text:
Is craving unskilful because it fuels craving?
For most people it's not readily discernible why sense pleasures are unsatisfactory. In general, a lot of people know intellectually that sense pleasures are impermanent, and that virtuous thinking & acting is what makes life fulfilling. Craving as a feeling, on the other hand, when investigated, is stressful because it disturbs the stillness of the mind.
Okay, enough of rambling: From a Dhammic point of view the maxim "a little of what you fancy does you good" therefore doesn't hold true, does it? Since craving of any sort cannot permanently be ceased by means of giving into it (actually it usually grows stronger), one is advised to change one's attitudes towards it and, as best as one can, abstains from it.
Am I comprehending this correctly?
Thanks

Generally speaking, I think you're right.

Ānanda, when one dwells contemplating gratification in things that can be clung to, craving increases. With craving as condition, [the rest of D.O. chain] comes to be…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. (SN 12.52-57, 12.60)

In addition to that standard explanation that goes from enjoying to craving, Buddha also provides an alternative - when you enjoy and relish something, your mind "settles" in that...

Where there is fondness, relishing, & craving [...], consciousness settles there and grows. Where consciousness settles and grows, there is descent of name-&-form. Where there is descent of name-&-form, there is growth of tendencies. Where there is growth of tendencies, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging, & death, together, I tell you, with sorrow, affliction, & despair. (SN 12.64)

And in slightly different words:

Bhikkhus, when one dwells contemplating gratification in things that can fetter, there is a descent of consciousness. With consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be... [the rest of D.O. chain goes here] Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. (SN 12.59)

So, in my understanding, when you enjoy and relish something, your mind "settles" in that. When it settles, it takes something as a position, it assumes this is how things "are supposed to be". It then identifies with that position, "this is me, this is mine". Then from this position grow all kinds of problems, like:

things change, you want to keep it the same but you can't - therefore you suffer.
someone else found pleasure in some other experience, and settled in that - now their idea of how things are supposed to be is different from yours, so when you two get in conflict you fight - therefore both suffer.

So the problem with pleasure is this very "settling" of the mind, which takes its experience far too seriously and reifies it as absolute reality, "how things are supposed to be".
In Mahayana we say, you can experience pleasure as long as you see it as empty and therefore don't settle there. As long as you clearly see that the experiencer is a construct of mind, the experience is a construct of mind, the whole situation is a temporary arrangement, and the "pleasantness" of it is an illusion. When you see all that, you can still watch it, like when a grown-up watches a magic show where he knows all tricks. He can still kinda enjoy it - but not in the same naive way as kids do.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘It is impermanent’; he understands: ‘It is not held to’; he understands: ‘It is not delighted in. [...] If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. (SN 12.51)

So, to answer your question, I don't think pleasure is only bad because it can't satisfy craving permanently, and if we look very carefully, I don't think we can say it is only bad because it fuels craving directly (although Buddha did speak about that too, as we can see above). Most importantly, from Buddha's explanations it seems that the big, "strategic" problem with pleasure is that it provides a comfortable ground for the samsaric mind of objectification and identification to grow on.
Now, you are asking, how is it possible for a non-Buddhist to realy appreciate this insight. I think the "tactical" part, about pleasure being unable to permanently satisfy craving and about pleasure increasing the craving, can be explained through the modern concept of addiction. You can say: "It is easy to get addicted to pleasure, but don't get addicted or else you'll want more and more, and will suffer when you can't get it".
The "strategic" part is harder to explain in modern language, or really in any language. Perhaps you could say, "Getting used to pleasure (really to anything "good") is dangerous, because first it becomes an anchor, then a reference point, then the center of your reality. And then you start measuring everything else against it, which determines your behavior. Then you're no longer shapeless and free, instead you are shaped and very vulnerable. Pleasure shapes you and makes your reality rigid. Once you have shape, you are mortal." - see, this part is hard to explain and hard to understand.

With "pleasure shapes you and makes your reality rigid" you mean, for example, if I see an interesting object I want, I am so caught up in dreams & fantasies that I can't see the bigger picture, correct? If I see a car for, example, and crave it, then I don't see the 'bad' in it (in order to balance the craving out so equanimity is established). 2) Anyhow, I liked your answer somewhat (especially the sutta references), but I think you should've distinguished more between craving & pleasure, & investigated more the feeling tone of craving. This feeling of craving is stressful itself.

No, that's not what I meant. I did not say "craving shapes you" - I literally said: pleasure shapes you. It does it through that "settling" or getting used to.

Yes, "the feeling tone" of craving is the dukkha itself. They are the same thing. But in this answer I'm talking primarily about pleasure, not about craving.

If we say pleasure is bad, that would lead to the conclusion that one must practise extreme asceticism. The Buddha found that both extreme asceticism and extreme indulgence are both bad and prescribed the Middle Way through the Noble Eightfold Path.
If pleasure is not bad, then what is bad?
From SN 22.79:

"And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called
  'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it
  feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called
  feeling.

The feeling or experience of pleasure by itself is not bad. However, the passion for sensual pleasures, the craving for sensual pleasures and the clinging to sensual pleasures - that's what's bad in Buddhism. Not the feeling or experience of sensual pleasures.
From MN 75:

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.

Sources of pleasure do not last forever. Sources of pain cannot be avoided forever. If somebody tries to take away your source of pleasure, you may feel angry. If someone tries to get the attention of someone you like, you may feel jealous. Clinging to sensual pleasures eventually lead to all the other negative states of mind. Clinging to sensual pleasures eventually leads to unsatisfactoriness and suffering.
From Itivuttaka 109:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Suppose a man was being carried along by the flow of a river,
  lovely & alluring. And then another man with good eyesight, standing
  on the bank, on seeing him would say: 'My good man, even though you
  are being carried along by the flow of a river, lovely & alluring,
  further down from here is a pool with waves & whirlpools, with
  monsters & demons. On reaching that pool you will suffer death or
  death-like pain.' Then the first man, on hearing the words of the
  second man, would make an effort with his hands & feet to go against
  the flow.
"I have given you this simile to illustrate a meaning. The meaning is
  this: the flow of the river stands for craving. Lovely & alluring
  stands for the six internal sense-media. The pool further down stands
  for the five lower fetters. The waves stand for anger & distress. The
  whirlpools stand for the five strings of sensuality. The monsters &
  demons stand for the opposite sex. Against the flow stands for
  renunciation. Making an effort with hands & feet stands for the
  arousing of persistence. The man with good eyesight standing on the
  bank stands for the Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened."

But this does not mean that you must practice extreme asceticism. It simply means that we must try to eliminate the three poisons of passion / greed / lust, aversion / hatred and delusion. The goal in Buddhism is to experience sensations, and use them as far as they are useful, but not cling to them.
From AN 4.159:

Then Ven. Ananda approached the nun and, on arrival, sat down on a
  prepared seat. As he was sitting there, he said to the nun: "This
  body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying
  on food that food is to be abandoned.
"'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by
  relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And
  in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a
  monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for
  intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but
  simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its
  afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will
  I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from
  overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.'
  Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food. 'This body,
  sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on
  food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference
  to this was it said.

There are pleasures which cause no harm for others, do not require suffering of others to gain them, yet not in the sphere of the five senses.
Thinking that pleasure is bad, is foolish: no progress (going forth) without pleasure.
Short and hurtful for many or leaving the low realms of fight after not lasting.


text:
Reconciling metta & avoiding fools/immoral people
The Buddha repeatedly said to avoid ignorant, immoral people as much as possible, but isn't this - at least a little - opposed to kindness? I associate kindness with being benevolent, caring & somewhat open. Am I missing here something?
Thanks

Can you provide scriptural quotes for "the Buddha repeatedly said to avoid ignorant, immoral people as much as possible"?

Mangalasutta, balapanditasutta, sevitabbasevitabbasutta

I think it's a matter of degree, not entirely black-and-white -- how stable you are, how much contact there is between you and of what type, etc.
A monk's giving a formal dhamma talk to a polite audience might be not-very-adversely affected, for example.
Whereas, conversely, your joining a criminal gang would be maybe not so harmless.
It might possibly be a conceit, too, to imagine that you're better than someone else; that you're able to benefit them even when they don't already benefit themselves; that your goodness is stable and is independent of the situation you're in (the company you're with); and so on.
It's good to want to be kind, but you might beware of pathological codependency for example -- which might seem well-intentioned but maybe isn't beneficial (and therefore not actually kind, or not skillful).

