made.
So is mathematics. ex: 1 is an agreement and 1 + 1 = 2 is a concept based on that agreement.

Then, is Rupa real? Is rupa permanent?

@ulmo Not if the child is handicapped(mentally) by birth. Hypothesizing can never lead to knowing the ultimate reality.

@GokulNC Both Rupa and Nama are real. But they are not permanent. Anything conditioned dies instantly.

Basically, the Buddhist approach to understanding reality is for each one of us to aim our attention at our individual present moment experience. This is  "experiencial reality", meaning we need to experience it to understand it.
We really don't need to even read books to understand the Buddhist approach because practicing experiencing present moment reality is what brings the understanding we are really looking for. All the suttas and dharma that we need to study is only to guide us to the real way of getting understanding. This is why people who only study the teachings of the Buddha and do not practice them do not really live by the Dhamma as the Buddha says.
It doesn't matter that the material universe has it's own system of rules or physics because we aren't practicing in a material or conceptual reality but in our own moment by moment experiencial reality that really exists. The future,  past, material world and all rules human made or human discovered are all conceptual. Conceptual reality is all being decided on and assumed about by our minds and so conceptual reality is a product of mind not reality.
When practicing with the Buddha's approach to reality, whatever an individual is experiencing in the present moment is all that is.
There are four paramattha dhammas  meaning "ultimate realities" or things that are atomic meaning they  cannot get any smaller. They are citta(mind), cetasika(mind objects), rūpa(matter) and nibbana.

@ulmo we can't experience the natural laws of material reality. The idea that that there is a system of rules, is just an idea. Thinking of the idea is just  thinking. If an apple falls on ones head,  it causes a painful sensation on the top of the head. The apple falling does not make one experience the "law of gravity"(that would be too conceptual):)

Any phenomena we know about the world is what we have sensed through our sense faculties. If we cannot sense any phenomena there will be no way we can know about it.
The definition of mind is the process to experience and object or phenomena, or to know what is felt through contact.
So when you experience something many of what you see is pieced together from multiple experiences you get and your part memory of how you classified these experiences. So the picture of reality you piece together is not the most accurate.

what is the Buddhist explanation?
You're reading the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra.
I'd like to mention just in case you don't know already that there are different schools of Buddhism, spread over centuries and continents. They have much in common and later schools evolve from earlier schools. To the extent that they're similar, it makes sense to ask about "the" Buddhist explanation.
The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra is apparently important to the early Zen school.

This edition by Guṇabhadra is said to be the one handed down from the founder of Chan Buddhism, Bodhidharma, to the Second Patriarch, Dazu Huike, saying:

I have here the Laṅkāvatāra in four fascicles which I now pass to you. It contains the essential teaching concerning the mind-ground of the Tathagata, by means of which you lead all sentient beings to the truth of Buddhism

Essentially that all we touch, see, taste, hear, and feel is no more real than a dream.
Beware that it's some kind of analogy or metaphor: and don't take that analogy too far.
For example if something were "like an apple", by that I might mean that it's round, sweet, portable, grows on trees, and/or etc.; but that doesn't mean it's exactly like an apple in all respects.
You've focused on one aspect of "dream": i.e. that a dream is irrational, private, irreproducible, and/or not shareable ... but that's not necessarily what the suttra intended when it mentioned "dream".
There's another translation of the sutra here (by D. T. Suzuki), which begins with an explanation/commentary which you might like to read in detail.
Part of it says,

Thus, according to Buddhist philosophy, reality must be grasped in this world and by this world, for it is that "Beyond which is also Within". The Lanka compares it to the moon in water or a flower in a mirror. It is within and yet outside, it is outside and yet within. This aspect of reality is described as "unobtainable" or "unattainable" (anupalabdha). And just because it is unobtainable in a world of particulars, the latter from the point of view of reality is like a dream, like a mirage, and so on. The subtlest relation of reality to the world is beyond description, it yields its secrets only to him who has actually realised it in himself by means of noble wisdom (aryajnana or prajna). This realisation is also a kind of knowledge though different from what is generally known by this name.

When I read that, I think it's saying that we don't understand or perceive the world very well. We perceive the world as in a dream, analogous to perceiving the moon's reflection in water:
It doesn't imply that the moon is unreal or a dream, and doesn't imply that two people won't both see a reflection of the moon.
Another impression I get from that description of "unobtainable" is, sometimes you might dream that are you are with someone, that you are somewhere, that you have something ... but then when you wake up you realize, "I do not, now in waking reality, have that person or place or thing, it was just a dream". Similarly perhaps they're saying that, in just the same way, even in waking reality we don't really "have" things, things are unattainable (but I don't know why: perhaps I guess it's because all we really have are our mind-made internal sense-impressions; or perhaps it's because the having of things is impermanent and in that way dreamlike; or perhaps because we ourselves e.g. in the sense that "I have a self" are dreams).

Some of the other answers to this question are based on the perspective of earlier schools of Buddhism.
I suspect this text (or the doctrine described in this text, or the school whose doctrine is described in this text) doesn't exactly contradict those answers but it has added concepts such as "non-dualism" which I don't think are so explicit/emphasized in earlier texts/schools.
Reading more Suzuki's introduction, it says,

In considering the theory of Mind-only, we have to be careful not to understand this term psychologically.

I don't know what that means but there is a "mind-only" school e.g. mentioned in this answer, "Why is the Yogācāra school called 'mind only'?", and elsewhere.

I was wondering how Suzuki would translate "dream" but when I get into Chapter 1 of his translation I find that his translation (or the his version of the sutra which he's translating) is entirely missing e.g. the first of the sentences which contains the word "dream" in the edition which you're reading.

I’d just like to add some general comments to your - excellent - question.
First of all, your question is not specifically Buddhist. If you take a look at the history of philosophy of science, this is a major problem and has been answered in many different ways. And the greatest philosophers of all times all more or less agree that we cannot have absolute knowledge about the ultimate reality - that's only for the enlightened minds.
My comments are purely Buddhist.
One is about karma, the other is about the idea that we can be mistaken but at the same time have reliable knowledge.
Karma

If consistency does exist then is there really only one mind?

We are humans, with human karma and human minds. When we observe the world and its causal regularity and unity, our observations are reflections of our karmic dispositions. An example is that when we see a river flowing before us, we see water. But the heavenly beings see it as heavenly nectar. Hungry ghosts see it as pus and blood. Fish see the river as their palace. And all of them are right, from their perspective. For example a termite sees a stick of wood as “food” or “a world of food” , whereas we humans see it as a stick of wood. And both are correct – conventionally. And this brings me to the other point.
We can be mistaken, but have reliable information about the conventional world.

how is it possible that everyone agrees upon laws of physics and
  mathematical truths? Doesn't consistency among observers imply an
  external reality independent of the mind?

Ultimately the laws of physics are not true. They are regularities and conventionalities for certain minds of certain perspectives. This is not because we have agreed upon it between humans, but because of our karmic dispositions this is the way the world appears to us all. We are not enlightened. As we deepen our understanding of emptiness, we grow increasingly to distrust and to disbelieve this false appearance, but the false appearance remains until we are enlightened.  This is a strange truth, and it is the crux of the matter: we have from our senses reliable information about the ordinary things in the world even though our senses are at the same time deceived about just how these things really exist. It is an interesting fact that researchers in the field of quantum mechanics are coming to the same conclusions.
Our eyes and ears are “mistaken” but not “wrong”. They are reliable sources yet mistaken because they are constantly presenting images of their objects as existing substantially, naturally, independently.
In this sense we are dreaming.

It is likely that the quote you are referring to is
all conditioned dharma
are like dreams, illusions,
bubbles, shadows,
Like dew drops (in the morning sun),
or a lightening flash,
contemplate them thus.

