text:
Describe all the Jhanas in everyday language
Could you describe to me what all the Jhanas mean in everyday language because I couldnt understand it by reading the sutras. I couldn't understand what they meant by reading the sutras describing them like neither perception nor non perception and nothingness and I didnt understand the others either so could  you tell me the meaning of all the Jhanas so I can understand what they actually mean.
Also in Buddhism conciousnesss arises dependently so how is it possible for there to infinite conciousness when conciousness arises dependently.
Thanks

I recommend this book: Ajahn Brahm: The Jhanas; where a description of each form jhana & each formless sphere should be summarised, somewhere. Ajahn Brahm's description of vitakka & vicara as the "Jhana Wobble" is very helpful for discerning the difference between true jhana and the fake jhana often declared on Buddhist chatsites by shameless egotists.
In the sphere of infinite consciousness, the mind perceives infinite consciousness as the salient/ primary experience of the meditation. Also, the physical body continues to exist, even though the physical body is not experienced. Therefore, in the sphere of infinite consciousness, the other aggregates, such as perception, feeling & physicality (plus the subtle intention to remain in that meditation experience), continue to exist & dependently support consciousness.
Related to this, MN 43 describes the 9th stage called "cessation of perception & feeling". Here, consciousness ceases to operate because there is no perception, no feeling or any other sense object to support the maintenance of consciousness. However, note, the life force of the physical body continues to remain alive.
In the suttas, each jhana & sphere is described with the salient/primary experiences of that jhana & sphere; even though other phenomena may be experienced or may be functioning. MN 111 is a sutta offering a more detailed description of each jhana & sphere.

Reply to comments:
Each consecutive jhana & sphere represents a refining of the mind and the objects in the mind.
The feelings of rapture, happiness & equanimity of the four jhanas are based on bodily feelings arising in the physical body that has been profoundly relaxed & purified (even though the body itself, including the subtle breathing, is not experienced in jhana). This is probably why the four jhanas are called "rupa (form, material) jhana".
In the arupa spheres, only mental feelings & mental phenomena are experienced. However, as said, each arupa jhana is a refinement of the salient object perceived/experienced. Thus, in the sphere of infinite consciousness, the mind perceives or classifies that experience as 'infinite consciousness'. But as the mind continues to refine, that PERCEPTION "INFINITE CONSCIOUSNESS" ceases. Since there is no salient object left to PERCEIVE, the mind perceives "there is nothing". Then when this PERCEPTION "there is nothing" also ceases, the perceptual framework of the mind starts to breakdown before entirely ceasing. This breaking down of perception, where something akin to perception is occurring & non-occurring is the sphere of neither-perception nor non-perception.
What is important to understand here is perception & its dependent objects are refining, becoming more & more subtle, until there are no more objects to perceive. When there are no objects to perceive, perception & consciousness must cease (even though the physical body remains alive, as described in MN 43).

From Ajahn Brahm:

THE MIND-BASE OF UN-LIMITED CONSCIOUSNESS
Within the perception of unlimited space lies the perception of
  no-space, of space losing its meaning. When the mind attends to this
  feature within the First Immaterial Attainment, space disappears and
  is replaced by perception of absolute one-pointedness of
  consciousness. As indicated above by the common experience of
  one-pointedness of time, in the state that perceives one-pointedness
  of consciousness, consciousness simultaneously feels infinite and
  empty, immeasurable and undefined. One has entered the second
  Immaterial Attainment of the mind-base of unlimited consciousness.
  This is the perception that fills the mind completely and persists
  without wavering for even longer periods of time.
  THE MIND-BASE OF NOTHINGNESS

Within the perception of unlimited consciousness lies the perception
  of no-consciousness, of consciousness now losing it meaning as well.
  When the mind focuses on this feature within the Second Immaterial
  Attainment, all perception of consciousness disappears. Perceptions of
  material form and space have already disappeared, and so all that one
  is left with is the one-pointedness of nothingness. One has entered
  the Third Immaterial Attainment of the mind-base of nothingness. This
  is the concept that fills the mind totally, persisting unchanging for
  yet longer periods of time.
  THE MIND-BASE OF NEITHER PERCEPTION NOR NON-PERCEPTION

Within the perception of nothingness lies the perception of not even
  nothing! If the mind is subtle enough to see this feature" then the
  perception of nothingness disappears and is replaced by the perception
  of neither perception nor no perception. All that one can say about
  this Fourth Immaterial Attainment is that it is, in fact, a perception
  (AN 9's, 42). In the simile of the thousand petalled lotus, this state
  is represented by the 1,000th layer of petals, still dosed, with all
  the 999 other layers of petals fully open. The l000th petal is almost
  a non-petal, being the most subtle and sublime of all. For it clasps
  within its gossamer fabric the famous "Jewel in the heart of the
  lotus," Nibbana.

Note: Ajahn Brahm's idea about Nibbana often appear questionable.

Thank you Dhammadhatu that was exactly the answer I wanted from my infinite conciousness question and I would be happy if I could get an answer about nothingness,netiher perception nor non perception and infinite space

Also I will start reading the book you mentioned in the meantime

Hi DD! Do you know what is "cognized" in the state of infinite consciousness? This consciousness is consciousness of what, exactly? Kind regards!

How do I know? It is written in the suttas. What is "cognised" is "infinite consciousness". It is consciousness of consciousness. Regards

Thanks! I didn't ask how you know that, by the way. I'm just curious about the seemingly contradictory idea of being conscious about consciousness. Wouldn't that imply that one can also be conscious of being conscious of consciousness, and like that ad-infinitum? Kind regards!

Thanks for the link to Jhana Wobble. That definitiely helped my understanding. :

Jhana:

Rupa

You initially bring your mind to an object and sustainably kept your mind on it by checking and steading your mind on it.
After a while, your mind stays on the object without having to mentally trying to keep the mind focused on the object.
When in 2 you feel gushingly pleasant currents in one's body. One with intention tries to stop it. When it subsides you are in the 3rd Jhana.
There will be subtle perturbations in one's body. With intention when one stops this one is in the 4th Jhana.

Also, the following extract describes the Jhana:

Rupa Jhanas

"There is the case where a monk -- quite secluded from sense desires, secluded from unwholesome states of mind -- enters and remains in the first Jhana which is with initial and sustained thinking and is filled with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. He drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses his body with this rapture and happiness so that there is no part of his entire body not suffused with rapture and happiness.

"Just as if a skilled bath attendent or his apprentice would pour soap powder into a metal basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that the ball of soap powder would be filled with mostiure, encompassed by mostiure, pervaded by mosture inside and out, yet would not drip; even so, the monk drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses his body with the rapture and happiness born of seclusion so that there is no part of his entire body not suffused with rapture and happiness.

"Further, with the stilling of initial and sustained thinking, by gaining inner tranquillity and unification of mind, he enters and remains in the second Jhana which is free from initial and sustained thinking and is filled with rapture and happiness born of concentration. He drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses his body with this rapture and happiness so that there is no part of his entire body not suffused with rapture and happiness.

"Just like a lake with spring-water welling up from below, having no inflow from east, west, north, or south, and with the skies [not?] periodically supplying it with rain, so that the cool spring-water welling up from below would permeate and pervade, suffuse and fill that lake with cool water, there being no part of the lake not suffused with cool water; even so, the monk drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses his body with the rapture and happiness born of concentration so that there is no part of his entire body not suffused with rapture and happiness.

"Further, with the fading away of rapture, remaining imperturbable, mindful, and clearly aware, he enters the third jhana and experiences within himself the joy of which the Noble Ones declare, "Happy is he who dwells with equanimity and mindfulness." He drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses his body with this happiness free from rapture so that there is no part of his entire body not suffused with happiness.

"Just as in a blue-, white-, or red-lotus pond, there may be some of the lotuses which, born and growing in the water, stay immersed in the water and flourish without standing up out of the water, so that they are permeated and pervaded, suffused and filled with cool water from their roots to their tips so that no part of those lotuses is not suffused with cool water; even so, the monk drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses his body with this happiness free from rapture so that there is no part of his entire body not suffused with happiness.

"Further, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of joy and sorrow -- he enters and remains in the fourth Jhana which is beyond pleasure and pain; and purified by equanimity and mindfulness. He sits, suffusing his body with a pure, bright awareness, so that there is nothing of his entire body not suffused by pure, bright awareness.

"Just as if a man were sitting wrapped from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, suffusing his body with a pure, bright awareness so that there is no part of his entire body not suffused by pure, bright awareness."
Anguttara Nikaya 5.28
Arupa Jhanas

"With the complete transcending of bodily sensations, with the disappearance of all sense of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, thinking, 'space is infinite,' one enters and remains in the Sphere of Infinite Space.
"With the complete transcending of the Sphere of Infinite Space, thinking, 'consciousness is infinite,' one enters and remains in the Sphere of Infinite Consciousness.
"With the complete transcending of the Sphere of Infinite Consciousness, thinking, 'There is no-thing,' one enters and remains in the Sphere of No-thingness.
"With the complete transcending of the Sphere of No-thingness, one enters and remains in the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-perception."

