text:
Male & Female - Is gender an illusion?
According to Buddhism & Science there is no gender to the mind but to the body.The difference between the male and female ideology is a difference between practicing two different ways of life.
Birth of gender according to Buddhism
When one era of a universe comes to an end almost all the beings get their birth in Brahma realm (Aabhassara).Once the universe is set to its default (Universe as we know it) beings are born in Human realm as illuminating gender less creatures.As they become fond of touch they begin to form recognizable genders. But the reaction from others who are not in favor of this new sensation is negative (quite like what gay people experienced over the years), But just like society accepting LGBT groups in our time they learn to accept this gender+sex situation. So as of this point sex is not even considered normal and gender is an anomaly.
If we drop the biological point of view and take only the teachings of Lord Buddha a new pattern start to appear beneath our acceptance of reality.

so my question is....
If we take Sutta+Abhidhamma point of view and focus on a human being,what we see is the same kind of species with two different Bone,Muscle,Brain,etc structures. As to Buddhism Humans do not have an essential need of sex for births to happen (spontaneous birth - Ambapali). So sex is an alternative for a human birth.
Human body,culture,way of life are all based on what gender that person belongs to (This may not be the reality where you live but travel the world enough and you will see the sad truth). But once you use something like Vipassana meditation to see a human being you see that there is no such thing called gender in this bag of flesh and bones.After all Lord Buddha said that if someone can come above Temptation he/she is free.

So is it right to think that one illusion of the mind defined all
that we are as beings?
Is gender really an illusion or is there more to this?

Please note that this question does not ask for personal opinions,Please add sources to your answers so we can expand our knowledge.I have seen the question (Is gender a result of Kamma?) and this is not a duplicate of it.this address a whole different point of view.Please leave a comment before voting negative

Two comments: a) The first part ("Birth of gender according to Buddhism") would be better as a reference than your paraphrase (though perhaps you're quoting what you heard and don't have a reference, which is OK too). b) The question in the title doesn't exactly match the question in the body: the title asks whether gender is (present tense) an illusion; the body asks whether illusion defined (past tense) all that we are (not just gender). They're a close match but it's better to be as clear as possible about what the question is.

Sometimes too it can help people to answer if they understand why you're asking, as well as what you're asking.

@ChrisW , can you please suggest a title in the comments? and as for why i am asking, it just occurred in my head while i was reading a book for vipassana.

@ChrisW , updated the question with sources.

I don't understand your question: I don't understand why or what you are asking about illusion and/or gender. If I were asking I might ask something like, "What should I understand from the Aggañña Sutta? Do Buddhists interpret it literally, or is it an allegory or satire? It contains the repeated phrase, "Dhamma is the best thing for people" -- how is the story (e.g. of evolution as told in the sutta) connected with that phrase?" My interpretation of that sutta is that it's about castes: simply that the old/contemporary social stratification into castes is not the Buddha's Dhamma or Sangha.

Check out the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra

@ChrisW , This question is a bit complicated, i get that. But if i ask all that's in this question as few questions the answers will not hit where it should. I would recommend reading it fully and answering the part that is not complicated to you.

Male & Female - Is gender an illusion?

Yes, gender is like an illusion.
A man, a woman, an arm, a human body, an animal, a car, a planet etc. all these conditioned phenomena are are concepts. They exist in conventional reality (sammuti-sacca) but not in ultimate reality (paramattha-sacca).
In ultimate reality, there is just experience.

You said: In ultimate reality, there is just experience. This is what my nondual teachers said. (Well, there is the Void also.)

@user2341 - To quibble - I would rather say there is the cessation of experience since experience requires the experience, the experiencer and the experienced and three things is definitely not what Reality is. The Void seems a better image, a place beyond images. The experience-experiencer duality is not fundamental for the nondual or Mahayana.view. Not sure about Theravada and I might ask about this.   , .  . .

If we are going to go that far then everything but the present moment mental and physical phenomena of our individual experience is an illusion.

This is what my nondual teachers said.

Male & Female - Is gender an illusion?

Gender is temporal and decaying. (A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma > Occurrence of Material Phenomena, p255 onwards)

According to Buddhism & Science there is no gender to the mind but to the body.

Gender is heart base. Heart is generally used for mind born phenomena.

When one era of a universe comes to an end almost all the beings get their birth in Brahma realm ...

In non / fine material planes there is no gender, i.e., asexual.
Gender would be an anomaly in the perspective of a being in non / fine material planes but normal in other planes. Being asexual will be an anomaly in the material planes. This is all relative.

But just like society accepting LGBT groups in our time they learn to accept this gender+sex situation.

Sexual orientation and desire is a mental construct, hence an illusion as these concepts breakdown at the level of Kalapas, but gender is an part of matter constructing the corporeal body (Rupa), which is considered and absolute truth (something that does not breakdown due to meditative scrutiny into the finer constituents).

But once you use something like Vipassana meditation to see a human being you see that there is no such thing called gender in this bag of flesh and bones

When you are Anāgāmi you lose the sexual desires. This does not mean you lose your sex. Though Vipassana you experience revulsion to the 5 aggregates. I presume not every partitioner will get the deep insights as to see the arising and passing or gender.

Is gender really an illusion or is there more to this?

This depends on what meaning you give to the word illusion. It is temporal and not always present.

So is it right to think that one illusion of the mind defined all that we are as beings?

Gender is temporary and not always present but when it is it is a fact not a mental construction, hence not and illusion, as per my thinking and understanding.

I would recommend reading it fully and answering the part that is not complicated to you.
Alright, I'll try to.
Birth of gender according to Buddhism
I think the Aggañña Sutta is a story about caste. It's saying "brahmins aren't born of God, they're born of parents like other people are." It has nothing to do with gender, nor the origin of the species.
Statements in the dharmadarer PDF you linked to seem to agree with or support this assessment:

However, it is clear that the Agganna narrative is Buddhist
  mythology, and mythology was a common didactic tool in ancient societies.
The humorous language and imagery of such suttas is understandable as they deal with well-established
  ideas and norms, taken seriously especially by those who used them to legitimize their affluence
  and position in society.
Richard Gombrich, in his Theravada Buddhism: A social history from Benares to Colombo, remarks
  that the Aggañña Sutta is “an extended satire on brahminical ideas, full of parody and puns... As a debunking
  job I think the sermon is serious: its main aim is to show that the class system is nothing but a
  human invention”; however, "I cannot go here into all the reasons why I think that the positive statements
  in the myth are satirical and not meant to be taken literally." (1988:85). In his book, "The Buddha’s Book
  of Genesis" (1992a), Gombrich goes on to elaborate on the significance of the Buddha’s humour in presenting
  a parody and pastiche of brahmanical claims, teachings and practices.

I think it's similar to the Assalayana Sutta, and/or to verse 396 of the Dhammapada,

I do not call him a brahmana just because he is born from the womb of a brahmana mother. He is just a bhovadi brahmin if he is not free from moral defilements. Him I call a brahmana, who is free from moral defilements and from attachment.

two different Bone,Muscle,Brain,etc structures
Saying "two" is arbitrary (maybe conventional and maybe wrong). You could easily say "one" (i.e. men and women are similar), or "more than two" (i.e. different men are different from each other).
spontaneous birth - Ambapali
Wikipedia says,

Amrapali or Ambapali was born around 600-500 BC to an unknown parentage, and was given her name because at her birth she was found at the foot of a mango tree in one of the royal gardens in Vaishali.

You're saying she had no parents.
Human body,culture,way of life are all based on what gender that person belongs to.
That might be "sexism" -- i.e. "basing" the social structure on gender.
But once you use something like Vipassana meditation to see a human being you see that there is no such thing called gender in this bag of flesh and bones.
That reminds me of a couple of Saivite poems,

If they see
   breasts and long hair coming
   they call it woman,
"if beard and whiskers
   they call it man
"but, look, the self that hovers
   in between
   is neither man
   nor woman
"O Ramanatha"

And

"Suppose you cut a tall bamboo
   in two;
   make the bottom piece a woman
   the headpiece a man;
   rub them together
   till they kindle:
                         tell me now
   the fire that's born,
   is it male or female,
"O Ramanatha?

Very good answer chris, May i explain few point that's lost in translation?

About Ambapali, She is  one of the very rare occurrences that has been used as an example in Buddhism to explain the Spontaneous birth. As the story goes she has done some good karma in a previous life and wished to have no parents. This gave a birth to her in the same manner that Devas get their birth.You should refer a Buddhist source on this Wikipedia might not give you the full story.

I am sorry for the wrong reference on suttas, My mistake. I erased it.

So the story i have mentioned is the birth story of human race as to Buddhism, I am sorry again for the mentioning the wrong sutta, If you can please add the correct source.

The sexism part.....    Guessing by your name i think you are European or american. There is a whole different world here. Everything is based on gender,Yes sad but true. Women are victimized and cornered because their vulnerability. This can easily be seen in middle east, sadly Asia is a bit  too close to that version of treatment towards women. Sadly chris the world is not fair being a woman alone is a very hard job in many parts of the world. I just mentioned what i see everyday not the sugarcoated lie that society tries to force feed everyone.

