text:
Are practical solutions to everyday suffering that contradict Buddhism Upaya or avidya?
If we are caught in the great web of desire and aversion, and are roiling in Samsara, helpful or well meaning advise (to let go, to be in the moment, to inspect the emptiness of reality, to not indulge in distractions, to not follow emotions blindly) may fall on deaf ears.
Sometimes when the Buddha encountered such people, he seemed to have a knack to lead them to realization of the drawbacks of Samsara. Ex. Stories of Kisa Gotami or Patacara (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/thig.10.01.than.html)
Other times, he wasn't so successful in making others happy, as with the case of his father who was very aggrieved about losing a successor, or monks in his order who plotted against him or the sangha. Sometimes even expulsion didn't seem to help. In fact, Buddha initially had reservations about teaching the Dhamma at all - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.001.than.html
It is unclear whether it was his wise words, or his enlightened mindful compassionate energy presence or the receptiveness of the listener that led some lucky ones to this realization. In any case, lacking the wisdom of the Buddha, we may alienate those we seek to help by explaining the suffering of Samsara when they expect  conventional help.
In these situations, would it be wise for a Buddhist to offer everyday immediate samsaric help, like, taking someone out to a movie or to a drink to forget their pain (obviously only works in suffering of a lower intensity than losing your family to death)?
Or, would it harm the Buddhist himself, by weakening his/her belief in Dhamma? i.e. implying Dhamma isn't always the best cure
Which is more compassionate? Or, what would an aspiring Bodhisattva do?

Made the question more balanced by adding observations about people with dust in their eyes.

An aspiring bodhisattva would use Upaya and do anything to ease the suffering of another without breaking the five precepts. Only when another person's mind/hearth is calmed and malleable would it then be able to receive/absorb dharma.
Even then he can only act within the limits of his own wisdom, so his intention, skilful or unskilful, is very important.
Then, again there are "...people with little dusts in their eyes...".

Indeed, but when does Upaya turn into idiocy? An aspiring monk about to leave his family is almost always going to run into stiff opposition, even the Buddha had to sneak away in the night because he lacked the power to convince his father. Surely people he left behind grieved Siddharta's departure, his wife may have felt abandoned, his son grew up in a broken family.  In a modern legal context, we would  in fact call the Buddha a dead beat dad is it not? Yet, even the Buddha wanted his monks to get the king's permission to go forth when he himself did not.

Under certain circumstances we cannot know the results of an action, but we can know only the intention of an action, whether skilful or unskilful.

Even the Buddha from all accounts didn't succeed in easing the suffering of all he encountered. There were monks in his order, in his time plotting schisms or breaks in the order, or plotting his assassination, or contemplating ways to bend the precepts. His own father didn't forgive him, and felt aggrieved even when Buddha's wife, mother and son became monastics. Perhaps there aren't records of the numerous times grieving people came to the Buddha and turned away unconvinced. This is why growing unshakeable faith in dhamma is emphasised as the responsibility of the student.

An aspiring bodhisattva can only act within the limit of his wisdom. So his intention is all important.

I really like the simplicity of your answer, and above all one has to be compassionate to oneself. Sometimes even drinking with whores maybe the right thing to do, as Zen master Ikkyu Sojun (1394-1481) discovered. Ikkyu Sojun was appointed headmaster of the great temple at Kyoto, he lasted nine days before denouncing the rampant hypocrisy he saw among the monks there. He in turn invited them to look for him in the sake parlors of the Pleasure Quarters. A Zen monk-poet-calligrapher-musician, he dared to write about the joys of erotic love, along with more traditional Zen themes.

Unfortunately (because it doesn't answer your question), I'd guess it's better to find "practical solutions to everyday suffering" that don't contradict Buddhism.
When my father died, there's a couple of things people did for my mum which she appreciated (i.e. these are stories which she retold, of examples of how to help people who are grieving because she found them helpful).

People made and gave her cakes. This is useful because, she said, "you don't feel like cooking, people are coming to visit you every day, and it's nice to have some cake to offer your visitors."
Isn't this is a practical and a Buddhist gift: because it helps the recipient to be generous?

My parents moved to a new place when they retired. One of the people in the new village, who she hadn't met before (word of her loss had travelled), stopped to talk to her in the street of offer condolences. He said, "Neighbours are more important than family." Oh: really? "Yes because we're here (and your family is in another country)."
Isn't that sort of Buddhist too? It's not Dhamma exactly (not talking about dukkha for example) but it's bringing attention to what is (instead of attention to what has gone), to human contact.

Several people told her to keep on making contact with other people. One told her "you mustn't just go home and close the curtains" (and told me not to let her do that). Another phoned a neighbour and told the neighbour to visit every day.

I'm not sure why "going to a movie" might help a person to "forget their pain". Perhaps it's just the passing of time (impermanence of pain), or distraction (to stop clinging), or human contact (your company at the theatre, or compassion felt for the characters in the movie).
Without saying that a movie is unwise, perhaps using conversation to touch on these topics or evoke them is a skillful alternative.

By the way a friend once told me there are different axes along which a topic of conversation between two people is more or less intimate:

What's distant in time (past or future) is less intimate (less immediate) than the present (now)
What's distant in space (other places) is less intimate than the present (here)
Talking about other people is less intimate than talking about ourselves.

If you're trying to have a conversation with someone who is grieving, maybe that's good to remember. A person might get bored if the topic of conversation is too distant ("why is Buddho trying to tell me a story that happened to someone else a long time ago and far away?"), but uncomfortable if the topic is too intimate ("what do you mean, 'how do I feel?' I feel terrible, what do you expect?"), so adjusting that to find some topic in the middle might be skillful.
I guess my mum enjoyed a couple of things I did for her, over the next months, she said: one was practical help, like helping her use her computer, helping her count her money (her budget); and the other was my acting silly sometimes which made her laugh.

That said, I'm reading "Good Question Good Answer" by Bhante Dhammika at the moment. In the chapter about the five precepts, one of the question is whether you should lie to a killer to prevent them from killing. His answer was that,

"If you were sitting in a park and a terrified man ran past you and then a few minutes later another man carrying a knife ran up to you and asked you if you had seen which way the first man had gone, would you tell him the truth or would you lie to him?"
"If I had good reason to suspect that the second man was going to do serious harm to the first I would, as an intelligent caring Buddhist, have no hesitation in lying. We said before that one of the factors determining whether a deed is good or bad is intention. The intention to save a life is many times more positive than telling a lie is negative in circumstances such as these. If lying, drinking, or even stealing meant that I saved a life I should do it. I can always make amends for breaking these, but I can never bring a life back once it is gone. However, as I said before, please do not take this as a license to break the Precepts whenever it is convenient. The Precepts should be practiced with great care and only infringed in extreme cases."

Thanks, I enjoyed your answer. Indeed, there's a great many things one can do by being a decent human being first and foremost. Now to the story of the knife wielding man - suppose the escaping man has set a time bomb, and is running away with the code to defuse it, and the man chasing him wants to get the code to save lives, would  knowing this context change things? p.s. I agree that intention really does matter, and so at least from the karmic context he accrues no harm, though the courts may think he aided and abetted a criminal, and that too would then be karma.

I saw a frightened gazelle being cornered by Komodo dragons on TV, his only escape route was blocked by a grazing buffalo, left alone by the dragons because of his size. The buffalo couldn't care less about the tragedy about to befall the gazelle, he seemed to really be interested in the grass before him. Was the buffalo wrong, and cruel, or wise because this is the circle of life and intervention is wrong. If a human were to act similarly, would that be cruel? Sometimes being decent is complicated.

While you may not be able to emulate Buddha's psychic powers, the Buddha recommends in the Sigalovada Sutta on how good friends are. The role of mentor and compassionate friend applies to your case.

"Young man, be aware of these four good-hearted friends: the helper, the friend who endures in good times and bad, the mentor, and
  the compassionate friend.
"The helper can be identified by four things: by protecting you when you are vulnerable, and likewise your wealth, being a refuge when
  you are afraid, and in various tasks providing double what is
  requested.
"The enduring friend can be identified by four things: by telling you secrets, guarding your own secrets closely, not abandoning you in
  misfortune, and even dying for you.
"The mentor can be identified by four things: by restraining you from wrongdoing, guiding you towards good actions, telling you what
  you ought to know, and showing you the path to heaven.
"The compassionate friend can be identified by four things: by not rejoicing in your misfortune, delighting in your good fortune,
  preventing others from speaking ill of you, and encouraging others who
  praise your good qualities."

Another point is that the Buddha knew when to say the right things to people. So, as a good friend who is a mentor (above), you may want to consider the following from the Abhaya Sutta:

[ 1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[ 2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
[ 3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.
[ 4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.
[ 5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
[ 6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

Good friendship is great compassion, true, but I was specifically asking about the utility of everyday solutions that may run counter to Buddhism. For example, if a friend says, drink with me, so I don't feel lonely, does one say no, it goes against my precepts? Would that be compassionate or selfish?