All sentient beings have Buddha Nature.  Wisdom realizing the holy state of Emptiness and Compassion for all sentient beings uniting.
The above gatha is part of the Diamond Cutter or Vajra Cutter sutra.
Contemplation of the above gatha is one of the most amazing actions one can pursue in their lifetime!  Happy you chose this one to investigate.
Please read about the benefits here:
http://www.lamayeshe.com/advice/diamond-cutter-sutra
And please see the direct resource (Vajra Cutter Sutra) via the Tibetan lineages
http://cdn.fpmt.org/wp-content/uploads/sutras/vajra_cutter_sutra_c5.pdf?4320b0
Or this resource (the first one I came across)
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/prajparagen2.pdf

The OP is asking about this book of which the first chapter is the Lankavara Sutta. See e.g. how the word "dream" is used many times on this page.

@chrisW ah thank you.  I wanted to share the closest texts that came to mind in case it would benefit someone

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


text:
What is the most “genuinely Buddhist” kind of mindfulness?
I’d like to hear some reflections on mindfulness. I’m not talking here about meditation on the three marks or any kind of visualization, but mindfulness.
I am quoting here from B. Allan Wallace’s The Attention Revolution.

[One] approach views mindfulness as nondiscriminating,
  moment-to-moment ‘bare awareness’ [and the other] characterizes
  mindfulness as bearing in mind the object of attention, the state of
  not forgetting, not being distracted, and not floating.

Which one of these is the most “genuinely Buddhist” kind of mindfulness?

See Tse-fu Kuan's Mindfulness in early buddhism" for a comprehensive treatment of mindfulness in the pali canon

If you look at this article which describes The Noble Eightfold Path,

Chapter VI: Right Mindfulness (Samma Sati) talks about "bare attention"
Chapter VII: Right Concentration (Samma Samadhi) talks about "centering the mind on an object"

So I think they're both Buddhist, but one is called "mindfulness" and the other "concentration".

I'm looking forward to it!

“And what is the faculty of sati? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago. (And here begins the satipatthana formula:) He remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.”

SN 48.10
You could give a read to  Mindfulness Defined by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/mindfulnessdefined.html

You seem to be going with the "mindfulness as nondiscriminating, moment-to-moment ‘bare awareness’" as the most "genuine" (I'm not shure my term "genuine" is a very good one, though)


text:
Does mind ever stop?
I have learned.....
When a receptor (eyes,ears,nose,tongue,body,mind) meet with the preferred input (light,sound,smell,taste,touch,thoughts) if the dedicated "Vinyana" is born to accept it the being will feel that particular sensation.
So my question is....
Eyes can't see when they are closed
Ears can't hear when we sleep
Nose can't sense when we sleep
Tongue can't sense when we sleep
Body can't feel when we sleep
But the mind does not seem to share the same condition with the rest of receptors.Because when we sleep some part of it function and when we are awake it is fully functioning.
So does mind ever stop?
Does mind start with the birth and keeps going till the last minute?
What does the Suttas say?

My mind has halted abruptly, or drifted to a stop quite a few times. If you are saying that any sort of consciousness or awareness at all is still the activity of mind, then I point to all the times I have been anesthetized. Another point is that we still sense light with eyes closed, and sleeping people are wakened by sound, and often sounds get included in to dreams. I have touched sleeping people and made them roll over, etc. There is no absolute stop to any of the senses, because they are mechanisms. You seem to be saying that mind can ignore them, but can't ignore itself. But it can stop.

I think it's possible - otherwise nibanna would be impossible. And what I mean by 'stop' is not 'not moving' - but rather: not born / not rise. When I quickly re-read what I wrote, probably what I meant was 'cease' rather than 'stop'.

Hi people, please post your answers as answers, and not as comments.

Hi @ChrisW - I did as you suggested and received downvotes w/ no explanation, which is the original reason I was reluctant to post as answer to begin with. I've since deleted it. Apologies for not being able to contribute properly.

@ChrisW Hi, I didn't have access to any Suttas to reference, so I didn't think my contribution was an Answer. However, I wondered if the Question was not clear or well-put, so I mentioned some counters to it. I think this is the proper use of Comments, yes? Parts of the Answers are connecting with my Comment.

For the record, none of the circumstances that you mention are true.  If they were, you'd never wake up if the goon down the road started blasting music or if someone shined a flashlight in your face.  ;-)

@neko here is the simple version of how receptors and mind works.  If there is an eye that works that meets with an image/light which is observed by the "Chakku Vinyana (the vinyana that is responsible for the eyes)" the person will see the particular image. In simple English when you are doing some serious thinking even if your eyes work you do not see (you are not aware of what you should be seeing) until  you come out of it.Same thing happens when your GF talks nonstop but you are thingking something else and miss all that she said : )

@Theravada - I am curious as to why you would want to stop your mind. It is my understanding that the purpose is to observe the peaks and troughs and not be absorbed by them. Stopping suggests control of which no one possess.

@Motivated , I'm just curious : )

The mind occurs in both passive and active modes. The passive gives
  way to the active when a stimulus is received through one of the sense
  doors. The passive state of mind is called bhava"nga, cuti, or
  paa.tisandhi, according to the occasion.
Bhava"nga. The bhava"nga citta, mentioned earlier, is the primary form
  of mind. It flows from conception to death except when interrupted by
  a stimulus through one of the sense doors. Read more...

The stream of Bhavanga citta is what you have in deep(dreamless) sleep. It is a result of your past birth Karma. The process doesn't stop until the being attains Parinibbana, except in the case of being born in the Asaññasatta realm.

So does mind ever stop?

When you attain Nirodha Samapahti and Phala Samapathi your mental process stops. In the case of Phala Samapathi the stop is only momentarily but the mental process come to a stop where you see the links of dependent origination breaking when 1st experiencing Nirvana and see the re formation of the links of dependent origination reforming when you come out. In other words when you experience Phala Samapathi you also experience Nirodha Samapahti momentarily at least. (Based on interpretation of S. N. Goenka and Banhte Vilimalasiri. These are highly theoretical and no consensus among different practitioners. Best is the practice and see for your self. Much of what is said about this is in secondary sources than from the Suttas themselves.) If you are stay in it you have to be Anagami or above having also reached the 8th Jhana.

'attainment of extinction' (S. XIV, 11), also called saññā-vedayita-nirodha, 'extinction of feeling and perception', is the temporary suspension of all consciousness and mental activity, following immediately upon the semi-conscious state called 'sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception' (s. jhāna, 8). The absolutely necessary pre-conditions to its attainment are said to be perfect mastery of all the 8 absorptions (jhāna), as well as the previous attainment of Anāgāmī or Arahantship (s. ariya-puggala).
According to Vis.M. XXIII, the entering into this state takes place in the following way: by means of mental tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassanā) one has to pass through all the 8 absorptions one after the other up to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception and then one has to bring this state to an end. If, namely, according to the Vis.M., the disciple (Anāgāmī or Arahat) passes through the absorption merely by means of tranquillity, i.e. concentration, he will only attain the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and then come to a standstill; if, on the other hand, he proceeds only with insight, he will reach the fruition (phala) of Anāgāmī or Arahantship. He, however, who by means of both faculties has risen from absorption to absorption and, having made the necessary preparations, brings the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception to an end, such a one reaches the state of extinction. Whilst the disciple is passing through the 8 absorptions, he each time emerges from the absorption attained, and regards with his insight all the mental phenomena constituting that special absorption, as impermanent, miserable and impersonal. Then he again enters the next higher absorption, and thus, after each absorption practising insight, he at last reaches the state of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and thereafter the full extinction. This state, according to the Com., may last for 7 days or even longer. Immediately at the rising from this state, however, there arises in the Anāgāmī the fruition of Anāgāmiship (anāgāmi-phala), in the Arahat the fruition of Arahantship (arahatta-phala).
With regard to the difference existing between the monk abiding in this state of extinction on the one hand, and a dead person on the other hand, M 43 says: "In him who is dead, and whose life has come to an end, the bodily (in-and-out breathing), verbal (thought-conception and discursive thinking), and mental functions (s. sankhāra, 2) have become suspended and come to a standstill, life is exhausted, the vital heat extinguished, the faculties are destroyed. Also in the monk who has reached 'extinction of perception and feeling' (saññā-vedayita-nirodha), the bodily, verbal and mental functions have been suspended and come to a standstill, but life is not exhausted, the vital heat not extinguished, and the faculties are not destroyed."
    For details, see Vis.M. XXIII; for texts s. Path 206.