I think it is a very wise advice. Immoral, ignorant people are selfish, narcissistic, unable to feel guilty and can harm others easily. The immoral people are also "fool" so I think the word "fool" refers to the immoral people. But this foolishness is "generally" not about having a low IQ, but it is about how a person sees life in general, is completely ignorant in their relationships with others and being completely identify wth the evil nature of humanity. Also "immoral" means who are prone to harm others easily. Often you will see that many "immoral" people are absolutely moralists but because these people are completely enslaved by the dark nature of humanity and because they don't have any awareness(other than being able to walk in the street or drive a car etc) they can do the evil actions that they criticize very easily. Also they have wrong perceptions of what is moral and what is immoral, what is good and what is evil too. So these people can do extremely evil things but think that they are doing the "moral" thing without feeling guilty.

Not associating with fools,
  Associating with the wise,
  Honoring those worthy of honor;
  This is the greatest blessing.

The beings who are in same level of frequency comes together naturally

Beings of low dispositions come together & associate with beings of low dispositions. Beings of admirable dispositions come together & associate with beings of admirable dispositions.

Vulnerability grows as you move forward in the Buddhist path. Vulnerability is being completely open to every possibility and form in life. But it doesn't require you to willingly associate with immoral, ignorant people and let them pull you down to their darkness. Just like the sun, is completely open and vulnerable and gives sunshine to every form in the world, is far enough to protect and take care of itself. Kindness and caring isn't about hugging people who have the capasity to stab you in the back anytime. Love is realizing that underneath of the evil nature of humanity, there is Buddha nature, Emptiness. Also every form is empty. No form is real in their essence. But most humans are not aware of it and they are completely identified with their forms. So when you recognize that humans are ignorant, don't have awareness of their own essence, you start to have compassion and love towards everyone. But as a "form" every human is naturally prone to do evil things because there are many layers of ignorance and dark energies in the human mind that comes from maybe millions of life times. Love is not about liking or being friends with everyone.

There is a funny sutta where Punna wanted to live among bad people and the buddha questionned him on his skils

"Lord, there is a country called Sunaparanta. I am going to live
  there."
"Punna, the Sunaparanta people are fierce. They are rough. If they
  insult and ridicule you, what will you think?"
"If they insult and ridicule me, I will think, 'These Sunaparanta
  people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with
  their hands.' That is what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I
  will think, O One Well-gone."
"But if they hit you with their hands, what will you think?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't hit me with a clod.'..."
"But if they hit you with a clod...?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't hit me with a stick.'..."
"But if they hit you with a stick...?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't hit me with a knife.'..."
"But if they hit you with a knife...?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't take my life with a sharp knife.'..."
"But if they take your life with a sharp knife...?"
"If they take my life with a sharp knife, I will think, 'There are
  disciples of the Blessed One who — horrified, humiliated, and
  disgusted by the body and by life — have sought for an assassin, but
  here I have met my assassin without searching for him.' [1] That is
  what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I will think, O One
  Well-gone."
"Good, Punna, very good. Possessing such calm and self-control you are
  fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. Now it is time to do as you see
  fit."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.088.than.html

There is no problem with giving Val an Answer out of compassion without associate and to wish him "may he be able to give causes for long term happiness by himselves with ease" then, knowing he would not ease be able to receive any supportive advice.
No need to associate with him or with his ideas at all and avoid it.

Here is an example of what you have asked (SN3.18):

The teaching is well explained by the Buddha. But it’s for someone with good friends, companions, and associates, not for someone with bad friends, companions, and associates.

Let's look at "bad". Suppose you ask your friend, "are you good or bad?". Would your friend say "I am good" or "I am bad"? Probably not. And have we met anyone who says "I am totally 100% evil and bad?" Well, perhaps one should indeed avoid such people.
But really, it is far more likely that your friend would not be so clear. It is likely that a friend would answer "I try to be good". Or "sometimes I am bad".
So now the situation you have asked turns out to be quite complicated if taken literally as ruler to hold up and measure friends. This one PASSES. That one FAILS.   Perhaps we should not do this judging of friends.
To be someone with good friends is to be with people who strive for goodness. It is to be with people:

who refrain from killing living creatures, stealing, and committing sexual misconduct. They refrain from speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical. And they’re content, kind-hearted, with right view.
  --DN23

This also means that if we hang out with bad friends, we will worry about being killed, being stolen from, being sexually mistreated, being told lies, or being yelled at or being told just plain nonsense.
It is therefore kinder to all if we spend time with good (see precepts above) friends striving for goodness.
The Buddha was able to deal with serial killers such as Aṅgulimāla, who became his disciple and therefore a good friend.  We ourselves might die attempting the same, so perhaps we should do what we can to be good with the friends we have and make.

The Buddha repeatedly said to avoid ignorant, immoral people as much as possible, but isn't this - at least a little - opposed to kindness? I associate kindness with being benevolent, caring & somewhat open. Am I missing here something?

No, they have nothing be opposed to each other. Actually, they support each other.
The practitioner can do metta to every person, including the immoral people, every time because Metta is mental meditation, but the practitioner shouldn't be very familiar with them because the practitioner can derive their bad behavior.
We help and support a cat, e.g. giving food, but we shouldn't be very familiar with a cat because the cat can't teach us the four noble truth.
Avoiding the ignorant person is not worry or scary. it is understanding of the effects of each fellowship.
The practitioner still wants to give happiness to the ignorant person every time, but the practitioner is just careful to keep the distance between practitioner-self and the ignorant person.

Metta is wishing to give happiness to the other living life(s).
What is that life?
The life is the aggregates in dependent origination cycle, so sometimes life has a wholesome mind and it's mental&physical factors,  but sometimes life has an unwholesome mind.
Metta-mind doesn't care about life's mental state. Metta-mind cares about the entire of which is called "living life".
Mind that voiding from ignorant, immoral people is focusing at the mental state. We don't want to derive any bad habit from the ignorant, immoral people, so we should avoid being close with them.
For the example:
I have the only mother, so I can do everything to make her happy, but I have to avoid to study chemistry with her because she is ignorant of it.
I give some food to the immoral victims because I am so sorry with their suffering however I do not support their previous immoral and bad behavior. I am not going to be immoral and to have bad behavior like them.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How does teaching of Buddhism deal with waste? How does teaching of Buddhism deal with acceptance even it causes unhappiness?
I'm curious to know and understand more how would a Buddhist deal with wastage under the following circumstances :
i)If it was an impulsive buy and you don't like the item after that and at the same time don't wanna keep it as it may took up the space available. Or would you rather just use it but you are obviously unhappy using it.
ii)If it was something edible, e.g. you thought of trying out new food but realize later it doesn't suit your tastebud or worse, you find it hard to finish it.
iii)Someone got you a gift but you may not like it or it's not something you want, would you keep it? By keeping it and not using it is equivalent to wastage or would you rather use it but deep down you wont't feel happy using it cos it's not something you want. The struggle or rather dilemma is you may just use it cos you don't wanna disappoint the person who gave you the gift but on the other hand, how do you even find peace and happiness doing something you may not like.
I'm constantly at the crossroad of learning to be grateful for what i have for many of them out there may not be able to have what i have. But i can't find peace or even happiness if it causes great deal of pain for accepting something which i don't like or it's not something i wanted.
I'm assuming Buddhism does not teach us to accept blindly even you can't. How do you even live a life like that?
Feel free to share your thoughts.
Thanks & sadhu sadhu sadhu...

If you don't want or don't need something that you have, donate it or give it away to others who need it, instead of throwing it away.
Donating to monks or virtuous people is better than donating to unvirtuous people. But any kind of donation, even to animals, is a source of merit.
From AN 3.57:

"I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or
  a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals
  live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say
  nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is
  given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is
  given to an unvirtuous person.

