text:
Persevering Through Very Difficult Periods
How do those who have experienced multiple, profound-negative events, and/or long periods of extreme hardship muster up the will to continue on the path, or even to try to live a morally-upright life when one feels absolutely certain that any effort towards skillful thoughts/actions is only a short-term project that will only be demolished in the near future anyway?

It's only because people see imperfection in the world that they start to strive. If there is no perception of the insecure where one dwells one would not step on. So the problem is here that householder thinks that effort can not solve the matter, or not seeing the head burning right away.

What I discovered only a few years ago, after 25 years of practicing Dharma...is that when things get really rough, it works best to get into absolute here-and-now mode.
Meaning, I don't think about my situation, don't compare, don't analyze, just live one step at a time, one breath at a time, do what's obviously required at the moment, and that's it.
This puts me in pure suchness. Things are such and not otherwise. There's no judgement on my side, nor longing for things to be otherwise. There's just suchness.
When you are fully in this mode, it is actually quite peaceful, despite the rough situation. Suchness is peaceful, because it is just so. There's no conflict in my attitude to it. I am just such, and I do what I do, at the moment.
It is actually a very advanced state, suchness. No need to practice anything else. To be in full peace, without inner conflict, despite the circumstances - is quite an achievement.

Manage your expectations

This can be done at 3 levels: perception (sanna), though (citta), View (ditti)
1st start with views. These are what has been ingrained due to continuous thinking. Look at what is attainable and cut on things you cannot achieve in the current situation.
When thinking about something unattainable or hurtful if there is nothing you can do about it let go of it.
If you perceive as it is good to have this or that at this juncture let go of it.

Immunise your mind by developing wisdom

When you practice as follows, you can overcome the hurtful feeling arising in hard times. Doing meditation one can find a permanent lasting solution than a temporary one.

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
From merely the above description it is difficult to perceive the practice. You can take a course in meditation to learn the practice:

https://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html
http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/

Nothing matters in the big picture. Look at the big picture. You will realize it for yourself. Once, you have realized the big picture, practicing just being will become easy.
But the hard wiring will fight just being. The big picture is the software. It doesn't get translated into hardware in one go. The hardware doesn't understand the big picture. It is geared towards survival. The big picture will gradually seep into hardware with regular effort and practice.
You have to put some sort of alert. Maybe a periodic thinking routine, a vibrator on your hand, or something else that keeps you jolting out of it. If things don't fall in place, get in touch with me. I have been through some difficult times myself but managed to land on my feet.

I think that this part of the question ...
How do those who have experienced multiple, profound-negative events, and/or long periods of extreme hardship muster up the will to continue on the path, or even to try to live a morally-upright life
... is important, but maybe you understand already and that's not the part you're asking for an explanation of.
I think it's the later part ...
when one feels absolutely certain that any effort towards skillful thoughts/actions is only a short-term project that will only be demolished in the near future anyway?
... that is the part you wanted explained.

I guess my explanation derives from taking the four noble truths as a view -- therefore, what's arising and ceasing is dukkha ... and "cessation is bliss", etc.
I think that perspective makes sense of or explains the first part of your question -- i.e. it's that the path (including morality, but also wisdom) prevents the arising of dukkha in the future, and explains (and enables the cessation of) dukkha which has arisen.
Also I guess there's the Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose? which starts with,

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"
"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?" (etc.)

If you look back on a skilful virtue, maybe "freedom from remorse" seems to be somehow more durable, not so subject to cessation or short-term, maybe it's less fabricated or something somehow -- does it make sense that the absence of something is more permanent than the presence of something? So anyway: absence of remorse.
And maybe that -- recollection of virtue, silanussati -- is one of the few things you're meant to be able to remember as helpful.
To give a more specific example, in retrospect you might remember, "That was a bad situation -- but at least I behaved well, that's one good thing, could have been worse".
Then modify that slightly to remove the judgemental personal preference, the craving, which leaves only, "That was a situation" (or "That was such a situation") instead of "That was a bad situation" -- maybe remove the "I" as well -- and what's left is, "That was a situation, there was some good behaviour" (and I suppose that's better than the alternative i.e. bad behaviour).


text:
Is the samadhi of Yoga the samadhi of Buddhism?
I was wondering if the samadhi of Patanjali Yoga meant the same thing as the samadhi of Buddhism?
A Buddhist friend told me that no, and that Buddhism had higher states after the nirvikalpa samadhi of yogis. But at the same time when I read the descriptions of the two they look similar to me and the samadhi of Buddhism is also the last stage of the Noble Eightfold Path.