Digha Nikaya 15

Not technically Jhana, but Upacāra-samādhi (aka access, threshold, neighborhood, or proximate concentration) is considered near or pre- Jhana. The attention stays noticeably more focused on the object without having to force it. Stray thoughts may still occur but are much less intrusive. It becomes pleasurable rather than feeling like "work" to meditate. Some people begin to feel energetic bodily sensations like tingling, flushing etc, and there may be a change in visual field such as some glowing or light appearing.

Jhana 1 still purposefully placing and keeping the mind on the object, dominated by sustained pervasive happy feeling, with contentment in the background
Jhana 2 mind/attention stays with object of its own accord without being distracted, happiness and contentment are more balanced with a pervading sense of tranquility
Jhana 3 energetic happiness fades leaving just mainly a sense of contentment- but not in a dull sleepy way- one is still mindful and quite clearly aware
Jhana 4 Primarily abiding in Pure awareness in which joy and sorrow do not arise, any pain or pleasurable sensation that occur are not felt as affecting oneself. One is still quite mindful

The following often expeditiously referred to as Jhana 4-8 but not technically accurate.

Sphere of Infinite Space- bodily sensations are transcended- there is only a sense of the consciousness/awareness being located within or moving through infinite space
Sphere of Infinite Consciousness- sensing consciousness pervade the infinite space one previously sensed
Sphere of No-Thingness- ?
Sphere of neither perception nor non-perception- ?

Answer to the following question Jhana Explaination. I have answered it here as this is marked as a duplicate of the above question:
Question:

Can someone please SIMPLY explain the EIGHT Jhanas, specifically:

1) What are Jhanas meant to do & why would one want to achieve them?
2) How does one specifically achieve them (instructions please)?
3) What happens in each individual Jhana, from the first to the eighth?
4) How can I explain the Jhanas to a newcomer of the Dhamma?

Answer:

OP: 1) What are Jhanas meant to do & why would one want to achieve them?

Jhana factors contract each of the 5 Hindrances:

Coarse examination (vitakka) counteracts sloth-torpor (lethargy and drowsiness)
Precise investigation (vicāra) counteracts doubt (uncertainty)
Well-being (pīti) counteracts ill-will (malice)
Bliss (sukha) counteracts restlessness-worry (excitation and anxiety)
Single-pointed attention (ekaggatā) counteracts sensory desire

Five hindrances
Jhana suppresses mental fermentation (Āsava)

With the ending of mental fermentations — he remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having directly known & realized them for himself right in the here-&-now.

AN 4.35

Also, Jhana gives mastery over the mind so that one does not think about thoughts one does not want, essentially what are unskilful.

He thinks any thought he wants to think, and doesn't think any thought he doesn't want to think. He wills any resolve he wants to will, and doesn't will any resolve he doesn't want to will. He has attained mastery of the mind with regard to the pathways of thought.

AN 4.35

Jhana is also meant as a pleasant abiding.

He attains — whenever he wants, without strain, without difficulty — the four jhanas that are heightened mental states, pleasant abidings in the here-&-now.

AN 4.35

One would want to achieve them to suppress Hindrances, Mental Fermentation and achieve mastery over the mind. Another side benefit might be special power like iddhi and abhiññā. But this rarely manifests.

OP: 2) How does one specifically achieve them (instructions please)?

See this answer.

OP: 3) What happens in each individual Jhana, from the first to the eighth?

What happen beyond the 1st few Jhana is fuzzy as fewer people has reached them and there are less descriptions of them.
1st Jhana
5 Hindrances are suppressed.

Coarse examination (vitakka) counteracts sloth-torpor (lethargy and drowsiness)
Precise investigation (vicāra) counteracts doubt (uncertainty)
Well-being (pīti) counteracts ill-will (malice)
Bliss (sukha) counteracts restlessness-worry (excitation and anxiety)
Single-pointed attention (ekaggatā) counteracts sensory desire

Well-being (pīti) and Bliss (sukha) creates a pleasant abiding
2nd Jhana
Dropping initial application and sustained application (Vitarka-vicara) reduces the effort to stay in the Jhana. Well-being (pīti) and Bliss (sukha) becomes prominent.
3rd Jhana
As Well-being (pīti) is dropped strong vibration and swaying of the body stops. Bliss (sukha) becomes prominent which is a much more subtle vibration.
4rd Jhana
Hardly any vibrations as Bliss (sukha) has been dropped. Pleasure and pain does not arise. What remains is the focused on the object.
From the 5th Jhana onwards
5th Jhana
One transcends the perceptions of form and bodily sensations, with the disappearance the perceptions of sense-reaction, with non-attention to perceptions of diversity, aware that “Space is infinite,”
6th Jhana
One transcends the sphere of infinite space, aware that “Consciousness is infinite,”
7th Jhana
One enters and dwells in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
8th Jhana
One transcends the sphere of nothingness, one enters and dwells in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception

OP: 4) How can I explain the Jhanas to a newcomer of the Dhamma?

This is found in this answer.

Note, formless attainments (where awareness of the body totally disappears) are not attributes of the four jhanas.
In ordinary terms, relatable to ordinary experience:
You relax deeply and thoroughly the mind and body.
The body is close to a sleep state, as if you wanted to move any body part, it has a delayed response.
The mind is relaxed, but is alert, not sleepy. That's the hard part for people to learn. They usually only know 2 extremes, dull/sleepy or overhyped, jumping around like a wild monkey from random thought to the next.


text:
Is everything about the world the 6 sense objects
I read that the world is only our 6 sense object that we percieve with our 6 sense doors, does this mean that Buddhism says that everything is mindmade and there is nothing really out there or I may be wrong so I would be glad to hear from you.

Look for yourseft if something is found beyond the 6 senses.

In my understanding, the suttas tell us that everything that can be cognized, it is cognized through our six sense-doors. The senses work conjoined with sensory stimuli and consciousness of each sense door, which arises only after the impingement between a stimuli with the sense-organ; the interaction between this three conditions is called "contact".
If one were to posit that something can be known outside of what our six senses offer to the mind, that would be inconsistent with our capacity to know the world.
From the above, we cannot conclude that "everything is mind-made", but only that we feel and get "our" information through "our" senses. Now, if you want to know where does this sensory data come from, I would argue that such answer is out of reach, beyond our ability of knowledge. The very question of "how can we feel what lies beyond our feelings" becomes contradictory, as far as I can tell.
We can only be conscious about what we perceive; and we perceive only what we feel through our sense-doors (including the mind as the six sense-door).
In my opinion, this is why the Buddha equates the senses to "the world", because in practice we can only speak and reflect about what our senses are able to tell us. Anything beyond them might fall under the realm of speculation and fantasy.
Kind regards!

Anything beyond them might fall under the realm of speculation and fantasy. So is/does it, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

People may be a bit uncomfortable with the characterization, but, really, it's no different in physics.  Ultimately, we have a model of how things work, but no way to step outside of our sense-based observations and see if we're "really correct".  The further you get down into quantum phenomena the more it becomes obvious that this is true.  I'll add a caveat that when your model predicts, correctly, a previously unobserved phenomenon, it's a pretty strong argument for the existence of an objective "out there".  But to know?  Really, I don't think we have that capability, even in theory.

Since 5 of the 6 sense objects are not mind-made, obviously the world is not mind-made.

The world as we know it is from our senses. If we have not sensed something it is not there in our world. Before the microscope, there was no notion of microbes. When the way to sense it came about this expanded the knowledge of the world. For any being what he knows is the world.
This does not mean the world is mind-made. Our model of the known world is in our mind conditioned by our sense experiences.

World can even be abounded, disappears, is no more matter, right?