See: nirodha-samāpatti

Anuloma…if you compare it with a srewdriver and a screw, trying to break through a wall: 9-11 seems like to push and apply one’s whole force to the screwdriver and 13. anuloma is like turning the screwdriver to get through the wall. Its a mini-repetition of all nyanas prior to it, seeing a relentless series of udayabaya-nyanas, mini-nibbidas, mini-sankharupekkhas until the point of the screw peeks through on the other side. I guess others can find better similies…but in a way this sounds like fractals….the structure within the structure…creating a very very strong counter-drag to release the mind, and pull name&form from consciousness thus making the world (ie. 6 senses, ie. bhava or existence) tumble/stop for one moment – with everlasting consequences.

(Source: Vipassana Knowledge and the Path to Nibbana)
Also see: The Cognitive Process of Attainments, What is the different between Nirodha Samapatti and Phala Samapatti?, “Relief” with Bhante Vimalaramsi -Story about Dipa Ma

Does mind start with the birth and keeps going till the last minute?

See @sankha-kulathantille's answer

I think the word translated there as "mental fermentations" is Āsava -- it's Āsavas that are ended (see also answers to this question).

My bad on the reference. Updated.

Mind has three parts - unconscious, subconscious and conscious. Unconscious mind is the animal part. It has to work to keep the body going. Subconscious and conscious part is where the problem lies. They are active most of the time and make you indulge in sensory world. Nirvana does not touch unconscious part otherwise you will dead in no time. Subconscious part is eliminated completely and unnecessary chattering of mind in forms of thoughts and emotions is stopped. Now you control the conscious mind because subconscious mind is no longer hitting it again and again. Your conscious mind becomes a tool for you to apply. Earlier prior to Nirvana you were a tool for conscious mind to play with.


text:
What does it mean by perfect morality?
It's said that Sotapanna has perfect morality.
For example, AN 3.85 says:

"There is the case where a monk is wholly accomplished in virtue, moderately accomplished in concentration, and moderately accomplished in discernment. With reference to the lesser and minor training rules, he falls into offenses and rehabilitates himself. Why is that? Because I have not declared that to be a disqualification in these circumstances. But as for the training rules that are basic to the holy life and proper to the holy life, he is one of permanent virtue, one of steadfast virtue. Having undertaken them, he trains in reference to the training rules. With the wasting away of [the first] three fetters, he is a stream-winner, never again destined for states of woe, certain, headed for self-awakening.

And in AN 9.12:

Again, Sāriputta, a certain person is complete in virtues, incomplete in concentration and incomplete in wisdom. Destroying three bonds he transmigrates as a human or god the most seven times and makes end of unpleasantness. Sāriputta, this is the eighth person who dies with substratum, released, from hell, from animal birth, from the sphere of ghosts and released from loss and hellish births.

But we do wrong thing from time to time. Our deeds are not perfect. So what does it mean by having a perfect (wholly accomplished) morality/virtue?

In AN 3.88 Buddha gives definitions of the three trainings. Basically, sila is training in discipline (often translated as virtue or morality), samadhi is training in controlling one's mind and mood, and prajna is training in understanding or insight.
In my understanding and as per AN 2.19, training in discipline is first and foremost training to optimize your actions by their result (instead of being simply reactive or impulsive). You do what's wholesome (leads to good results) and abandon what's unwholesome (leads to bad results). You repeatedly train yourself to think objectively in terms of action and its results, not in terms of your personal desires and aversions. For most people this is a radical change in attitude!
However, at this level you do only a minimum amount of self-reflection. Your sole focus is on external activity. But in order to optimize your activity you are forced to suppress some of your baddest impulses, habits and reactions. Which naturally leads to emergence of self-reflection, you becoming self-aware, and going to the next level - training to control your mental and emotional state.
So when Buddha says, "accomplished virtue" - I believe he means that as far as your intention to accomplish the good, you are perfect. Your behavior is fully determined by your good will. However, because of imperfections in your ability to control your mind and emotions, and imperfections in your wisdom/insight into how things work, you may still misstep occasionally.
Notice how Buddha insists in AN 3.85 that to be a Sotapanna you must also be moderately accomplished in concentration, and moderately accomplished in discernment. Not just virtue! This is because virtue, concentration and discernment interpenetrate. You can't have good behavior without some amount of mind-emotion-control and some amount of wisdom.
So in short, in my understanding the perfect morality is wholesome behavior and wholesome speech, based on wholesome intent, based on the right view - the first five and a half steps of the Eightfold Path.
Of course to say that one's behavior can ever be perfect is a (useful) simplification. As Buddha himself says in AN 3.85 you may still "fall into offenses and [later] rehabilitate yourself". But as far as your appreciation of the notion of kusala/akusala and your sincere attempts to act kusala, as far as your attitude - they are perfectly complete. You attitude has been completely reoriented towards the good result. That's what makes you a Sotapanna.

I suspect (but I can't easily translate the Pali) that "perfect" and "accomplished" might be a translation of something implying the perfect tense i.e. "in the past" and "no back-sliding" ... maybe not perfect in the sense of superlative.

Good thought, he also uses the word "steadfast" in the translation...

You are reading too much into the word "perfect".  In this passage, I think it's being used rather conventionally and that it might better to read the word as "accomplished".
To demonstrate, let's use a baseball metaphor.  Tony Gwyn was a very accomplished hitter.  You might even say he perfected his swing.  Still, Tony Gwyn still struck out a couple dozen times a year.  Perfecting a craft doesn't necessarily mean you won't miss from time to time.  Someone of "accomplished" morality likewise might be superlatively skillful in sila, but that does not necessarily connote unerring perfection.
By contrast, Tony Gwyn's big ol' bubble butt didn't necessarily make him the best base runner.  You might say he was only moderately skilled in that area.  He had quite a bit of room for improvement.  Someone of moderate skill has room to grow.


text:
What is tathata?
Tathata has been described as the ultimate goal of Buddhism. What is tathata? What is the closest thing we experience in everyday life close to tathata? How can we attain knowledge of tathata?

Consider the Nonduality Tag.

For starters, here is the Theravada perspective, with some quotes:

THUSNESS (by ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu)
Now, we come to the fourth and last topic: tathata (suchness, thusness). "Merely thus," "just such": everything is such as it is and in no way different from that thusness. This is called "tathata." When tathata is seen, the three characteristics of anicca, dukkha, and anatta are seen, sunnata is seen, and idappaccayata is seen. Tathata is the summary of them all -- merely thus, only thus, not-otherness. There is nothing better than this, more than this, other than this, thusness. To intuitively realize tathata is to see the truth of all things, to see the reality of the things which have deceived us. The things which delude us are all the things which cause discrimination and duality to arise in us: good-evil, happiness-sadness, win-lose, love-hate, etc. There are many pairs of opposites in this world. By not seeing tathata, we allow these things to trick us into believing in duality: this-that, liking-disliking, hot-cold, male-female, defiled, enlightened. This delusion causes all our problems. Trapped in these oppositions, we can't see the truth of things. We fall into liking and disliking, which in turn leads to the defilements, because we don't see tathata.