@Buddho, a friend who asks you to break your precepts just so they don't have to feel lonely while drinking is maybe not such a good friend. Answers here regarding giving up bad friends might be interesting supplemental reading.

Yes, you shouldn't compromise your principles in order to help others. This applies to the five precepts only if you observe them. But as per the answer by ChrisW, the precepts can be broken in extreme cases (if you took a vow to observe them).


text:
Practice of the other three Brahmaviharas
Metta has received plenty of attention and focus of practice. Even a search of Buddhism SE shows over 170 posts with the word "metta" in it.
Comparatively, the other three Brahmaviharas are not so often discussed or focused in similar depth.
How do we practise them?
What are the benefits that can be gained out of the practice?
Canonical quotes appreciated. Theravada preferable, but answers from the perspective of other traditions are also welcomed.

Seeking answers from authority is problematic because it assumes that authority has not been corrupted. This answer is obvious. All 4 Brahmaviharas are training the mind for the same thing: Genuine care and concern for the wellbeing of others by training the mind to be connected with them at all times. When connected with the intention of metta, we experience mudita, karuna as their state changes. Remaining connected at all times is the condition for uppekha. It is difficult to understand why this is not obvious.

The practice of the Brahmaviharas is comprehensively dealt in Chapter IX of the Visuddhimagga. Online resource :- Visuddhimagga.
Daniel Ingram says that the Brahmaviharas are:

Loving-Kindness (Metta): the natural well-wishing for one's self and all beings.
Compassion (Karuna): the natural wishing that the suffering of one's self and all beings will cease.
Sympathetic Joy (Mudita): the natural appreciation of the successes, good fortunes and joys of ourselves and all beings.
Equanimity (Upekkha): the feeling of peace that comes from realizing that all beings are the true heirs of their karma and that their well-being depends on their actions, and not on our wishes for them.

He makes an important point that all the Brahmavihara practices share common ground - they are rooted in conscious intent. In this way they produce positive effects. The structure of the meditations are similar and it is merely the intent that changes, encapsulated by the meaning of the phrase that is used. As in Loving-Kindness meditation, so in the others we (substituting the appropriate pronoun in the blank spaces) we silently intend:

For Loving-Kindness: May _____ be happy. May ____ be peaceful.  May _____ be safe. May _____ live with ease.
For Compassion: May _____ be free from suffering. May their suffering finally cease.
For Sympathetic Joy: May the happiness and good fortune of _____ always increase.
For Equanimity: ____ is/are the true heirs of their karma. ____'s happiness depends upon their actions and not upon my wishes for them.

Quoted from integrateddaniel.info

I was reading a bit about them yesterday, in the references included with this answer and this answer.

What the Buddha did not teach by Christopher Titmuss is I suppose Theravada, and/or perhaps his own interpretation based on the suttas.
In that article, section 4 describes "Belief in God", and "Brahma"; and then section 25 says,

Oneness is the ultimate realty. The Buddha did not refute the importance of Oneness. He refers to it in the experience of Brahma Viharas (Divine Abode or Abode of God ). He does not refer to this Abode as ultimate reality since it posits the notion of a self that unites with other. The Buddha refutes All is One and equally refutes All is Many and points to dependent arising. In MLD 117, the Buddha said: Unification of mind equipped with the other seven links of the Eighfold Path is called noble right rconcentation [sic] with its supports and requisites.

What the Buddha did not teach also has a couple of sections (19 and 20) about Metta.
This description of Atammayata (see also Samadhi's answer which explains it) describes it as, I think, a necessary antidote to equanimity.

Why does Tan Ajarn Buddhadasa consider atammayata so important? In the Salayatanavibhanga Sutta of the Majjhima-nikaya (#137) the Buddha describes a spiritual progression carried out by "relying on this, to give up that." Relying on the pleasure, pain, and equanimity associated with renunciation, one gives up the pleasure and pain associated with worldliness. Relying on singular or one-pointed equanimity (ekaggata-upekkha), one gives up many-sided or multifaceted equanimity (nanatta-upekkha). Relying on atammayata, one gives up ekaggata-upekkha.
In this sutta, nanatta-upekkha is explained as "equanimity toward forms, sounds, odors, tastes, touches, and mind-objects," which implies the four meditative states known as the "rupa-jhana." Ekaggata-upekkha is explained as "equanimity dependent upon the four immaterial absorptions (arupa-jhana)." To more easily understand what this means, we may compare it with the common Buddhist hierarchy of the sensual (kama-), pure material (rupa-), and non-material (arupa-) realms. The ordinary worldling or "Thickster" (putthujhana) clings to sensual experiences due to craving for sensual pleasures. One gets free of sensuality by relying on pure materiality, that is, steady concentration upon material objects (rupa-jhana). Pure materiality is abandoned by relying on the arupa-jhana. Finally, these exalted states of consciousness are abandoned through atammayata.

Something like the Brahmavihara Sutta says,

"This awareness-release through equanimity (and/or through good-will) should be developed whether one is a woman or a man. Neither a woman nor a man can go taking this body along. Death, monks, is but a gap of a thought away. One [who practices this awareness-release] discerns, 'Whatever evil action has been done by this body born of action, that will all be experienced here [in this life]. It will not come to be hereafter.' Thus developed, the awareness-release through equanimity leads to non-returning for the monk who has gained gnosis here and has penetrated to no higher release."

There's an article on accesstoinsight titled The Four Sublime States –
Contemplations on Love, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy and Equanimity by Nyanaponika Thera (a German-born Sri-Lanka-ordained Theravada monk).
It includes (without referencing suttas) a dozen short paragraphs on each of the four states; and another dozen at the end describing inter-relations between states.
It says, near the beginning,

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

When I read the question Why does insight lead to to compassion? I wondered whether there's ever "increasing levels of insight" without any "social contact": and decided it's unlikely, and that human existence (physical human livelihood) tends to depend on some social contact.

The non-Theravada probably have a lot more to say; for example the Dalai Lama says that people "always feel happy" from helping others, etc.

I'm undecided about the '... does insight lead to compassion?'. At this stage, I'm more of the opinion that Brahma Viharas are vectors of development, kind of like Ken Wilber's Lines of Development. Deep insight does not necessarily lead to being a 'better' person. This is evidenced by many teachers with obvious deep levels of realization still behaving in very questionable ways.

Oh i wished i could stick my answer on my previous post so that i don't have to rewrite everything.
In order to The practice of the other 3 Brahmaviharas Karuna Mudita and Uppekha,
you need to be able to stay with metta as your object.
Then through practice, your metta will change into karuna then change into mudita then change into uppekha.
Once you understand them, you'll be able to radiate each object freely.
That's how it goes.

For equanimity, when reflecting "all beings are owners of their actions", how is metta involved here? Thanks

There's equinimity in every Jhanas but the strongest equinimity is when you reached the 4th jhana friend. "All beings are the owners of their actions" when your equinimity gets stronger, you won't get angry, happy, pity with one's condition. Metta and uppekha are two different feelings.

Your comment is unrelated to the question asked of you in order to clarify your post. If metta & uppekha are two different feelings, how is metta the basis of upeka as you originally posted? I think if the mind has upeka, it won't write things that confuse others.

Just like Anapanasati as the object, metta as the object is just a trigger to get the equanimity or Uppekha. When you use breathing as the object, after a long practices you will get uppekha. but then again you have to keep on focusing on breathing. As in Metta, you will realized that the feeling changed when you get the Uppekha. Well, if you want to try to do it, i'll let you experience them Step by Step. Too much theory and critical thinking won't get you nowhere. Trust me, i used to be one of them.

You post like you believe you are a teacher & everyone else is beneath you. It is best to stop this because it is delusion (conceit) and shows a lack of equanimity. Best wishes

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: 北京做假证_北京办文凭毕业证 - spam

sort: votes


text:
In Relation to Rebirth After Death, How is Karma any Different than Supernatural gods?
My questions are:

How is karma any different more believable than supernatural gods passing judgement when we are talking about rebirth after the point of death - rebirth being inextricably linked to karma?
I've read a lot about how seeds of karma ripen into result, and what seem to me to be absurd cosmological realms existing under a flat earth, but then teachers have said karma is just moment to moment. Then it changes to it is not even moment to moment but a universal law like gravity.
I mean no disrespect by this, but gravity is observable whereas being born as a human and then a dog after you die because of unskillful karma is not.
Also some humans are born in such a way (severely disabled) that dogs are smarter than they are?
Why is rebirth in human realm classified as higher when some humans suffer more than some animals and have less of an intellectual ability to reason than dogs or crows?
How are you sure this transition to lower rebirth exists, as in the hell realms which sound like really bad places that physically exist, aside from anecdotal evidence that cannot be observed through experience?
Why does no one support rebirth with any solid evidence, but claim it as a result of karma where karma is portrayed as a natural law?
If you are claiming there is evidence, where is it and how were the observations conducted? Are you just taking this persons word for it, or can you reproduce the result? How do you know this?