It is not said anywhere in the teachings of Buddha that the world is the 6 sense doors. What is said is that we encounter the world, we sense the world, we come in contact with the world, through the 6 sense doors.
Furthermore, since we have 6 sense doors through which we come in contact with the world, we cannot say precisely what the world is. And we cannot say that there is no world, for there is contact happening and because of this contact, phenomenon is encountered. To make assetions about the world, given that our encounter with the world is through 6 sense doors will be insufficient. To assert that there is no world would be incorrect because we know thorugh 6 sense doors there is a world.
To anyone who says everything is in the mind, pick up a stone and throw at them and then ask- "Was this in your mind as well?" (Please dont actually throw a stone at anyone, I am simply pararphrasing a very useful Zen story about the mind-only reality):P

The other answers mention sense-objects and sense-organs, and contact (and could also mention sense-consciousness) -- see also Ayatana (e.g. on Wikipedia), and the Sabba sutta ("The All").
Additionally:

The question ("is nothing really out there") could also be understood as implying that you're asking about the doctrine of emptiness or sunyata -- see e.g. the answers to What is the purpose of the Mahayana 'emptiness' doctrine? -- if only because that's translated as describing whether things have "real" existence.
I think that "names" are mind-made -- all words, like "horse" and "tree" and "Buddhism" and "John etc. etc.
There are "formations" or sankharas, I think those might be categorised as mind-made too -- e.g. if you'd ever associate a place with a person, with a smell, with a feeling.
I suppose that tendencies (anusaya and asava) might be called "mind-made" too -- see e.g. the answers to What is effluent?
Perhaps I should mention "wisdom" too, I'm not sure whether that's categorised as part of "everything about the world", nor even whether it's entirely categorised as "mind-made" (I think the Buddha is sometimes described as having "discovered" or "rediscovered" the Dhamma rather than as "inventing" it)

In summary Buddhism does see the mind as important -- and as trainable, and see e.g. the first couple of verses of the dhammapada -- but at least in this realm the mind tends to be conscious of (or to "sense") forms, sense-objects.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Where does one get basic notions of Buddhism when starting with Mahayana?
Maybe it's better to use an example. I believe one of the very first Mahayana sutras one is expected to learn is the Heart Sutra. But when you read it, you immediately see things like 'skandhas' and 'dharmas'. If you start with Pali Canon, you can basically find all about them in the Sutta Pitaka. But if you know nothing about Theravada, where in the Mahayana teachings do you find those basic notions? What will tell you about karma, dependent arising, dharmas, worlds structure and so on?

In Mahayana these kinds of things are learned from the encyclopedic compendiums summarizing the basic concepts by categories, known as "Mahayana Abhidharma" and its predecessor "Sarvastivada Abhidharma".
The main idea to understand here is how Mahayana emphasizes passing-on the intended meaning behind the scripture. So even though the original sutras were available in Mahayana in form of Agamas, the schools almost always preferred to study various summaries trying to organize the Dharma and distill it to its key principles. Lineage-specific commentaries then were used to "unpack" the meaning stored in the summaries and present it in form comprehensible to a contemporary student.
The tradition even has a poetic image for making these summaries. It's called "churning butter from the milk of Dharma". From Mahayana viewpoint the best butter was made just around time when Yogacara school was emerging from Sarvastivada, because that's when this kind of summarizing work was "in vogue", so many best minds spent lots of effort on doing this, resulting in texts some of which are still unsurpassed even to our days.
The exact texts vary by lineage, but the most popular evergreens are:

Abhidharma-samuccaya ("Compendium of Abhidharma") by Asanga
Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa with Abhidharmakośa-bhāsya (the autocommentary)

Also, one of my personal favorites - not so popular but in the same genre - is an early work called Tattvasiddhi Śāstra.
In the past, there were many other summary texts, like "Śāriputra Abhidharma Śāstra", "Abhidharma-hṛdaya-sastra", "Jnanaprasthana", "Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra" - but they all slowly fell out of active use, although many of them still exist in Chinese translations.
Anyway, back in the day when it was written, by the time someone would read the Heart Sutra, they would be very familiar with one or more of these works, so all the references to "Shariputra, the five skandhas are empty, and so are the six realms, and the four truths and so forth" - would make immediate sense, because they would speak exactly to the typical "bullet point" lists found in Abhidharma literature.

Thank you, Andrei. So it seems like in the end Mahayana relies on Abhidharma(s) of some pre-Mahayana schools, and also on some set of pre-Mahayana sutras, although not such vast one like in the Pali Canon? Those sources of pre-Mahayana origin are included partly or entirely into the Mahayana Canons, with some rich exegesis made by early Mahayana authors, right?

Yes, of course. It all traces back to the same source (the Buddha), after all.

I don't have any objections to that :) I'm just interested in origins of Mahayana and how organic its development was with respect to pre-Mahayana views. Your answer made me sure that studying the structure of the canons and exegetical traditions will shed even more light on this. Thank you again.

Yes. I think the roots of Mahayana grew from these abhidharmic attempts to enumerate and systematise all dharmas, as well as some early debates over Sarvastivada's notion that everything exists, contrasted against someone's understanding of Dependent Origination. Probably around 100BC, not far from the upper flows of the Indus river, is my guess.

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


text:
How do monks live with medical conditions that require regular meals?
Theravada monks are supposed to eat only one or two meals per day, only between dawn and noon. For the rest of the day, they can drink water or fruit juices. The exception to this rule is if they are temporarily ill.
But what about monks who have Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) or other chronic diseases, who may need to eat regularly every 4 hours or so, till usual dinner time?
Furthermore, people with GERD may not be able to consume acidic drinks (e.g. citrus fruit juices and tomato juice), especially on an empty stomach.
Also, consider that according to this article, up to 28% of Americans and up to 26% of Europeans, may be suffering from GERD. So, theoretically, this could affect 1 out of 4 monks.
How do they cope with this condition? Are they permanently exempted from this rule?

How do they cope with this condition?

By following a doctor's recommendation, presumably.
For arguments sake, we could apply a relativistic approach to the meaning of "coping". Buddhist practice can be and is a valid coping strategy in certain medical conditions, provided that a medical paradigm has ran out of answers (A strictly hypothetical example: certain conditions of chronic pain).

Are they permanently exempted from this rule?

One way to look at this is that buddhism is about making people function/feel better for the sake of themselves and their surrounding. If a dogmatic adherence to religious principles worsen a persons health, then it can't be considered kusala.
The exempt is likely permanent for as long as health conditions remains permanent. So, if conditions changes, perhaps a new take on buddhist practice could be relevant.

I was researching sanghas in san diego and came upon one that had rules for entering their monastic sangha community that voided the application of anyone who has health issues. Like if youre so specifically sick i doubt u could take monastic vows.


text:
What is the true meaning of Kaya Sankhara, Vaci Sankhara and Citta Sankhara
I am trying to find a right description of the word Sankhara in dependent origination which includes Kaya Sankhara, Vaci Sankhara and Citta Sankhara.
I have not been able to understand what they mean. Would you please help me understand what each of them mean.
When it is said volitional activities from what I have read I think that means something that is done by intention and free will in the present moment (even if we are not aware that we are doing it with intention and free will) Now I have heard that they are kamma in what sense do they mean that they are kamma? I have also heard that they are product of our past actions so that contradicts the notion that they are actions one does with free will (volitional) beacuse they are a result of our past not an intentional action in the present done with free will. Where does Kaya Sankhara or breathing in and out come with all of this? How can that be intentional action in the present or as in the other theory the result of past kamma. Is vaci Sankhara and Citta Sankhara product of our past kamma or is it something that we we are doing with free will and volition in the present moment that can be stopped beacuse it is all free will? Does the past decide our present Sankharas or is it all done by free will and intention in the present and that would mean that it is in our control.
You see I have many questions and I hope someone can clarify that for me. But the most important is to clearly understand what do Kaya Sankhara, Vaci Sankhara and Citta Sankhara really mean I have seen many different views and I am confused and therefor I would really want to know it to progress in my spiritual path.

This looks like a duplicate of How should the terms 'kaya, vaci & citta sankhara' be translated? however there aren't upvoted answer to that question so let's keep this question open in case someone can try again to answer it (but you might find some of those answers useful).

Sankara is conditioning which puts together or makes or forms something.

Kaya Sankhara - this what sustains keeps the body together hence the breath. If breathing stops the body falls apart.
Vaci Sankhara - this is what sustains the formations of verbal throughs. Before speech thoughts need to form, without them one cannot speak.
Citta Sankhara - this is what causes a mind to arise. Feeling and perceptions are what causes a mind to arise.

How this is relevant in meditation is given here.

The word 'sankhara' in D.O. is the only condition written in plural. What this means is it is expected the three 'sankharo' (kaya, vaci & citta) arise together.
Therefore, SN 12.51, which refers to meritorious, demeritorious & imperturbable formations cannot explain 'sankhara' because: (i) these three formations cannot arise together in a mind-moment & (ii) SN 12.51 literally says these three formations are "clinging".
Also, there are many suttas about "kamma" which refer to kaya, vaci & mano sankhara. Since they refer to "mano sankhara" (rather than "citta sankhara"), they are not about the core supramundane teaching of D.O. but merely worldly kamma teachings.
Kaya, vaci & citta sankhara are as described in MN 44. If you can meditate, you will understand their meaning in D.O. is the same as in MN 44.
For example, if you have samadhi but a very subtle ignorant outflow (asava) emerges from the mind, you will see the 1st thing that happens is the breathing becomes disturbed.
Similarly, when there are distracting thoughts, these are vaci sankhara. They do not arise from volition.
These distracting thoughts also contain perceptions & feelings, which are citta sankhara.
While ignorance can disturb the breathing (kaya sankharo) without the arising of vaci & citta sankharo, when the more common distracting thoughts (vaci sankharo) arise, all three sankharo must & will arise at the same time. This is why 'sankhara' is plural.
In summary, if the mind has samadhi, it can experience the most subtle arising from ignorance is these very subtle sankhara that are not related to volition.
These sankhara are the same as found in the Anapanasati Sutta. If you can meditate, you will be able to integrate the teachings of D.O and Anapanasati.