I love your poem by the way : -)

They're from a Penguin Classic called Speaking of Shiva ... devotional poetry.

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


text:
Lord Buddha descending from heavens?
This question is about these images:

This incident (depicted) happened after Lord Buddha visited a certain Deva realm.

Can someone provide any sutta or sutra reference?
If you can, please explain the event and the drawings?

Can someone tell me  why the down votes happen? Please leave a comment before you down vote.

I don't know why people are down voting this question, I am only asking for sources and explanations.

One of those pictures is shown on this page: Lhabab Duchen – the Day Buddha Descended from Tushita Heavens:

This article from Bhutan Journals describes the iconography of the Buddha Shakyamuni Descending from Tushita Heavens to the Earth.

A version of this story is told/included in the Dhammapada-aṭṭhakathā (verse 181):

On return from the Tavatimsa deva world, the Buddha uttered Verse (181) of this book at Sankassanagara, in reply to Thera Sariputta's words of welcome.

There's a more detailed version of this story somewhere else (I don't know where), for example Wikipedia's Lhabab Duchen article includes details about a "triple ladder" (shown in all the pictures):

He was exhorted by his follower and representative Maudgalyayana to return, and after a long debate and under a Full Moon agreed to return. He returned to earth a week later by a special triple ladder prepared by Viswakarma, the god of machines. This event is considered to be one of the eight great deeds of the Buddha.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
mindfulness thinking about future and past?
Is there such thing as mindfulness thinking about the future or past? I have a job that requires a lot of "going" into the future and past (projecting forward and assessing the past). I was wondering if could practice mindfulness while working. But it's not like I'm working with my hands, where I can be completely concentrated at the current moment with what I'm doing. From what I understand, mindfulness practice has to do with staying in the present. So my understanding is that it is inherently in conflict with what I do for work.

In my humble opinion, mindfulness is about staying with what arises in the present, and doing what you have to do, without having that train be derailed by fantasizing about the future or considering the past. If your work requires planning then the right way is to be true to that planning without having other/irrelevant thoughts of the past or future derail that planning.

@Parag I think your comment would make an excellent answer.

@THelper Thanks. I made it a comment because I did not have any Suttas to quote :-)

As you suggest by writing that your work involves ‘going’ into the future and past, the reality of our experience is that past and future exist only in thought (which includes memories, imagination and so on). This is the key to approaching your experience with mindfulness. In any given moment it is possible to recognise, from a place of awareness, that thought is occurring. In my experience the best place to start with mindfulness is the body and breath. They help root us in our present, moment by moment experience. When aware of being in the present moment it is possible to notice that thinking is happening. It is not you,  it is not necessary to identify with the thoughts nor get lost in them. One way to work with this is to start work with a kind of ‘checking in’ with yourself, with a minute or two of mindfulness, being present, however you find it is best done for you. And then to frequently ‘check in’ with your body and breath as your work continues, continuing like this throughout the day. In this way you can gradually develop the ability to think but not be lost in thought. I hope that helps…

Mindfulness thinking about future and past?

Actually any object can be taken as a meditation-object, it does not matter if the object is a physical or mental phenomena.
If you are practicing Vipassana meditation (insight meditation), then you have to be with reality in the present moment. That is the foundation of the technique.
When you are on the job and working with past and future you can be mindful of the thoughts, ideas and other mental formations, as they arise and pass away. If you observe them with mindfulness, in the present moment, then you are practicing correctly.
If you are getting lost in the thoughts, that means that mindfulness is absent and the Mind has followed after the object or run away from the object. When one is mindful, the Mind is kept in the present moment, unable to stray from the object.

Is there such thing as mindfulness thinking about the future or past?

Thinking about past and future is actually done in the present moment, since past and future are concepts and do not really exist. There is only the present moment.
The tradition I practice (Mahasi Sayadaw, The Burmese Method), has a technique of noting. There is already an answer in the thread which describes the noting. If one is thinking, then one makes a mental note saying "thinking, thinking" while sending the Mind out to the object. That means that full attention has to be placed on the object (in this case mental formations), while the mental note is being applied.
When one has observed and noted the object a couple of times, one places attention on the feeling of the rising and falling of the abdomen. The abdomen functions as an anchor, so that the Mind will not get lost. One keeps attention on the abdomen until a new object arises, then one notes that object a couple of times and again returns attention to the rising and falling of the abdomen.
The function of the noting is the remind oneself to stay in the present moment and to stay objective. This way the Mind cannot identify with the objects. Instead one is seeing their ultimate reality, i.e. the 3 marks of existence; Impermanence, Unsatisfactoriness and Uncontrollability of conditioned phenomena.
In this tradition one tries to cultivate insight about the 3 marks of existence. They are gateways to Nibbana.

When you must plan for future business then simply note something like, "planning planning" in the present moment when you are planning. If you don't note then simply intentionally focus your awareness on the planning but I recommend noting at least in the beginning.
When remembering the past then always make sure to note 'remembering, remembering", in the present moment, moment by moment as the "remembering," arises. Does that help?

I guess when I do these activities, I get lost in thought because i'm so absorbed in it. Is that mindfulness by itself? or is it not mindfulness?

Well, are you aware on a moment by moment basis when doing those activities? I wouldn't think so if you get lost in thought. Do you have nonpartial awareness of one aspect of your  work activity experience , moment by moment? If not, it's simple to learn but what makes it difficult is that it so goes against our normal egoic and habitual ways of doing things. It's a challenge:)

Is there such thing as mindfulness thinking about the future or past? I have a job that requires a lot of "going" into the future and past (projecting forward and assessing the past).

If you look at the Abhidhamma each though has either pleasant, neutral or unpleasant sensation associated with it. (Ref: Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma). These cover all the 4 Satipatthana. You have to be mindful of the arising and passing of these sensations with equanimity. This method is given Pahāna Suttas (Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2).

From what I understand, mindfulness practice has to do with staying in the present.

No necessarily true. This is the general thought this way so students do not make mistakes in practising the instructions. The instuction and easier and simplified also. Saṃyutta Nikāya > Saḷāyatana Saṃyutta > saṭṭhipeyyāla gives practising on the past, present and future 6 sense bases, 6 faculties, 6 external objects, 6 contacts from the respective faculties, 6 feelings from the particular contacts.

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


text:
accepting what i have vs. making plans for better future - good or bad?
i saw an answer here that i liked:

...
  Of course we have all these grand ideas about the great business we
  want to open, or the great way we could help people, or other visions
  of great success - but they are only projections of thought into the
  future. This projection creates a mismatch between "here" and "there".
  From this mismatch comes dukkha, the feeling of wrongness.
Instead, for any success you will have achieved, there must be a
  pathway from where you are now, to there, with the first step being
  within reach. Therefore the only way to get there is to work with what
  you have right here and now. So do your best with what life gives you
  at every given moment ...

i have a job i don't like - it hurts my legs because of long standing time - and i was thinking about other career paths... of ways i can earn money and leave this job - like starting a private business - but in light of the above answer, is it a bad idea to think about this, from Buddhism perspective?
i would really like to know your thoughts on this: should i stop and just work without thinking about a better job / a private business?

I believe that best way to change something is to accept it.

I believe the answer lies in the citation. Start with what you have now and gradually take action in the direction of a new job. What seeds can you plant here & now for your goal? There must be a middle way between accepting what is and acting to make the conditions necessary for our goals to appear. In the Noble Path we have Right Effort. We should also have Effort in our daily lives to accomplish our goals.