Different technique, same samadhi.

The Patanjali system has the following concepts about Samadhi:

Samprajnata Samadhi: one is developing focus on the meditation object but comprehends external stimuli
Asamprajnata Samadhi: one has developed focus on the meditation object hence does not comprehend external stimuli
Savitarka Samadhi: when one experiences a stimulus this triggers a thought process which one can discriminate and abandone or continue
Nirvitarka Samadhi: when one experiences a stimulus one has control over thoughts
Savichara Samadhi: thinking is available
Nirvichara Samadhi: thinking is unavailable

In Buddhism, there are the following concepts of Samadhi:

parikamma samadhi – preliminary concentration
upacara samadhi – access concentration
appana samadhi – fixed concentration
Jhanas - states of samadhi based on the Jhana factors present

Parikamma and upacara samadhi is similar to samprajnata samadhi and appana samadhi is similar to Asamprajnata Samadhi
Vitarka and vichara are Jhana factors. Savitarka indicates there is vitarka and nirvitarka means there is no vitarka and savichara means there is vichara and nirvichara means there is no vichara.
In the Hindu system of samadhi, the object of concentration may be subjected to perversions (vipallasa) hence choose concepts like: permanent, self, pleasant and beautiful. In the Buddhist system, the objects are not subjected to vipallasa.
In the Hindu system, the object of samadhi is always a conceptual (pannatti) object which is which leads to perversions (vipallasa). In Buddhist systems, the objects can be conceptual or real (paramartha). If it is conceptual after developing Jhana one contemplates the object as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self.
When the object chosen is is not subjected to perversion, wholesome and based on something real (paramartha), the concentration gained is Samma Samadhi or the right type of samadhi.

If I understand correctly, the two samadhi (Hindu and Buddhist) are therefore two "fusions to the Absolute" coming from two different paths? If samma samadhi is nirvana, it is also nirvikalpa samadhi? It is hard to see which Hindu state corresponds to which Buddhist state since the same word can have different meanings in each tradition.
Everyone decides to see their object of concentration as they think it really is? Permanent/impermanent, etc.

Samma Samadhi is the right kind of Samadhi to develop wisdom (Panna). The Hindu systems Samadhi is the end goal. So the Samadhi developed does not help develop Panna. The object should be wholesome, i.e., not something one gets attached or aversed towards, it should not be constructed like an image of a God. Ideally, it should correspond to the 4 Sathipattanas or breath. If not one should see impermanence in the Jhanic state of one does something like Kasina.

I would say no.
Buddhist Samadhi is called Samma Samadhi which is achieved by following the Noble Eightfold Path.

Right samadhi is whatever samadhi there is coming from right view and right effort, which is really just the usual jhanas but seen from right view, right understanding, right doctrine and right effort, ie Samādhibhāvanā http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.014.wood.pts.htm which is all about restraint, instead of being seen from some wrong understanding created by some puthujjana, including Patanjali.
For the buddha, the jhanas are abiding the in the pleasant present life, which are nice, but the right concentration is what makes ''yathā-bhūtaɱ pajānāti.'' ie seeing properly form , consciousness and all that.

Monks, do ye apply yourselves to meditation.
The monk who is meditative knows a thing as it really is.
And what does he know as it really is?
In this connexion he knows as it really is,
'This is ill.'
'This is the arising of ill.'
'This is the ceasing of ill.'
'This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of ill.'
Monks, do ye apply yourselves to meditation.
The monk who is concentrated knows a thing as it really is.
Wherefore, monks, an effort must be made to realize:
'This is ill.'
'This is the arising of ill.'
'This is the ceasing of ill.'
'This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of ill.'

Or way longer,
https://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pali/sn/03_kv/sn03.22.005.pali.bd.htm#p1