From SN 12.20:

Iti kho, bhikkhave, yā tatra tathatā avitathatā anaññathatā idappaccayatā – ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo.
What's there in this way is a reality, not an unreality, not other than what it seems, conditioned by this/that. This is called dependent co-arising. (Thanissaro)
Thus bhikkhus, the actuality in this, the inerrancy, the not-otherwiseness, specific conditionality: this is called dependent origination. (Bhikkhu Bodhi)

From AN 4.24:

A Tathagata is a seer of what is to be seen, but he does not mind the seen, the unseen, the seeable, the seer. So likewise with the heard, the sensed and the cognized: he thinks of none of these modes of theirs. Therefore among things seen, heard, sensed and cognized he is precisely 'such'. Moreover, than he who is 'such' there is no other 'such' further or more excellent.

So, tathata is the culmination of the Third Noble Truth, cessation of suffering. When you no longer crave any experiences, don't avert any experiences, don't project any delusions onto your experience - when there is no longer a mismatch between "this" and imaginary "that" - that's tathata.

What is the difference between suchness and voidness/nothingness?

The way I see it, shunyata is more like an in depth insight or a realization of how things are in general, while tathata is your first person experience of everything once you have internalized shunyata.

You got your Question. A couple years ago, the first time I ran in to another Neo, she was trying to see if we had had the same experience. After talking for an hour she finally asked, "OK, so how would you say exactly what it is?" I flipped my hands out at my sides, palms upward. She said, "That's it." So we knew we understood each other. Neo is still a Self state, so I would say it accords with Shunyata. Nonduality is beyond that, and accords with this description of Tathata. There is nothing mystical about it. Try to get people to realize that though? They build it up to something else.

It is beyond non-duality. Chogyam Trungpa was pretty clear about it. My Zen Master was very clear about it. And now I am rather clear about it. Non-duality is still a form. Emptiness is still a form. Even flipping your hands is a position. My friends and I flipped our hands and said Ehhh about non-duality back in 1995! Tathata is far beyond that, beyond any clinging. Beyond self, beyond non-self, and beyond the beyond. There is nothing mystical about it. Drop your nonduality and hopefully you will see what I mean.

@AndreiVolkov  So, is it impossible to see/realize/experience Tathata without having experience or realizing Shunyata?

Hmm... good question... I guess it depends on a person. Apparently some people can dive into Tathata head on, but most have to work on Shunyata asymptotically - until their experience becomes Tathata.


text:
How can killing of Muslims by Buddhists in Myanmar be justified?
Considering whatever atrocities Muslims did (I don't know if they did any) or are going to do, is killing Muslims the only solution the Myanmar Buddhists could adopt?
Is it wise?
Is violence recommended in Buddhism (or by Buddha) under any extreme circumstances??
If no, why have the Myanmar Buddhists chosen that path?
For context, here are some news links on this topic:

BBC: Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?
CNN: Anti-Muslim tension simmers ahead of Myanmar election

I think the first phrase in the first sentence may be off-topic and/or unanswerable on this site, i.e. "Considering whatever atrocities Muslims did (I don't know if they did any) or are going to do" -- you don't know, I don't know, perhaps that's not factual/answerable.

See the question Can Buddhism give any justification for military violence for a related discussion on Buddhism and violence

The rest of the question might be a duplicate of (might already be answered by) these two questions: Is what is taught under the term “Radical Buddhism” consistent with Buddhist values? ... and/or What does Buddha and Buddhism say about fighting against enemy of dharma?

Thanks for the related question suggestions :) I never thought of searching about this that way.

Are they sufficiently related to close this one as duplicate? I guess that the 1st and 3rd paragraphs of this question are more about politics than Buddhism, so remaining core of this question is only the 2nd paragraph i.e. "Is violence recommended in Buddhism (or by Buddha) under any extreme circumstances?"

Also Can or should a Buddhist defend themselves physically -- I suppose between all of these questions and answers we don't need a new one?

Here's a good story of a Buddhist reaction to a genocide in Lord Buddha's time.
"Lord Buddha's family/cast (Shrathriya/Shakya) was at the top of the casts at the time and they were very proud of it.Once a kind requested a princess for a marriage from Shrathriya/Shakya cast.But because of their ego they tricked the king by sending a pretty slave girl as a princess.Time went by and she had a son,he visited the Shrathriya/Shakya relatives one day and went back.But one of his men forgot his weapon and came to get it back.That's when he heard what a slave was saying while she was eagerly washing the room that prince stayed in, She was saying look how high a slave's boy has come. The guard went back and said the whole story and the truth was revealed.He took his army and came to kill all the Shrathriyas/Shakyas.Lord Buddha saw this and stopped him not once but twice.In the third time Lord Buddha looked back in time and understood that these people are about to be slaughtered as an effect of a old Karma.This time lord Buddha did nothing.The prince went and killed all of the Shrathriya/Shakya cast brutally.That is why there is no more left today from Lord Buddha's family."

Lord Buddha said that we must come above the lust to be alive,to be born,to not to exist.Lord Buddha said that we must understand the impermanence.But we as normal people still love to live.
If you look into Buddhism you will see how many villages,casts,races have faced death/genocide. Whether we like it or not the only option is to stand like men an take it because if we raise an arm we commit bad Karma.

What happened in Myanmar can't be justified. That is not the advice of Lord Buddha.We are not permitted to kill.
You can't be a Buddhist and a warrior at the same time,it is simple as that.
This might be a hard pill to digest but here is a good example why this concept is right...
Khantivādī Jātaka: J 313 (A Bodhisattva story of our Buddha)
In the Jātaka Tale, Patience Teacher Birth Story (Khantivādī Jātaka: J 313), a jealous king repeatedly asked an ascetic what the ascetic taught, to which the ascetic replied, "Patience," which the ascetic further defined as "not to get angry when injured, criticized or struck." To test the ascetic's patience, the king had the ascetic struck two thousand times with a whip of thorns, had the ascetic's hands and feet axed off, cut off the ascetic's nose and ears, and then kicked the ascetic in the heart. After the king left, the ascetic wished the king a long life and said, "Those like myself do not feel wrath." The ascetic died later that day.
Kshanti (Sanskrit kṣānti) or khanti (Pāli) is patience, forbearance and forgiveness.1 It is one of the pāramitās in both Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism.
It is comforting to have the licence to kill but as Bodhisattva's had done for eons there is only patience and Kshanti for a Buddhist. Go to India and ask what happened to the Buddhists, all of them were impaled on Trishulas by Hindu people. This is not the only time a Genocide happened. No matter who is the victim it is only wrong. Imagine why a teaching like Buddhism vanishes every time it appears in this world, every time it has been a genocide. Your mind will not support the idea first but if you read enough sources the massage is clear. Lord Buddha said one must not harm or kill another even if it cost him his own life .You can either be a Buddhist and make your mind to die the glorious death in Kshanti or you could pick a weapon and go to war. This is where we differ from Christians,Hindus and Islamic, With all due respect to them we do not have a holy war. A good Buddhist is ready to happily accept the other end of the gun.
The offensive of a Buddhist King
But if you are a rebel i recommend you learn the story of** King Dutugamunu . This King protected the lives and the Theravada teaching of srilanka against the Hindu invader's Genocide. As to the prophecy this king will be one of the Great followers of Maithri Buddha in the future.

A very good answer.

@Theravada - Please include a link to the excerpt you posted since i had difficulty in locating the story. It's an interesting perspective although i don't agree with it as it suggests that the outcomes are deterministic. It may be the case the Buddha was able to assess the past, the current and the future however am surprised that the story does not indicate that rather than stop, Buddha would have attempted to lift the ignorance of killing. It seems that it's a case of 2 wrongs make a right.

@Theravada - I am concerned by statements such as Whether we like it or not the only option is to stand like men an take it because if we raise an arm we commit bad Karma. It suggests that we are powerless, have no other options than arming and that we should not protect ourselves. These aren't principles of Buddhism as i know it. You can be a warrior and a Buddhist at the same time. The term warrior doesn't always indicate the need to pick arms. There are better ways of engaging

@Motivated See this story ... see also this commentary to the Dhammapada ... Theravada's matches this version of the story (but I don't know where this version is from).

thanks @ChrisW ,  I had it in my mind and translated it in my head while i was typing my answer.so my version might be bit of a loose translation but the massage is there.