Personally, it seems to me that this notion of lower rebirth at the time of death could be true but is just as likely not to be true. So the people that claim it positively exists based off it just seeming to make sense or anecdotal evidence are no different than Christians or Muslims who believe in their gods because it just seems to make sense to them. There is an essay that explains this quite well and references Pali suttas.
Rebirth is Neither Plausible nor Salient.
An excerpt that asks this a bit more eloquently than I can:

"There is one more consideration here. Rebirth is intimately linked to the Buddhist doctrine of karma. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago (Son of the Śākyas) that the idea of being judged on the basis of your actions is one that might have come into Buddhism (and Hinduism) from Zoroastrianism. All large scale cultures seem to have a metaphysical overseer. In most cultures it comes in the form of a god who monitors your behaviour. Why do we need monitoring? In ancestral small scale societies we all knew what everyone was doing because we spent all of our time together. Privacy did not really exist. But as we became civilised and started living in larger scale communities it became impossible to keep everyone under surveillance to make sure they were keeping to the rules. Society is predicated on the idea that most people follow the rules most of the time, and if we catch someone breaking the rules we punish them somehow. One of the harshest non-fatal punishments is shunning which was practised in the early Buddhist Saṅgha for some offences (it still is). So gods like Indo-Iranian Mitra/Mithra, developed to keep a celestial eye on everyone and keep order. In non-Vedic India however the function was not divine, and not anthropomorphised, but became an impersonal built-in property of the universe, i.e. karma. However the function of karma is no different to the function carried out by judicial gods (e.g. Mitra or Zeus), or the oversight function of a mono-gods (e.g. Jehovah), and that karma is still a supernatural agency. Karma was invented to make sure that private actions have public consequences, though the astute reader will notice that the consequences are mostly private—that is divorced from the society in which the action was done—as well, since they are put-off till a future life."

If you wish to see karma in action, practice meditation. Therein lies your observation, and ability to reproduce this phenomenon.

i meant to post this instead Ask A Monk: Karma and Reincarnation

This question should be split into a few different questions?

Wasn't the karma vs God question already asked here?

@yuttadhammo There are "karma vs God" questions at http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/8180/254 and http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3210/254 and http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/5371/254 etc.; but this question is, "isn't karma-and-rebirth just as implausible and unproven as belief in supernatural God?" and "do the hell realms physically exist?" and "why is born-as-human seen as a 'higher' birth than born-as-animal" etc.

This question seems similar to Is rebirth a delusional belief?, which had some very good answers (which I recommend you read if you're interested in this question).

Hello colburnpclark and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some information to help you get started here.

How is karma any different more believable than supernatural gods passing judgement when we are talking about rebirth after the point of death - rebirth being inextricably linked to karma?
The implication here is that death somehow negates the causal nature of mind states that is observed in the present moment; along with our ability to hold grudges from one life to the next, the continuation of physical changes effected by mental states, etc.
Karma is more believable than God, because karma is seen to work in this life on many levels - mental changes due to karma, changes to one's physical surrounding due to karma, changes in relationships due to karma, etc. The claim that this all ceases at the moment of death is just a claim. It makes sense from within a physicalist framework, but not from an experiential framework like Buddhism.
I mean no disrespect by this, but gravity is observable whereas being born as a human and then a dog after you die because of unskillful karma is not.
Sure it is... the dog observes that it has been born a dog. How else could it be observed? The mind cannot be observed through physical means, so it's a fault of our instruments, not of the process itself. Certainly not reason to conclude "therefore God".
Why is rebirth in human realm classified as higher when some humans suffer more than some animals and have less of an intellectual ability to reason than dogs or crows?
Classification is a human construct; there is no part of nature that says "humans are better". Generally, it's considered to be more difficult to be born as a human, due to the complexity and sophistication of the organism (opposable thumbs apparently mean a lot; complex brain functions, etc.). It takes specific mind states to be born as specific individuals, e.g. humans with Down syndrome, etc., but they still have much in favour of them over dogs (longer life span, opposable thumbs, a place in human society, etc.)
How are you sure this transition to lower rebirth exists, as in the hell realms which sound like really bad places that physically exist, aside from anecdotal evidence that cannot be observed through experience?
I have no reason to doubt that hell exists; it doesn't seem any less plausible than the fact that this realm exists. It seems reasonable that one's environment changes based on one's state of mind, since that is observable in this life, and it is reasonable to conclude that causality also plays a part in one's continuation after death. I am not sure that hell exists, but it seems reasonable to believe realms of that sort do.
Why does no one support rebirth with any solid evidence, but claim it as a result of karma where karma is portrayed as a natural law?
There have been many attempts to support rebirth with solid evidence, some quite convincing. E.g. the articles on this page:
http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/publications-page
There is also the superior form of investigation that is meditation; through simple but dedicated practice, one can for oneself regain memories of past lives, according to Buddhist teachings.

So a bhikkhu who is a beginner and wants to recollect in this way should
  go into solitary retreat on return from his alms round after his meal. Then he
  should attain the four jhānas in succession and emerge from the fourth jhāna as
  basis for direct-knowledge. He should then advert to his most recent act of
  sitting down [for this purpose], next, to the preparation of the seat, to the entry
  into the lodging, to the putting away of the bowl and [outer] robe, to the time of
  eating, to the time of returning from the village, to the time of wandering for alms
  in the village, to the time of entering the village, to the time of setting out from the
  monastery, to the time of paying homage at the shrine terrace and the
  Enlightenment-tree terrace, to the time of washing the bowl, to the time of picking
  up the bowl, to the things done from the time of picking up the bowl back to the
  mouth washing, to the things done in the early morning, to the things done in
  the middle watch, in the first watch. In this way he should advert to all the things
  done during the whole night and day in reverse order.
While this much, however, is evident even to his normal consciousness, it is
  especially evident to his preliminary-work consciousness. But if anything there
  is not evident, he should again attain the basic jhāna, emerge and advert. By so
  doing it becomes as evident as when a lamp is lit. And so, in reverse order too, he
  should advert to the things done on the second day back, and on the third,
  fourth and fifth day, and in the ten days, and in the fortnight, and as far back as
  a year.
When by these means he adverts to ten years, twenty years, and so on as far
  back as his own rebirth-linking in this existence, he should advert to the
  mentality-materiality occurring at the moment of death in the preceding existence;
  for a wise bhikkhu is able at the first attempt to remove the rebirth-linking and
  make the mentality-materiality at the death moment his object.

-- Vism XII.22-4 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Certainly not reason to conclude "therefore God" Assuming the OP is an atheist (skeptical of "supernatural gods"), he might be concluding "therefore annihilation".

@ChrisW no, I mean "not reason to conclude that it's just another God-like delusion"

If I strike a white cue ball hard on a billard table, someone without an understanding of the transfer of momentum would say every thing that happen subsequently, happen by chance.
Someone who sees the cue ball approaching a pack of balls could ask why should we expect any thing to happen to the pack of balls, there is no reason for it.
When subsequently all the balls come to rest in a particular configuration, someone else would say God arranged it. So it is understandable when God strike the white ball rolling he meant it to send some balls into the pockets of hell an others in perpetual purgatory.
Someone else who have encountered both these views, will say that the view that the transfer of momentum from one ball to the rests that it come into contact are no different from the view of god. The function of the transfer of momentum is no different from the function carried out by a personal god.
And the transfer of momentum is still a supernatural agency, and so on...
What can you say to that?
They are views that arise without an understanding of transfer of momentum or kamma. This is just an analogy!  Please don't take me to task on this analogy.
Some times when we don't SEE for ourself (Paccattam Veditabbo Vinnuhi) an underlying truth. Every view is possible!
So when we "see for ourself"(Paccattam Veditabbo Vinnuhi) the workings of kamma then certain views are impossible, others are not plausible and we arrive to right views.
The only convincing evidence is to see our own past lives and if we are unable to do that, the other alternative is to have some faith in the saying of someone like the Buddha. If we can't do both, as in having no ability and no faith and no practice, we remain as we are full of delusion/confusion as to what are the right views. Practice leads to knowing for ourselves and also results in more confidence in the dhamma.
It starts with practice and ends in knowing (vijja or bodhi).

I think maybe the OP also doubts the existence of hell-realms. Even if he understands momentum and has seen the table-top, is there evidence for describing the pockets which are hidden underneath the table?

The only convincing evidence is to see our own past lives and if we are unable to do that, the other alternative is to faith in the saying of someone like the Buddha. If we can't do both, as in having no ability and no faith and no practice, we remain as we are full of delusion/confusion as to what are the right views. Practice leads to knowing for ourselves and results in more confidence in the dhamma. It starts with practice and ends in knowing (vijja or bodhi).