Wastage of things and wealth in Buddhism is not about throwing things away. Rather it's about not using things and wealth for the benefit of oneself and/or others.
From SN 3.19:

"That's the way it is, great king. That's the way it is. When a person
  of no integrity acquires lavish wealth, he doesn't provide for his own
  pleasure & satisfaction, nor for the pleasure & satisfaction of his
  parents, nor for the pleasure & satisfaction of his wife & children;
  nor for the pleasure & satisfaction of his slaves, servants, &
  assistants; nor for the pleasure & satisfaction of his friends. He
  doesn't institute for brahmans & contemplatives offerings of supreme
  aim, heavenly, resulting in happiness, leading to heaven. When his
  wealth isn't properly put to use, kings make off with it, or thieves
  make off with it, or fire burns it, or water sweeps it away, or
  hateful heirs make off with it. Thus his wealth, not properly put to
  use, goes to waste and not to any good use.
"But when a person of integrity acquires lavish wealth, he provides
  for his own pleasure & satisfaction, for the pleasure & satisfaction
  of his parents, the pleasure & satisfaction of his wife & children;
  the pleasure & satisfaction of his slaves, servants, & assistants; and
  the pleasure & satisfaction of his friends. He institutes for brahmans
  & contemplatives offerings of supreme aim, heavenly, resulting in
  happiness, leading to heaven. When his wealth is properly put to use,
  kings don't make off with it, thieves don't make off with it, fire
  doesn't burn it, water doesn't sweep it away, and hateful heirs don't
  make off with it. Thus his wealth, properly put to use, goes to a good
  use and not to waste.

There are many Sutta and Vinaya deals with waste.
Most of the instructions are for monks in regard to the use of food, lodging, and clothes.
The instructions to lay, followers, are found in Parabhava and Sigalovada Sutta.

The Kula Sutta refers to how wealth & material goods are preserved & not wasted, as follows:

In every case where a family cannot hold onto its great wealth for long, it is for one or another of these four reasons. Which four? They
  don't look for things that are lost. They don't repair things that
  have gotten old. They are immoderate in consuming food and drink. They
  place a woman or man of no virtue or principles in the position of
  authority. In every case where a family cannot hold onto its great
  wealth for long, it is for one or another of these four reasons.

Apart from this, Buddhism also teaches generosity is a valuable practise. If we have things we do not need or want, we can simply give them to other people.

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


text:
Is there a major translation error in MN 10?
I have noticed the following translation in MN10:

And again, monks, a monk, when he is walking, comprehends, ‘I am walking’; or when he is standing still, comprehends, ‘I am standing still’; or when he is sitting down, comprehends, ‘I am sitting down’; or when he is lying down, comprehends, ‘I am lying down.’ So that however his body is disposed he comprehends that it is like that.
https://suttacentral.net/mn10/en/horner

I find this in all translations of Ven Sujato and Ven Thanissaro's translations as well.
But when I checked the Sinhalese translations, I can't see this was translate as "i am".

I wonder if one can translate a different (hybrid) language to English word to word, with same grammar rule. Obviously in Chinese Agama, it doesn't read so clumsy as that. I can only say, digging the word meaning, esp. an unnatural (hybrid/artificial) language, is futile to extract the correct method

@Mishu米殊 Chinese verbs don't conjugate, and nouns don't decline, right? What is the literal (word-for-word) translation of the Agama -- is there a pronoun in it, like "I"? Or is it just the verb without a "subject" (an action without an agent): like "lying down", not "I lying down"?

See further discussion in Sutta Central:https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/major-translation-error-in-mn-10/11974/8

See further discussion in Dhamma Wheel:https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33528

Grammar is a later tool used to measure Chinese. Classical Chinese is more like putting together signs, the channel of transmitting meanings perhaps more like mind to mind. There definitely has no "I" or whatever pronoun, same character can represent a verb, a noun, or even an adjective. Word-for-word for example: sit-then-know-sit (as said Chinese are signs putting together, it could even be reduced to sit-know-sit, further reduced to sit-sit, it still transmits the same meaning perfectly, with the later the better; but not all people are smart enough...

... therefore it has already used the more clumsy way to put the redundant then and know there). If I further explain this little phrase it will reduce the Mahasi-noting to rubble. Since many "teachers" living on the Mahasi, it's better to keep silence @ChrisW

@Mishu米殊 I wonder if that's true of Japanese, too (or if Japanese texts are Chinese). I say that because I think that English translations of Japanese/Zen instructions are like, "When sitting, just sit."

I never spent time study this. From gross, Japanese just copied all Chinese Tripitaka, and characters were directly adopted. It was regarded superior when writing in Chinese. But that was before Han Chinese lost to Mogolian rule. History said Japanese moaned when Song Dynasty collapsed as if their own country being destroyed. Sometimes I watch Japanese cartoon with subtitle, some words are just like Chinese dialect. So, I guess Japanese/zen very close, but still, the spirit of thinking is not exact. The way lanuguage constructed reflects the group-mind behind, my assertion @ChrisW

Furthermore, when a mendicant is walking they know: ‘I am walking.’
Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu
  gacchanto vā ‘gacchāmī’ti pajānāti

From my very little understanding of Pali, "gacchāmi" means "I am walking" because the verb conjugation -mi is only used for first person singular in present tense, hence the "I am" is optional. The subject is optional.
Similarly, "gacchasi" means "you are walking" but "you are" is optional because the verb conjugation -si is for second person singular in present tense. The subject is optional.
Similarly, "gacchāma" means "we are walking" because the conjugation -ma is for first person plural in present tense. The subject is optional.
However, for "gacchati" which means "he/she/it is walking", and "gacchanti" which means "they are walking", a subject is not optional and must be clearly specified because it is not obvious from the verb conjugation who it is referring to.
Of course, in continuing conversation, third person subject (singular or plural) may be omitted, if it was explicitly stated in the previous part of the conversation i.e. implied. At least, I guess so.
Please see here.

The "I am" (in the English translation) is implied by the conjugation of the verb (as said in ruben2020's answer).
In Pali, verbs are "conjugated" -- i.e. their endings change to denote "which person?" and "how many?" (as well as, "which tense?").
That's true of other languages (e.g. Latin):

amo ("I love")
amas ("you love")
amat ("he/she loves")
etc.

In English verbs don't conjugate, instead they're nearly invariant and instead there's a separate personal pronoun, e.g. ...

I run
you run
he run[s]
we run
you run
they run

... i.e. you get the person and the number from the added pronoun, not from conjugating the verb-ending. Alternatively ...

I am running
you are running
etc.

In languages which conjugate it's ungrammatical not to (conjugation is required) -- i.e. I expect that you can't (with good grammar) use a verb in a Pali sentence without conjugating it.
The conjugation is just "conventional" though -- maybe you shouldn't read too much into it -- and it is NOT meant to mean ...

I am thinking. Oh my God: 'I am' thinking. So, "I am"! ... "I AM!"

As an aside, when Ven. Yuttadhammo for example describes "noting" something in meditation, he uses the present participle form -- e.g. "Breathing ... breathing", rather than, "I am breathing, I am breathing". This (i.e. without the personal pronoun, without the whole "I am" part of the so-called present continuous phrase) isn't ordinarily/conventionally grammatical (to be grammatical, a sentence usually requires a subject as well as a verb), but is maybe better suited to the occasion and purpose (i.e. of noting but without wanting to reinforce a self-view).
If I look at the French translation of the sutta, I see "Je marche", which translates to English as either "I walk" or "I am walking".
I don't know the Sinhalese language but I think Wikipedia says it doesn't conjugate:

Sinhalese distinguishes three conjugation classes. Spoken Sinhalese does not mark person, number or gender on the verb (literary Sinhalese does). In other words, there is no subject–verb agreement.

Maybe that's why there is no equivalent in the Sinhalese translation -- i.e. the grammar doesn't require it.

It's the outspoken translation. Nothing is wrong by the context. See Ruben's answer.
However, the obvious serious wrong is the vocabulary translation. Pajānāti means "comprehension", it doesn't means "know".