This answer is intended for you, but the OP cannot comment or chat yet. They might like you to edit your answer in response, to address those additional questions. I should probably delete that non-answer presently.

Householder, interested,
Kamma and the Ending of Kamma from "Wings of awakening, as well as Karma Q & A, generous provided, related to the goodness of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, will give ways for proper understanding that leads to liberation from suffering, if one is able to receive.
All a matter of the current development and tendency of the individual. All a matter of proper actions by body, signs and thoughts.
There will be always the greatest protection by giving and having given the required causes.
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits (puññābhisaṅkhāra) toward release from this wheel)

I lost the account I wrote from so I logged in to my account. If kaya,vaci,citta sankhara are not volitional and instead arises automatically without our will then are they result of past kamma? (didnt Buddha say intention is what I call kamma) When you said that these thoughts contains feelings and perceptions , do the thoughts after they arose dependently cause feelings and perceptions or do they arise together automatically and does perception arise before feeling or after it. What is the function of perception here is it the factor that activates the feeling (what is the function of perception and feeling here) or feeling activates perception, This is very subtle and I can see that my mind is doing something like this but I want to understand what kind of functions they have then I will be able to start meditating. If those 3 sankharas are automatic how are we able to stop them.Thank you Dhammadhatu and all for your answers they are really helpful for my practice.
when you wrote  SN 12.19 does this mean Samyutta Nikaya sutra number 12 and sutra number 19 or am I wrong.
I will try the anapanasati meditation.

sorry. I meant SN 12.51 rather than SN 12.19 https://suttacentral.net/sn12.51/en/bodhi

kaya,vaci,citta sankhara are results of ignorance or underlying tendencies. These underlying tendencies are two-fold: (i) in-born; and (ii) conditioned my past kamma. For example, fear, restlessness or sexual desire may arise without volition; not based on past kamma; and produce the SANKHARAS. These are in-born tendencies. But if you develop a "habit" via kamma, these will also arise without volition.

Sankhara is a spontaneous thought (vaci sankhara). For example, if the thought is: "I miss my dog", this thought naturally also includes feelings & perceptions, such as the feeling of pleasure & sadness when thinking about the dog you love. Also, at the same time, your breathing will change, when having sadness & love about missing your dog. Therefore, all three sankharo arise at the same time & are mutually dependent.

how to stop the underlying tendencies that developed as a "habit" via kamma?? Is there any difference between what you called Vaci sankhara or a spontaneously arising thought and what you call a underlying tendencie arising without volition such as a fear as you mentioned (a fear is a thought?) Also how is the underlying tendencies automatically arising after they are conditioned by kamma and becomes a "habit"  ??

I asked the question a bit more clear on my next post and if you have time I would be happy if you could answer it to because I have found all your posts helpful.

We experience pictures, sounds, smells, tastes, touch (which are all different types of rupa), and dhammā (things which we think about). These bodily actions are called kāya in Magadhi language. Sankhāra is “mental formations” that lead to Raga, Dvesha, Moha.  If you are to consider manō sankhāra, vaci sankhāra, and kāya sankhāra… thoughts that arise that are clouded and lead to Raga, Dvesha, Moha in a mind are called citta / manō sankhāra; when we consciously think about something, and speaking out that generates the three afflictions, it is called vaci sankhāra.
Kāya sankhāra is erroneously interpreted as “without the breath one cannot survive, & breath is intrinsically connected with the body – therefore the breath is kaya‐sankhara. This is an incorrect interpretation of the Magadhi language.
Sankhāra are really abhisankhāra as they lead to rebirth. An Arahant does not generate ‘san’.   S/he generates only ‘khāra’ Citta – thus ending the process of re-birth. We “add to” our rebirth process when we do “san“. The Magadhi word for “doing devoid of greed, hate, and ignorance” is “khāra”. The term “sammā“ comes from “san” + “mā“, which means “to become free of san - Moha (delusion, confusion), Raga (greed, sensual attachment), and Dvesha (aversion). Here “mā“, means “becomes free of the three afflictions”.
All kamma are done with sankhāra / abhisankhāra. Sankhāra are made with everything that we do that generates the three afflictions.  For example on any given day we have only “khāra” Citta, or thoughts devoid of the three afflictions. But at times we get a strong desire or impulse of the Raga, Dvesha type. At such moments you should know how to do ‘Anupassana’, to apply the Dhamma to subdue or silence such urges. Anupassana means “discard according to the principles learned”.  (“anu” means the present moment and “passana” means to get rid of).
When deeds are done with greed, hate, and ignorance, sankhāra are made [when one does anything with sancētana (“san” + “cētana”)]. An Arahant has stopped the “wheeling process” that form an attachment to what is seen, heard, etc. as it is that “wheeling process” that kicks in the Paticca Samuppāda. Such defiled “actions” done via the mind, speech, or the body lead to manō / citta sankhāra, vaci sankhāra, and kāya sankhāra.
Kammic energy is generated when one creates sankhāra by the “wheeling process”.  For example, when one sees an object, that is just khāra (Kriya) due to a kamma vipāka. However, if one then starts thinking about how good it is, or think about how to acquire it, then it becomes sankhāra. Here one now has intensions about that object, one is hoping to get something. That is why the Buddha said, “cētana ham Bhikkhave kamman vadami“, i.e., “I say that intention is kamma“.
Kamma (Actions to Prolong sansāra) is created due to kāya, Vaci, and manō / citta sankhāra. These happen due to our nature or ‘gati’. Those frames of mind or gati are closely associated with āsava (mental fermentations). To not allow āsava to take place, we have to be mindful of what kind of sankhāra arise in our minds. It is in the present moment, that we should not allow the to become an āsava.
(This is the jist of what you need to know. I am hard pressed for time, and this is all the time that I can spare on this.)

There are 2 sets of sankhara used in the suttas.
First set is kaya, vaci, citta, which is used in dependent origination suttas (MN44, SN12.2). This has to do with ignorance and craving.
Second set is kaya, vaci, mano (not citta), which is used in discussion on kamma (not link #2 of dependent origination). This has to do with intention. This set is used in MN57, SN12.25, AN4.171.
Please read the dependent origination essay below by Ven. Dhammavuddho. It will clarify your doubt.
https://www.vbgnet.org/Articles/Conditioned-Arising-of-Suffering-2018.pdf


text:
Any pantheist Buddhists?
I know a lot of the Kyoto school were / have been defined as being as panentheists: but were there any pantheist Buddhists? And, has any comparative religion scholar defined it as pantheism?

Incidentally, there are also atheist Buddhists

yeah i had heard of him! @Codosaur

I was not aware that any Buddhists were theists of any sort. But if they are it would have to be panentheism since Reality would transcend space and time.

A "pantheist Buddhist" would be a Hindu, specifically an Advaitin.

@user14119: As I see it Buddhism should be described as agnostic, specifically not in terms of being uncertain about deity/ies existing but as declaring the question irrelevant to highest spirituality and how to live. See the discussion of Pali versiin of the Brahmajala Sutra, 'Teacher Of The Devas' https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html wherein Buddha educates even Maha-Brahma on the history and nature of the cosmos.

Samuel Beal (1825-89), in his translation of the Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King (A Life of Buddha), has defined the Vaipulya stage of Northern Buddhism as a pure form of Pantheism:

Northern Buddhism, again, may be divided into two, if not three, distinct periods of development, or epochs.
...
Thirdly, the 'indefinitely expanded' form, known as Vaipulya, which is founded on the idea of a universal nature, to which all living things belong, and which, by recovering itself in each case, secures for the subject complete restoration to the one nature from which all living things have wandered. This is evidently a form of pure Pantheism, and denotes the period when the distinctive belief of Buddhism merged into later Brahmanism, if indeed it did not originate it.
Source: The Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King (A Life of Buddha)

The following Sutras are commonly defined as Vaipalya Sutras:

The nine Dharma Paryaya texts are otherwise named vaipulya sūtra, because vaipulya literary means 'extensive'. Nine Dharma Paryāyas are generally enumerated as follows:
Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra
Saddharma-puṇdarīka-sūtra
Lalitavistara-sūtra
Laṇkāvatāra-sūtra / Saddharma-Laṇkāvatāra-sūtra
Suvarṇa-prabhāsa-sūtra
Kāraṇḍyavyūha-sūtra / Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra
Tathāgataguhyka-sūtra / Tathāgataguṇa-jñāna-sūtra
Samādhirāja-sūtra
Daśabhūmīśvara-sūtra.
Source

According to the Dictionary Of Chinese Buddhist Terms:

Vaipulya is extension, spaciousness, widespread, and this is the idea expressed both in 廣 broad, widespread, as opposed to narrow, restricted, and in 等 levelled up, equal everywhere, universal. These terms suggest the broadening of the basis of Buddhism, as is found in Mahāyāna. The Vaipulya works are styled sutras, for the broad doctrine of universalism, very different from the traditional account of his discourses, is put into the mouth of the Buddha in wider, or universal aspect.