@Motivated , Thanks for the comment.I added the Offensive version of a Buddhist reaction this time read it and tell me your take on it : )

@ChrisW  , I added the Offensive version of a Buddhist reaction this time read it and tell me your take on it : )

I tried to summarize my opinion in this answer.

@ChrisW - Thanks. I find the story interesting although there are passages that aren't clear. It mentions Buddha sitting under a tree which results in the army retreating each time. It doesn't speak to any attempt by Buddha to share that 2 wrongs make don't make a right. The story seems to allude to that karma isn't deterministic (it may be the way i interpreted it) i.e. if Sakyas had apologized and treated people as one, the outcome would have been different.

@Theravada - Again, i am cautious of statements such as A good Buddhist is ready to happily accept the other end of the gun as well as the story of Khantivādī Jātaka. These suggest the extreme outcome of a given situation which in my opinion doesn't align with the middle path or way. They also appear to suggest that there isn't an alternative and an alternative doesn't imply harming anyone although the term harm is open to interpretation as it is with most definitions often leading to a situation of bed of procrustes

@Motivated ,  Maybe but "doesn't align with the middle path" part is wrong. This is actually the middle path. Panic or violence has nothing to do with middle path. Why someone would see this extreme is simple, its because they love living,they fear pain. So they are ready to fight/harm for their lives. why don't we have a proper chat -http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/32093/room-for-theravada-and-motivated

@Motivated You said "the story is not clear" and I'm not sure where the story comes from. Some people/Buddhists (perhaps not the Theravada) see the Jataka Tales as perhaps folkloric. FYI this answer says, "What are canonical are the verses that accompany the stories".

@Theravada - Life is precious and the assumption is that fighting and harming are the only ways to protect yourself and others. For example, would you say the Dalai Lama ran away because he loved living and feared pain? I find the stories or examples as extremes because they appear to suggest that there are no other alternatives to reach the same conclusion. Would you say that a person who is at risk of being raped or killed and wishes to avoid the horrors that follow is fearful of pain? Personally i wouldn't. Life is precious and i believe many of us forget that.

@Motivated , I am sorry because i only know Great Dalai Lama by name and i have not read about his life.So i can't comment on that. It is OK to run away from death but killing is not permitted for Buddhists by Lord Buddha. But this is only my understanding if you can find a place or a teaching where Lord Buddha agreed on such an offence i will bow down and agree with you. It's not like i know everything, So if you find such teaching please let me know.

@Theravada - I think we may be saying the same thing but differently. I am not suggesting that killing is acceptable by any means. I am saying that killing isn't always the only option. You may run away, you may defend yourself allowing you sufficient time to escape, you may ask for help to prevent someone from hurting or harming  you.

The Buddha never justified violence of killing any living being.

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching." Kakacupama Sutta

Not even under extreme circumstances did he justify killing.

"One is not called noble who harms living beings. By not harming living beings is one called noble." Dhammapada, verse 270

That is all. Killing is never justified according to Buddhism. A precept that is taken by both ordained and lay followers of the path is

I undertake the training rule of refraining from killing living creatures 10 Precepts

A very good answer!

Killing of a human in  Buddhism is justified by the killer going to hell.
Unless the killing results in saving the whole earth, not just saving Myanmar alone!


text:
Meditating with chronic illness
I'm an American living in Bangkok. I have Parkinson's disease and have recently (last week) developed restless leg syndrome. It's now 4:30 AM & I can't sleep - because of the discomfort in my legs. I haven't had a good night's sleep in a long time. I'm trying different therapies for the legs but nothing seems to work so far.
Although I have an Angel looking after me, she doesn't really know what I'm going through - and I'm trying to keep a positive outlook, which is getting harder with this sleep depravation!
I'm feeling afraid and alone. I've been attracted to Buddhism for a long time and have meditated off & on for quite a while. When I try to meditate, I'm just too uncomfortable to do so, even while lying down.
Has anyone been in a similar situation?  Any advice?

Can you move your legs? Before going to sleep, try tapping your feet on each other while lying on your back... Anywhere starting from 100 all the way to 3000 tappings.

@user2429448 - Massages or acupuncture may help alleviate some of the discomfort as will acupressure - http://www.shen-nong.com/eng/exam/restless_leg_syndrome_acupuncture_therapies.html. I hope these options help.

My personal view is that there are many ways to help alleviate the discomfort and although i support the answers below, i would recommend looking at multiple ways of treating the pain and not just mindfulness or awareness.

Giri-m-Ananda Sutta has details of how to overcome illness. At a superficial level you can start as following and go deeper as in the Sutta. Also there is a book Meditation on Perception: Ten Healing Practices to Cultivate Mindfulness by Bhante Henepola Gunaratana which might be of interest.

Contemplation of impermanence - When you experience any discomfort look at this as "this will also pass". Even in a terminal illness
Contemplation of anatta (absence of a permanent self or soul) - detach your self from the pain
Contemplation of foulness (asubha) - look at your body part by part from head to foot and foot to head
Contemplation of disadvantage (danger) - everyone is prone to illness
Contemplation of abandonment - contemplate on non evil thoughts
Contemplation of detachment - benefits of being without attachments
Contemplation of cessation - destruction from craving and relief from creating fabrications
Contemplation of distaste for the whole world - abandoning latent tendencies.
Contemplation of impermanence of all component things - develop revulsion
Mindfulness of in-breathing and out-breathing - see Anapana Sati

With regard to sleep deprivation try Metta Bhavana. One benefit of this is you sleep easy.
Also remember pain is not pain unless you make it your pain. There is the physical sensation feeling and the mental cognising that this is my pain. The latter is bigger than the physical pain hence try look at the pain as mere pain. See: Vedenaupassana in Satipatthanas. You may also try taking a course at: http://dhamma.org/

I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable, and afraid and alone.
Some of the answers to the question, "Experiencing physical pain", might be helpful.
The article "Using Meditation to Deal with Pain, Illness & Death" is perhaps the most helpful answer I have found so far.

First, I'm very sorry to hear about your situation. I wish you strength and good health in spite of your obstacles. And you are not alone.
Many people meditate with different kinds of chronic pain. The pain hinders the process, but it need not prevent you from enjoying meditation or gaining benefits from it. If you're practicing vipassanā meditation, you can apply the mindfulness practice to your pain as part of the meditation experience.
For instance: as you focus on your breath during meditation, if you feel pain in your legs, allow your attention to remain on the pain. Be mindful of the pain: consider the way the pain feels, and examine the nature of pain in great detail. What kind of pain is it? Where exactly is it felt? Are there subtle things you can do to change the way you feel it (like shifting positions)?
Stay with the pain for a while, and then gently turn your attention back to your breath. The practice should not be to ignore the pain, or otherwise mask or cover it, but to experience it mindfully so that you can fully understand it.
You may find some comfort in this very recent study from the Journal of Neuroscience that discusses the pain relief benefit in vipassanā meditation: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/302620.php
Good luck and stay strong! You can conquer this.


text:
Bad births and not so Bad births?
As we know there are lower realms mentioned in Buddhism, like the animal realm.
If you have heard the story of the "Alavaka yaksha/yakkha" (He was an evil being by birth)
You might also think "If beings like "Alavaka" can reach goals in the path are they considered lower because they are evil by birth?"
After all he is not the only one of his kind to reach goals of the path on the spot where they learned Buddhism.As to Suttas/Sutras these beings serve as soldiers in armies of Gods/Devas, so they clearly aren't some primitive things like our animals.These beings also have ridiculous strength and amazing abilities like shape shifting.