Furthermore, when a mendicant is walking they know comprehension: ‘I am walking.’
Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu gacchanto vā ‘gacchāmī’ti pajānāti

The Atthakathā explains the comprehension, Sampajañña, to four here. These four comprehensions have two levels:
3.1. The samatha level in MN KāyagatāsatiSutta which taught to the beginner, neyya. The listeners in this Sutta are the newbies, so the Sutta's structure point to Jhāna, CittaVisuddhi, at the end of each section.
The practitioner begins by ĀnāpanassatiJhāna in sitting meditation, and keep to meditate Ānāpānassati in Section on postures and Section on sampajañña. This is the basis.
3.2. The vipassana level in MN MahāsitipaṭṭhānaSutta which taught to the high level vipassanā practitioners, ugghaṭitaññū, in Kuru Kingdom. All of the listeners in this Sutta already practiced these 21 sections, but the end of each section, samudayavayadhammānupassivā dhammasamiṃ Viharati (the practitioner comprehensions the origin and the cessation in all practiced practices and the comprehending mind), is their last lesson of the practice, so MahāAtthakatha said many listeners enlightened as Arahanta after the listening.
This level appeared in explained in MN MahāsitipaṭṭhānaSutta's Atthakathā. It's not for the beginner. If the beginner start from this explanation, he is going to stick at the 10 imperfections/defilements of insight, Vipassanūpakkilesa. This explanation is very popular however most of teachers, today, give it the the improper practitioners.
That's why most of them can't enlighten in seven years according to the end of this Sutta. The sequence level is very important, when the practitioner cross the sequence, it means the defilements of insight still remain.
The question owner creates this question because he thinks follow to this level.
the meaning of the comprehends is the same as above wiki link, except the fourth.
4.1. The sampajañña of samatha level is...

when a mendicant is walking they comprehends: ‘I am walking for the purpose, suitability, and domain of the non-delusion in the breath meditation’.

4.2 The sampajañña of vipassanā level is...

when a mendicant is walking they comprehends: ‘I am walking for the purpose, suitability, and domain of the non-delusion in the aggregates in the Dependent Origination cycle’.

4.3 How can I know that explanation?
I understand it from Sutta context after I recited and memorized MahāsatipaṭṭhānaSutta Pali for ten years (so I often tell you all to memorize the pāli to study Sutta). The context is already arranged from the basic to the advance like in the explanation in Netti.
Pajānāti has already appeared before the Section on postures in the summary Section of this sutta, Ānapanassati Section, and almost all other Sections as well. It means the Section on postures must translate with those all sections as I translated above.
So, what is written in wikipedia, it is wrong...

While the nikayas do not The Sutta has already elaborated on what the Buddha meant by sampajañña as "the keeping comprehension of current meditation in four main postures and seven sub-postures", the Pali commentaries analyze explain it further in terms of four contexts for one's comprehension

Actually, pajānāti and sampajañña is already elaborated in Sutta's context clearly already.

I don't edit wikipedia because I don't know how to summarize this answer into the encyclopedia writing.


text:
In which tradition Om Ma Ni Pad Me Hum mantra is used Mahayana or Thervada?
It is Tibetan mantra.
In which traditon Om Ma Ni Pad Me Hum mantra is used Mahayana or Thervada?
Or it is used in all three traditions, since this is Buddhism teaching?

The back cover of the book "The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra" by Alexander Studholme states:

Om Manipadme Hum, perhaps the most well-known and most widely used of
  all Buddhist mantras, lies at the heart of the Tibetan system and is
  cherished by both laymen and lama alike. This book presents a new
  interpretation of the meaning of Om Manipadme Hum, and includes a
  detailed, annotated precis of Karandavyuha Sutra, opening up this
  important work to a wider audience.
The earliest textual source is the
  Karandavyuha Sutra, which describes both the compassion of
  Avalokitesvara, the bodhisattva whole power the mantra invokes, and
  the mythical tale of the search and discovery of the mantra. Through a
  detailed analysis of this sutra, Studholme explores the historical and
  doctrinal forces behind the appearance of Om Manipadme Hum in India at
  around the middle of the first millennium c.e.
He argues that the
  Karandavyuha Sutra has close affinities to non-Buddhist puranic
  literature, and that the conception of Avalokitesvara and his
  six-syllable mantra is influenced by the conception of the Hindu deity
  Siva and his five-syllable mantra Namah Sivaya. The Karandavyuha Sutra
  reflects historical situation in which the Buddhist monastic
  establishment was coming into contact with Buddhist tantric
  practitioners, themselves influenced by Saivite practitioners.

The mantra "OM mani padme hum" seems to be found only in Tibetan Buddhism.
However, Avalokiteshvara can be found in other non-Tibetan Mahayana traditions like Pure Land Buddhism. Avalokiteshvara is officially not found in the Pali Canon of Theravada Buddhism, even if you can find images of him in some Theravada temples.
Mantras or some kind of phrase for chanting can be found in almost all Buddhist traditions like "namo amitabha buddha" in Pure Land Buddhism, "nam myoho renge kyo" in Nichiren Buddhism and "namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa" in Theravada Buddhism.

The mantra is not used in Theravāda.

Thanks, I'm Thervada Buddhist so may shouldn't I practice this?

@Swapnil "Theravada" or "Theravadin" is not a static nor homogenous concept. There are a myriad of interpretations under the umbrella term "Theravada", some of them being incompatible with each other. So, I don't think that any practice is forbidden (or nit recommended) as long as it does not transgress the core teachings and precepts given by the Buddha. But keep in mind that mantras are not magic spells, and that ritual alone are uneffective if not complemented with self-reflection, analysis, mindfulness and ethical training. Kind regards!

@Swapnil I found this insightful video where the Dalai Lama speaks about the meaning and use of the mantra. Even for Theravadins, this might be an useful resource: https://youtu.be/4QQKDP8SQZg

@BrianDíazFlores I had already watched this video. I know that isn't magical or miracle like think.  Buddhism practice is about philosophic and scientific so I think same in Vajrayana also. No restriction to practice freedom, liberty is name for Buddhism. Thanks a lot.

According to this article it is said;

The mantra originated in India; as it moved from India into Tibet, the pronunciation changed because some of the sounds in the Indian Sanskrit language were hard for Tibetans to pronounce.

and

The mantra Om Mani Padme Hum is found written in two different ways in (and on) Mani wheels and on jewelry, etc.: in the ancient Indian Ranjana script and in Tibetan script.

So it should be belong to either Tibetan Vajrayāna buddhism or Mahāyāna buddhism. One reason I would say so is, Rañjanā script can be mostly found in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna monasteries.
Usually buddhists in Theravāda school of buddhism don't use mantra.
Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

Some people might consider "namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa" as a type of mantra.

I know there are no mantras are used in Thervada.

But I didn't find if it is belong to Vajrayana. I supposed it Mahayana.


text:
What if there is no rebirth but karma is not eradicated by meditation and the path?
What if there is no rebirth but karma is not eradicated by the path?
I think that would mean that the agent experiences the results of their actions even without rebirth. Am I right? At least if the buddha self is not just impermanent.

What if there's a flower bud in a tree but sunshine and other requirements need it to be pollinated are not fully covered/eradicated. Will it bear a fruit without blooming? -- Think and you'll find the answer for your question.

There is no 'rebirth' (aka 'reincarnation') but kamma (the idea of 'agent' doing & reaping) is eradicated by the path. This means if the path is not realised, 'the agent' experiences the results of their actions even if there is no rebirth (reincarnation).
However, 'an agent' experiencing the results of their actions is what 'rebirth' really means. 'Rebirth' in reality is the re-arising of the idea of 'the agent' or 'self'.
'Rebirth' does not mean 'reincarnation' into another life. 'Rebirth' means the idea, obsession and neurosis of 'self' keeps getting born; as follows:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
  has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
  self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is
  the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
  of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
  touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
  arises. That fabrication is born of that.
SN 22.81

In the teachings in the Pali suttas, 'rebirth' always includes the delusion of 'an agent' or 'a being', as follows:

I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human —
  beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are
  inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in
  accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad
  conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong
  views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with
  the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane
  of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But
  these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, &
  mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and
  undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the
  break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good
  destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine
  eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away &
  re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior,
  beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their
  kamma.
MN 4

As long as the mind continues to construct the idea of 'self', 'agent', 'person' or 'being', rebirth will continue. This is samsara. Samsara is circling around in self-views, as follows:

"Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running
  around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
  an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
  ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
  regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
"He assumes feeling to be the self...
"He assumes perception to be the self...
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
  consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.
"He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that
  very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
  that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
  from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
  from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
  from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
  set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
SN 22.99

"A being" is merely a view or idea, as explained below:

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This
  is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,
  when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
  away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.
SN 5.10

Hi DD! Is it fair to equate rebirth to reincarnation? Do you think when people use the term rebirth, they are talking about reincarnation? Or is there a difference between those two concepts? Kind regards!