Let me give a metaphor for this. Imagine you are standing at the foothill of a great mountain...
And you think, oh how nice would it be, to stand on top of this mountain. It would truly be a great sight, a majestic sight, a big achievement on my part - and what kinds of great friends would I make on the top! they would certainly be much more interesting people than ones I have down here. It would be so awesome to be up there! In comparison to that, how unfortunate I am to be  down here! -- And so forth and so on, this is what goes through your mind.
Now, Buddhism does not say you should stay at the bottom all the time. But just thinking about the top is useless. Moreover, the craving for the top, and comparison with your position at the bottom - creates that painful feeling of wrongness, dukkha.
Instead, if you say: the top is up there. Let me look under my feet. Which little step can I make now? Let me forget about the top for now, let me forget about the levels, let me focus on the steps under my feet. I don't know exactly where I'm going - I've never been there. I don't know the exact path - and I can't spend my whole life planning it or I will never get anywhere. Instead, as long as I have the overall direction right, and start making the steps - I will get there sooner or later, guaranteed.
What do I need to do right here to get over there? Starting right now I must make every step as an investment. I must stop roaming randomly like others who don't have the same goal. Every step I take can get me either 1 inch in the right direction, 12 inches in the right direction, 1 inch in the wrong direction, or 12 inches in the wrong direction. So I must develop this habit of making a better step if possible every time. Start small: I have 10 dollars - no need to figure out the perfect way to spend them, just minimize waste. Minimize going in the wrong direction. Then with time it will come by itself, the knowledge of the best possible step.
Another way to approach this is by imitating the qualities of people who got to the top. How does the owner of the private business behave? Your manager at work asks you to do something - do you act like you are the real business owner? (This is called "taking the goal as the path". Some say this is the more advanced way, the faster way. The two schools keep arguing which way is better ;)
So in short, speculative thinking about the abstract goal is "bad" - it does not get you anywhere, it only generates suffering. Instead, by not going in the wrong direction today, by not going randomly here and there today, by minimizing the waste today, and by imitating the qualities of the people who did it, - we can create the path connecting this place under our feet with the high goal.
I hope this is not too abstract for you. By "going in the wrong direction" I meant spending money on things that will suck your money in the future. By "going in the right direction" I meant spending money on things that will bring you some money in the future. By "going randomly here and there" I meant spending money on other goals and random entertainment. By "minimizing waste" I meant every time you spend your money try to make a small improvement. By "imitating qualities of people who got there" I meant try to imagine how they think and do what they would do. Hope this helps.
And since we are on Buddhism Q&A site, by "wrong direction" I also meant unwholesome thinking, by "right direction" I meant wholesome thinking, by "minimize waste" I meant to watch for and control the hangups manifesting in daily life, and by "imitating" the accomplished people I meant trying to imagine how the Buddha would have reacted to the same life challenges.

it was helpful -
i didnt fully understand this part  :
"Your manager at work asks you to do something - do you act like you are the real business owner? This is called "taking the goal as the path". Some say this is the more advanced way, the faster way. The two schools keep arguing which way is better ;)"

It just means you can apply the same advice to Buddhism and the quest for Enlightenment.

i didnt understand it -      should i act like the business owner ?
i do what he tells me to do    -
and i dont understand what school are you on   (the rest of the answer you gave is perfectly clear to me)

i belive i understood what you said though : that  like i do what my boss tells me to do and not try to run the buissness i should act the same in life and not look very far ahead and focus on the next step
but i just want to make sure i understood this part it correctly  and thats why i ask about this part - to be certain i understood it correctly ........ plus the added part about the two schools is confusing - what view point do you think is correct

No, that's not at all what I meant, sorry. What I meant is, like owner can't be lazy and sloppy and uncaring - because it's their own business - you have to develop the same quality of ownership and responsibility. Even at work. Before you can be an owner of your own business, you need to learn to take care of your boss's business as if it was your own. Think like an owner.

interesting  this is what i originally thought you meant
well thanks for the answer - it was helpful

Should i stop and just work without thinking about a better job / a private business?

Noone can answer that but yourself.
The aversion that arises from the current job can be used as a vehicle for developing insights.
Try to observe that aversion and learn about it, try to understand it. Pain, aversion, suffering is our greatest teachers. Try to be mindful on the job when you are standing up for long hours, maybe with pain in the legs. Observe the pain, observe the feelings in the legs and very important, observe the Mind and see how it reacts to these feelings and pain.
The problem arises when we identify with pain and feelings or with "our" job or career. You will see that the desire to change job is based on the aversion from this job.
Desires, aversions are conditioned phenomena, meaning that they are subject to birth and death. They are impermanent and will both change and fall away over time.
Mindfulness is one of the wholesome mental factors (cetasikas). When mindfulness is present it will be much easier to make decisions, since there are no "I, Me or Self" involved. Wholesome actions produce wholesome future results.

Mr/Mrs breath, maybe some words, taken from a Karaṇīya Metta-Sutta - Explanation are useful in this regard to understand it rightly, this modesty and striving issue (look for 7. Content (santussako)
To improve ones livelihood is actually very good if it is desired to follow as much as possible right livelihood. However, its great to make things by one self and amass wealth with one own power, effort and sweat is not wrong and even the only way to really be able to enjoy wealth. But today's businesses are not so easy to maintain righteous and in a righteous way so a modest job as even a small servant mostly gives more possibilities to practice the path relevant things.


text:
How can fiction writing be best used for achieving enlightenment?
It seems that many fiction writers were very wise, including those, who had little or no access to spiritual teachings (e. g. the Strugatsky brothers).
Allegedly, in Japanese culture non-spiritual activities (tea ceremony, archery, calligraphy, martial arts) are being used as tools for spiritual development. I heard some people say that any activity can be used for approaching enlightenment.
If it's true, then fiction writing can be used in the same way as well.
If someone spends a lot of time and energy writing fiction books (they regard it as the most important part of life), what can they do in order to get maximum spiritual benefit from this activity?
I. e. if the enlightenment is the goal, and fiction writing is the engine, what kind of maintenance acts is necessary to reach the goal using that engine?
Notes:

Preferably, it should be concrete advice, ideally with some data supporting it.
Those recommendations should be compatible with (or adaptable to) the Diamond Way Buddhism.

I guess this might be a difficult question to answer: difficult to find "data supporting" writing fiction as a path or engine towards Buddhist enlightenment. To make it easier to answer, perhaps you could alternatively/also ask that same question about the other (perhaps more canonical) activities you mentioned (tea ceremony etc.), and see whether any answers to that could be extrapolated/applied to writing.

It seems kind of contradictory to me that someone would see writing fiction as 'the most important part of life' but also wants to achieve enlightenment.

You could take example of Carlos Castaneda and write a fictitious account  of student's encounter with an enlightened master, weaving Diamond Way's set of principles into the story. While doing that you would be motivated to research more deeply into the teachings as they apply to real life and hopefully something will rub off on you.

I may not know much about Buddhism, but as I understand it mindfulness is probably the best way to achieve enlightenment.
Essentially, enlightenment is understanding everything, having all the walls torn down in your mind and being open to the oneness of the universe. Thus, in order to understand everything, you have to begin to understand something. You may be in luck, because it looks like you've already found the thing you want to understand.
So, in terms of fiction writing, it's a very artistic pursuit, and something I and many other artists understand is that our work is never complete, never perfect. There's always a way to improve, no matter how good we get. This process of improving one's skills, honing one's talents, reaching ever closer to perfection, is very close to the process of achieving enlightenment. The only difference is that it is very limited in its scope, but I believe even this is only a temporary hurdle.
In my own pursuit of fiction-writing perfection, I've discovered many great and interesting things. In order to make my worlds feel real, I've had to better understand our own world (I'd really recommend looking at Worldbuilding SE). To write better characters, I have to understand the human condition. In general, I've realized that in order to be a perfect writer, I would have to achieve enlightenment; otherwise, anything I write would be lacking in some aspect due to my own inadequacy.
For the most part, I believe this process is natural; people who like doing a thing naturally want to get better at it, and getting better at pretty much anything will naturally lead to getting better at other things. But I would also say that being aware of this process from the start is much easier than figuring it out on your own.
So my suggestion to you is to just be aware of your art, and what it is, and how it is linked to everything else. Never stop trying to improve, and never limit yourself; always be open to new concepts, new ideas, and new ways to get better.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like.

@Lanka Thank you, I'll definitely take a look at both of those.


text:
Why talk and think about self as noun?
We always talk and think about self as a noun. When reading Buddhist philosophy, I have never seen exceptions to this. Both "common sense looking" and "metaphysical looking" is looking for the self.
For me, it has been helpful to think about the word 'self' as a verb. Something like this: Self is action, even the sheer directedness of mind is an action. "I" self therefore "I" am. Apart from that, "I" am not. There is no looker apart from the looking, no self apart from the selfing. To me, the question "what/where is the 'I' doing the selfing?" is redundant.
The self is the (dependently arisen) selfing. If, and only if, the causes and conditions for selfing is present, there is selfing. If they're not present in the first place, or removed, there's no selfing.
Why even assume or presuppose that there could be the slightest possibility of finding this “thing” self? Why look? It’s not helpful at all, in my opinion.
Does anyone know thinkers/writers explicitly talking and thinking about self as action/verb?

What you are referring to is an idea common in Nonduality (there's a Tag for that). Paul Hedderman is the only person I know to use the word "Selfing", you might find his explanation useful. (He does swear a lot.) People tend to 'self' because the being inherently wants to continue to exist. This is instinctual, and then becomes part of ego. Once it is in ego, the entire ego must be seen through and understood to get over that tendency. But the instinctual "I am this one and everything else could hurt me" perspective is still there.

In response to whether their are other writers thinking about this - check out Alan Watts, The Book, and The Wisdom Of Insecurity.

Maybe because you are adding "self" with the " time " component? Self, as perceived in time, could be confused as a verb rather than noun because that's how actions of nouns flow/happen.  If you take the time out of the equation, you have the self as a noun.

I think it's conventionally useful to identify 'the agent' of an action, for example, "Whose turn is it to wash the dishes?" implies there's a someone who'll be doing that (more or less reliably).
People (or people's feelings) are also nouned when they're used as the object of a sentence, for example, "I hurt him."
Personal identity (including family) are also important (in law/jurisprudence) in assigning ownership of property, for example, "Who owns this land?", and inheritance etc.