So what i'm asking is...
Are they labeled Lower realm creatures because they are Bad or Evil from birth or is there any other reason?
(Please note that i am only asking about the Race/Species/Beings
called  Yakkha or Yaksha)

A story about Alavaka is told in the Alavaka Sutta: Discourse to Alavaka (SN 10.12).

This page which describes The Thirty-one Planes of Existence places yakkhas immediately above the human realm:

Devas of the Four Great Kings (catumaharajika deva) -- Home of the gandhabbas, the celestial musicians, and the yakkhas, tree spirits of varying degrees of ethical purity. The latter are analogous to the goblins, trolls, and fairies of Western fairy tales.

See also this Wikipedia article,

Yaksha (Sanskrit यक्ष yakṣa, Pali yakkha) is the name of a broad class of nature-spirits, usually benevolent, who are caretakers of the natural treasures hidden in the earth and tree roots. They appear in Hindu, Jain and Buddhist texts. The feminine form of the word is yakṣī or Yakshini (yakṣiṇī).
In Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist texts, the yakṣa has a dual personality. On the one hand, a yakṣa may be an inoffensive nature-fairy, associated with woods and mountains; but there is also a darker version of the yakṣa, which is a kind of ghost (bhuta) that haunts the wilderness and waylays and devours travelers, similar to the rakṣasas.
Yakṣas in Buddhism -- In Buddhist literature, the yakṣa are the attendants of Vaiśravaṇa, the guardian of the northern quarter, a beneficent god who protects the righteous. The term also refers to the Twelve Heavenly Generals who guard Bhaiṣajyaguru, the Medicine Buddha.

See also this (long) definition of Yakkha (as well as this page which contain back-story to the Alavaka Sutta).

The idea of a dangerous guardian reminds me of this other topic about a "guardian" that seems "wrathful" and/or dangerous: What is a wrathful Buddha?


text:
Brahmas and Devas?
Are Brahmas and Devas the same thing in different levels or are they two entirely different beings.

I am asking this because if see the first teaching of Lord Buddha (Dhamma chakka pawaththana) there is a mentioning "Brahma Deva",yes both words used as a combination.
Normally they are considered two kinds,here it is still the same but Brahmas have being attached to the Deva realm.
Can someone explain?

In Buddhism, "Brahmā" is a type of deva.
(In Hinduism, Brahmā is the creator god, see also Brahman.)
Some online references to descriptions of the Buddhist "Brahmā" include:

Brahmā (Buddhism) (Wikipedia)

The Glossary of Pali terms on the 'Buddha Vacana' web site:

Brahmā: is the supreme divinity of ancient brahmanism, considered as the creator of the universe and worshiped by brahmins through sacrifices and rituals. The Buddha gives this appellation to the Brahmakāyika, devas (etc.)

Footnote 146 on page 51 of the 'Dharma Farer' commentary on the Dhammacakkappavattana

It is interesting and important to note that the list of exulting devas stops here with the Brahmās of the 1st dhyana.
The reason for this is that, as there is still some level of mentation here—by way of initial and sustained applications
(vitakka,vicāra)—these Brahmās are still in contact with the sense-world. In the realms beyond the 1st dhyana,
thought-process as we know it ceases completely so that these beings enjoy the glory of their meditative state as
pure light or profound peace for as long as their karma fuels it.

@Theravada… as per the Dhamma chakka pawaththana Suttta, there are altogether 22 levels of Heavens. The first seven levels are for Davas who are not freed from attachment to sensual worlds (kamaloka). Bhummattha devas.. Cātummahārājika devas....  Tāvatiṃsa,....  Yāma,....  Tusita,..  Nimmānaratī, ....  Paranimmitavasavattī.... are those seven.
The next 15 levels are the adobes of the Brahmas. Brahmas of Brahma Parisajja... Brahma Purohita... Maha Brahma... Parittabha... Appamanabha... Abhassara... Parittasubha... Appamana subha... Subhakinna... Vehapphala... Aviha... Atappa... Sudassa... Sudassi... and Akanittha… reside in them.
The Suddhavasa Brahmaloka or Pure Abodes are a group of five heavens. They are the exclusive Planes of Anagamis or Never-Returners (those who have attained the third stage of Sainthood). Ordinary beings are not born in these states. Those who have attained Anagami in other planes are reborn in these Pure Abodes. Later, they attain Arahanthood and reside in those planes until that life-term ends. The names of the inhabitants of these Pure Abodes are: Aviha, Atappa, Sudassa, Sudassi and Akanittha.
Now I will like to share a short story behind the following Dhammapada:
“Chandajato anakkhate1manasa ca phuto siya
Kamesu ca appatibaddha citto uddhamsoto'ti vuccati”
He who has developed a wish for the Ineffable (Nibbana), he whose mind realises it (with the three Fruits), he whose mind is not bound by material pleasures, such a person is called an 'Upstream-bound One'.
On one occasion the pupil of an elderly monk asked him whether he had attained Arahanthood; but he did not say anything although he had actually attained the third stage of Sainthood. He kept silent because he had resolved not to talk about his attainment until he had attained Arahanthood. But he passed away without attaining Arahanthood, and also without saying anything about his attainment.
His pupils thought that their teacher had passed away without attaining Sainthood and they felt sorry for him. They asked the Buddha where their teacher was reborn. He replied, 'Bhikkhus! Your teacher, who was an Anagami before he passed away, is now reborn in the abodes of the Brahmas (Suddhavasa Brahmaloka). He did not reveal his attainment because he felt ashamed that he had achieved only that much. He was ardently striving to attain Arahanthood. Your teacher is now freed from attachment to the sensual world (kamaloka).
The English translations of these different planes are a bit difficult to comprehend without a proper explanation of each. FYI... Some of them are... ...of the gods that have Gone to Bliss......of the Contented gods...of the gods that Delight in Creating... of the gods that Wield Power over others' Creations... of the gods of Brahma's Retinue... of the Radiant gods... of the gods of Limited Radiance... of the gods of Measureless Radiance... of the gods of Streaming Radiance... of the Glorious gods... of the gods of Limited Glory... of the gods of Measureless Glory... of the gods of Refulgent Glory... of the Very Fruitful gods... of the gods Bathed in their own Prosperity... of the Untormenting gods... of the Fair-to-see gods... of the Fair-seeing gods... of the gods who are Junior to None... of the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of space...of the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of consciousness... of the gods of the base consisting of nothingness...

Thank you, It is hard to find direct sources in buddhism about minor topics like this.


text:
The Bodhisattva ideal in practice (and its relation to the Arhat ideal)
I have questions about the Bodhisattva ideal, based on the 37 practices of the Bodhisattva. I’m also curious about how this practice is for one with the aspiration of becoming an Arhat.
The general Bodhisattva ideal seems to be that you are supposed to have compassion and take everything upon you no matter what happens. But isn’t this sometimes going to make things worse – for everyone - the perpetrator included?
And I wonder if you people have any reflections on how this is for someone with the aspiration to become an Arhat? Is s/he equally supposed to have compassion and take everything upon him/her self – no matter what happens?
What are the differences and similarities here between the two?
Some background
In “the 37 practices of the Bodhisattva” there are some passages about how a Bodhisattva reacts to different situations. Some situations described are quite extreme, and too much for someone on my level! But many of them are such that I try to practice them, and here is an example (verse 15):

“Though someone may deride and speak bad words About you in a public
  gathering, Looking on her as a spiritual teacher, Bow to her with
  respect— This is the practice of Bodhisattvas.”

This is a situation I come upon very often at work. We have had some big problems with calumny, people saying bad things about each other. I find it quite difficult to see someone doing this as “a spiritual teacher”. But, more disturbingly, I think it might be counterproductive. If a person keeps saying bad things about the others, and we all look upon that person as “a spiritual teacher”, how is the situation going to get better?
Violence is another example. If a woman is about to be raped, is she not going to fight back? Is she supposed to take the misdeed upon herself? How is not fighting back going to make the situation better? Isn't this just going to produce more rapists? I’m thinking here about verse 13:

Even if someone tries to cut off your head When you haven’t done the
  slightest thing wrong, Out of compassion take all her misdeeds Upon
  yourself— This is the practice of Bodhisattvas.