Yes, householder, the Buddha explained it to some of his monks who had been of Brahman origin. If remembering right, it is retold in Aggañña Sutta (DN27).
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

If I might ask, please don't attach labels to people without a particular purpose in mind. The OP may not consider h'erself a 'householder,' and may not even know what the term means (since it isn't commonly used in Buddhist circles). The label adds nothing to the discussion, and sows seeds of confusion and discord. Thank you for your answer, though; I'll have to go back and reread that sutta.

I share Ted's view of this matter.

Being "of brahman origin" does not mean the person is a pantheist. Leaving aside the
question of whether brahmans were pantheists , your argument can be extended to say that there are a lot of "christian buddhists" because they are "of christian background"

I feel pantheism is a bit of a slippery term, especially when applied far outside of it's monotheistic original context. There, it started as a kind of monotheistic non-dualism, drawing on monistic and mystic traditions. But it got widely used to describe animist traditions in the 19th century, and also -I'd say unwisely- to describe Hindu thought. And in modern usage, also now to describe the idea that consciousness somehow pervades everything, and is only concentrated in minds.
Taken as immanence of the highest principle, the Mahayana doctrine of the dharmakaya is a kind of pantheism.
In the sense of coidentifying the world with deities, Japanese Buddhist thought does not put itself in contradiction with Shinto practice which is called pantheist, and as I understand it many or most Buddhists in Japan also observe Shinto practices. See also tsukumogami, for how in a polytheistic context animism and pantheism are not fully distinguishable.
Yogacara or 'mind-only' thought can I think be understood as the idea that subjective experience and mental processes like thoughts are the most fundamental way to understand reality.
But at root, pantheism as a term is not a good fit outside of a monotheistic context, and the mix of uses is prone to creating confusion. I prefer not to use the term.


text:
How to handle aversion that derives from perceiving arrogance?
Ven. and good Buddha-Parisata, touched, and who ever interested and willing to give into the matter to get it minded,
Who doesn't know the case where another is perceived as arrogant, either because of having the view "all are equal" or by the feeling to be put on a place which one does not deserve.
What ever the situation actually requires, might be different form ones perception and possible very wrong to give into disapprove or even dislike. Remember the effects of being a person not honor of what is worthy to.
So how to handle such "I can not..." situations for oneself? What's the save bet here, the save way, till possible uproot the cause on an refined level? (Of course in measures of the good Dhamma asked. Related topic: Vanna-maccharia, stinginess in regard of ones reputations: What to practice to get ride of it?)

(Note that this possibility of grow in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

It would help to have definition of arrogance. It tends to mean different things to different people.

Ven Sirs, Readers,
Arrogance is that one considers oneself better than others. If one finds this is not the case an arrogant person becomes averse. The way to overcome is as follows:

(1) “Sona, when those ascetics and brahmins, by way of form—which is impermanent, suffering,
subject to change—consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(2) When they, by way of feeling—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, consider
thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(3) When they, by way of perception—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change,
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(4) When they, by way of formations—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change,
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(5) When they, by way of consciousness—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to
change, consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

Sona, when those ascetics and brahmins, by way of form—which is impermanent, suffering,
subject to change—do not consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of feeling—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of perception—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of formations—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of consciousness—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality

(1) Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory [painful] or satisfactory [pleasurable]?”15
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”16
“No, bhante.”

(2) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is feeling permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(3) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is perception permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(4) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, are formations permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(5) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(1) “Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of form whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal or
external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near18—all forms should be seen as they really are
with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(2) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of feeling whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal or
external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all feelings should be seen as they really are
with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(3) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of perception whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal
or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all perceptions should be seen as they really
are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(4) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of formations whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal
or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all formations should be seen as they really
are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(5) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future or present,
internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all consciousness should be seen as
they really are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

Seeing thus, Soṇa, the learned noble disciple is revulsed [disenchanted] with form, is revulsed
with feeling, is revulsed with perception, is revulsed with formations, is revulsed with consciousness.

Through revulsion, he becomes dispassionate.
Through dispassion, his mind is liberated.
When he is liberated, there arises the knowledge: ‘Free am I!’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth.
The holy life has been lived. What needs to be done has been done. There is no more of this state of
being.’

(Māna) Soṇa Sutta

That, householder Sirinath, is a total improper answer in an assemble merely void of those having left home, but live in dependency, nurishes householder-equanimity and destroys good communities. So best regarded as the answer of the leader of a herd of cows. A learned and instructed teacher, wishing to appear as such, and suggesting in such way, should know that the path is one of discrimination.

look at the "fool" there, he answers with "No, bhante.”... understand? The stand here is on level learn generosity, not even on the level sila, and yet an advice between homeless... saying then even "Bhante" and approaching with only name (disregarding).

Maybe I did not understand the question. I am answering at my best effort basis, both to understand as well as writing the answer.

Especially because good householder comes from a cultural background that has long time trained basics, he surely would have a lot of good advices in regard of respectful and secure. It's a real gift if he shares such rather to try to serve wishes of modern/western world. What is the daily practice to get ride of honor-stinginess and to avoid social overstepping which can be very of disadvantages for one?

After Dana, Sila, the answer is total great, yet still there remains "no Bhante" (Sila).

How to handle aversion that derives from perceiving arrogance?
I understood this answer as saying that there are two types of "conceit" -- conceit includes "comparing one person with another". The two types are "true conceit", and "false conceit". I'm not sure how either of these -- a right comparison or a wrong comparison -- might be a good cause for "aversion".

What he is referring to is that fact that of the nine types of conceit, only three can arise in a sotapanna

Someone with a false conceit might be difficult to relate with, though, difficult to converse with usefully.
There are also the "four great references" -- i.e. if someone says something (e.g. about dhamma, which is what tends to be the topic on this site), then you shouldn't "scorn" it -- but instead, consider and compare it.
If you were someone's teacher then perhaps you might want to help the student see "arrogance" -- there are examples in the literature of teachers doing that.
Maybe it's better if people don't try to do that on this site though, perhaps this was appropriate advice:

In general, unless you actually are the questioner's teacher, don't assume a teacher's mantle

What's the save bet here, the save way, till possible uproot the cause on an refined level?
Perhaps you're expecting a specific answer, I'm not sure which one. Perhaps it's "equanimity" in this case, remembering that "I am heir to my actions" etc.

The answer parallel given by Nyom ChrisW "Also try not to get offended if he calls you "householder" or "nyom", I would. Perhaps you're not used to it -- and who knows whether it's representative of Buddhism, other Anglophone monks aren't so formal in their conversation online -- I read it as partly a German mode of speech, like even if he weren't a monk he might be addressing you conversationally "Herr Doktor Peter" or whatever the formal title should be, you can read it as polite. :-)", allthought one could call him arrogant, seeming "teachering" was by far more useful, as teaching good is.

If someone wishes to follow and investigate a stream in action: here

Speaking of "stream" -- if I try to answer a question it can help me to imagine I know "what" a person is asking about, what "caused" or "triggered" the question -- if it's a general question (like this was), what specific "case" is it a generalisation of? And to answer your questions it might be helpful to know what you posted recently elsewhere on the site. That knowledge ("what comments were posted recently?") isn't obvious to most users, and quickly becomes obsolete. It might make every question clearer, if you were careful to add "... for example, [hyperlink]" when you write a question.

Good questions, good answers, fit to many, best all, cases. It's a huge hindrance to wish to sort out perfection in a subject-object case, judge mind without being able to read even the own, good householder. So approach of questions best in and of itself and taking own experiances as sample how to release from akusala, and approach the Dhamma (a the wise) for approve to get sure ( Kalama Sutta). Tomorrow nobody would know particular ensnares involved at the case of origin.

@SamanaJohann General answers and general questions are rare and valuable -- and difficult to produce. I think the suttas are an example of that kind of literature, and I'm not sure we can write that sort of thing here! Stack Exchange was originally meant for this: You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. So I do try to understand what the OP is asking and not only how I might answer from my own experience.

Double case, even, and that's the point where useful for all "thing here! Stack Exchange was originally meant for this: You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face.", driven direct into here & now. Don't say that my person gives no chance to face the cases right away :-)

The very question of how to handle, indicates an interference in your being ,and in that very interference ,aversion arises.
Weather you perceived a person correctly or incorrectly as arrogant,is not the problem ,because thats what your being had perceived already,what your being had understood already,Its neither good nor bad,only an indication of your being's wisdom .The only problem is intervening in the development of your being.There is no need to perceive the situation correctly ,whatever was perceived by your being is the reality ,till further notice.
If no intervention occurs your being will develop naturally and act more wisely next time .

Ignorance the path to awakening. Well, good householder, take care.

Yes,if there is attitude towards ignorance then aversion is bound to arise ,it indicates attachment to knowledge.Accepting ignorance is also a path..


text:
MN 36 parallels for section where Buddha as a 9 year old boy has first jhana
I read up on B. Analayo's Agama comparative notes between the passage in question in various EBT schools (pali, more than one agama lineage, sanskrit...).
But he didn't have the part I'm interested in. He talks about how one recension talks about Buddha as a boy experiencing all 4 jhanas instead of just first jhana for example.
Does anyone have quote and references for the passages in question?
In the pali version, all it says is while his father was working, buddha sat down in the cool shade of a tree and spontaneously entered first jhana.
I'm especially interested in one of the Agamas, which says the same thing, but adds that right before he entered jhana, he had been observing the dukkha of watching earthworms getting eaten by birds.