Having nouns in sentences is partly grammar. For example, Chinese sentence structure allows sentences without verbs (Wikipedia calls it "to some degree pro-drop or null-subject language"),

Today hike up mountains, tomorrow camp outdoors.

Perhaps similarly, a nounal subject is optional/implied/unecessary in Latin, where the suffix of the verb is conjugated to indicate the person. So for example amo, amas, amat is (or must be) translated into English by adding pronouns (required by English grammar) as "I love", "You love, and "He or She loves"; but maybe you can think of it without a noun (or with less of a noun) as "first person loving", "second person loving", and "third person loving".
I might have heard that linguists have theorized that there's a correlation between grammar and reality, but I haven't heard any details about that.
I don't know Pali well enough to include it in this answer, but look at an example of some Pali at the top of this page (which starts with the Pali atta for "self", from which we then get anattā or "non-self").

I found a comment about Sanskrit -- Jayarava said,

There’s nothing wrong with creating new verbs from nouns. We do it all the time. There’s even a technical term for such verbs: denominative. We also go the other way and create verbal nouns.
And it’s not just English that does this. Sanskrit is full of denominative verbs and verbal nouns.

People (or people's feelings) are also nouned.  Nice.  Way to to turn noun into a verb.

I don't think there's an overly good answer to your question. "Self", as a word, in every language, is a noun. Quite simply, this is why people use it as a noun.
Your suggestion to use it as a verb is interesting. I'd offer yet another suggestion: why think of words as being "nouns" or "verbs" at all? Noun and verb are just mind-made constructs to add a certain level of detail to concepts; you could just as easily opt to ignore them and consider the raw nature of the concepts themselves.

Yes. My reason for asking is that I've read Western philosophers who explicitly talk about the self as verb. Kierkegaard is one, Harry G. Frankfurt another. And I agree, all language is constructs. Still, thinking about self as action has helped me analyzing my self (sic) and my actions. Thanks

Your question stands on the shoulders of giants and still can't get the job done.  I don't mean this badly; I mean you are starting from a very high state of being and inquiry (in relationship to most human thought), and asking the question that is kind of at the heart of the matter; and you're asking "the question" as if it was a 'duh' question - (how could anyone not know this? duh ), and it's not.
What's interesting is that any intellectual knowledge you (not you specifically)  have about this subject is fairly useless.  The answer to this question as an answer is not helpful, because what matters is the ability to unlock that understanding gradually (or all at once), pulling apart the masses of accumulated attachments that help construct the prison of the self (I prefer the word identity when attempting to distinguish the self of attachments).
What's important isn't so much - 'Why talk and think about self as noun?', because this isn't an error that arises in grammar.  Grammar makes the trap that much stickier, but the process of relating to one's self as being fixed - of having immutable qualities, etc. - arose not out of the language used to identify us skin sacks - but rather the morass that us stuffed into those skin sacks.
Thinking about it in basic terms - the question isn't Why talk about self as noun?, but something closer to Why is it that I experience myself as - and only as - an *it*; an object sitting inside a sack of skin, looking out through two holes at a world outside of; and also separate from; myself?
There is a source to the experience of a permanent, unchanging self, and the access to getting to that source is not attempting to codify your experience in  transitional language.  That's like putting a bow tie on a bowel movement.  The access to unminding is different for all of us - it involves dismantling our own barriers and attachment.  It's also a similar enough process that techniques such as those espoused by the Buddha and other great teachers were set up - and could be set up - to give people an access back to themselves.

I didn't understand the phrase, "There is a source to experience of a permanent, unchanging self"

@ChrisW .  There was a grammatical error.  Thanks for catching it.  Does the correction resolve it, or is it still unclear?

Yes, thank you. Ironically (given the question topic), the reason I couldn't read the sentence was that I was reading "to experience" as a verb. Then after you fixed the syntax so I could read it, at first I found the semantics/meaning difficult -- difficult to reconcile "a permanent, unchanging self" with anatta -- but clearer now. Thank you again.

Self as a noun implies an entity which implies that the person is unchanging or has an unchanging core or identity.
Self as a verb implies that the the entity has control. This is also not the case, though there might be some apparent control it is not absolute.
In Buddhism there is no concept of Atman as this would imply.
A being is nothing but the cyclical rolling forward of the dependent origination which takes a more of a process oriented view of a being. A being that is dependently arisen. Here there is nothing permanent, the next arisen person is not someone entirely different not the same, all constituents of the being are transient. This is more like stochastic process in terms of modern understanding.

Self as noun or action/verb?
Is mirage is a noun or action?
Is rainbow is a noun or action?
Is Dress(Not cloth) is a noun(a thing) or concept?
Is person is a noun or concept?
Is Me(self) is a noun or concept?(Mantel action).

A relation that relates itself to itself, not the relation itself, but the relation’s relating itself to itself in the relation. That's what I mean by action

@Mr.Concept  In buddisum it's called "patichchasamuppada".

@Mr.Concept: Well said, well said!


text:
What Pali and English words are translations of the Norwegian words for ‘reality’?
The English word ‘reality’ (from the Latin res, "matter” or “thing") is very misleading and says the opposite of what “reality” actually is. The Latin 'res' is a very deceptive word, it makes you think about something static, finite.
It’s etymologically very interesting to look at reality from a Norwegian perspective. The Norwegian words are more dynamic and the reason might be that Norwegian is a highly ambiguous language.
We have two official versions of Norwegian, and so we have two words for 'reality'. One is 'røyndom'. 'Røyn' means something you can experience, something you can learn, but also something that takes a toll, something that gets you worn down. It's not static, but a dynamic concept, an expression of change. Its meaning is similar to the meaning of suffering.
The other, the most common word for reality, is 'virkelighet' (like the German 'wirklichkeit'). 'Virke' means functioning, so 'virkelighet' is "that which happens when it's 'working/functioning' ".
‘Virke' also means 'seem'. If you want to say in Norwegian "it seems to be that way, but it's not", you use the same word! (det virker som ...") I think it's interesting and an example of etymology clarifying philosophy.
What are the Pali and Sanskrit words for reality? Is "reality" an accurate translation? What English word – like the Norwegian ones – could be used instead to better represent what actually is the nature of reality?

"Yatha butha" and "Thathata" are pali terms for Reality.
By referring SuttaCentral website,

Definition for the pāli word Yathābhūtaṃ
yathābhūtaṃ adv. in truth; in reality; in its real essence.

As Butha,

Definition for the pāli word Bhucca
bhūta] only in cpd. yathā—bhuccaṁ (nt. adv.) as it is, that which
really is, really (=yathā bhūtaṁ) Th 2, 143 … 143. See under yathā.

As Thatha

Definition for the pāli word Tathatta
M i.468.—abl. tathattā in truth, really Sn 520 sq. (cp. M Vastu
iii.397). tathatta nt. the state of … Tathatta (nt.) [*tathātvaṁ] "the
state of being so," the truth, Nibbāna; only in foll. phrases: (a)

Most common terms used to clarify reality are "Anicha, Dukka, Anatha". "Sunya and Pathichasamuthpanna" also can be used.

And "dhamma".


text:
What are the criteria for calling someone a high or low capacity?
Some Buddhist teachers and writings I have seen differentiate between (students of) “high capacity” and “low(er) capacity”. As far as I’ve understood, some of the criteria for saying that some people are of “high capacity” is intelligence and morality. It also seems to me that you actually have to have heard about the Dharma to be of “high capacity”.
Can someone give explicit criteria for what “high capacity” and “low(er) capacity” actually means? Or a reference to an explanation?

EDIT: coming back to the notes of some Buddhist lectures I attended, I did find some references!

Low Capacity: remains a "faith follower" for a long time. Does not really understand the explanations, but follows the teacher with enthusiasm and determination. Usually has good but rather superficial morals. Requires much study over a long time, to imbue clear in-depth understanding of Buddhist principle-and-function.
Medium Capacity: remains a "dharma follower" for a long time. Has thorough intellectual understanding, but no true insight into the principle-and-function of Buddhism. Because of this, has one's theoretical constructs disconnected from one's daily life. Requires lots and lots of practice over long period of time, to cleanse the blockages and overcome habits.
High Capacity: gets the point with little to no explanations just by watching the teacher in action. Has capacity for intuitive grasp of the Truth.

In Dhamma, high capacity is the capacity to let go & give up ego; as expressed in the Chan (Zen) story of Huineng. It is not intellectual capacity, as demonstrated by those who can master Pali language & grammar yet cannot translate the meaning of the texts accurately.
More about capacity or disposition can be read in SN 14.15.