So I think the questions are asking, a) Doesn't following a Bodhisattva ideal of "accepting" someone else's (bad) behaviour make the consequences of their behaviour worse for everyone? b) How is the Arhat ideal compared with (the same as and/or different from) the Bodhisattva ideal?

a) Yes, it seems to me that most people are not Buddhist, at lest not where I live, and hence they would see a Bodhisattva's actions as a kind of encouragement to continue their behaviour. b) Yes

"37 practices of a Bodhisatta" is a Mahayana teaching. 'Arahant' is a Theravada term. Better to compare it with the Theravada concept of the Bodhisatta described in the Buddhavamsa

The essential aspiration of a bodhisattva is bodhicitta, the vow or intention to achieve enlightenment out of compassion for all those suffering in samsara, which contrary to popular perception does not necessarily imply being reborn until all beings in samsara achieve enlightenment, since the Buddha, who was clearly a bodhisattva, is not (and cannot be) reborn, but he did live many many lives before achieving Buddhahood. The difference between a stream entrant, who seeks arhantship, and a bodhisattva is that a stream entrant seeks enlightenment for himself and seeks to achieve emancipation as soon as possible, thus freeing himself from the bondage of samsara quickly. The Buddha taught that it is possible to do this in not less than seven days and not more than seven rebirths, but the Pali Canon records instances of attainment of arhantship in as short a time as five days. Arhantship has the net effect of reducing dharma in samsara, since the arhants are not reborn, reducing the overall quantum of dharma, whereas bodhisattvas are reborn many many times - perhaps infinite numbers of times potentially but not necessarily - thus increasing the quantum of dharma in samsara. Thus, the arhant ideal leads to degeneration (entropy) whereas the bodhisattva ideal leads to evolution (negentropy).


text:
Meaning of "Body is emptiness, emptiness is body"
In the Heart Sutra, Avalokiteshvara says to Sariputra

this Body itself is Emptiness and Emptiness itself is this Body. This
  Body is not other than Emptiness and Emptiness is not other than this
  Body. (translation by Thich Nhat Hanh)

What does it mean to say that Body itself is Emptiness and Emptiness itself is this Body?

it's "rupa" not "kaya", "form" not "body"

Yes, I'v always seen the formulation "form". But the translation I found now, was like that. And Thich Nhat Hanh had some arguments for that translation. I found it strange, too. See link http://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/

Rupa is a tricky word.  It does mean form ("matter", "stuff", etc.), but here it is used in the context of the five aggregates.  It does kinda make sense to render it as "body".  But the form/emptiness reconciliation does apply to more than just one's physical body.

And remember, the heart sutra is trying to disrupt ideas of personhood.  With that in mind, to translate it as "body" does make a bit more sense.

According to that link, Thay rewrote the sutta itself "because the patriarch who originally compiled the Heart Sutra was not sufficiently skilful enough with his use of language". And he quotes something akin to this (Zen) story.

See also What is the difference between non-self and emptiness? and What is the precise meaning of anatta?

In my understanding, this basically speaks to the following Buddha's expression (SN 22.90):

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination ... as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" ... does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation ... as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" ... does not occur to one. ... "Everything exists": That is one extreme. "Everything doesn't exist": That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle.

The way an untrained run-off-the-mill person sees things and talks about things, is that anything, any object or phenomena - be that physical or social or economical etc. - either exists or it does not exist. Everything is very cut and dry. But in a wise one's perspective, things are not so simple, not so flat. The wise one sees infinite nuances. This is why the wise one avoids taking extreme simplistic positions about things being or not being a certain way.
Any form - meaning any object of our attention and discussion - is necessarily an abstraction, a subset, a vast simplification of reality. To assume that it actually "exists" would be to commit (succumb to?) the reification fallacy. Instead, a form is a phantom, a fiction, a conceptual overlay. Therefore a form is empty of existence in-and-off-itself. Form is empty. That includes any and all dharmas (phenomena, objects of mind) that some of the late Abhidharmists mistakenly reified. Like the five skandhas (the form/body, feelings etc). Or the Five Great Elements. Or the dharmas. Or even Nirvana itself. From Madhyamaka perspective, these are all abstractions, simplifications, generalizations.
At the same time, to say that things don't really exist - would be to fall into another extreme. Even though form is empty, we appreciate it for its explanatory value. The way we delineate the world into forms, into discrete phenomena, is not entirely arbitrary. It came from our real experience dealing with real things. So the forms we experience, however subjective, conventional, faulty, and incomplete, are rooted in the real nature. The forms do exist, at least in our subjective experience. They only exist as conceptual overlays, but these overlays themselves are not non-existent as overlays. Just like rainbow - there is no actual arch-shaped object in the sky, but you can't say that rainbow does not exist. It exists as a phenomenon. And that phenomenon - however illusory - has its basis in reality, in how things work. This is the "Emptiness is Form" part.
Some of the practical implications of "form is emptiness", is that we no longer get hung up on any one truth, any one method, any philosophical position. We see that they are all ultimately false. On the other hand, because "emptiness is form", we do realize that our choices have effects, and these effects often fruit as experience, and this experience will be rather very real for someone experiencing it! This realization of form-is-emptiness as the ultimate truth is known as the root of prajna or (special) wisdom. And this realization of emptiness-is-form as undeniable reality of experience or the conventional truth, is known as the root of maha-karuna or great (enlightened) compassion.
So at the end of the day we get very practical. Given that form is emptiness and emptiness is form, we do the best thing possible using the best tool for the job. If we need to cut through we cut through, if we need to skip over, we skip over. We don't get stuck beating our head on the wall.

This answers not only my question above, but many of my other questions too. Thanks for your time and effort, it's helpful for a better understanding and also in my daily life

Excellent answer. I would only want to quibble with this - "the practical implication of  "form is emptiness", is that we no longer get hung up on any one truth, any one method, any philosophical position." But this IS a philosophical position, viz. the position required for the Buddha's teachings to be true.

Short answer - It is a description of the enlightened state of mind.  It is an experience, not a concept.  Asking for it's meaning is akin to asking for the meaning of an orgasm.
Long answer - I think where a lot of people run into problems is that they try to read the Mahayana canon like the Theravada canon.  This doesn't often work as they can be very different in their approach.  The Pali sutras are usually pretty prescriptive.  They are most often read as a "how-to" guide for practice.  Even when they are being descriptive or go into some sort of philosophical idea, they are generally pretty literal in their treatment.  While you also find examples of this in the Mahayana canon, there is also quite a bit of poetic language the purpose of which is to describe in abstract or metaphorical terms some instance of enlightened phenomenology (the Diamond Sutra being probably one of the best examples of this).  These are road maps and personal accounts from the journey to enlightenment.  Trying to tease out some sort of philosophical meaning from these sutras would like using someone's description of a barking dog as the basis for canine behavior.  There's no point in it.  Any exegesis or anything deduced would be wholly meaningless and off point.
While the Heart Sutra uses Buddhist philosophical terms like form and emptiness, this sutra is not something we are supposed to understand intellectually.  It's actually a sign post - something by which we can measure our progress.  It lets us know we are moving in the right direction.  The Heart Sutra is a way station, in linguistic form, where people on this journey can share a beer and trade stories.  Only after reaching that destination do we understand the point it's trying the convey.
Even longer answer - We know what form is.  Knock, knock on wood, right?  We all experience that pretty easily.  Emptiness is also something to be experienced.  It's not just a philosophical idea.  That's a little more subtle, but I hope that makes sense.  What the Heart Sutra is getting at is the experience where the distinction between form and emptiness dissolves.