Hi Brian. I think 'rebirth" in the suttas later became "reincarnation" in Buddhism. For example, the later Jataka Tales are definitely about reincarnation. But originally, the "rebirth" teachings are basically about results of kamma. The language & context of the older sutta teachings can be interpreted in two ways. But literal reincarnation can only be interpreted in one way. There are a small handful of literal reincarnation suttas. Since they can only be interpreted in one way, for me, the Buddha never spoke them. Regards

Thanks for that quick response. This new answer of yours seems more nuanced than when you wrote "rebirth (aka 'reincarnation')", which seems to imply that both are virtually the same. I may be reading and interpreting things wrongly, but I think most people on this forum and in DW use the word 'rebirth' as the process of continuation of some features of a "past chain of events" (of a being), which is definitely not the same as a belief in soul or a permanent self (which I understand as "reincarnation"). Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores - I share your view that rebirth is not reincarnation. It seems an important point.

not sure about the quotes you use, but this seems like a fair description of theravada buddhism

Well if there is no rebirth, then it is good news for people who want to stop dukkha: it is only death, the problem is solved without requiring any effort, because humans, devas animals die, whether they like and want it or not.
THe problem is that death of a puthujjana or devas or animals is not the way to stop dukkha, so those people have to do something else than dying, in order to stop dukkha.

What the matter for a Buddhist is to eliminate Dukkha here and now. Not after death.
So whether there is rebirth or not is secondary.


text:
Difference between "perception" and "view"?
What is the difference between view (as in "right view" in the Noble Eightfold Path) and perception (as in the 3rd of the five Skandha's)?
Grateful for help! Peace, Tord

Perception is making memory.
Everytime we are making memory. One is touching (construction), feeling (feeling), and making memory (perception), while seeing (consciousness) a color at same moment.
Perception must arises everytime, except asannasatta-brahma and sannavedayitanirodhasamapatti, with a wholesome aggregate, unwholesome and neither wholesome nor unwholesome.
View is understanding of relations.
Right view is understanding in the relations of aggregates in the dependention origination cycle.
It is a kind of construction aggregates, sankhara. It can arise only with wholesome and neither wholesome nor unwholesome.
Wrong view is misunderstanding in  the relations of aggregates in the dependention origination cycle. It is a kind of construction aggregates, sankhara as well. It can arise only with unwholesome.
See the path of purification chapters: aggregates,  and dependent origination.

Perhaps if you search this site for "What is perception?" and "What is a view?" you will answer your question in two steps.
To summarize very briefly, in my understanding,
Perception is what happens when (for example) you look at some visual features and from them recognize the whole object, then you take the more abstract features of the object and recognize situation, then you take the more abstract features of the situation and recognize your position and so on. It's a cyclic process of recognition and association, from features to a higher-level concept.
View is an entirely different thing altogether, it's your philosophical framework, the basic structure according to which you see life and choose course of action.
As Bonn said, both rely on accumulated tendencies (sankhara), what we could, perhaps superficially, call memories or imprints left by previous experiences. But even though both rely on the same foundation, they are entirely different-order phenomena. Perception is momentary, view is permanent or at least long-term. Perception is the result, view is the source. Perception is objective content, view is subjective frame of reference.

'Perception' in the suttas (MN 43; SN 22.79) is described as something very basic, namely, the perception of different colours.

'It perceives, it perceives': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'perception.' And what does it perceive? It perceives blue. It
  perceives yellow. It perceives red. It perceives white. 'It perceives,
  it perceives': Thus it is said to be 'perception.
MN 43

Thus, on its most primitive level, it seems perception perceives differences in shape, colours, sound vibrations, smells, etc.
'View' is views & opinions that are made up many accumulated ideas or experiences. For example, in Dependent Origination, views & opinions are a type of attachment (which is 'sankhara').
'View' is also the ignorance or wrong view people are born with; which is unrelated to experience. This is an in-born underlying tendency. For example, that a small child expects to permanently get what it wants is unrelated to experience. Its mere ignorance.  Thus in AN 7.11, both ignorance (avijjānusayo) & views (diṭṭhānusayo) are included as underlying tendencies.
In terms of 'khandha' ('aggregates'), perception is sanna khandha and views are sankhara khandha.
Perception does not rely on  accumulated tendencies (anusaya; sankhara). That a small child feels the shape, warmth & taste of its mother's breasts is unrelated to accumulate tendencies. That sugar tastes sweet to a small child and tastes sweet to basically all people shows perception of sweetness is unrelated to accumulated tendencies. If accumulated tendencies determined perception then all people would not perceive 'blue', 'green', 'red', 'round', 'square', 'bitter', 'sweet' the same and basic communication could not occur. Therefore, would be chaos!


text:
What is the Buddhist view, if any, on witchcraft?
I don't think I've seen any talk about this on the Buddhism SE and I'm genuinely curious, since I've heard that Christianity takes a very dim view of the practice. Have any Buddhist texts or teachers made reference to witchcraft or religions that practice it, and if so, was it in a positive / neutral / negative light?
Please note: I'm not really asking whether answerers personally believe that magic / witchcraft exists, so I ask that you stick to the actual question when answering.

This is an interesting question.
But "witchcraft" is a vague term. In Western culture, it often associates with negative meaning.
If witchcraft is just a board terminology to cover any practice that's outside common sense and general knowledge, you may say Buddhist texts mentioned about it. Often the text retells the story to forbid such practice.
I've read the full Mahisasakas Vinaya, in it mentioned several stories related to witchcraft. Often it's due to some Bhiksus were originally Brahmins they brought it to the Samgha. For example, it mentioned the spell to cure snake bites, spell to call upon spirit to animate corpse, or fortune telling, etc. In it it even mentioned the Precept of Not to Kill included the killing by witchcraft (I will need to check the text to cite properly, it's very interesting).
As said, Buddhist texts notice and understand the practice of witchcraft existed, but banned it, or discouraged it. From the Vinaya, if the Bhiksu continued his practice after its made as breaking the precept, he would be expelled. But the texts never mentioned any prosecution of any practitioner.
From the central teaching of Buddhism, Prajna-paramita is the greatest witchcraft. If anyone wants supernatural power, the best investment is to invest in cultivating wisdom and virtue.

This quote from DN 2 may be helpful:

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
  signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
  interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
  reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
  oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
  ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
  blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
  geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a
  cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and
  gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
  bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
  charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: determining lucky and unlucky gems, staffs, garments, swords,
  arrows, bows, and other weapons; women, men, boys, girls, male slaves,
  female slaves; elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams,
  fowl, quails, lizards, rabbits, tortoises, and other animals — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
  march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
  their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
  triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
  triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
  triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be a lunar eclipse; there will be a solar
  eclipse; there will be an occultation of [a conjunction of the moon or
  a planet with] an asterism; the sun and moon will be favorable; the
  sun and moon will be unfavorable; the asterisms will be favorable; the
  asterisms will be unfavorable; there will be a meteor shower; there
  will be a flickering light on the horizon [an aurora?]; there will be
  an earthquake; there will be thunder coming from dry clouds; there
  will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the sun,
  moon, and asterisms; such will be the result of the lunar eclipse ...
  the rising, setting, darkening, brightening of the sun, moon, and
  asterisms — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such
  as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
  drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
  rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
  will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
  counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
  and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
  the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
  calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
  collecting debts or making investments and loans; reciting charms to
  make people attractive or unattractive; curing women who have
  undergone miscarriages or abortions; reciting spells to bind a man's
  tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands,
  or to bring on deafness; getting oracular answers to questions
  addressed to a spirit in a mirror, in a young girl, or to a spirit
  medium; worshipping the sun, worshipping the Great Brahmā, bringing
  forth flames from the mouth, invoking the goddess of luck — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
  promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
  skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
  construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
  mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
  administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
  head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
  ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
  extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
  root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
  his virtue."
"A monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger anywhere from his
  restraint through virtue. Just as a head-anointed noble warrior king
  who has defeated his enemies sees no danger anywhere from his enemies,
  in the same way the monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger
  anywhere from his restraint through virtue. Endowed with this noble
  aggregate of virtue, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being
  blameless. This is how a monk is consummate in virtue.

Christianity takes a very dim view of the practice

So far as I know, Christianity doesn't approve of "witchcraft" but does approve of "miracles".
I think the difference is meant to be whether the source of the magic is God, or, a Devil.