It's a long journey,
To follow the Buddhist path to freedom need some capability. If one's capacity is sufficient enough then s/he can compete the path at once.(single go). Otherwise need to recharge or gain the sufficient capacity and complete rest of the path.
The capability consists (of) intellectual and morality colitis (moral qualities?)
Some of them are as follows,

paramita [paaramii, paaramitaa]: Perfection of the character. A group
of ten qualities developed over many lifetimes by a bodhisatta, which
appear as a group in the Pali canon only in the Jataka ("Birth
Stories"): generosity (dana), virtue (sila), renunciation (nekkhamma),
discernment (pañña), energy/persistence (viriya), patience/forbearance
(khanti), truthfulness (sacca), determination (adhitthana), good will
(metta), and equanimity (upekkha).

kusala : (nt.) good action; merit; virtue. (adj.), clever.
What should be done by one skillful(Kusala) in good, who has comprehended the state of peace:

One place where the word 'capacity' is used is in the translation of The Jewel Ornament Of Liberation:

All sentient beings have Buddha-nature. That being the case, do all beings in the five realms, such as hell beings, hungry ghosts, and so forth, have the capacity to work toward enlightenment? No. Only a “precious human life,” which has the two qualities of leisure and endowment, and a mind which holds the three faiths, has a good basis to work toward enlightenment. The summary:
Leisure and endowment,
  Trust, longing, and clarity,
  Two of the body, and three of the mind—
  These five comprise the excellent working basis.

In Sanskrit, “man” is purusha, which translates as “capacity” or “ability.” Hence, a human life with the qualities of leisure and endowment provides the capacity or ability to attain either the temporary high realms or definite goodness; therefore, it is called purusha. Furthermore, there are three different types of ability: the inferior, mediocre, and superior. As it says in the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment:

One should understand that there are three different types of person: Inferior, mediocre, and superior.

An inferior person has the ability to attain a human or god realm without falling into lower realms. It is said:

One who makes effort, by any means,
    To achieve the pleasures of samsara
    For his own benefit—
    This is called the inferior person.

A mediocre person has the ability to attain the state of peace and happiness by freeing himself from samsara. It is said:

One who turns his back on the pleasures of samsara
    And abstains from nonvirtuous deeds,
    But who is interested only in his own peace—
    This is called the mediocre person.

A superior person has the ability to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. It is said:

By seeing the suffering within one’s own mind-stream, One yearns to completely exhaust the suffering of others— This is called the supreme person.

Furthermore, etc.

By first cultivating the mind of supreme enlightenment and then persistently training, one will go through all the paths and levels of a bodhisattva. Explanation of the path follows. The summary:

The path of accumulation, the path of application,
    The path of insight, the path of meditation practice,
    And the path of complete perfection—
    These five comprise the explanation of the paths.

The five paths according to the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment: First, the paths establish a foundation through study and practice of the Dharma of lower and middle capacity persons, then cultivate the mind of aspiration and action bodhicitta, then they gather the two accumulations. These clearly explain the path of accumulation. “Then one gradually attains the heat and so forth” explains the path of application. “Obtain the level of Great Joy and so forth” explains the paths of insight, meditation, and perfection.

One of the passages above says "capacity" a translation of the Sanskrit purusha, for which Wikipedia says,

Purusha (Sanskrit puruṣa, पुरुष) is a complex concept whose meaning evolved in Vedic and Upanishadic times. Depending on source and historical timeline, it means etc.
The abstract idea Purusa is extensively discussed etc.
There is no consensus among schools of Hinduism on the definition etc.

To me personally I guess I relate the word "capacity" to this story (A Cup of Tea): relating "capacity" with emptiness (which is a Taoist notion, e.g. that it's the empty space within a house that makes the house useful).

criteria of high or low capacity (to make progress in Dhamma) is Five Strength, not merits a being has collected, not how deep a person is attached to sensual pleasures.  Buddha is the only one who has the ability to see being's Five Strengths through and through.
Five strengths determine a being's capability to make progress in Dhamma.
Also look up Indriya 5 for further research if you want.

The Buddha says this Dhamma is for the Intelligent (in your words high capacity people). This is people are balanced and developed in Bodhipakkhiyādhammā.

The following suttas describe low and high-capacity individuals, when it comes to listening to the Dhamma and entering the path.

“Mendicants, someone with five qualities is unable to enter the sure
path with regards to skillful qualities even when listening to the
true teaching. What five? They disparage the talk, the speaker, or
themselves. They listen with scattered and scattered mind. They apply
the mind irrationally. Someone with these five qualities is unable to
enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities, even when
listening to the true teaching.
Someone with five qualities is able to enter the sure path with
regards to skillful qualities when listening to the true teaching.
What five? They don’t disparage the talk, the speaker, or themselves.
They listen with unscattered and unified mind. They apply the mind
rationally. Someone with these five qualities is able to enter the
sure path with regards to skillful qualities when listening to the
true teaching.”
AN 5.151

“Mendicants, someone with five qualities is unable to enter the sure
path with regards to skillful qualities even when listening to the
true teaching. What five? They disparage the talk, the speaker, or
themselves. They’re witless, dull, and stupid. They think they know
what they don’t know. Someone with these five qualities is unable to
enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities, even when
listening to the true teaching.
Someone with five qualities is able to enter the sure path with
regards to skillful qualities when listening to the true teaching.
What five? They don’t disparage the talk, the speaker, or themselves.
They’re wise, bright, and clever. They don’t think they know what they
don’t know. Someone with these five qualities is able to enter the
sure path with regards to skillful qualities when listening to the
true teaching.”
AN 5.152

“Mendicants, someone with five qualities is unable to enter the sure
path with regards to skillful qualities even when listening to the
true teaching. What five? They listen to the teaching bent only on
putting it down. They listen to the teaching with a hostile,
fault-finding mind. They’re antagonistic to the teacher, planning to
attack them. They’re witless, dull, and stupid. And they think they
know what they don’t know. Someone with these five qualities is unable
to enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities even when
listening to the true teaching.
Someone with five qualities is able to enter the sure path with
regards to skillful qualities when listening to the true teaching.
What five? They don’t listen to the teaching bent only on putting it
down. They don’t listen to the teaching with a hostile, fault-finding
mind. They’re not antagonistic to the teacher, and not planning to
attack them. They’re wise, bright, and clever. And they don’t think
they know what they don’t know. Someone with these five qualities is
able to enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities when
listening to the true teaching.”
AN 5.153

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


text:
What does merit (puṇya/puñña) actually mean?
There is a lot of talk in Buddhism about merit. I think the word merit sounds a bit like a good grade in school or some star the teacher puts in the book.

Is merit something that follows my thoughts and actions as a
consequence?
Or is merit more like an acquired disposition to act and think in certain ways?
Or perhaps it's both  an acquired disposition and a    consequence?
Are we born with a certain "amount" of merit due to karma?
How does a person know that s/he is accumulating merit?

There is here a 119 pages transcript of a teaching given by Khenrinpoche Geshe Chonyi, in which he answers that exact same question. Search for 'what is merit' and you will find the answer, page 26. Although Khenrinpoche's answer is not extremely precise (it that it might not stand debate) there are greatly illuminating points:

In one way, merit and virtue are the same.  In general,  virtue is 'virtuous karma', for it is a cause of the fruitional effect of happiness [in the aspect of pleasant feelings, and so forth].

Additionally, a collection of merits is:

The virtuous imprint that is left in the  mind
A non-associated composition factor (like karmic imprints, so it stands to say they are the same in general)
A cause of the Form Body [whereas the collection of wisdom results in the Truth Body]

He also adds:

I  would  think that, the  meaning  of the word accumulate  in the
  phrase  accumulate the collection of merit would  mean that, doing
  something  repeatedly such that, a real impression, mark, imprint is
  left on the  mind .  This is  the meaning  of  to accumulate .

Being virtuous karmic imprints, it is produced by every virtuous intention (like for instance the virtuous intention to give, which is generosity) as well as any virtuous bodily or verbal action. Being virtuous karmic imprints, it must also have the same 4 types of result, one of them being the resultant tendency concordant to the cause. It means you will have a seemingly natural tendency, and liking for, say, practicing generosity and so forth.

Merit is the predisposition to positive experiences due to previous thoughts, words, and acts, driven by intention. It conditions future experiences and can be created, accumulated, expended, lost, and transferred to others, just like money (the analogy is not accidental, and has been associated by others than myself with the fact that mercantilism was taking hold during the Buddha's time and that the many of the Buddha's followers came from the new merchant classes). The word simply means virtue, righteousness, sanctity, etc. So long as one has unfruited karma, one has merit and demerit and this conditions rebirth, especially human rebirth, which is itself regarded as the result of merit. Therefore, the first task of a human being is to ensure that one accumulates a store of merit in order to be reborn as a human being at least. One must ask, why should one care since one will (most likely) not remember one's previous lives if one is reborn as a human being (a trait we share with animals). However, hungry ghosts and hell beings do appear to remember their previous lives, based on the suttas. You know that you are acquiring merit by always acting with righteous intention, esp. (but not only) by following the Five Precepts (pansil).

Would you identify doctrinal or experiential justification[s] for the statement that merit can be transferred to others just like money?