I think thats a strange answer. An orgasm is not like an enlightened state, is it? Besides, the meaning of an orgasm is pretty obvious - at least from an evolutionary point of view

To give you another example - it's like asking what the meaning of the experience of beauty is.  Or the meaning of the experience of joy.  There is no inherent "meaning" to any of these things unless we apply our discursive mind to them ex post facto.

-1: There's a lot that can be explained here. At the very least, both about what "body" means, and what "empty" means.

I'd have to disagree.  To ask what form is would be one question, what emptiness is would be another question, but the two of them together - as per this question - is something entirely different.

@ThiagoSilva "Two things equal to the same thing are not always equal to each other." Or, Blake: "A Riddle, or a cricket's cry, is to Doubt a fit reply." I agree with the 'signpost' idea in this answer, that if you are arguing the meaning of the Heart Sutra, versus nodding your head, those show where you are. It is sufficiently subtle that it would be hard to nod to without real insight. Hard to 'think' you get it when you do not.

What if there are infinite explanations and meanings. Can also mean the 4 noble truth as follows:-
"emptiness is body" means "whatever results from meditation, habits, learning or karma" is "body" (some prefer to use mind", others prefer to use "form" which is "sufferings").
Body is emptiness means "whatever concrete things we see, touches, hear etc." is "habits, karma, meditation etc." Suggesting there is cause to these sufferings.
Further "emptiness is none other than body" and "Body is none other than emptiness".
These last 2 verses thus means that liberation is possible and training towards liberation from suffering is possible.
Imagine "Emptiness is emptiness, body is body"....means there will no liberation .. if not for the last 2 verses

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


text:
Beings with no Physical appearance?
I have heard about the beings called Brahma who do not have a Physical appearance.But they have different names. How does the identity factor come into this scenario.
Is there some Suttas or texts explaining their lives?

Brahma in the rupa-loka have physical appearances. Brahma Sahampati resides in this in a rupa-loka.
In arupa-loka you have no physical form and only one sense faculty which is the mind hence you might not know who else is around you in which case you may not need a name. But also it might be possible for you know though psychic abilities in which can you can still identify others around you in which case you might need to use names. A name is just a label on a person (or animal) to identify or distinguish it from others. This is just my conjecture.
Aggañña Sutta and Kosala Sutta 1 deals with this subject matter but there is no reference to names. Also see: Gods and the Universe in Buddhist Perspective: Essays on Buddhist Cosmology and related subjects by Francis Story


text:
Ābhassara Brahma World for anyone?
According to Buddhism someone who reach a higher level of Meditation (Samadhi) would be born in the Brahma realm.
These beings are not sexually attracted to female gender (They don't have a female gender), They are with or without a Physical appearance.
But when Buddhism describe the destruction of a universe it says that beings from almost all the realms are born in this "Ābhassara World" which is a Brahma world.

But how does such a birth happen to any creature when they haven't reached a higher state of mind?

When other lower realms collapse the inhabitants are push to the existing realms of which Ābhassara World is one last standing, hence nearly every one in a collapsing universe ends up in this plane in the universe with an exception of a few who might be thrown into parallel universes 10,000 world system away.
But also if you cling on to false view then there is a high chance you might be born in another parallel universe, 10,000 world systems away (I would presume a cluster of world system collapse together), which is sustaining life other planes including (other planes exist only in 1 of the 4 phases in cycles of the universe.) but not conducive for a Buddha to appear. This might be either Abhi Dhamma or in later canonical works as I cannot find in any of the translations I have checked which are mostly suttas. Apannaka Sutta does mention wrong views lead to hell though.
Aggañña Sutta and Kosala Sutta 1 deals with this subject matter. Also see: Gods and the Universe in Buddhist Perspective: Essays on Buddhist Cosmology and related subjects by Francis Story, The Buddhist Concept of World Bhikkhu T. Seelananda, Parallel universes by Piya Tan

Many years ago I heard a dhamma talk about the contracting universe and recall the person saying that beings are either born in the formless worlds or born with consciousness bound to the heat element (an infinitesimal painful experience). Can't recall the source.


text:
Qi gong and shamata
My teacher says that the Buddha said there are four ways to practice Shamata; sitting, walking, standing and lying down. Which one of these produces best are the most effective in you experience?
I also practice Qi Gong every day. Is it an idea to combine (simple) Qi Gong with Shamata? Does anyone have any experience?

I have experience combining a Korean variety of Qi Gong with (Korean Zen)  meditation.
To me, they are both helpful. Qi Gong is basically kayagata-sati in action. As such, it helps you reconnect with your psychosomatic continuum, and through that with your subconscious, and then you can untie the old knots. It also helps with calm abiding (samatha) - it has an overall good conditioning effect.
The risk with Qi Gong IMHO is to objectify it and assume that it is Qi Gong itself that helps. It's not. What helps is attention to the psychosomatic continuum, kayagata-sati. Qi Gong is just a way to focus attention by amplifying the somatic experiences. Another risk is to miss the subtleties if your movements are too coarse.
What's nice about sitting meditation, even though it takes longer, it gets you very deep. Because you are very quiet, your noise level drops - and as a result you can see very subtle things. You also get all kinds of useful side-effects, like the chance to laundry your old memories.
Not sure about walking and lying meditation. We did walking meditation in the Zen temple, in the breaks between sitting. It works well as a supplement to sitting, but can't really stand on its own IMHO. I also tried slow motion meditation - that gets more interesting, but then it almost becomes Qi Gong.
Lying meditation has always been a problem for me. I get too relaxed and fall asleep. If you have good eyesight, I heard there is lying meditation with cloud-gazing or stars-gazing. That should keep one from falling asleep. No first-hand experience with these though.
Overall, I would do both Qi Gong and sitting meditation, as long as Qi Gong is 100% improvisation (no fixed form like in Tai Chi) and the movements are very gentle.

For samatha, there is absolutely no substitute for sitting meditation.  The other forms of practicing it are simply less than ideal alternatives for when you are unable to sit whether from physical exhaustion, pain, or for some other reason.
Just think about the body-mind relationship in each form of practice.  In walking meditation, while the body is upright and invigorated, the mind has to engage itself with things like balance, physical obstacles, and the complexity of moving the body forward.  Consequently, less mental power is available to direct toward concentration.  A moving body is also a moving mind.  Deep absorption requires a stable, single point of concentration.  You simply can't cultivate that kind of attention when walking.  Lastly - and this is important - there is an obvious limit to how far the mind can settle.  The motion of the body stirs it up.
Conversely, when we lie down, we are actually too relaxed.  A reclining body encourages a reclining mind.  It is entirely too easy to fall into sloth and torpor in this position.  Personally, I would actually say that lying down is less advantageous to samatha than walking meditation but others may have a different experience.
Sitting meditation - specifically sitting upright on a cushion...not with your back against something - is really the ideal.  Your body is stable, stationary, and somewhat relaxed.  At the same time, your sitting position encourages your mind to be upright and invigorated.  The mind is likewise stable and doesn't have to involve itself in much beyond your object of concentration.  Attention can also be applied to a single, unmoving point of concentration.  Finally, the mind can also settle almost limitlessly.
As per qi gong - and this really should be a separate question - just apply the same standards!  Qi gong is entirely too complicated to allow the mind to settle in the ways necessary to access jhana.  While concentration is required for the effective movement of qi, you simply can't become fully absorbed in something that is moving around.  Likewise, any movement of the body disturbs concentration in very obvious ways (in fact, that is one of the main reasons why it's best not stir during seated meditation).  While it is possible to practice qi gong in a still, standing, sitting, or lying position, many forms, at the very least, require the arms to be held in various upright positions.  All of these reasons make it less effective than sitting meditation.
However.  If you want to practice qi gong before seated meditation, I say go for it.  It will help you hit the ground running.  Well, hit the cushion concentrating might be a better way of putting it.  ;-)

Your answer confirms my own experience. I asked because I think we get sometimes strange advice in class. Thanks, I'll do the Qi Gong before sitting.