To answer your question, we need to use a rational mind.
Take a look into yourself. What do you see? Something.
Take a look deeper into yourself. How does everything arise in yourself? 5 senses make everything arise.
Take a look even deeper into yourself. How does everything arise in yourself? Feeling and contact makes everything arise.
...
Take a look the deepest possible in yourself. How does everything arise in yourself? Everything arises from desire/wanting. This is the ultimate truth why everything arises in yourself.
Take a look at the ultimate truth of everything arising in yourself. How does EVERYTHING (a thought, visual representation, sound, smell, etc.) arises from nothing in yourself? First, desire/wanting for SOMETHING arises. Then, desire/wanting creates the effort to overcome the obstacles. When the effort is big enough, the obstacles are destroyed, and SOMETHING arises. This is the ultimate truth how everything arises from nothing in yourself.
Take a look outside yourself and imagine time going backwards. What do you see? Everything going backwards in time.
Take a look closer outside yourself and imagine time going more backwards. How does everything arises outside yourself? From things mixing together everything arises.
Take a look even closer outside yourself and imagine time going backwards even more. How does everything arises outside yourself? From atoms, etc.
... Take a look the closest outside yourself and imagine time going backwards indefinitely. How does everything arises outside yourself? Everything arises from desire/wanting. This is the ultimate truth why everything arises outside yourself.
Take a look at the ultimate truth of everything arising outside yourself. How does EVERYTHING (a rock, plant, animal, sand, etc.) arise from nothing outside yourself? First, desire/wanting for SOMETHING arises. Then, desire/wanting creates the effort to overcome the obstacles. When the effort is big enough, the obstacles are destroyed, and SOMETHING arises. This is the ultimate truth how everything arises from nothing outside yourself.
Analyse the ultimate truth of how everything arises from nothing outside yourself. What do you see? You see centillions and centillions of desires/wanting chained one after the other, forming centillions and centillions of layers of desire/wanting.
From centillions and centillions of layers of desire/wanting everything arised.
From centillions and centillions of layers of desire/wanting galaxies, planets, plants, animals, etc., arised.
From centillions and centillions of layers of desire/wanting you arised. You are centillions and centillions of layers of desire/wanting. Everything is centillions and centillions of layers of desire/wanting.
If you are centillions and centillions of layers of desire/wanting, you are more than your physical body.
If you are more than your physical body, centillions of layers of desire/wanting will remain after your death.
When centillions of layers of desire/wanting remain after your death, you remain.
When you remain, you are.
When you are, you become.
When you become, you are born.
When you are born, you desire.
When you desire, you cling and crave.
When you cling and crave, you suffer.
When you suffer, centillions of layers of desire/wanting are forming wanting you to suffer (remember: the ultimate truth why everything arises in yourself).
When centillions of layers of desire/wanting are formed wanting you to suffer, centillions of layers of desire/wanting are forming wanting you to cling and crave.
When centillions of layers of desire/wanting are formed wanting you to cling and crave, centillions of layers of desire/wanting are forming wanting you to desire.
When centillions of layers of desire/wanting are formed wanting you to desire, centillions of layers of desire/wanting are forming wanting you to be born.
When centillions of layers of desire/wanting are formed wanting you to be born, you will be reborn again.
The more you cling and crave, the more you suffer. The more you suffer, the more you sin. The more you sin, the angrier you are. The angrier you are, the more you are angry and the more you desire to be angry (remember: the ultimate truth why everything arises in yourself). The more you desire to be angry, the more centillions of layers of desire/wanting will be formed wanting you to be angry. The more centillions of layers of desire/wanting you to be angry are formed, the angrier you will be after death. The angrier you will be after death, the angrier being you will become after next birth. The angrier being you become after next birth, the more you will suffer. The more you suffer, the more in hell you will live.
The less you cling and crave, the less you suffer. The less you suffer, the less you sin. The less you sin, the happier you are. The happier you are, the more you are happy and the more you desire to be happy (remember: the ultimate truth why everything arises in yourself). The more you desire to be happy, the more centillions of layers of desire/wanting will be formed wanting you to be happy. The more centillions of layers of desire/wanting you to be happy are formed, the happier you will be after death. The happier you will be after death, the happier being you will become after next birth. The happier being you become after next birth, the more you will be happy. The more you are happy, the more in paradise you will live.
When you stop clinging and craving, suffering will come to end. When suffering comes to end, you come to realise: "in bliss I am". Thus, after you die, in bliss you will be reborn.

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


text:
What is the right way of living in the Present?
What is the right way of living in the Present?
Present day living is full of challenges and with forces in play and to act in certain way. How does one follow the Path in these conditions without incurring  karma and its after-effects?

Hello and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some information to help you get started here.

Just amending the title to make it more descriptive. Please roll back if the new title is not suitable

For me, the challenges of living mindfully are related to wandering from the precepts. I get bogged down in work, driving, shopping, life in general... and just forget. One tool I've found useful is chants -- I start each day listening to, and mumbling to myself, the 3 gems and 5 precepts chants. Those tend to "stick" in my mind, and I hear them in my mind throughout the day, which helps me remember to guide my mind away from work, driving, shopping, etc... and back to the present moment!

Hello and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some information to help you get started here.

One piece of advice is to avoid planning for the future and dwelling on the past and instead focus your attention on your senses to observe your environment. I recall once I was feeling anxious and depressed and just happened to be taking out the trash—just walking outside, feeling the breeze and sun, hearing the birds, smelling the fresh air, seeing the blue sky, I laughed and smiled and immediately I felt uplifted. Having spent so much time in my apartment, I was almost numb to my environment, which promoted neurotic thinking. Moving my awareness to nature so that I had more stimulation in the present helped me to be more in the now, as it were, so that my mind was not stuck in the past or future. It was one of those "looking at the flower and laughing" realizations for me.

Approach each moment with the intent to live a more full, complete life with same intention and attention that you showed while asking this question.
A willingness to question your sense of what you are experiencing and a desire to grow into a deeper understanding of yourself and the Dharma and others in your life are good starting points. If you have access to a sangha of some sort, in the town of your current home, online, etc, meeting with that group can offer more examples of a life that best suits your needs.
I hope this helps answer your question.

How does one follow the Path in these conditions without incurring karma and its after-effects?

Karma and its after-effects will occur until one becomes an Arahant and thereby breaks the last 5 fetters, i.e. "Craving for fine material existence, Craving for existence on the level of formlessness, Conceit, Restlessness and Ignorance".
Until then, every moment is either a "kamma-making-moment" or a "kamma-receiving-moment".
Following the path is not different in these conditions. The experiences are still the same, i.e. hearing, seeing, tasting, feeling, smelling and thinking. That is the same whether one is living a rich life, a poor life, if one is healthy, dying etc. The experiences don't change. Its still just the 6 sense-experiences occurring incessantly.

What is the right way of living in the Present?

Be ever mindful. Always be vigilant. Be mindful of mental and physical phenomena as they arise and pass away in the present moment. Be with reality as it is, when it is and eventually one will set oneself free.

I do agree and like @Lanka answers; "every moment is either a "kamma-making-moment" or a "kamma-receiving-moment"."
Yes. It is the way we living.
As you describe in your question: "Present day living is full of challenges"
That present day could be the result of what you done before, that challenges will something of what you did yesterday, and what can make you who you are by doing what you think you have to do.
So you simply follow you daily kinda works, saying what you have to say...
Every single moment is Karma, and I believe it is also belongs to every human being, not only to Buddhist.

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


text:
What is Hardcore (Pragmatic) Dharma?
I've come across this term recently and have seen quite a few opinions and definitions. My understanding is that it is actually a hardcore Theravada movement that is in some ways a conservative backlash against watered down Buddhism in the West. Is this a correct assessment?

Interesting question. Do you have any links to some opinions about hardcore dharma?

Seems associated with daniel ingram

@Crab Bucket there is some discussion about it here - http://www.wanderingdhamma.org/2010/07/02/the-hardcore-dharma-movement-2/

@Devindra, your link gives a 404.

Updated discussion link referenced above - https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=16735

The self proclaimed Arahant, Daniel Ingram & his book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" is probably where the "hardcore" thing came from because the book covers supposedly "hardcore" and hard to find teachings like the "stages of insight" that are rarely covered in books. Dan seems very angry & ridiculous in certain rants in the book, I guess that is supposed to be some kind of "hardcore" teaching. I don't understand these rantings in an otherwise useful and informative book. Here's the link to his book that many have found useful:
Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha – An Unusually Hardcore Dharma Book

I think you're right: my using Google suggests that this book is the earliest use of the term "hardcore dharma", from about 2004.

I have heard several places now that Daniel M. Ingram is an arahant. Where do that information come from and more importantly why would an arahant say that he is one? I have understood it as they do not even have a desire to do so since they have eradicated all fetters.

Interesting, thanks @Uilium. I think that is indeed the origin of the term 'hardcore' and I see it has subsequently morphed into 'pragmatic' dharma with some prominent names - Bill Hamilton, Daniel Ingram, Vince Horn, Kenneth Folk, Shinzen Young among others.

@Lanka it comes from that very person: see the cover page of his book for his self title.