See Andy Rotman, "Marketing Morality: The Economy of Faith in Early Indian Buddhism," pp. 293-290, located at http://www.smith.edu/religion/documents/rotman_marketing_morality.pdf. With respect to the doctrine of transferring merit, it is commonly but erroneously stated that this is a Mahayana doctrine. However, the doctrine of the transfer of merit (or dedication of merit) is definitely found in the Pali Canon. See, e.g., E.M. Hare, trans., The Book of Gradual Sayings, pp. 37, 312 (AN 7.V.x(50); VII, v, 49).

See also Wikipedia, "Merit," and article cited therein, Bechert, Heinz (1992), "Buddha-field and transfer of merit in a Theravāda source", Indo-Iranian Journal (Vol. 35, Issues 2-3, July 1992, pp. 95-108), located at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00164926 and pattidana, s.v. patti-, in PED, p. 407.

There is a good discussion of merit and the transfer of merit in Peter Harvey, A Introduction to Buddhism, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp.45f. Harvey includes several primary references that show that this doctrine is found in canonical sources and in the Theravadin and Tibetan traditions at least. He also explains the mechanism by which it works.

Pleasantness is a synonym for good/merit (puṇya/puñña).
Mettasutta

“Mā, bhikkhave, puññānaṃ bhāyittha. Sukhassetaṃ, bhikkhave,
  adhivacanaṃ yadidaṃ puññāni.."

Bhikkhus, do not fear to do good. Pleasantness is a synonym for good. Bhikkhus, I know of enjoying the results of pleasing and agreeable good, done long ago...

Merit is any thought, deed or word based on generosity, compassion and / or wisdom. When we are born we bring our store of Karma from your past lives. During this life we consume the results of this store as well as accumulate new Karma.
You know you are accumulating Karma when you delight on experiences that you perceive and favorable, averse to experiences that you perceive as unfavorable and not aware of the arising and passing nature of experiences that are neutral. In other words you are clinging or craving to sensual input and clinging to conceptualisations that follow.

Since Upasaka lives in areas where he is well protected to get not informed, not seen defilement, not confronted with them, Atma thought to give it another directer possibility of where he is caught into and what the problem with Vipassana before doing the basics is about, since nobody else would have the goodness to tell him, Atma assumes: People making punna Do not fall to deep in line with the consumers of their old merits, its because they feel secure in that what just is ripping, that they totally lose mind of what they are do

Mr. Concept,

Is merit something that follows my thoughts and actions as a consequence?

Yes, like demerit is: Dhp 1 & 2 when you think and do.

Or is merit more like an acquired disposition to act and think in certain ways?

Yes, like demerit is: Dhp 1 & 2 when you ponder about thinking or doing

Or perhaps it's both an acquired disposition and a consequence?

Yes, like demerits is: Dhp 1 & 2 and you meet even the fine nuance that makes the Buddhas teaching different for other kamma ideas. That it is the past intentions and the present intention in the moment, which forms you future experience future.

Are we born with a certain "amount" of merit due to karma?

You are born because of kamma, yes.

How does a person know that s/he is accumulating merit?

Only when a person is certain trained, he can reflect it such was at least meritorious. Puñña means always giving, letting go and leads always to release. So when ever there comes up a certain release and relaxation, then there was merit as its cause. Its like having done work. If you have done it correct and right, you lay down relaxed. Of course you can lay down even if not done or not correct, but that possibility is just a making use of previous fruits, credit(s). See as explaining the Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal
A nice overview is "Ten Ways of Making Merits" and if you like to understand it better, Atma suggest you to get into a little "Abhidhamma in Daily Life", by Ashin Janakanbhivamsa, which is also good to read and with samples.
What you, how ever should not do, is to try to trace kamma up and down, such, as the Buddha told, will make you crazy. On the matter how kamma actually works and is used to escape, a read of Kamma & the Ending of Kamma and Kamma, A Study Guide by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, might be useful.
And since you are doing here merits "listening to the Dhamma", as for every merits, that you are sure to make not just an exchange or keep anything, don't forget to share your merits, dedicate them to ever living being, which is able to rejoice with your merits you have done. Dedication of Merit
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


text:
Is ignorance/unawareness Dukkha?
It is usually said that the root delusions of attachment, anger and unawareness/ignorance are the causes of Dukkha. Of the three, unawareness/ignorance is the root cause.
I see very how unawareness/ignorance can lead to Dukkha. But is there any evidence in the scriptures that unawareness/ignorance itself is Dukkha?

What do you mean when you ask if ignorance is Dukkha? Are you asking whether or not ignorance is characterized by Dukkha, or are you asking whether or not ignorance and Dukkha mean the same thing?

I'm asking if ignorance is characterized by Dukkha, if the state of not being aware is itself Dukkha - not whether it leads to Dukkha - and if so, why is unawareness Dukkha?

@Mr.Concept Unawareness create "world" and "Me". That is Dukkha.

Dukkha has many meanings.  It also means changing, impermanent, subject to destruction, then yes, ignorance is dukkha because it is impermanent.   To put it in perspective, wisdom or Panna is also Dukkha because it is subject to decay and ending.  Wisdom ends when name-form ends.  Ignorance (as well as wisdom) is Pratītyasamutpāna-dhamma (conditoned dhamma).  The things that beings are ignorance of is the four noble truths.  that's why beings are constantly searching for sensual pleasures  (or in finer cases, pleasures from rupa and arupa bliss).  We dont know that things we are searching for are reasons why we suffer.

I think you're saying that ignorance is dukkha -- because everything is dukkha (or more specifically, all conditioned things, all sankhara) are dukkha -- see the Three marks of existence.

1) Loba, 2) dosa, 3) moha lead to -ve karma.
4) Aloba, 5) adosa, 6) amoha lead to +ve karma.
All the 6 items above are called the roots, and both +ve and -ve Karma lead to future existence:

The -ve Karma themselves give experiences, which we perceive as -ve
While +ve karma continues our existence (though the experiences we perceive as positive) which in combination with the other experiences unrelated to Karma, also having to part with positive experiences when the Karma is exhausted, leads to unsatisfactoriness.

The experience and perceiving the experience is the unsatisfactory part. Your understanding (that ignorance is dukkha) equates the cause with the effect: but this not how it is dealt with in the doctrine.


text:
Does Buddhism have a model of practical rationality?
A standard model of human practical reasoning is the belief-desire-intention model of action.
Very simply put: The agent has a desire (“I want to be a doctor”) and a set of beliefs (“Studying medicine will get me there”) on the basis of which s/he forms an intention to act in a certain way (“I’ll study hard and try to get in to medical school”). When you ask a person, the intention and the desire is what the person refers to as her or his reasons for doing (and not doing) what s/he does. F.ex. staying home and reading instead of going to the pub.
Does Buddhism have a model of practical rationality that can be extracted on the basis of canonical texts? And if so, is the Buddhist practical rationality model normative (what's beneficial/not beneficial) or descriptive, based on the agents subjective rationality like the belief-desire-intention model of action?
Here is more on the model (as ascribed to D. Davidson, the idea is pretty much all over western philosophy and goes goes back - hold fast! - to Plato).

Maybe you could add an external reference/source to this "belief-desire-intention model of action". That would make it easier for the reader to quickly gather the information needed. Do you know how to add links to text-body?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/action/

Great. I edited the post and added the reference. If you press the little metal "clip" when your writing a post, then you can add links with text to your post.

Ok, thanks! Does that work on app too? Or maybe that's a question for meta?

Good question, I do not know. I rarely use the app, since I don't like the mobile-interface. That would indeed be a good meta-question.

the belief-desire-intention model of action

Are the "four noble truths" an example of that?

I "believe" the first three truths
I "desire" the end of suffering
Therefore I "intend" the fourth noble truth

Or "ethics":

I believe that immorality causes or doesn't alleviate suffering
I wish to avoid causing suffering
Therefore I intend to avoid immorality

Or "compassion":

I believe I am able to suffer (and want to avoid that)
I believe other people are like me (able to suffer and wanting to avoid that)
Therefore I intend other people to be free from suffering

the idea is pretty much all over western philosophy and goes back - hold fast! - to Plato

Have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? I liked it. I'd rather not spoiler it but I was remembering it earlier today: towards the climax (which isn't at the end of the book), he goes back to Homer and the Sophists. He quite loses his cool over Aristotle, which is funny at the time, sadder later.