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

I could find the part about the 4 jhanas instead of only the first jhana, but I could not find the part about the earthworms.
From Ekottarāgama 31.8 of the Taisho Tripitaka:

「爾時，我作 是念：『今日可食一果。』爾時我便食一果。當 我食一果之日，身形萎弱不能自起居，如 年百二十，骨節離散不能扶持。比丘當知，
爾時一果者，如似今日小棗耳。爾時，我復作 是念：『非我成道之本，故當更有餘道。』爾時， 我復作是念：『我自憶昔日，在父王樹下無
婬、無欲，除去惡不善法，遊於初禪；無覺、 無觀，遊於二禪；念清淨無有眾想，遊於 三禪；無復苦樂，意念清淨，遊於四禪。此或
能是道，我今當求此道。』

Using Google Translate, I got:

"At this time, I just said: "I can eat one fruit today." At this time,
I eat one fruit. When I eat one fruit, I am weak and unable to live by
myself. For example, when I am a hundred and twenty, my joints cannot
be separated. Support. Bhikkhus should know that when there is a
fruit, it is like today's jujube ears. When you are here, I repeat it
by saying: "It is not the foundation of my enlightenment, so I should
have more surplus." "I recall from the past, under my father’s tree,
there was no lust, no desire, no evil and unwholesome dhammas,
swimming in the first meditation; no awareness, no insight, swimming
in the second meditation; pure mind without many thoughts, swimming in
the third meditation; Resume suffering and happiness, pure mind, swim
in the four meditations. This may be the Tao, I should ask for it
now."

The Chinese used in the agama is probably a bit different from modern Chinese, so the machine translation may be inaccurate.
Ekottarāgama is the Sanskrit equivalent of the Pali collection of Aṅguttara Nikāya.


text:
What am I doing to my self to make my natural state "I am trapped in pain" (This seems like a must for me and there is nothing I can do about it)
Lets say for example I was trapped in pain before for a long time with no way out for long time and the pain kept torturing me. Now I feel better and not anymore in a no way out situation because I  found out about Buddhism that says "You are not your feelings",  "There is no self that feels" This new knowledge helped me to stop identifying as much as  a helpless victim trapped in pain with no way out and also now I knew I am not in a situation without a chance anymore as I was before when I had no teaching like Buddhism. (Trust me just the teachings I mentioned above was enormously important for me and it took me from the situation where "i was  trapped in pain with no way out" to "I am trapped in pain but I know there is a way out" with Buddhism because I am not my feeling ultimately. The scarry part and what kept my really trapped was that I saw no solution and it was just torturing me. But even if that has helped and can help me to stop identification for some moments when I am enquiring like I am not my feelings, nor is there any self i imagine as the feeler of my feelings I still cant really be free totally because if the enquiry goes well I find my self in a more peaceful state but when the vision or clear seeing of "i am not my feelings" or "there is no self that feels" stops or is not as clear anymore it brings me back automatically without my free will or volition to the situation that I am  trapped in pain (it has become my automatic state).  Now what is happening right there is it the job of ignorance  to keep me in this situation or is the Sankharas doing it and what are they doing to keep me in this state. If I knew what happen then I would stop it immediately i know it my mind just wants to see clearly what is happening and then it stops it but until I dont know what is happening and what is doing what I cant stop it and being trapped in pain is automatic.
I am sorry if a similar question has been asked and answered but I read it and it was not really the answer to my question, many thanks to all of you for your time to help.

If you mean especially-physical instead of especially-emotional pain then see these topics too: Experiencing physical pain, and, Is physical pain only 'remembered' or 'anticipated' so actually there is no pain? If so, how to understand?

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

Thanks for your answer I mean emotional pain

when the vision or clear seeing of "i am not my feelings" or "there is no self that feels" it brings me back automatically without my free will or volition to the situation that I am trapped in pain
I sympathise, I hope someone gives you a good answer.
I think my experience and the Dhamma includes something like,

Feelings arise, and cease (and arise again later, etc.)
Whether they arise depends on whether you "feed" them
I'm not sure how to explain feeding, it might include "delighting in" a feeling -- but "delight" doesn't seem a good description when it's a "negative" feeling like fear -- instead of "delight" maybe feeding a feeling also includes developing a "view" like "this is me" and "this is my feeling"
See also an answer to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? for a further description of the difference between a "view" and a more transient conceit.
When they arise and cease (which might be frequently), there may be other feelings and thoughts (perceptions) and so on come to mind -- even including for example awareness of breathing, remembering Dhamma
Some changes happen quickly, and some slowly, the arising-and-cessation of a feeling may be a pattern which repeats itself -- and (perhaps if you don't feed it) changes gradually, by which I mean over the course of even a couple of years or more
I think we're taught that feelings arise from "contact" -- perhaps that means contact with a perception, a thought-object or memory -- one of the "slow changes" which might happen is that the contact (or trigger) continues to arise, but the feeling about it changes (or plural, the feelings about it change)
We're also taught that craving arises from feeling -- including for example the craving for cessation, the craving that a feeling might cease -- and that it's the craving (not just the feeling) which is dukkha -- so that's another point on the wheel at which to affect the cycle, i.e. to recognise that it's with craving that dukkha arises and ceases, recognise dukkha, let "craving" cease

that would mean that my mind,mind object and mind conciousness are contacting at the moment
Yes I think so from my experience -- some kind of "memory".
I'm not sure how exactly fits into the Dhamma of the 12 nidanas -- perhaps memory is a sankhara; and/or perhaps "memory" is simply our name for the re-arising of something, whether that's the re-arising of a view (perhaps a view of self), or a feeling, or situation (a memorable event).
I inexpertly classify those as, generally and simply, mind-objects (then there's contact between mind-object, mind-organ, and mind-consciousness).
How would I be able to stop it
My experience it you can't, contact just happens. But your reaction to it might change, become less painful, when you begin to see it from the perspective of the dhamma (non-self, uncontrollable, impermanent) and to identify components (e.g. craving and attachment) which are what make it painful.
Also if the mind is like a pool of water you might not control the waves which peak and drop, arise and disappear, each moment on the surface -- even so you might affect how agitated the water is, so it might become more or less troubled.
In other words is the feeling inside the mind object. or is it something different that arises after
I think the doctrine of the 12 nidanas says that contact causes feeling causes craving (which is suffering).
I'm not sure that's helpful since by the time you're suffering it has all already happened, so it might be more useful to think of them as "co-arising" or "arising together" -- and as beginning to cease when any of it weakens.
As those (suffering) thought-moments begin to pass or weaken, other moments arise, for example maybe contact with breathing or with memory-of-dhamma.
I'm not sure whether those other contact cause the cessation of suffering or merely co-arise with the cessation, it's probably true to say they at least don't "feed" the suffering nor serve to prolong it (which i.e. "not feeding" is kind of what I was trying to get at in the original answer above).
This seems to be a big confusion for me that would help me to understand
There's a famous story of a "Gordian knot" I heard as a child. It was a famous knot made of rope, a puzzle, and the two ends (beginning and end) of the knot were hidden away within the knot, and nobody could figure out how to undo it -- until someone (who was a Greek equivalent of a world-conquering hero) arrived and, looked at it and, took his sword and just sliced right though it and it fell apart into pieces.
I think that "knot" might be like a "thicket" -- A thicket of wrong views -- and possibly specifically related to any kind of self-view.
Maybe though, I don't know, the Abhidhamma tries to analyse or inspect that kind of detail.
Honestly just by doing this analysis I feel better inside my body beacuse I feel I understand better what I am doing to my self :D
Glad to hear that. Awareness of breath -- tension and non-breathing may co-arise too.

You might also consider doing something else -- being generous, acquiring "merit", doing (ethical) things you don't regret -- maybe that kind of thing results in a different (better) kind of contact.

Thank you very much for your answer Chris, When you wrote there may be other feelings and thoughts (perceptions) that come to mind, This could be what is happening in my case, Is a feeling arising from contact between sense organ , sense object , sense conciousness, does it mean that if I have a problem of being trapped in pain now it means that there is contacts going on that I am not aware of beacuse feelings arises through contact, that would mean that my mind,mind object and mind conciousness are contacting at the moment without my awareness of it happening, How would I be able to stop it

Maybe I should be aware of what is really happening and how I am "creating this false person trapped in pain" but how should I see that, please correct me if I am wrong , as you said previously the feeling is coming from contact, this means it is something arising dependently, now the contact that activated the feeling needed a mind object to contact with the mind and mind conciousness, this means that the feeling is not a "must" as it seems to be for me and is happening beacuse a prior cause "the contact" Is the mind object that is contacted and the feeling 2 separate things,

In other words is the feeling inside the mind object. or is it something different that arises after , This seems to be a big confusion for me that would help me to understand. In my case after some analysis this seems to happen correct me if this is a ilusion, First the contact between mind, mind conciousness and mind object is activating the feeling, and instead of understanding it this way I know believe that the feeling belongs to me and I have aversion against it, this way I am feeding the feeling, and now it starts to influence new mind objects that is contacted and this activates new

painful feelings which again influences mind objects and new contacts and I am caught in  a loop, Honestly just by doing this analysis I feel better inside my body beacuse I feel I understand better what I am doing to my self  :D please come with more comments your comments and Dhammadhatus comments are helping me really much , thank you !!