Assuming Uilium's answer is correct you can get a bit of a sense of what "hardcore" might mean by reading the book's Forward and Warning.
He says he deliberately wrote it in his own voice, that some of what he writes (whole chapters of social commentary) "has a definite bite to it", and,

"it is the unrestrained voice of one from a generation whose radicals wore spikes and combat boots rather than beads and sandals, listened to the Sex Pistols rather than the Moody Blues, wouldn't know a beat poet or an early '60s dharma bum from a hole in the ground, ..."

and

"it is also the unrestrained voice of one whose practice has been dedicated to complete and unexcelled mastery of traditional and hardcore stages of the path rather than some sort of vapid New Age fluff or pop psychological head trip."

Hardcore is a (slightly dated) musical term, associated with punk, for example,

An article in Drowned in Sound argues that 1980s-era "hardcore is the true spirit of punk", because "after all the poseurs and fashionistas fucked off to the next trend of skinny pink ties with New Romantic haircuts, singing wimpy lyrics", the punk scene consisted only of people "completely dedicated to the DIY ethics". One definition of the genre is "a form of exceptionally harsh punk rock."
One of the important philosophies in the hardcore scene is authenticity. The pejorative term "poseur" is applied to those who associate with punk and adopt its stylistic attributes but are deemed not to share or understand the underlying values and philosophy. Joe Keithley, the singer for D.O.A. said in an interview that: "For every person sporting an anarchy symbol without understanding it there’s an older punk who thinks they’re a poseur."

So what would be the Buddhist poseur?

@Uilium I recommend Chogyam Trungpa's book on Spiritual materialism. There's a Dhammapada story about a young man who memorized the Tipitaka and thinking he was hot stuff challenged an Arahat to a debate, intending to show him down. Despite all his learning, it was merely book learning with no practical experience of truths of humility. When the debate was going badly for him, the Buddha intervened and praised the young man so he didn't offend the Arahat even more out of growing insecurity. The Buddha appreciated his mastery of the Tipitaka but emphasised practice and sincerity.

1-What's an example of spiritual materialism? 2-Was the Tipitaka around during the Buddha's life?

@Uilium Sorry, just saw this. 1. Attachment to jhanas for example - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_materialism 2. Good point. Certainly not the tipitaka as we know it, and certainly not the abhidamma, but several suttas were already recited popularly, and perhaps this is what is meant.

I think that it would be more accurate to say not a "conservative backlash" but rather a "progressive backlash" against watered down pop-buddhism.
The simple definition of "hardcore dharma" to my knowledge is that it is dharma that focuses on a sincere and effortful aspiration to develop the skills of generosity, compassion, ethical training, meditative absorption and transformative lasting insight into No-self, in the style originally advocated by the Buddha, but also incorporating whatever modern skilful means necessary, be they from science, psychology, etc. Hence why its not a conservative backlash (but incorporates many of the partial valid truths found in conservative forms of buddhism, when applicable). I think most of the people who oppose the term hardcore dharma would be the conservative buddhists.
So the term refers refers to a particularly niche but world-wide philosophy of spiritual practice that is emerging, and is particularly linked to the world of neuroscience and the various dharma practitioners who are involved in that field, who are using their scientific training to inform their meditation practice, as well as the emerging-interfaith dialogue about how various practices across all the wisdom traditions share commonalities in their attitudes and techniques on how to transform human consciousness.
Also worth pointing out that Daniel's claim to Arahatship isn't entirely "self-proclaimed" and he writes about some of his Path attainments being confirmed by some high-Asian teachers (whose names I forget). To be a self-proclaimed Arahat also isn't necessarily entirely a bad thing (The Buddha himself was self-proclaimed as have many other figures, to be self proclaimed is actually to be expected, I think few people become enlightened without realising it...)

Having read his book, and with honesty having also reaped great benefits from it, I mainly associate hardcore Dharma with the words of Daniel M. Ingram (here a link to his personal website).
His way of teaching may initially seem a bit blunt, but that's just it and if I can recall correctly, Daniel makes it clear he is aware of it and explains the reasons for it in MTCB. As I have probably read or heard somewhere (see for example the playlist Pragmatic Dharma with Daniel Ingram at Buddhist Geeks) his is just an approach at dealing differently, and probably in a more modern way, with buddhist morality.
I'm not trying at all to advocate or even criticize the approach of practitioners and authors such as Daniel Ingram, but rather than interpreting hardcore Dharma teachings as conceited ways of spreading Buddhism, I would define them as teaching methods heavily focused on the "technical" parts, and always eager to spot and correct old Buddhism dogmas. To my own seeing, Daniel's style of following the teachings is more concerned with being critical and skeptical about what is taught than with establishing a mindless tranquility.
Beside Daniel Ingram's book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, freely available on his website in different formats, you can read more about what he did also on Dharma Overground (and perhaps even elsewhere, if you have any way of searching on the Web).

Hardcore Dharma is an branch of American Buddhism, like the self-proclaimed hardcorers in this video starting at 5:52. Instead of wearing saffron robes, hardcorers dress in black leather.

Householder Devindra, interested,
Ordaining and practicing, keeping the rules very strict, and tending toward the dhutaṅgas is not only in the west (outside of Theravada) but also in SEAsia seen as "hardcore"-practice.
Most Buddhist everywhere may see such as serious practicing 8 precepts and normal devotional practice, chanting and also giving food, alms and other to monks as hardcore.
Generally would the observing of the proper duties by "buddhists", Dhammika, for both, monks and lay-follower be considered as "hardcore" by more common faith follower.
Generally would accepting as certain hardships considered giving and enduring for the sake of purification as such considered.
Yet all of that is pretty normal in serious communities to the main parts of it.
Is this a correct assessment?, was asked at least:
Well, that depends on whether one perceives such as "insider" or "outsider", or even as one complete. As for the Buddha, there is nothing but praise for serious practice of which others could perceive.
May all tend soon, if not yet, to "hardcore" in relation to generosity and virtue so that the path would possible develope soon for paths and fruits, highest gain in release from all yokes.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)


text:
The six realms of existence
Lately, i'm finding myself very confused. I don't know whether i'm trying to learn new things to become a better person for myself and the world around me, or am i in fact just a ' hungry ghost' unable to satisfy my hunger. I do feel like i'm constantly searching for something, something which even i do not know what it looks like.
So, my question is; How can i tell if my efforts are for good, or that of an insatiable hungry ghost?
All help is welcome!
Metta

Stop learning and start meditating

So you don't know the answer then Ryan?

You asked how you could tell if your efforts were good or those of an insatiable ghost. That was my response to your question. And metta to you too :)

I believe a blind man will never be able to speak of the beautiful colours of a rainbow. My point is, i needed the 4 Noble Truths and my daily meditation to realise ignorance brings pain... i needed the 3 universal characteristics and my meditation to realise the pointlessness of clinging. I'm a believer of the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree, so during meditation i'm introspectively looking for certain characteristics to let me know if my practice is wholesome or not..but the problem is, i can't see the characteristics-the fruit of the tree. So, if i'm blind, no meditation will help me!

Also, i wish you well and thankyou for your efforts Ryan. Metta.

If you are practicing insight meditation, that is, seeing things for what they are, this is wholesome. Even if unwholesome things arise: confusion, craving, etc, as long as you see them and know them as they are, this is wholesome. There's nothing wrong with being confused! At the very least, you KNOW you're confused, this is further than most people ever get!

I know, Ryan, that i can sit in meditation or whenever and repeat the words or label "confusion confusion confusion" but, in Karmic law, there is a root cause to my confusion, i believe if i can see this cause and effect, i will remove my confusion through wisdom. Once the root is uplifted, then ignorance and pain and suffering will cease.

Actually, Ryan, perhaps my ignorance is impatience. Perhaps i just need to keep doing what i'm doing, and maybe once the mind is still enough, the answers will be shown. Maybe?

Actually, hahah, confusion isn't the problem, it's the fact that i don't want to be confused, that is causing my pain and suffering!! hahah My pain and suffering is coming from my 'wanting' to not be confused!! haha As if i forgot that simple fact!! haha Thanks for your help. Sometimes i just need to air my views, then clarity sometimes presents itself!! It's a problem not having any Buddhists around me!

sometimes all you need is some perspective :)

@LeeHebditch has the confusion passed?