I'm not really asking whether answerers personally believe that magic / witchcraft exists

So I guess by "witchcraft" you mean any kind of magic.
I think some scriptures talk of or mention, tells a story which includes, various psychic powers -- reading minds, television (seeing what happens far away), teleportation (disappearing from here and appearing there), psychic projection (seeming to appear somewhere else), flying though the air, knowing the state into which someone recently-deceased has (or has not) been reborn, and so on, others too.
These powers are often associated with adept practitioners, enlightened people, the Buddha -- but not necessarily, i.e. merely having these attainments isn't proof of being enlightened -- many yogis do, apparently.
A monk who has such a power is forbidden (by the Vinaya, the monastic rules) from demonstrating them to laypeople, for various reasons -- lay people are too easily impressed, they ought to be impressed by the Dhamma instead, and they shouldn't favour one monk over another just because one has psychic powers.


text:
Is meditating when tired a waste of time?
I like to meditate sometimes just before bed. Invariably I end up drifting off into dream type states and ending the mediating early. Is it a waste of time to meditate when tired or conversely are there some particular benefits to doing it then?
Many thanks as always

Before giving a definite answer, it is important to know in which posture you normally are when meditating, and what you are habitually thinking, feeling & behaving minutes to hours before.
If
When you're lying down then obviously your body will think it's time to sleep. If you ate a lot, you will become sleepy due to the dgestive activity.
You also have to realize that practise is preferably done as much as possible, that is, (i) to prevent & to abandon unwholesome state of minds; and (ii); to bring to existence and to strengthen wholesome state of minds. This is right effort.
Rigjt effort is that important because whatever you think and ponder upon frequently, of that will be your inclination of your mind.

"Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with sensuality. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with ill will, abandoning thinking imbued with non-ill will, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with harmfulness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmlessness, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmfulness.

MN 19
So if you have been negligent in your daily life regarding the five hindrance (no offense here, it happens to all of us), then naturally the hindrances will be quite strong during a formal sit.
This is precisely the reason why kammatthana ('place of work') refers to the continous work of weakening of the five hindrances, and the strengthening of the seven factors of enlightenment.

Thanks for the answer. I meditate sitting on a meditation cushion. If I ever try to meditate lying down then I will go to sleep regardless of the time of day!

Sariputta discusses this in DN33.
Here is the problem:

Eight grounds for laziness. Firstly, a mendicant has some work to do. They think: ‘I have some work to do. But while doing it my body will get tired. I’d better have a lie down.’ They lie down, and don’t rouse energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized. This is the first ground for laziness.

Here is the solution:

Eight grounds for arousing energy. Firstly, a mendicant has some work to do. They think: ‘I have some work to do. While working it’s not easy to focus on the instructions of the Buddhas. I’d better preemptively rouse up energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized.’ They rouse energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized. This is the first ground for arousing energy.

DN33 is a long sutta. It is two hours long. I listen to it as much as I can. And when I am tired of walking, tired of listening, I hear the above verses. They come late in DN33, just when I need them.
Perhaps they may work for you as well.

Meditating when you're tired will just reduce the effectiveness of meditation. Just like unless the meditator enters to a continous strong awareness, their awareness naturally reduces at every night. But it is beneficial because you still create many moments of awareness for yourself. Also especially when you're tired during morning or afternoon, you can overcome tiredness by insisting to continue the meditation. So part of the meditation would be for overcoming the tiredness.
Only physical sickness tiredness is different so you may choose to not meditate when you're sick. Some meditators don't go to sleep for many days and continue meditating all night so there are benefits in meditating at night for few minutes, half an hour, an hour or more.

Ajhan brahm recommends to ''meditate'', meaning sati sampajana, samadhi, when you wake up, but have not yet got up. SO you wake up in bed, at this point you do not have much mental masturbation, and you are comfortable and not tired. You do that for 1 hour before getting up.
People do not care enough about lying meditation, because they are weak at avoiding falling asleep (which is the hardest thing to avoid). However, lying mediation avoid pains, which is the thing that people fail to deal with. This is because people try to push away thoughts (without even knowing why, without even discriminating between good thoughts and bad thoughts) and concentrate on an object, they try to get the citta to sit in samadhi, before they do sati sampajana. Then they claim that samadhi is too hard. Again, they fail to understand that it is the good thoughts that make sati sampajana and samadhi easy. A mano full of nekkamma and metta brings the citta into samadhi.
THe suttas expose a few tricks against drowsiness
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel263.html#fnt-3


text:
Conflicting schools of thought
Trying to get useful and helpful information on this site is very difficult. Why do Buddhists have so many conflicting opinions? It's kind of ridiculous and just one more reason why I can never take religion seriously even though I appreciate some of the teachings that resonate with me.
Some examples I've noticed-
The western insight tradition emphasises acknowledging, turning toward, facing whatever is present so for example if anger arises one is to recognise it, investigate how it feels in the body etc but to not identify with it. The same goes for everything else, thought, sensations, emotions etc.
But Ive noticed one school of thought with people on this site who say you must try to rid your mind of certain unskillful feelings and thoughts and try to replace them with skillful ones.
These two ideas seem to conflict with each other. You can't face and turn towards and get rid of at the same time.  I have to say it makes much more sense to me to acknowledge what is already present and notice how it goes away of its own accord because of anicca rather than forcing it.
Another conflict I've noticed is the labeling, noting. Again the western insight tradition, Mahasi Sayadaw, yuttadhamma Bikhu emphasise the labeling. One teacher that took a retreat I went on has been practicing for over 40 years and still labels when walking etc. But then other people on here say you shouldn't.
Yuttadhamma Bikhu says that by labelling you are replacing the thoughts etc with clear thought. So instead of being lost in proliferation you say to yourself in your mind  "thinking thinking" and then you have replaced the thoughts.  I have to say that this works. As soon as a thought is recognised and named its gone. So again not sure why some say it's not correct. It works for me so I will keep on doing it.
In the end I believe spirituality is a personal journey and no one can really tell another what is right without it just becoming dogmatic.

Hi! I won't post as an answer on its own because I have no sources to back me up. But in my opinion, about the way to deal with emotions/mind processes, I don't see a necessary conflict between the positions you tell us. The final goal is to get rid of unwholesome thoughts, deeds and words, and to eradicate their unwholesome roots (greed, aversion and ignorance). But, in order to achieve that goal, the open recognition and facing of emotions is a good way to do it, because you slowly train your mind to not to react blindly to daily situations, and wisdon becomes the compass of your actions.

No some people on here say you must not acknowledge such things but rid your mind of them. It's a a very clear distinction between the two methods

And how do you get rid of ingrained tendencies, nurtured through years of unattentive life? Is there a way to do that inmediately?

there's a good technique known as RAIN. Recognise, acknowledge, investigate, non identification.   You cannot get rid of things. If it's there then it has arisen already. You can't just command it away.  You acknowledge it and you know that it will go of its own accord. The most important thing is to not react to such things.

Is it a personal and/or an impersonal journey? If one can't tell the other what is right without becoming dogmatic can you tell yourself what is right without becoming dogmatic? Maybe reality doesn't admit that one is separate from the other.

There are many techniques that were taught by the Buddha and also later, other techniques were developed by Buddhist teachers over history, that are based on the Buddha's teachings. You are right that some of these techniques may appear to be in conflict with each other.
However, we must understand that each technique is used for a particular purpose, for a particular situation, to cater for a particular need.
It is just like how a master chef uses various techniques to craft the best results based on the needs. Sometimes you need to boil, sometimes you need to bake, sometimes you need to fry and sometimes you need to sautee. These techniques are mutually exclusive but used at different times to achieve different results.
You can find guidance on the basics of insight meditation in the booklet entitled "How To Meditate" by Ven. Yuttadhammo. This technique is used to gain insight into the workings of dependent origination. Also read "The Way of Mindfulness" by Ven. Soma Thera, which is an essay that discusses the Satipatthana Sutta. This the technique that involves noting.
But you can't progress in insight meditation, if you are strongly assailed by the five hindrances. To solve this, one technique is in the Vitakka-Santhana Sutta which teaches the forceful removal of unskillful thoughts. Forceful removal of thoughts is not part of insight meditation, but if you are too disturbed by unskillful thoughts, then you need to forcefully remove it.
To eradicate the hindrance of ill-will, you can use Loving Kindness (metta) as the technique for eradication. Intentionally generating thoughts of loving kindness is also not part of insight meditation.
For overcoming lust (as a hindrance of sensual desire), you can use the contemplation on unattractiveness (see this question). But too much of it may lead to negative thoughts of suicide, in which case, use the mindfulness of breathing (see this answer) to counter it. Intentionally contemplating on unattractiveness, is also not part of insight meditation.
Also, samatha meditation (see the article entitled "Entering the Jhanas" by Leigh Brasington) is yet another technique used to calm the mind, and create focus and concentration. This is yet another technique that could help insight meditation. But it can be developed on its own too.
If you are continuously disturbed in every way in meditation and cannot progress further, then the technique to solve this, is the development of virtue (sila) outside of meditation - see this answer for details.
So, although different approaches appear to be conflicting with each other, they are actually complementary. The Buddha taught the practitioner to be multi-skilled. That's why there's the Noble Eightfold Path, rather than a Noble One Single Technique to End Suffering. No one technique is sufficient to achieve the results.