I like that perspective. That answer, I'll really take with me on the way

The pattern you can see repeated over and over in Pali Suttas, is Buddha saying: "there is a case" when someone does X - then later it can be expected the result Y will follow. Much of Buddha's guidance takes form of such statements, "this is how things usually work out".
In some other suttas Buddha says "having a belief Z will help towards Y because it will motivate the person to do X".
-- These two are what you call "descriptive", right?
In some other suttas Buddha simply talks about wholesome/unwholesome behavior without connecting it to goals.
-- These seemingly appear to be what you call "normative" - however I think they are really just implicitly descriptive. It is just that the goals and beliefs are implied, depending on the type of the audience. He implies either the layman goal of happy/enjoyable living or the recluse's goal of attaining the final Enlightenment/Liberation/Nirvana.
Finally, in some other sutta Buddha says "ABC is a valid goal too, but Y is the highest goal, the ultimate goal".
-- This clearly looks like a normative kind of statement.
So, it looks like the Buddhist model of rationality is almost completely descriptive with the exception of the (normative) superiority of Enlightenment over all other goals. Besides the Enlightenment, which seems to be the didactic implant, most of the rest of Buddhism is highly descriptive:

Moggallana and Sariputta stayed with Sanjaya for some years, leading the life of wandering ascetics, but they were not really satisfied with what they were learning from their teacher. After a while they decided to split up and each go their own way in search for truth, promising that the first to find it should tell the other. One day, as Sariputta was walking through Rajagaha, he saw a monk and was deeply impressed by the grace and poise with which he moved and the calm happy expression on his face. The monk happened to be Assaji, one of the [first five] Buddha's disciples. Sariputta asked him:
"Who is your teacher?" and Assaji replied, "Friend, there is a great ascetic, a son of the Sakyans, who went forth from the Sakyan clan. It is because of this Lord that I have gone forth. This Lord is my teacher, I accept this Lord's Dharma."
"What doctrine does your teacher teach? What does he point to?"
  "Friend, I am a beginner, I have only just gone forth, I am new in this Dharma and discipline. I cannot teach the Dharma in full, but I will tell you its essence."
"So be it, your reverence, tell me little or tell me much, but either way give me its essence, I just want the essence. There is no need for great elaboration."
So Assaji said: "Those things that proceed from a cause, of those things the Tathagata has told the cause. And that which is their stopping, of that the great recluse also has a doctrine."

Yes there is...
Buddhist point of view on daily life and goals established by an individual is quite simple.

For example

Sue likes to be a doctor one day,she study hard and do her best to become a doctor.

Here,Sue (our hypothetical student) is in the mindset to become a Doctor. She works hard for it.
But is there anything wrong with that?
No, Because as to Lord Buddha one must choose a path, he or she must choose a life (Monk or Civilian). The monk must work hard to reach his goal,Nirvana, And the Civilian must work extra hard to reach good living conditions and Nirvana.

Read this Sutta
Sigalovada Sutta - How should a Buddhist complete his responsibilities in a household
Even reaching targets in path doesn't effect normal lifestyle
Vishakha - The girl who became Sovan in the age of seven

So clearly the point is.....
It is alright to have goals on life but one mustn't be driven by them.Being a Buddhist is not about sitting all day wishing treasures to fall on lap, If you chose a normal life you must live it as to the teaching meantime focusing on your personal goals.


text:
Koans for beginner - dos and don'ts?
I like studying Buddhism, especially Prasangika, but I find I sometimes get kind of conceptual. I practice shamata every day, but if a beginner like myself wants to try meditation/mindfulness with koans, where should he begin? Any general tips for dos and don'ts?

Get a teacher.  It's absolutely impossible to study koans without one.

@neko That looks like an answer. Would you post it as an answer instead of as a comment?

At the behest of ChrisW - not to sound flippant, but you really do need a teacher if you are going to study koans.  At their very core, koans are asking you to look at something outside your current way of seeing the world.  Unfortunately, you simply can't use your current system of thinking to correctly discern something outside of it.  (Godel, Escher, and Bach, right?)  You absolutely need a second opinion - someone with confirmed understanding - and that's where a teacher comes in.
By going at this yourself you run the risk of falling into two traps.  On the one hand, you might come to mistakenly think you've understood something.  We are great at deluding ourselves, after all.  This is especially true when it comes to our habits, preconceived notions, and obstacles (you know, the very things koans seek to rout out!).  Without a teacher to point out that your understanding is less than ideal (or entirely wrong!) there is no limit to how screwed up you can get.
On the other hand, and this happens with quite a bit of frequency, sometimes we actually see the very thing a koan is pointing at, but ignore it or don't take it to be significant.  Seeing into a koan isn't exactly accompanied by the singing of angels.  Well, sometimes it is.  More often than not, however, you aren't even going to understand what it is you've seen.  At the very least, you aren't going to understand why it's important.  I once sat with a koan for years thinking I hadn't answered it when I had actually seen into the very first week.  Me, in my boundless stupidity, just assumed that I was supposed to be looking for something more significant than what I was experiencing!  If I didn't have a teacher (who finally demanded a black and white, literal report on what was happening with my practice) I might still be sitting with that same koan today!

Then my question is, how to find a teacher? How do I know it's (going to be) a helpful teacher?

Google!  ;-)  And I hate to say it, but about the only thing you have to go on is a teacher's reputation.  To get established in a practice, you might want to see if a monastery local to you is offering a retreat weekend (note, go on a retreat, not a sesshin!).  While it does help, you really don't even need to meet face to face very often.  Quite a bit of training can be done through email.  There was one lady (who's name I'm forgetting) who, back in the 1940s, did a huge amount of her training through letters.

Oh, and make sure you check up on their lineage too.

"Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." - Einstein

@neko, you might hate to say it but I love to hear it. There is a Zen center in Oslo, and a teacher (American) who's name is Koshin Christopher Cain. Heard about him?

Maybe you're thinking of Yaeko Iwasaki (1935).

That's the one!  Thanks Chris!  And no, I have not heard of Christopher Cain, unfortunately.

I did Google him (heh).  It looks like he does hold lineage.


text:
Should Buddhists only cultivate native plants?
Reading various threads here, I know that plants are not considered to be sentient beings in Buddhism. But I still can't help wondering whether Buddhists create bad karma if they cultivate non-native plants. By 'cultivate' I mean for example planting a palm tree in a temperate climate (with large temperature changes over a year) or a giant sequoia anywhere but in the Sierra Nevada mountains in California. (I do not mean caring for plants that have been planted by others before me.)

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like.

Unwholesome actions are created when the intention/volition behind the action is unwholesome.
If one is cultivating plants with intentions of greed, anger, non-harmlessness, then one is creating unwholesome kamma, which will produce unwholesome future resultants.
If one is cultivating plants with wholesome intentions such as good-will, caring, altruism, wholesome future resultants will be produced.
What is important here, is the Mind that is behind the action. Everything starts in the Mind, with reference to the twin verses in the Dhammapada.


text:
Has the law of karma evolved/is it evolving?
As I understand it, Buddhism is not inconsistent with Darwin's theory of evolution. Since the law of karma is central to Buddhism and applies to sentient beings, is the law of karma something that evolved, too?

Have the law of gravity, or the third law of Newton, or the first principle of thermodynamic evolved?

Well, at first sight not. But to my understanding they are not the same kind of law. Physical laws apply to anything composed of atoms, sentient or not. The law of karma applies only to sentient beings - at least that is my understanding. Laws in physics are not absolute in the sense that they are just models of reality. At second sight, the laws have changed in the sense that humanity thought that Newton's laws (not just the third) were always valid and we now know that that is not true.

Niwton's and other laws always valid for their reference frames. Kamma and Vipaka are valid on their reference frame( Vignana/consciousness). As others it is also evolved.

AFAIK, changing is probably the only thing common to both Buddhism and Darwin's theory of evolution. The law of Karma is an important teaching in Buddhism that explains a certain causes and effect process.
The Buddha Dhamma is called Akaliko for 2 reasons:

Gives effect immediately
True for all three times (past, present and future)

But we must not confuse Buddha Dhamma with the word 'Dhamma' used in "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta". Here the word 'Dhamma' means phenomena. All phenomena except Nibbana are conditioned and subjected to change. Buddha Dhamma is the teachings of those phenomena and their behavior. That is true for all times.
Science keep changing as it is based on hypothesis. Buddha Dhamma does not change as it is based on direct knowledge.
If the required causes are present, the effect will come to past. Regarding the teaching of Karma, time itself is part of the equation. Read about Kala Sampatti & Kala Vipatti

"Science keep changing as it is based on hypothesis. Buddha Dhamma does not change as it is based on direct knowledge". True and very powerful words. Well said.

Even there is a Buddha or no Buddha there is a universal law that governs the universe out of which one is Karma. Also it is said all Buddhas preach the same universal laws. On this light Karma is not evolving but static law that is ever existing infinitely into the past and andd future including the present.