If you are worried that your current karmic existence is, or is related to, that of a hungry ghost you should apply the proper antidote. In this case the proper antidote is practicing/developing the first paramita : generosity  Doing such and being aware of your desires and the desires of others can help curb the feeling of constantly searching for some unknown thing.
As for how to know if your efforts are proper, or for good as you say, I'll turn you to the short and sweet lojung saying "Of the two witnesses, hold the principle one.
Try these things and meditate on them, see if they help, I hope they do. Remember, we all exist in this confusion together, you are not alone in this.


text:
Mindfulness while Studying or Listening to Dhamma Talks
It's significantly harder to be mindful when the language part of our brain is active.
So how does one read theory about Buddhist meditation while actually being mindful of what is being read? How does one listen to Dhamma talks with moment by moment mindfulness?
This is multitasking two birds with one stone, but should we study and practice at the same time? Also, should noting (as in the Mahasi tradition) be dropped in these situations, because noting a word with another word seems like it could be more trouble than it is worth.
I haven't heard of very many meditation techniques or methods that cover this area (mindfulness while reading, talking, listening & writing) and I am hoping someone else might know. METTA

Uilium. I hope you are well my friend. I think if you were to view things from an experiencial point of view- so acknowledgement of all experience through sensory input ( the 5 aggregates)seeing, smelling, tasting, touching...etc. Also the body can multi-task but the brain can not, for example you can only think one thought at a time, you can't think of both a banana and an elephant simultaneously, unless you combine them, then it's still only one thought being processed.
So back to your question specifically, when i read, i listen very attentively to my voice, but if i'm reading in my head, then i might focus on the touch or feeling of the book or pages. Wherever the mind goes, just focus on that during your studies.
I hope i have helped in some way, my friend.
Metta.

Sometimes being mindful can get in the way of learning--sometimes it can support it (for example, catching yourself when you are just drolling through the read not understanding anything).
You will have to learn things the "ordinary" non-mindful way until you understand what mindfulness feels like.
So don't worry, just keep reading and learning about it, absorbing the right Buddhist material on your way to Right Mindfulness.
Eventually, when you have become used to mindfulness and you try to read, you will naturally be one-pointed and focused, as you go through a reading. Your target will be: your purpose for reading.
Your distractions that you will learn to be aware of and transcend (be mindful of): distraction, self-doubt, expectation, etc.
You will be aware of the things in the distraction category and make the one-pointed target (ekagatta) the sun around which your actions revolve.
Until you reach this foundation of mindfulness, don't try to do two things at one time.
You will only be creating more anxiety and false expectation--at least until you are familiar with mindfulness and have an overall more clear state of mind.
Thus, the answer to your question is: meditate more and get stronger in mindfulness before trying to carry your power in the midst of activity. Doing the latter is always more difficult and needs a good foundation in the former.
If you cannot do the latter, you need more foundation in the former.
Use this as a rule of thumb for all activities you want to include into meditation.
I hope this helps, writing this helped me to answer a question I had before, haha.

Listening, reading, thinking about what has been said create sensations. You have to look at these sensation. (Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta1)
In additions if it is listening the Dhamma then this also can be used as a stepping stone for the 3 trainings. (Vimutt’āyatana Sutta) listening to Dhamma > joy (pāmujja) > zest (pīti) > tranquillity (passaddhi) > happiness (sukha) > concentration or collectedness of the mind or mastery over the mind (samādhi) > the knowledge and vision of reality (yathā,bhuta,ñāna,dassana) > repulsion and dispassion (nibbidā,virāgo) > the knowledge and vision of liberation (vimutti,ñāna,dassana)
1 Agreeable, disagreeable, neither Agreeable nor disagreeable are tied to pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensations


text:
My thoughts don't happen to other people so why are they 'not mine'?
Considering the five aggregates and the sense in which they are all not-self. Thoughts (samskāra) are one of the five aggregates so they too are 'not me' or 'not mine'. In one sense this is a statement which accords with my own experience while on and off the meditation cushion. They display an impermanence and often they arising unbidden (or as part of a web of causal relationships that I don't control). In another sense however this doesn't accord with my experience. My thoughts don't happen to anyone else. They are thoughts in my head happening to me.
I know (well I think I know) the second statement is a wrong view. So why are thoughts not mine if they never happen to other people.

If that's the case, if there's a tapeworm in your intestines, it's your tape worm. Other people might have them too, but they are not the same. This one is only bothering me. Therefore it should be mine :)

It's not that the thoughts are or are not yours; rather, the question is what is this "me" to which the thought belongs.  Asking about how something can't be yours presupposes there's a "you" that can own anything.

The idea that the thoughts belong to something itself is an assumption. If it rains and you get wet, the rainwater does not belong to you just because it's on your head. One cannot claim ownership over something just because it happened to him.

Is this the same notion that our thoughts are not reality?

When speaking in conventional terms, i.e. "my, mine, they, others, people etc." we are dealing with conventional reality. Here concepts such as "a man, woman, an animal, a Self" etc. exist.
When instead we turn to ultimate reality we realize that there is no such thing as concepts. They are not findable in ultimate reality. They have no real point of reference. We realize that the question arose out of having wrong view, as you also mention.
The reason why "your" thoughts do not happen to "other people" is because they are concepts.
If we instead construct the sentence in another way it might make more sense. The new sentence could be:
Thoughts arise and cease. Mental formations arise and cease. They do not belong to anyone or anything. That is a mental formation itself and it itself is impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self. There is no thinker behind the thought. There is no "owner" of phenomena. There is no experiencing entity. There are just physical and mental phenomena arising and ceasing.
I hope this shed some light onto it. If i may give an advice from personal practice, then do not think too much about these things. Instead keep doing insight meditation as you also mention you do. The experiental knowledge you gain will cast away all illusions and concepts and lay bare the true nature of reality.
Lastly, i would like to point you to this dhamma talk by Ajahn Punnadhammo. Its called "Anatta". Very good talk.
I have attached a picture to illustrate what happens when we are "trapped" in conventional reality. The bottom of the picture is when one is without insight knowledge into the 3 signs of existence and thereby thinking one has a Self. When one begins practicing the path and gains insights then the breaking away of illusions and concepts happen like in the top of the picture. We become free from wrong view and gain right view.

Upvoted, also while realizing that this may be suitable for more experienced practitioners or Dhamma scholars.

They are the thoughts that happen to you in particular, so indeed you have "your thoughts", but they are not "yours" in that you have no real ownership of them nor do they reflect your true self.

Welcome! Very succinct! +1

Wikipedia says (although these statements are unreferenced),

There are three ways in which self views could be conceived and all three are said to be wrong views.
All these views types of identity view fetter one to samsāra, and it is for this reason that they are wrong views.

No-self or Not-self?
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu ends with,

In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?

Similarly this Ananda Sutta says,

"'What do you think, friend Ananda — Is consciousness constant or
inconstant?'
"'Inconstant, friend.'
"'And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?'
"'Stressful, friend.'
"'And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject
to change as: "This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am"?'
"'No, friend.'
"'Thus, friend Ananda, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or
present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime;
far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right
discernment as: "This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not
what I am."
"'Any feeling whatsoever...
"'Any perception whatsoever...
"'Any fabrications whatsoever...
"'Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present;
internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right
discernment as: "This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not
what I am."
"'Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
consciousness. Through disenchantment, he becomes dispassionate.
Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is
the knowledge, "Fully released." He discerns that "Birth is ended, the
holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
world."'

In summary perhaps they're 'not mine' because (or if) you choose to disown or not identify with them.
Also, perhaps such thoughts do happen to other people? The Dalai Lama for example says that he likes to see himself as being the same (composed of 5 aggregates) as every one else.

I'm not sure if this will help, but here goes. The reason the thought or anything isn't yours or mine, is because you can't control it, you can't keep hold of it. Trying to hold on to anything is like trying to grasp smoke in your hands, but, you can see the smoke- recognise the thought- but you can't hold or control it, so... can it or anything really be yours? Everything is just a sensation that will arise and cease out of your control.
Metta.

"Thought" indeed arises and falls but where does "your" arise? "Your"  only arises in conceptual reality. Your thoughts are not other people's and they aren't yours ultimately. Nothing is the possession of all beings and if we could all see that, we would all have everything. METTA

Suppose you have a big iron ball on which a bird comes and rests, stays some time and then goes away.
Is that bird yours?

True. But the bird could go rest on another iron ball. My thoughts can only rest in one mind? I think?!?

How do you know people don't think your thoughts?


text:
Why are some bodily fluids missing from the "Thirty Two Parts of the Body" teaching?
"There are in this body head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, intestinal tract, stomach, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, nasal mucus, synovium (oil lubricating the joints), urine, and brain in the skull." source
This seems like a pretty comprehensive list, but semen and menses are noticeably missing; although if they were included, there would obviously have to be separate male and female versions of this contemplation.
Do we know why they are missing? Are other body parts missing? It seems unusual given how direct the Buddha's teachings normally are; so I imagine there is a reason. Thank you!

i don't know about this one. 32 is a pretty arbitrary selection and seems more mnemonic than anything orderly. therefore, this question could be asked of a lot of other body parts, for instance muscles, eyes, gall bladder, numerous glands; not to mention the reproductive organs altogether. just my thoughts.

@Anthony, some (not all) of those might be considered made up of components already listed in the "32 parts", no? It would be interesting to see a modern anatomical comparison done against this list.

What i find notable is that the nervous system and the lymphatic system is not mentioned. They are both significant parts of the body system. Although regarding the meditational function of the 32-body-part contemplation one might not need anything else in order to practice it.

I don't see any mention of reproductive organs at all, much less what's stored inside them.

@sss4r, yes, in the same way arm, leg, etc. are not mentioned, but they along with reproductive organs would be made up of components of the list of 32, no?