I have tried metta practice many many times and it does not work. It's not possible to just feel loving kindness when you just don't feel it no matter how many rote phrases you repeat to yourself.  It might work for some people but not for me. Some teachers don't even include it in their teachings on retreats because they agree that it's useless.

I had a look at that link "the way of mindfulness". There is no way I can read that. The never ending rambling repetitive blocks of text just send me to sleep.

So wonderful and practical. The objective is - your mind should be calm and you should be able to witness what is happening as it is, without reaction.

@LakshmanPrasad Though it was polite of you to post comments like this one, but that's not necessary or conventional on this site -- "Compliments which do not add new information" is listed here (in the "When shouldn't I comment?" section at the bottom).

I agree with many of the answers here. Here are a few hopefully useful comments of my own.
The reason you are going to get conflicting information from this site is that different people have different opinions and some of us are right and some of us are wrong, for better or worse. Otherwise debates and discussions would never need to occur (As an example, the Pali canon itself contains the 'Kathavatthu' the points of controversy between various Buddhist schools). If you want the most qualified answers then you're probably better off looking  at texts by current authorities. In my experience I've found the books by the Dalai Lama to be clear and direct.
The fact that people disagree does not mean there's no objective truth about something, or no reason to take it seriously, whether in religion or otherwise. For example, someone might assert that 'No human being is intrinsically inferior than the other', and some may assert that 'Some human beings are intrinsically inferior to others because of trait x'. There is a disagreement here. Does that mean that there is no objective fact on the matter? Or that this is not something take seriously? People often disagree often things about which there is obviously an objective answer, take any scientific controversy, for example.
Regarding the first example, I think that the two conflicting answers you've mentioned are really talking about two different processes that might not be clearly separated in discussions, as Brian Díaz Flores has basically explained in his reply. If there are some who disagree then they must be wrong since as you've pointed out that view leads to a contradiction. That doesn't tell us anything about other Buddhists or Buddhism as a whole or religion. Similarly for the second example you raise about labelling.
It's also worth pointing out that the disagreements you've raised might not actually be that important. Regardless of what you think about labelling and so on, I would have thought that all Buddhists basically agree to assert against Hindus and others that there is no substantial self to be found in experience and enlightenment does not come from a god, among other things.
Finally your last remark contradicts the point above it. Haven't you just told yourself what is right by arguing against those who think that labelling is the wrong practice? If someone gives you the same argument then s/he has told you what is right with the same reasoning that you use and so endorse. This contradicts your point that: 'no one can really tell another what is right without it just becoming dogmatic'.
As an aside: sometimes a lot of what is discussed seems difficult to reconcile because of the translations that we use. For example 'unwholesome' is sometimes used and for me tends to conjure up Judo-Christian images of sinful acts. But it's important to realize that this might not be the kind of associations that the word translated had in its original context. Similarly I understand that 'skill full' is often a translation of the Sanskrit word 'upaya', but does not necessarily have many of the exact connotations that the original word has.

There is only One Truth, but many ways to be confused. There are people of different levels of understanding, both students and teachers, some closer to truth and some farther. This is why there are different explanations and different teachings - all partially valid in different ways.
When you know Truth, you can see: this teaching is partially valid from this side but wrong here; and this other teaching does a better job explaining this piece but has a problem with this other thing. When you know Truth you can see how it all connects. But when you don't know Truth these different perspectives seem contradicting. But they are not contradicting, what's missing is your understanding of Truth.
It's like with 3D objects, there may be multiple flat projections drawn on paper, each is a partially valid representation of the object - but each is ultimately wrong. When you know the 3D object, you can see how these projections relate to it - but if you don't know the object, the projections seem completely unrelated, nothing in common. Dharma is like this, even more complex than a single 3D object.
Specifically about stopping unskillful states, Buddha said that there is suffering (=bad experience) and that suffering can be stopped (=no more bad experience). He then said that the cause of suffering are unskillful mindstates, esp. craving, but also anger, fear, torpor, doubt, ignorance etc. He also said that suffering can be stopped through getting rid of these unskillful mind states and generating skilful mindstates. The culmination of this process is Nibbana. Are we good so far?
So, if it were impossible to get rid of unskillful mind states, it would be impossible to stop suffering. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any Buddhism, it would be pointless to try. But Buddhism exists.
Now, there are two schools of thought as to how the unskillful mindstates can be removed. These two schools of thought are two different flat projections of the same 3D object. They are two simplifications.
One school of thought says, we should make effort to actively get rid of unskillful mindstates. So if we have anger, we should stop it, when we have lust we should stop it and so on. The idea here is, if we don't make effort to fix the problem it won't go away by itself.
The other school of thought says, that just looking at the mind directly is enough to remove the unskillful states. The idea here is, unskillful mindstates appear when we think about some external objects and form some sort of attitudes toward them like craving or rejection. But if we look at our mind directly without judgement, in that very moment there is no attitude of craving or rejection, so right at that moment there is peace.
In reality, the two methods are the same method. In both cases we do something to stop the unskillful mindstate. In both cases we stop feeding it, by no longer thinking about the external object or problem, we take our attention from it. It's just that in one case we talk about the old thing we're stopping but not what we do instead, and in the other case we talk about the new thing we are doing (looking at mind directly) without mentioning the fact that by doing that we're stopping to feed the bad thought. So we are just talking about two sides of the same elephant. The actual practice is the same.
Now, about labeling. Labeling is just a way to switch your mind from thinking about the problem to looking at the mind. That's all. There is no magic value in labeling other then helping you switch your attention. If you can switch your attention to mind without labeling, then you don't need to label. It's like training wheels on the bike.
However, the problem with labeling is, some people tend to obsess with the label itself too much, instead of looking at the mind which is the whole point. This is why I always say, don't overdo it, it's not about labels it's about the mind.
It's like, when you look at the sunset standing on a cliff over the ocean, and someone calls you on the phone and asks what you see, and you just say "sunset". Isn't that a horrible vulgarization of the actual experience? Squeezing the entire endless ocean, colors, wind, and the atmosphere to a single label? Similarly, when you are labeling what happens in your mind. You are simplifying something subtle, deep, and nuanced - something alive - to a single label, a dead concept of logical mind. The danger there is, if you keep labeling it, at some point you will stop paying attention to the colors and wind and the background sounds - because you will know: it is "sunset". That's it. Once you know it you no longer see it. That's the danger with labeling in meditation, as well as post-meditation practice. Makes sense?
So you can either actively stop the bad mindstates by shifting attention away from them, or you can simply look at your mind, and in both cases you may use labels or not - as long as you know what you are doing and why, the practice is essentially the same.
As you can see, when you understand what's going on, there is no conflict between different schools or methods. They just approach it from different sides. The Truth is one and the same.

Well explained except "wrong" in this phrase: this teaching is partially valid from this side but wrong here The "parable of the elephant" suggests the teaching-as-perceived may be incomplete or one-sided, bit isn't wrong; and that even seemingly-contradictory descriptions are describing the same thing. If that's not what you meant, then I don't know what kind of wrong you were referring to.

Like, one school says "Samsara is Nirvana" and it is right in one sense, but wrong in another. The other school says, "Samsara is here and Nirvana is over there" and this is right in one sense but wrong in another.

As I said you before, you have completely wrong perceptions about noting. Noting actually take's a person's attention to what is real in the present moment and it makes the practise very effective. That's why experience is very important in spirituality. Without experience you can not judge anything correctly in spirituality.