By the way Darwin's theory of evolution is not the modern understanding of Evolution. What Buddha Explained as evolution is not parallel Darwin's theory.
Here's the Evolution mentioned in Buddhism
Lord Buddha explained a evolution process that starts with a certain kind of beings who are floating in the air.These beings see a certain compound covering the surface of the earth and some try to come close, But as they are very light it is hard and very few would come close to the surface. Then they learn that someone tasted the compound and it tasted good (There is little explanation about this compound but it is explained as something that looks like Curd). Then they all try to taste it and this event becomes a turning point.
The tasting becomes an addiction, Everyone start to eat it and after a long time the compound is no more and the beings are heavy. Before the addiction they did not needed food. Now they are either living near the ground or upon it.The illuminating bodies they ones had are gone, Their bodies are solid now.
And the first experience of touch has happened among some, But this is strictly taboo. But some still touch each other, but these rebellious beings are outcasts of the new society. The touching goes on with new members and it is essentially the forbidden passion of those days. But this does not go unnoticed from nature. The first signs of gender appears. Now there are no more left to consider them despicable, Everyone is doing it. Now the Male & Female is clearly visible.
This is when the first kind of plants are born. There is nothing to stop the plants from growing as there is nothing covering the earth.This plant said to be very simple and with seed which later on becomes the source of food to these beings. This plant has seeds without a cover to protect it. So these beings just pluck it and eat it. But with time they stop moving across the terrain to find food and settle down.
They settle down as little groups and start their lives, Now the same plants will have to feed them, here nature takes a turn on them. Plants give seeds, But they are with a shell. So the beings now start to make tools to prepare the seeds and start to farm to meet the demand.
With time the small groups grow and become villages then comes the tribes,leaders,Areas,Kings,Kingdoms.

So what about Karma?
Karma is not of physical nature and it is a given law of reality. Karma is a mechanism that has no doer. It is completely independent.

Karma is something that changes. For example....

If you give food you will receive Health,Strength,Food,Endurance. But the Karmic effect will not last forever. It has an expiry date depending on the circumstances of your giving.

Karma is not a universal thing.

Your Karma is going to effect your life and it is bound with your existence.
But when most of the people say "Karma" their have a common misinterpretation of it.
Karma is not a some kind of a data storage of your lives. It is simply how your future is influenced by your past choices & how your choices are going to influence your future.

Karma does not need to evolve.

Like i mentioned before...
"Karma is how your future is influenced by your past choices & how your choices are going to influence your future.*"
It is bound to you, not a part of a universal thing. When you reach nirvana Karmic effects will cease to exist.
No matter what happens to the universe or to you Karma will always be there for the living ones who hasn't reached "Nirvana". Because Karma is not new or old it is simply the eons old outcomes of  choices, Strictly bound to individuals who committed the acts.

user1362373, karma is evolving (thought in creation), and involving, and can be used also as real "evolvement" (thought in liberation). And it applies to all living beings, whether they are aware of not, sentient or not. de and en are pretty mixed up today.
Such a distinction is that of people who have a by birth or lineage or race thinking, as that of most evolving-inspired ideas have.
Kamma is what keeps beings in this circle of evolution.
If one likes to understand kamma, this might be useful:

Kamma: A Study Guide, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2000; 48pp./145KB)
      An overview of the Buddha's teachings on kamma (karma; intentional action).

How ever, be warned, thinking on kamma (which means, trying to trace it back and forward) is said to make one crazy: and that (i.e. such thoughts on kamma) does not need to be done on the path. Just having the faith that wholesome deeds will bring their associated results (and unwholesome deeds, similarly), and to know what is good kamma (action by body, speech or mind) and what is not, is quite OK. Otherwise you would end up in nothing but not very wise things.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of trade and keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

I hope you don't mind me editing for grammar sometimes (I have done it in the hope that it makes the answer easier for other people to read and understand). I didn't understand (and so I don't know how to clarify) the sentence, "Such a distinction ... ideas have."

They are quite welcome Upasaka Chris and do also give info of how much quick-witnessed one is and also it gives a lot of challenge to loosen certain preoccupations as mentioned in the edit text (intro give some hints). Just careful and not always to fast. Sadhu!

There a certain ways of distinction in different kind of beings, a notion Hindus nourish on as well as evolution theoretic, both always leaded to certain discrimination of kind of Ariya-beings and low beings outside of what the Buddha explained to be a special being and normal being. Its very modern to introduce sentient today, especially in new age movements, Mahayana approaches and worldly Dhamma approaches and is a very poison for developing metta and virtue, Upasaka @ChrisW which is of use for the path. That was the reason why mentioning that.

I can see you addressed me in the latest comment; if I don't reply to it it's because I didn't understand what you said, nor why.

One question was, if it is welcome to correct, one question was what "Such a distinction ... ideas have." means. Which part was it, that was not transported well by Atma? And of which do you ask "Why did you do?", valued Upasaka @ChrisW ?

I asked "why" only because I didn't know "what": if I had known the reason "why" you said that was "in order to explain 'such a distinction'", then I might have better understood "what" you were saying! I still don't thoroughly understand that paragraph though. If I reworded it as, People who have a view of 'lineage' and 'race' [and/or 'species'] and 'caste' think about 'evolution', however that's beyond what the Buddha explained -- the Buddha explained simply that there are special Ariya-beings, and normal beings. then would that be like what you intended to say in that second paragraph?

Yes, thoughts like thought by people pondering about evolution theories become the same ideas as those of people thinking of beings is extend of race and caste, and such is not the path Buddha likes to lead, or a path that leads to liberation, Upasaka @ChrisW.

I doubt the laws of kamma can be reconciled with the laws of evolution for many reasons, such as:
(1) Buddhism only proposes good results come from good kamma. The Buddhist laws of kamma are not about biological survival & evolution but about psychological happiness & suffering.
(2) Where as Darwinian evolution (I assume) would propose both good actions (e.g., loving off-spring; living in balance with environment) and bad actions (e.g., killing, stealing, raping &/or lying/deceiving when required) contribute to survival & thus evolution.
(3) The supreme practise & goal of Buddhism (the noble eightfold path) results in    celibacy & non-reproduction, thus a diminishing of the gene-pool of enlightenment genes (dhamma dhatu).
(4) Buddhism states the fully-enlightened being or 'arahant' has completed human spiritual evolution where as Darwinism (I assume) would not offer any completion or fulfillment of evolution.
(5) In short, Buddhism is spiritual evolution while Darwinism is biological evolution, i.e., miles apart.


text:
Why sitting meditation, and is vippasana and breath meditation sufficient?
Why do we have to watch body sensations separately by sitting meditation, when even in our daily life we are experiencing sensations moment to moment (and realizing everything is vibrating in our body)?
And can we achieve omniscience and knowledge of our past lives, karma, etc., by watching breath and watching body sensations only? Or there is more to it in vippasana meditations, other than watching breath and body sensations?

(This question was originally titled "tibetan buddhism chanting om mani padme hum and watching the breath meditations and watching mental states")

I edited your question (I only added some punctuation, to make it easier to read). One thing I didn't understand what that "chanting om mani padme hum" was in the title but not in the body question ... do you want to ask something about chanting? And, do you only or mostly want answer from Tibetan Buddhism (or, also answers from other forms of Buddhism too)?

Breath meditation, vipassana and Samadhi meditation are two sides of the coin. Breath meditation is about focused attention that quiets the mind of chatter and noise. It's as if you let a muddy pool settle after stirring it up. Once the mud (chatter) has settled, the water (mind) becomes clear and can now focus more easily and powerfully than before.
Now that's all well and good but what do you do with this focused mind? You point it towards the three marks of existence, and/or the four noble truths. While breath meditation is sufficient as a vehicle to carry you into higher states of concentration (the jhanas) if it is not coupled with insight meditation or some sort of reflection then all you will be doing is building up your concentration faculties without reflection or thought.
There is a section in the Visuddhi margaya that talks about reflecting after exiting the jhanas that is essential to jhanic meditation. I'm at work now but can find the reference later today.

Why do we have to watch body sensations separately by sitting meditation, when even in our daily life we are experiencing sensations moment to moment (and realizing everything is vibrating in our body)?

Generally what happens is: Body sensation > Perception > Concept formation > Thinking and pondering. Being mindful and aware you do not let this stream lead upto Thinking and Pondering which creates mental fabrication or mental Karma. Being ardently aware is what helps you cut this off before it comes to the last stage of creating Karma. This can also be thought as: Feeling > Craving (for perceived experience - perceive as good, bad or neutral) > Clinging (concepts and thoughts)

And can we achieve omniscience and knowledge of our past lives, karma, etc., by watching breath and watching body sensations only? Or there is more to it in vippasana meditations, other than watching breath and body sensations?

Genrally Vippasana is practiced to gain revolution towards the 5 aggregates. If you develop deep absorptions then yes you can gain insight to past lives and karma. Some Vippassana teachers teach in such away that both concentration and wisdom develops. Interpretations of the Jhanas by Leigh Brasington covers some teachers who teach in such a way, which can lead to absorptions which give psychic abilities (omniscience and knowledge ), as well as, insight.

In samadhi meditation, you calm your mind and bring it to a state where you can give commands to the subconscious mind. Then using vipassana you tell your mind (at this stage the mind is clear) the mortality of your life. By doing this your mind will understand the real truth (anitya, dukka and anatama). If you follow the arayan method (arya ashtangika margaya) you can go to enlightenment easily. It consists three stages:

Controlling your movements and words (seela)
Training your mind (samadhi)
Understanding the truth/reality (pragcha)

Each of these stages also consist certain steps, 8 in total.