But an arm is not an organ, it only has an epidermal component, whereas internal organs are listed, yet reproductive, internal or no, aren't listed. Just an observation. I agree with the lust avoidance theory, since there was emphasis placed on contemplating the inevitable rotting corpse of a body you're attracted to.

I agree as well, but was wondering whether there was something a little more concrete as to what made up the list in this teaching.

IMHO, - Upaya (skilful means) - the purpose of the Buddha's teaching is liken to a raft to take us across the ocean of samsara to the island of exquisite bliss.
Hence 32 parts of the body is adequate enough to accommodate various human tendencies to the attachment of the body. Whereas the classification of the the aggregates to only 5 is sufficient to lead one to see dukkha, anicca, anatta.
There are some who think the Buddha taught realities, physical & mental.
When ask what does your teacher teach? ",,there is suffering (or stress), the cause of suffering (or stress), that there is an end to suffering (or stress), and the path to the end of suffering (or stress).

I agree; it's a useful teaching for getting rid of attachment to the idea of the body as beautiful. But still curious as to whether this was considered a complete list of components of the body, as know at the time, with the obvious omissions mentioned in the question.

There are other obvious organs mentioned by ChrisW, like pancreas, bladder etc.which are encountered in butchered animals, which are not on the list. IMHO the Buddha in his "omniscience" considered only a sufficient adequate list without imposing too much unnecessary burden on his disciples.

You could probably contemplate on it as blood. Women entered the Sangha somewhat later. So I would presume this meditation was taught to monks before that happened. You might have also noticed that seminal fluid is missing from the list.
Women having to contemplate on that might actually arouse their lust. Maybe it's the same case with men having to contemplate on women's period.

that was the only reason i could think of as well. contemplating on those things would be antithetical to the contemplation of the 32 parts of the body.

Yes, contemplating on the opposite gender's gender specific bodily fluids would be both inaccurate for yourself and distracting. But is it the same for contemplating on your own gender's? It just seems such an obvious omission.

The objective of the meditation is to curb your lust. So this meditation is also done on others of the opposite gender whom you find attractive. Not just on yourself. So if gender specific bodily fluids were included, it would give a man the notion that he is thinking about a woman & vice versa. That could also be distracting. Remember the story of the monk who meditated on the teeth of a smiling woman? Later when asked he said he did not know whether it was a man or woman. He only saw a skeleton.

Ah ok, since it says "there are in this body" I assumed people thought of their own body and realized foulness. Didn't actually realize people projected this to other people. Thanks for clarifying.

breast milk is also omitted making it that much more likely

True and while breast milk is a temporary bodily fluid, so actually are the other two although they are around for a longer time.

Because this thread is tagged as sexuality, I would like to say that it's more enlightened to recognize in this modern world that human sexuality is much more complex than simple male/female copulation for reproductive purposes. So it's a bit antiquated and somewhat of an euphemism to refer to lust as being only about the opposite sex. Scientific studies show that a significant percentage of the population admits to being bisexual and at least 10% admit to being homosexual and at least 47% of men admit to having experimented with some form of intimacy with the same gender.

It has no item referring to gender. So it should work regardless of your sexual preference.

Do we know why they are missing?

I don't. Could it be because semen is not being produced/created?

Are other body parts missing?

It's a good list.
For completeness, there is also cartilage (e.g. the trachea), pancreas, a gallbladder apparently, glands (salivary, thyroid, etc.), all the gender-specific reproductive organs, blood vessels (including arteries and veins) except heart, sensory and motor nerves (including spinal cord) except brain, sense-organs (eyes, ears) could be given a special mention, tongue, the lymphatic system, bladder.
"Flesh" can be a catch-all though.

The author of the Sutra wasn't a biologist and may not have intended this list to be biologically complete or even all that accurate. The issue here isn't the completeness of the list, but the purpose of working with those items.
So why the overly specific number of 32?  Some have suggested mnemonics; perhaps -- Buddhism has made heavy use of numbered lists after all.
But maybe it's because the Sutras used the concepts and imagery of a time and place far removed from our own?  So maybe there is some significance to this list that we're missing?  Since we aren't in the same historical context, many of the Sutras could seem jarring or confusing to modern ears. Fortunately this is not a problem, because the real message of the Sutras is timeless; we just need to look beyond the surface "message".
I think this is the real issue here.  Why does this question matter?  Are we perhaps getting side-tracked by the least important part of the Sutra?  Will our practice really be affected because of a missing body fluid or so?  For that matter, do body fluids matter, or is the exercise more about overcoming attachment to the body by a mental deconstruction of it?

I don't consider this teaching "false, offensive, incoherent or just plain silly". My question is simply do we know why these are missing? It sounds like we don't really know. And that's fine. But it's alright to ask. Be well.

@Robin111 I didn't mean to imply that everyone thinks this; I was just speaking in general. When we take teachings out of their context (and in this case, the context is the specific time and place in which they arose) they can come off as jarring or nonsensical, just like taking a scene of a movie out of the movie may make the scene seem silly.  I'll modify the answer to clarify.  Thanks for the feedback.

Thanks R. Barzell. This was my attempt to find out the context to understand this better. :)

@Robin111 My pleasure; I re-worded my answer to clarify my intent and again, thank you for taking the time to provide the feedback.  It's all too easy for me to try to make a point and in my rush to drive the point home realize I came off sounding too harsh.


text:
Is insight meditation counter-productive (sometimes)?
This question was prompted by Mindfulness while Studying or Listening to Dhamma Talks

On page 31 of Good Questions, Good Answers it says,

Explain what insight meditation is
During insight meditation a person just tries to be aware of whatever happens to them without thinking about it or reacting to it.
What is the purpose of that
Usually we react to our experience by liking or disliking it or by letting it trigger thoughts, daydreams or memories. All these reactions distort or obscure our experience so that we fail to understand it properly. By developing a non-reactive awareness we begin to see why we think, speak and act the way we do.

Is "without thinking about or reacting to" experience, deliberately counter-productive?
Is it counter-productive, in scenarios when you should be trying to:

Learn something new (learning something is presumably trying to allow yourself to be affected, to "produce" a change in the knowledge you have)?
Create something new (e.g. if you're making or writing something for your work/livelihood)?

Wouldn't it be better to be absorbed in or by the experience, to absorb the experience, in these scenarios?
I fear it's counter-productive:

Because it's intended to be (counter-productive)
Because it's an addition (of some kind of awareness to the mind-state) and therefore a distraction
Because having reaction (i.e. effect on your own knowledge) is the purpose or goal when learning
Because having reaction (e.g. thoughts like "this is good or not good") are the tool when creating

The statement:

"By developing a non-reactive awareness we begin to see why we think, speak and act the way we do"

When there is awareness, there is mindfulness and clear comprehension of the situation, which is, the thinking, speaking and acting, which continues the way it is because it is conditioned; but because there is this clear comprehension, there is this "pause", "space" to breathe before we commit to the thinking, speaking and acting, allowing the mind to depart from the conditioning.
It is just like a mother watching over the child, doing her thing and only making the child more aware of what she is doing, so she contemplates before doing anything. The mother (awareness, sati-sampajanna) is one thing, the child (mind, vinnana) is another, eventually.
In the beginning of the practice, awarenes is patchy; and the thing that interrupts thoughts in the mind is not the awareness itself but the thought to re-establish awareness again and the act of re-establishing this awareness. So in the beginning these interruptions are distracting but soon they are reduced depending on one's progress.
One can learn, create and be absorbed with the awareness attending, and that learning, creating and absorbing is much more intense and wholesome.


text:
What is the difference between love, compassion, sympathy and empathy in Buddhism?
The Buddha has been said to be compassion however i have not seen compassion described.

What does it mean to be compassionate?
How is it different to love, sympathy and empathy?

How is it different to love, sympathy and empathy
There's a description of compassion, empathy, and love in the Brahmavihara article on Wikipedia,

Loving-kindness (Pāli: mettā, Sanskrit: maitrī) towards all: the hope that a person will be well; "the wish that all sentient beings, without any exception, be happy."[11]
Compassion (Pāli and Sanskrit: karuṇā): the hope that a person's sufferings will diminish; "the wish for all sentient beings to be free from suffering."[11]
Empathetic joy (Pāli and Sanskrit: muditā): joy in the accomplishments of a person—oneself or another; sympathetic joy; "the wholesome attitude of rejoicing in the happiness and virtues of all sentient beings."[11]

What the word means in English
"Compassion" is from a Latin word, "co" meaning "with" and "pati/passio" meaning "suffer", so "compassion" means "suffer with".
For example:

If someone is hungry then you think, "I wouldn't like to be hungry" so you feed them.
If someone is being bullied then you think, "I wouldn't like to be bullied"  so you stop whoever is bullying.
If someone is suffering for any reason then you think, "I wouldn't like to suffer for that reason" and so you try to help them.