I added to the answer to try to answer your comments.

The word "pain" is very broad, therefore the question needs to be more specific.
There are two types of "pain":

Physical pain, which is a "feeling" or "vedana".
Emotional pain, which is a "sankhara" or "mental formation" or "mental proliferation".

Note: The meaning of the word "sankhara" ("mental proliferation") above does not have the same meaning as in Dependent Origination (where "sankhara" means "conditioner"). This said, "conditioners" can be "mental proliferations" from the past that re-emerge.

I still cant really be free totally because if the enquiry goes well I find my self in a more peaceful state but when the vision or clear
  seeing of "i am not my feelings" or "there is no self that feels" it
  brings me back automatically without my free will or volition to the
  situation that I am trapped in pain (it has become my automatic
  state).

"Emotional pain", being "mental proliferation", itself is something created by "identification".
Assuming the "pain" is "emotional pain", yes, non-identification will find some temporary relief but the underlying "pain" will remain until it is dissolved. Therefore, the practise of non-identification must be continuous & courageous.
The above said, generally "emotional pain" does not require "non-identification" to be free of it. Instead, generally "emotional pain" requires to development of wisdom and often sorting out behavioral attitudes, i.e., sorting out one's "moral perspective".

Now what is happening right there is it the job of ignorance to keep me in this situation

Yes. Ignorance certainly maintains such situations.

or is the Sankharas doing it and what are they doing to keep me in this state.

Its ignorance. The "sankharas" of dependent origination are merely symptoms of ignorance. It is ignorance that must be addressed & overcome.
While breath meditation can calm sankharas, the most conclusive outcome is addressing ignorance.

If I knew what happen then I would stop it immediately i know it my mind just wants to see clearly what is happening and then it stops it but until I dont know what is happening and what is doing what I cant stop it and being trapped in pain is automatic.

As I originally said, the type of "pain" experienced needs to be specified. Is it "physical pain" or "emotional pain" or "chronic biological pain from a neurological or brain disorder"?
If the pain is a type of "emotional pain", it can be addressed with wisdom and changing moral perspective.
But if the pain has a biological basis (physical or neurological/brain disorder) then a more non-attachment or acceptance approach is required.

"Ignorance" means here insight into the three characteristics or mundane 'thought wisdom'?

Ok so Sankhara in dependent origination is conditioners, while emotional pain is  mental formation Sankhara (does these type of sankhara include my situation "I am trapped in pain" Then you wrote "  This said, "conditioners"  can be "mental proliferations" from the past that re-emerge. " Which I think is what happend with me, beacuse the same thoughts and feelings accomponied with them are following me in everything I do, For example my mind can prevent me from doing things "that it feels as a threat to me" logically I know it is not a threat but if I do it then a painful feeling will arise.

Also there is a tendency of my mind beacuse I am not in control of my emotions and my automatic state is that I am trapped in pain , I must avoid anything that is a threat to me and has the potential to activate the pain again because these feelings is arising automatically and  I cannot avoid, so if I do something that triggers it I cant control the feeling that will automatically arise, I know deep inside my self that this must not be so, and if I knew what am I doing to make this situation a must I would be able to stop it but until now it is a must for me to live like this.

the "pain" you are referring to is mental proliferation or dukkha (suffering). It is not "vedana". therefore, you need to work on your "view". the problem is ignorance. kind regards

I will certainly work on it Dhammadhatu, when you said it is not "vedana", How do you mean what is the difference between Vedana and mental proliferation or dukkha (suffering), by the way I know it is suffering but there is a vedana or stomach area that is painful (is this painful feeling not what is called "vedana"

"Vedana" is the subtle sensation of sense experiences (such as the pleasant feeling of the warm sun on the skin on a cool morning). Arahants, fully enlightened beings, without suffering, still experience vedana. Where as mental proliferation is thinking. This thinking can produced vedana or pain, such as in the stomach area, but this pain is the product of thinking. Therefore with emotional pain or suffering, what needs to be addressed is the personal views that create unskillful thinking mental proliferation & suffering. Regards

Thank you Dhammadhatu, It is as if I have convinced my self that the situation of "being trapped in pain" is a must and automatic and i cant change this fact with free will, but are you suggesting with "addressing personal views" that I have to understand for example that the feeling or pain is not there by "itself" as how I have convinced my self but that my personal views or thoughts are causing that pain, I have convinced my self that my kamma or subconcious mind is automatically producing that suffering without my free will

while what you seem to say is that I am creating this suffering with my present thought that I have free will to change and therefor can change the pain and the pain is not a must as I have convinced my self, I think it was this situation where i thought the feeling and pain "must" be there and this happend beacuse I didnt se clear that the pain was created by what you called personal views (is this thinking) The feeling started creating aversion beacuse i felt trapped by it and didnt know how to solve it

Honestly I feel much better now that I know and see better what am I doing and how am I keeping my self trapped in this illusion, So I think the situation which I created "I am trapped in pain" is the loop of not being able to solve the feeling and thinking it is my pain , which created hatred thoughts which created more feeling and as I could not solve the feeling I was now caught in this loop "or trapped in pain"

As I was taught, this kind of pain comes from attachment, from some sort of idea you are stuck on. This idea became so close, you're used to it so much, that you no longer notice it, you take it for granted.
I was taught to focus on the physical component of emotional pain, without trying to analyze anything, and keep touching that pain, until the root idea (the one you hold on to and take for granted) becomes obvious in your mind.
Then you have to stop holding on, whatever that is.

There was a lot of fear in my life starting at young age my dad and mom used to argue with each especially when my dad was drunk , and dad said "I am leaving" he packed his stuff as a child I was terrified my hearth start beating 1000000x/s  I loved my dad really much and this was really fearful and painful to experience. Dont get me wrong my dad was the best  possible dad you could have but he witnessed the same kind of thing from his parents they fought really much and his parents threatened to leave the house to. So it was a program that he unconciously repeated.

Later on in life everywhere I had fear beacuse of this thing that happend when I was young also no confidence I felt ugly and fear everywhere and anxiety. I trie to cope with building up a fake strong identity and it worked partially to cover up my "weaknesses" but there was certain things that happen that made me loose that coping skill, and now I was in enormous fear beacuse I had lost that coping skill I grieved, had fear, anger, all possible emotions and it got worse and worse until the fear and pain was so big that I couldnt cope anymore so this is a pattern that I am doing my whooe life

Yes I had no clue how to deal with the painful feeling and when it became to big to be able to either avoid by a defensive mechanism I used to avoid it or to try to avoid it with building a fake "strong identity" when these coping mechanism didnt work anymore beacuse the pain was to big I started constantly hating that pain, why me , this is to painful to live with, its impossible to live with pain, etc , This is torturing me how painful it is and there is no way out i will have to live like this until the rest of life , it is not fair i cant imagined that I must live with this pain and fear

This pain and fear is not possible to cope with it is bigger than what you even can imagine as the worst possible torturing

I will try what you suggested Andrei, Thank you. I know that this is all mind made and can be stopped if I only see what the pattern is and what I am doing to keep this ilusion active and alive.

I will tell you what helped me in a similar situation. I learned to be myself. This was the only way to stop that constant fear and pain. To learn to accept my own choices, my own steps, to slow down or even pause, and to start living my own life. I have no idea if what I do now will be right long term, and I don't know what else I'm missing, but every moment I do what I think is best right now, I trust myself and just go like this. All pain I had disappeared when I started to live how I can, not how I should. Does this make any sense to you?

Absolutely I have to start being my self living how I can not how I should. Honestly from your comments I see a lot of wisdom, Thank you. Now I have a question when the feeling is there and when it is really problematic there is the story accompanied with that feeling, and the story is basically that I am trapped in pain, To me the story and the feeling is the same thing, or I may be wrong are they 2 separate things because I have convinced my self that they are the same thing, This is imprints from what I went through before, but I really need to see where the part is that is imagined and

what is the part that I am doing with free will that I am not aware of and keep doing  to keep this illusion alive, my mind has convinced me that the feeling is there automatically and there is no way I can remove it. It seems I convinced my self that the feeling must be there while I have not notived that the problem may be the story about that feeling, in other words that the feeling of pain is there because of the story about it, this is quite subtle so I would like to ask you the following question as you have more experience than I have.