"Develop concentration, monks.
A concentrated monk discerns in line with what has come into being.
And what does he discern in line with what has come into being?
The origination[1] and disappearance of form.
The origination and disappearance of feeling...
perception...
fabrications.
The origination and disappearance of consciousness.
"And what is the origination of form...
feeling...
perception...
fabrications?
What is the origination of consciousness?
"There is the case where one enjoys, welcomes, and remains fastened.
And what does one enjoy and welcome, to what does one remain fastened?
One enjoys, welcomes, and remains fastened to form.
As one enjoys, welcomes, and remains fastened to form, there arises
  delight.
Any delight in form is clinging.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging and death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play.
Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress and suffering.
"One enjoys, welcomes, and remains fastened to feeling...
perception...
fabrications...
"One enjoys, welcomes, and remains fastened to consciousness.
As one enjoys, welcomes, and remains fastened to consciousness, there
  arises delight.
Any delight in consciousness is clinging.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging and death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play.
Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress and suffering.
"This, monks, is the origination of form.
This, the origination of feeling...
perception...
fabrications.
This, the origination of consciousness."
"And what is the disappearance of form...
feeling...
perception...
fabrications?
What is the disappearance of consciousness?
"There is the case where one doesn’t enjoy, welcome, or remain
  fastened.
And what does one not enjoy or welcome, to what does one not remain
  fastened?
One doesn’t enjoy, welcome, or remain fastened to form.
As one doesn’t enjoy, welcome, or remain fastened to form, any delight
  in form ceases.
From the cessation of delight comes the cessation of clinging.
From the cessation of clinging/sustenance, the cessation of becoming.
From the cessation of becoming, the cessation of birth.
From the cessation of birth, then aging and death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease.
Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress and suffering.
"One doesn’t enjoy, welcome, or remain fastened to feeling...
perception...
fabrications...
"One doesn’t enjoy, welcome, or remain fastened to consciousness.
As one doesn’t enjoy, welcome, or remain fastened to consciousness,
  any delight in consciousness ceases.
From the cessation of delight comes the cessation of clinging.
From the cessation of clinging/sustenance, the cessation of becoming.
From the cessation of becoming, the cessation of birth.
From the cessation of birth, then aging and death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease.
Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress and suffering.
"This, monks, is the disappearance of form.
This, the disappearance of feeling...
perception...
fabrications.
This, the disappearance of consciousness."

Yes. The eight the highest was missing in Veda. They stumbled into 7th. The eight is highest and veda talk of without drowning to highest samadhi. Thats why they stayed on this side of river with border of discriminination. They had ego. In the bliss of samadhi even that ego also dissolve thats what patanjali mean by Samadhi. Extinction of cause or pain without remainder. This is Nirvana. Nirvana means not getting anything but give up everything to Highest lord. Why? Because its not yours. If you not give it up it will taken as complex and one destined to bound by law of karma and rebecoming. Hope this the answer you want. May you be happy! May you give up that!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Purpose of cessation or Nirvana!
What is the purpose or cause of cessation or extinction or Nirvana. Did Buddha ever talk about it?
For example, see how SN 23.1 ends:

“But sir, what is the purpose of extinguishment?”
“Your question goes too far, Rādha. You couldn’t figure out the limit of questions. For extinguishment is the culmination, destination, and end of the spiritual life.”

So Radha is asking kimatthiya --

“But sir, what is the purpose of extinguishment?”
“Nibbānaṃ pana, bhante, kimatthiyan”ti?

That is kim plus atthiya
So asking "kimatthiya?" is like asking, "Nibbana is with the intention of satisfying a desire for what beyond nibbana?"
The question implies that nibbana is a stepping-stone to something else -- like a way of getting from here to somewhere else.
But it isn't -- instead it's the destination, the end-result, the goal.
I think that's explained in the Uṇṇābhabrāhmaṇa Sutta (SN 51.15)

“The purpose of living the spiritual life under the Buddha, brahmin, is to give up desire.”
“But is there a path and a practice for giving up that desire?”
“There is.”
“What is that path?”
“It’s when a mendicant develops the basis of psychic power that has immersion due to enthusiasm … energy … mental development … inquiry, and active effort. This is the path and the practice for giving up that desire.”
“This being the case, Master Ānanda, the path is endless, not finite. For it’s not possible to give up desire by means of desire.”
“Well then, brahmin, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. What do you think, brahmin? Have you ever had a desire to walk to the park, but when you arrived at the park, the corresponding desire faded away?”
“Yes, sir.”

Thee purpose of Nirvana is to eliminate mental fabrication which leads to rebirth. Brith brings about a host of suffering and unsatisfactoriness. By realising Nirvana one does not get reborn hence do experience the suffering which is part and parcel of life.

Thank you, master. But why buddha said in Radha Samyutta, when asked by radha the same question that, "I cant answer that question". Purpose of extinction.

The Buddha did not say "I can't answer that question". What was said was "You weren't able to grasp the limit to questioning" meaning if you keep on questioning like this there will be no end to it. Say the Buddha said this is to end suffering. When one can ask why do that? Based on the answer to that you can continuously ask why that?