If you're unable to help then it might mean literally suffering with: someone said of the earliest Christians that they'd love (have compassion for) each other; that if for example they didn't have enough food for two some day, then they would fast together and then eat together on the next day.
"Sympathy" is I think essentially just the same as "compassion", only it derives from Greek instead of Latin: "sym" means "with" and "pathos" means "feeling".
What the word means in Buddhism
Wikipedia's Karuṇā article seems like a fair introduction. It says,

The Pali commentaries distinguish between karuṇā and mettā in the following complementary manner: Karuna is the desire to remove harm and suffering (ahita-dukkha-apanaya-kāmatā) from others; while mettā is the desire to bring about the well-being and happiness (hita-sukha-upanaya-kāmatā) of others.

I guess that the Dhammapada includes one classic example, at the start of the chapter on Violence:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.


text:
How does one experience or understand the experience of others?
I have found that if i do not share or understand the perspective of others, it is difficult to appreciate their point of view so that one is able to be the viewer as opposed to the actor. How does one experience the experience of others?

First - You may want to change your goal - or at least temper it in the short term.

How does one experience the experience of others?

This requires a very high state of being, and if the ego is trying to do it in order to

Be a better person
Be more successful
Become a better Buddhist
etc.

... Then you will harm people while not intending to do so.
As far as I can see, there are two points of access for what you seek to accomplish.

Listening.

People always tell you everything.  They may not say it in a way that you are comfortable or familiar with; and they may not say it such that their words clearly match what they intend to communicate (mostly they don't).  But they reveal almost everything in their experience when they communicate.  It's there if you listen.
Now this is the tricky part.  Mostly what we do when we try to improve our listening skills is to try to listen better.  Maybe there are some pieces of advice we employ, or some tips on being a better listener we follow (e.g. Ask lots of questions, etc).  The vast majority of those tips are absolute garbage.  They do nothing but strengthen the ego's ability to appear to be listening while providing nothing in the way of authentic listening.
Authentic listening is magic.  This quote from Siddhartha by Herman Hesse does a very good job of expressing what is possible with real listening:

Vasudeva's listening gave Siddhartha a stronger sensation than ever before, he sensed how his pain, his fears flowed over to him, how his secret hope flowed over, came back at him from his counterpart. To show his wound to this listener was the same as bathing it in the river, until it had cooled and become one with the river.

Authentic listening grants freedom.
Here is your access to listening:  Notice where you don't.
I once received the following koan (it was given with that label):

You don't listen.  You never have.  And you never will.

To really get that.  To own that, and make it part of you - it allows for pure wonder.  You can discover how ridiculously little you listen.  Mostly we defend our lack of listening - trying to prove that we were listening - at least as best we could.  If you take the case that you are not listening from the start - there is nothing to defend.  What becomes possible is discovering the barriers between you and listening - and there are literally millions of them (e.g. They said something that reminded you of something you had to do; Something in what they said threatened you; You want them to like you; ad infinitum).  Once there is awareness of an obstruction - the obstruction loses its grip.
What is present in the absence of the barriers to listening is listening.  It is not something done - it is something that arises in the absence of obstruction.

Everything anyone says has value:

This closely ties into listening.  You can make anything anyone says gold - just because they said it.  They said it - it matters enough to them that they said it - it has value.  You don't have to like it.  You don't have to agree with it.
A priori it has value.  Humans have value - language is rich with value - what they say matters.
Before you can have the opportunity to get into another's world you must acknowledge to yourself (repeatedly) where you don't give a shit about their point of view.  It's okay - people proudly defend nonsense all the time.  More to the point - it's their point of view - what do you care?   Tell the truth about it though.  It's quite liberating.  Once you are aware that you don't care at all about what another person is saying - you again have access to listening.
This may sound contradictory - it's not.  When you can tell the truth about what's in the way of you fully being with another - there is nothing more liberating.  We catch ourselves in kind of a trap otherwise.
We are thrown to only care about ourselves - it's kind of our default way of being.  It doesn't look good to only care about ourselves, so we cover it up by pretending to care about others.  While pretending to care about others; we are simply incapable of caring for others (it's like pretending to enjoy running while running).  Once we can tell the truth (it's not a once and for all thing - it's ongoing) about where we're pretending (mostly just to ourselves - sometimes to others) - then we don't have to pretend anymore.  When we don't have to pretend anymore we are free to truly be with other people.  When we are free to truly be with other people; we can't help but love them.  We see their nastiness and pettiness and we don't consider ourselves superior.  We realize we are looking at ourselves - and what they are experiencing is instantly obvious because it is merely a shade of our own experience.
When the barriers obstructing our listening disappear - there is no distance between self and other - no difference between speaker and listener - then you don't have to wonder about how to experience their experience - because it's right there.
Note:  There may come a point where one is always authentically interested and capable of listening and caring about another's experience.  I have never caught a glimmer of a persistent state like that.  For now it is enough for me to notice where I'm full of it - acknowledge it - and then allow the space for listening to arise.

Your koan reminds me of when I was at a retreat and I expressed my sincere desire to "help other people". One of the two teachers leaned toward me and said, "There are no other people."

Nice.  That's the trouble with sincerity.

"God helps those who help themselves." If only we could teach complete, all-encompassing identity with everyone and everything as a form of selfishness, it would be a better world!

Tricky that....

I understood the question as, how to listen deeply, without imposing our will, our ego or impatience on the speaker.
First we must still our mind of all chatter and impatience, which isn't possible without daily meditation and mindfulness, so we must learn to practice properly.
If we are to be strong to help others, we must practice correctly.
Second, we develop compassion and loving kindness towards the speaker. When our mind is not caught in its own web of suffering, compassion comes easily.
Having developed the heart of compassion and loving kindness, we listen mindfully. Such deep listening, where we offer our true presence to our friend or partner will be much appreciated.
To be effective, we must practice deep listening regularly, by being present in the moment, and allowing our heart of compassion and kindness to open.

With reference to both the question of how one experiences or understands the experience of others and also to the end note in post by User 1167442 about the impact of realising at times we 'are full of it' and how said realisation can, if noticed, cause us to pause.
My experience has been that it is when I realise and acknowledge the moments in which I am 'full of it' [and there have been many] the fabric of that particular aspect of my journey falls away and the associated responses to the situation [emotional, behavioural, cognitive etc.] lose their potency.
It is in those moments that I am most able to connect at a meaningful level with others. However, I do have to say that at times speaking and listening impose on the purity of the connection, communication and sense of understanding.
There are moments; are there not? when the speaking and hearing of words [being mere symbolic representations of our experience] does not sufficiently embrace the totality of the connection or the experience of either individual. No matter how well I can communication and/or hear/understand another's description of their reality, my ability to truly comprehend what  that person is saying is always filtered by my experience and the meaning I subscribe to words/phrases being said etc.
What I'm saying here really is that for me there are times when speaking and listening no matter how well intentioned and how well practiced provides a format for sharing/caring etc but that which is exchanged is merely a shadow of the experience being described - which when effected eloquently is sufficient for the needs of most situations.
Sometimes sitting quietly in the presence of another can soothe the soul more effectively than being cognitive and trying to understand the other's reality.

Plus one for mentioning me!  Just kidding.  Very good answer.

@drcrpsych - How do you realize you are full of it?

Through unity one experience the experience of others.
When one does not share other's view, there is duality, my view and the other's view.
If we fully understand views as just conditioned thoughts: conditioned by class, society, upbringing, books one reads, inclinations, peers, parents, teachers etc.. then we realise that our own views are just as conditioned as the others'.
One view may be the result of more skilful thought, but it is also due to conditioning. So one may say this is skilful thought, this isn't but not this is yours and this is mine. When we see thoughts as just arising due to conditioning ( which is one, not your conditioning or mine conditioning) then there is unity. The arising of thoughts due to conditioning.
The unification of self and others into a single entity called a conditioned being, results in one shared experience!
As for understanding another's experience it comes through having empathy.

Empathy is the capacity to understand what another person is experiencing from within the other person's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's shoes.

How do we develop empathy?
We learns to see things from another person's perspective but we must first reflect on our own feelings to understand causes for the arising of a particular feeling.
And when we have an understanding of these causes, we begin the appropriate association of causes with the feelings. So when we put ourselves in another persons perspective then these associated feelings arise, though not in the same way as they arise in the other person. They arise with the understanding that the perspective of the other person causes those feelings to rise.
When we experience those feelings conditioned by perspective as a third party or bystander or observer, then mudita (sympathetic joy) or karuna (compassion) may arise depending on the feeling.

Meditate! Once you understand how your own mind works, understanding everyone else becomes easy.

I am going to agree with this one, although it is "too short" to be a usually accepted answer. All the ideas about 1. develop compassion, 2. develop empathy, etc, seem to come at it from the end rather than where the OP is right now. There is NO WAY to comprehend the end without jumping in and starting to practice. Then it comes, slowly. Only with the complete flower bloom do we say "it is a flower", but what was it before that? How do we get started? This is a good answer. It has a carrot and a stick!

I probably should've expounded some more, but yes, this is the essence of it :)