Is the feeling there by itself as I have convinced my self, or is it created by a thought , that would imply that the feeling is not there as I have convinced my self "By itself" and instead that it is created by the thought, Because as I told you the the problem is "I am trapped in pain" so I think it is that I have convinced my self that the pain is there automatically and I have not seen that the pain is not there automatically but created by a thought, I hope you understood what I meant. Is it possible for the feeling to be there by itself or is it created by a thought and that would imply

free will or volition, (even though I have not yet realized it but this loop I am caught in where I think the feeling is automatically there by itself and I am powerless over it is influencing negative thoughts which activates negative feelings and there is the loop that I am caught in, and i am pretty sure that the loop was what created the situation "i am trapped in pain" (not being able to solve the painful feeling and the feeling influenced thoughts and the thoughts reinforced the feeling etc.

My question to you sorry for a lot of information but my question is : I have convinced my self that the pain is there automatically keeping me trapped so my question is : is the feeling created by a thought or is the feeling there by itself automatically without my free will produced by my subconcious mind or kamma or something, if it is created by a thought and is not there by itself that would mean that there is free will "by changing the thought the pain changes", "and that the situation where i must feel trapped in pain" is not ultimately a must, ......

it became a must when I lost my free will by not seeing that the pain is not there by itself and is created by a preceeding thought and the loop I am caught in now which seems to indicate that I have no free will over that pain "and therefor it must be there" is there beacuse I have not seen the loop I trapped my self in, Please give your thoughts about this Andre I am sorry for writing so much but I have seen a lot of wisdom in you.

I understood what you said. It doesn't matter what came first, chicken or egg. But yes, the loop can be self-sustaining. I spent years looking at my pain, meditating on it, watching, working, relaxing it, opening - nothing helped. It was almost like, the more I looked at it, the stronger it got. Only when I went inside it and made it worse, created situation that scared me, embarrassed, hurt - and went through  even bigger version of all that pain two-three times, on max volume - only then I learned to be myself without pain.

Thanks, I will also try this suggestion also Andrei, I can assume why the type of suggestion you gave to my practice is beneficial and will try to do it.


text:
Do the specific historical past events play any role in the analysis of the conditions leading to suffering?
As far as I've studied the suttas (not very much, to be honest), it seems that whenever dukkha is analysed and reflected upon, it is mostly done in terms of the phenomena as they arise in the present.
In contrast, modern psychology and therapy seems to put a lot of effort and value in trying to understand/recognize the specific historical causes that led to the establishment of any unwholesome trait/behaviour/thought pattern in the first place.
For instance, while buddhist practice seems to focus on the arising of craving or aversion, and the understanding of how ignorance makes us to crave/control the external world, modern therapy methods emphazise the importance of knowing the reasons in our past that may indicate when such craving/aversion started to be a part of our habitual way of thinking.
Do the specific past historical causes play any role in the buddhist analysis of dukkha?
Thanks in advance!
Kind regards!

Of course, this is called "karma"

@AndreiVolkov If that's the answer, you might distinguish between the suttas talking about karma using generalisations or as a generalisation, conversely practitioners (or people doing psychotherapy) maybe somehow or for some reason trying to identify specific/individual formative events.

@AndreiVolkov Hi! Is it indicated in the suttas if one should investigate the specific events leading to the creation of new kamma? Kind regards!

Brian, the gold standard for therapy, namely the various kinds of Cognitive Behaviour Therapies, which by the way is here used as an umbrealla term, do take the past into consideration but focuses much more on present held cogntions, emotions & behaviours.

@Val Hi! Isn't CBT interested in the specific circumstances leading to the creation of those present cognitions? Kind regards!

Theoretically your most recent comment (i.e. question about CBT) isn't quite on-topic -- I don't know whether you can instead interpret Val's comment as a hint about how to edit, clarify or expand, the original question -- perhaps to give Val a chance to post an answer which compares CBT with Buddhism?

Brian, like the Buddha's teaching CBT also employs a flexible appraoch, where the teaching style is tailored to the clients needs. While the client might tell his past experiences & insights are won by the client, intellectual insight is not enough for change to occur. That's why CBT is a multimodal approach which addresses thoughts, emotions, behaviours as well as environment & relationships. It's irrelevant where you learned your present cognitions, but the fact you still are convinced by them is the issue. 'Belief' is not just 'cold' intellectual stuff but emotional. (believing=acting!)

@Val Thank you so much! This is the kind of answer I was looking for: you're comparing modern therapy methods and the buddhist practice, and it seems that in both, instructions are mostly dedicated to cognitive structures rather than their specific content and their historical causes. If you were so kind as to write this as an answer, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks again. Kind regards!

Well cognitive content can be addressed in CBT, called cognitive restructuring/reappraisal/disputing, but there is also a mindfulness based approach, called cognitive defusion or urge surfing where content isn't challenged but seen as transient phenomena. While the latter can be good at times, disputing & seeking for alternative thoughts is imo indicated

Certain buddhist schools adhere to the idea of Alaya-vijnana, which roughly corresponds to the western notion of an unconsciousness.
The idea is that karma is originated by "seeds" (bhijas) stored in our unconscious memory, and are made up of previous experiences. These seeds can therefore be seen as the cause for our karma.
This connects to the four right efforts, in order to examine the seeds and deal with them to accomplish non-arising, abandonment, arising or maintenance according to dharma.
A question to reflect on: Is understanding our past necessary for liberation?

There are some suttas which have analysis on past kamma and how it leads to suffering, for e.g. MN 136 below.

"Now there is the person who has killed living beings here... has had
  wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But
  (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him
  earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him
  later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time
  of his death. And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he reappeared in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.
  But since he has killed living beings here... has had wrong view, he
  will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or
  in some subsequent existence.

Above, we only find a general analysis. It does not relate to a specific person, like YOU. This is because in AN 4.77, the Buddha taught the following:

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma... is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

For a specific person like YOU, the Buddha does not recommend analyzing the past or dwelling in remorse. Instead, he teaches to develop oneself, as taught in AN 3.99:

"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
  in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
  dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort
  of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part
  barely appears for a moment.

Instead of analyzing past historical events, the Buddha recommends understanding how the five aggregates and dependent origination works, through insight.

The past is "old kamma". The present can create "new kamma". Buddhism focuses on stopping "new kamma". However, the "old kamma" obviously can trigger off "new kamma".
In Dependent Origination, ignorance & sankhara links can (but not always) include the re-emergence of "old kamma".
The nama-rupa link includes feeling, perception, volition, contact & attention. At nama-rupa, attention & volition can be used to counteract current contact, feeling & perception of "old kamma" sankharas.
The suttas say "old kamma" is something to be "felt" rather than identified with as "self".

At Savatthī. Bhikkhus, this collection (of aggregates; kaya) is not
  yours, nor does it belong to others. It is old kamma, to be seen as previously
  generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt.
SN 12.37

modern therapy methods emphazise the importance of knowing the reasons in our past that may indicate when such craving/aversion started to be a part of our habitual way of thinking.

Actually the suttas expands the scope of "the past" far beyond what one did yesterday or 10 years ago. They say actions carried out in previous lives also leave imprints and consequences in the present life and also into future lives. About the "habitual way", there was already the concept of Anusaya/Underlying tendencies

"Here, student, some man or woman kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. But if on the dissolution of the body, after death, he does not reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, but instead comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is short-lived. This is the way, student, that leads to short life, namely, one kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings." ~~ MN 135 ~~

Yoniso Manasikaro, ['womb-so, mind-study-so] if understood to mean: "etiological investigation"; "tracing things back to their point of origin", is an exact parallel to Freudian Psychoanalysis.
Tracing things back to their point of origin brings one to the intent in back of the action that originated any given series of events. Seeing that intent and contrasting it to the pain [dukkha] that prompted the investigation in the first place gives one an opportunity to re-evaluate and modify future behavior by getting rid of intent blind to consequences.
The recognition that hunger [tanha] is the point of origin, and that the end of pain is effected by getting rid of that hunger is not a method for accomplishing that end, it is the information you need to recognize the problem when by tracing things back you come across the place where the originating hunger arose. It is at that point that one makes plans and forms intentions to get [upadana], and it is at that point where behavioral change can be made which will bring that episode to an end and, with an alert and now educated mind, prevent it's arising again in the future.
The two things: description of the solution to a problem [the insight, or vipassana] and the behavior modification necessary [getting rid of the stresser, or samatha] to bring about change are both necessary.

Sanna is the store of past experiences. When you experience something now, the recognition and filling in of attributes happen from Sanna. Past traumatic experiences pay a role towards these identifications. E.g. Say you had a bad stomach after eating mangos, then every time you see or taste a mango you will get an averse reaction. To overcome this one must overcome the reactive identification ones mind produce that mangos give a lot of grief and pain. With laps of time and trying mangos again, if one's perception changes then one's mental reaction when one encounters mangos will become different.
The current mental reflexive reaction and perception is a product of past experiences. If these reflexive reactions and labelling of the mind is subjected to Vipallasa then there is suffering.