The various views you will come across regarding methodology may usually be reconciled quite easily. Methods must vary with the practioner and often a technique that is useful in one system of practice will be unhelpful in another. This is true for practicing tennis or a musical instrument.
The serious disagreements, the disagreements that damage Buddhism and should not arise, are not about methods but about truth and the true nature of Reality. The reason they arise is that many Buddhists do not know the answers but speculate beyond their own knowledge, and where this speculation is not guided by metaphysical analysis it may go off the rails very quickly.
Attempts to dispose of these disagreements must refer to logic and reason but many Buddhists, and most people, do not like this approach. They interpret the teachings in the way they prefer and ignore arguments from logic even where this is counter to the Buddha's advice regarding the use of reason.
The topic is a hobby-horse for me. I cannot grasp why all Buddhists don't accept Nagarjuna's logic and normalise on the non-dual view. The problem is that until they do people like yourself will see Buddhism as a muddle of views and will question its claims to truth and knowledge, and rightly so. It makes no sense that a doctrine supposed to be grounded in knowledge ends up in a muddle.
I have no idea how to address the situation. Metaphysics is ignored by almost everyone and this leaves them free to adopt any old view, as we see in the scientific community and in academic philosophy. But really it's all very simple.
The finding of all philosophers who persevere is that all extreme metaphysical views fail in logic. This result of analysis is well-known to philosophers the world over and yet for some some reason most ignore it. If this result is correct then the Buddha's teachings must be true, as Nagarjuna tried to show, so metaphysical analysis endorses the teachings and this can be logically proved. This does not help Buddhism, however, because many Buddhists reject metaphysics and adopt logically unsound views.
It's a shame. If all Buddhists adopted a neutral metaphysical position as recommended by Nagarjuna then Buddhism could be presented as the only workable solution for metaphysics. As it is we have to limit this claim to Middle Way Buddhism. Then any sensible sceptic looking into Buddhism will be forced to ask why we don't all agree and is bound to doubt its knowledge claims.
There are further complications. For Nagarjuna's view the world becomes difficult to explain in ordinary language because we have to use a language of contradictory complementarity for which, as Lao Tsu puts it, 'true words seem paradoxical'. This would be the language of the Buddha's 'Third Turning of the Wheel'. Thus the language of mysticism in every tradition will seem to be inherently and deliberately self-contradictory unless we understand it. So very often where we see disagreements this will be an illusion. A classic example would be Heraclitus' famous statement 'We are and are-not'. If we know Nagarjuna's view then this statement will seem rigorous. If we don't it will seem paradoxical.
So there may be three reasons for finding disagreements among Buddhists.

Not all Buddhists know everything
Not all Buddhists pay attention to logic and reason
The language of Buddhism, where it is non-dualism, is bound to seem contradictory since rigour requires the avoidance of extreme views and positive statements about reality.

The other problem is that while so many Buddhists reject Nagarjuna it will be impossible to syncretise Buddhism with Taoism, Sufism, advaita and so forth, undermining the idea that truth may be discovered by self-enquiry and doing damage to religion and mysticism as a whole.

thinking thinking
seeing seeing
hearing hearing
smelling smelling
tasting tasting
touching touching

The above does seem to be equivalent to "This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self" MN62. I added the other five senses for completeness (I assumed you would naturally do that as well?).
In terms of the efficacy of practice, we read in MN62 The Simile of the Saw:

a mendicant may be the sweetest of the sweet, the most even-tempered of the even-tempered, the calmest of the calm, so long as they don’t encounter any disagreeable criticism. But it’s when they encounter disagreeable criticism that you’ll know whether they’re really sweet, even-tempered, and calm.

Therefore, one must consider "thinking thinking" in different contexts, such as:

Even if low-down bandits were to sever you limb from limb, anyone who had a malevolent thought on that account would not be following my instructions.

If "thinking thinking" would suffice here, then you will be fine.
If "thinking thinking" would not suffice here, then the sutta has some suggestions that may be of value.

There's some variation in everything -- in houses, vehicles, medicines, languages -- maybe that's good, or anyway it might not mean that they're contradictory or wrong.
Also how to practice meditation isn't described in detail in the suttas, and they hint at more than one technique. People learn from contemporary teachers, and make inferences from the little that's mentioned in the suttas, there were texts that written after the suttas. Some people (the Buddha himself) try different things and discover what works for them. Many have more than one teacher.

The western insight tradition emphasises acknowledging, turning toward, facing whatever is present so for example if anger arises one is to recognise it, investigate how it feels in the body etc but to not identify with it. The same goes for everything else, thought, sensations, emotions etc. But Ive noticed one school of thought with people on this site who say you must try to rid your mind of certain unskillful feelings and thoughts and try to replace them with skillful ones.
I'm not sure that's contradictory.
I suppose that "identifying with anger" is an "unskillful feeling". A converse (more skillful) might be somehow experiencing it if it arises but without embracing it, maybe without acting out, experiencing it briefly or in passing.

You can't face and turn towards and get rid of at the same time.
If you say so.
Words are inaccurate -- I'd say that literally I'm inevitably always "facing" forward, whereas what I feel is elsewhere (e.g. internal, in muscles).
But I guess I "face" it in the sense that if I feel it I'm alive to the danger of it, and don't pretend it's not happening or that it's somebody else's fault.

In the end I believe spirituality is a personal journey and no one can really tell another what is right without it just becoming dogmatic.
Okay.
One of the guidelines I read for this site is that answers should be based on something, either a reference to scripture (for what that's worth, some people think that's worth something), or based on personal experience.
I suppose something like this phenomenon (i.e. "contradiction") happened even when the suttas were first written, for example one of them is called The Sectarians and has a parable of Blind men and an elephant.
Anyway this sutta (and other suttas like it) warn people against arguing.
Even just the suttas are kind of self-contradictory, e.g. there are some which say you absolutely need a teacher, a "spiritual friend", and that that is "not half the holy life, but rather the whole of it" -- but then there's also a sutta like this one which says,

"Monks, be islands unto yourselves, be your own refuge, having no other; let the Dhamma be an island and a refuge to you, having no other. Those who are islands unto themselves... should investigate to the very heart of things: 'What is the source of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair? How do they arise?' [What is their origin?]

Perhaps different advice is appropriate at different times and/or for different people.
I read a monk say that Buddhism is a Middle Way, and he advises, "go left", or, "go right", depending on which extreme a person has veered toward.

Of the billions of human beings who are and have been on this earth, I doubt that any two have been exactly the alike in psychology and ability to understand the abstract. Is it so surprising that each different individual might need to use slightly (or vastly) different methods to achieve the goals laid out by the Buddha to achieve enlightenment?
The surprise is that anyone would think that any one teacher would have the absolute correct method that would serve all in their quest.
If you went to the store for a hammer to drive nails, you would find many different types, shapes, sizes, and weights of hammers. Would you spend time criticizing each hammer for what it is or is not to you? No, you have a goal and would find the hammer that worked best for you to achieve that goal - then buy and use it. The reason is that there is NO one perfect hammer for everyone even though the goal of driving nails might be common to all in that store.
To the original poster, I would say: Stop looking at the differences among the many methods / techniques presented as if there is one correct one for all.
Instead, understand who you are now and where you need to be to reach enlightenment. Then focus on the finding the best method / teacher FOR YOU to get you there. In my humble opinion, the rest is just noise and chaff blocking you from moving forward.

I can completely say mostly "imaginable conflict" is not an actual conflict. I uncountable questions on the internet through more than 10 years and I discover the fact it's reader's error.
The case, sutta, is just used in a case, not wrong in the right case, but it is going to be wrong in the different case. Four Nikaya means there are more than ten thousand cases. In my experience, almost conflicts come from the readers' error, not from Tipitaka or Atthakatha.
The case's environment has various properties which can be noticed by just the proficient.
It is very hard to be a real Theravada professor. In VN Atthakatha has written it requires 20 years experience, the memory of whole 5 canons of Vijaya, and the whole 4 Nikaya. After that one has memorized that all, he are going to have the understanding like KN, Abhidhamma, and Atthakatha. By this way, most of  "imaginable conflicts" are becoming no conflict.
All of the western style professors have no above qualifications, so they can't understand Abhidhamma, Atthakatha, and some sutta, then they again them all. It means they against the Tipitaka origin because actually, the MahaAtthakatha teachers are the first council members.