Rightly said. But still I have some feeling that he knows but didn't answer. He says, the question is Accasara, not worthy. Forgive me but A Saint in India, Maharashtra such as Dnyaneshwar said that It's Divine Being not different from thou. It's my play of creation, preservation and dissolution. Individuals are my dreams and I am the dreamer. Sorry, to put other philosophies. But forgive me. I had to ask for it!

@SandeepTelang - That is not 'other philosophy', but what the Buddha is teaching. The point is that the true nature of Reality would be beyond conceptual fabrication and beyond the reach of words, so beyond a certain point questions cannot be answered by anyone except the questionner.

Nirvana is its own purpose ,its when complete dis-identification with all that manifests has occurred. Buddha's problem was suffering ,suffering's reason he figured out was attachment IN THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS .Thus when there is complete detachment from all forms ,ideas and feelings there is the state of Nirvana .
Actually Nirvana is already here its not something that your fake identity will achieve.All whats necessary is unveiling it ,when you have unveiled all the hindrances ,the attachments then only Nirvana remains ,which is really nothing at all,all things manifest in its lab.

If he who has won truth can't say it exist, it doesn't exist, or both or neither. Neither can be said world is eternal, not non-eternal, exist or doesn't exist after extinction. That's what Buddha says. But my topic is if you don't know that thou exist or doesn't exist after death, then the concept of rebirth is criticizable. Because it's just wave on water we call individuality, then there are many waves comes and go with time immomerial. So there is no absolute cessation. Wave is not water, neither water is wave but after cessation of wave, can one assure other wave doesn't arise again?

In the far age time there are seers who says Universe is superimposition on Brahman as sun reflected in water, although not in water. Individuals take the reflected sun as real and attach to it. But wise one know that the original sun is not fell down, it's there. Having known they renounce and live the life as that of Sun while others just attach to reflection. "There is no oasis situated yonder, you are left with mirage". What you are catching as goal either of Nibbana or moksha or salvation or enlightenment or cessation of suffering doesn't exist at all! They are chasing the mirage!

Yes you are right ,thats why Nirvana is not the mental idea not that mirage ,its the unmanifest in which all manifests ,including false self ,its quality eternal,not a thing that changes overtime like character ,body .Its paradoxical in that its everything and nothing at the same time,it doesn't submit to logic.Buddha just didn't want to confuse his disciples .Cessation is only of identification not of what manifests ,so everything happens ,even the false self happens thats ok but there is no identification.

Yes Sir, well said. What a tragedy of life neither one can hold of mirage nor that of Sun! Everything perishes. But mere a look at that Sun in a day of life is enough. His all sorrow perishes, he knows all things that have form s are impermanent and neither Sun nor it's mirage is self either. Rhinosourous horn sutra from Gandhara equally states the same by every paccekbuddhas. But thanks Sir for discussion without using quotes. May all beings happy!

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


text:
Where can I find a Buddist Monastery that practice hard training in india?
I have done 02  10days Vipassana Meditation  (S N Goenkaji)and want to devote life for same. Interested in knowing is any monetary in india where I can stay for years or more and learn teaching of Buddha and Vipassana

Bhante Piyadhammo http://www.forestdhammatalks.org/en/contact.php

That link seems to be to a Wat in Thailand? I don't know, there's also a World Buddhist Directory which might be helpful towards finding local organisations, e.g. in India.

Bhante Piyadhammo has become international preceptor and it's said that currently monastery is on to be erected in India, as possible first Dhammayut monastery in India.

Following lists out Buddhist monasteries in India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Buddhist_monasteries_in_India


text:
Five tricks to avoid unwholesome kamma
I have heard of five tricks/methods which could be used to avoid performing unwholesome kamma. I can remember three of them precisely. Would like to know all 5 listed in order.  One is shifting the mind away from the unwholesome thought, another is finding the root cause, another is thinking of consequences.

Vitakka Saṇṭhāna Sutta gives the following 5:

Replace the unwholesome thoughts with wholesome thoughts
Examine the drawback of unwholesome thoughts
One sould forget unwholesome thoughts
One should try to still the source of unwholesome thoughts
Subdue the unwholesome thoughts


text:
Meditation practice - Meditation Odd Effect -
I am doing vipassana meditation from last six month and had done two 10 days course  of S N Goenka Vipassana Meditation.Doing daily 2 hours meditation in morning and evening. I am having constant sensation on my right cheek and on forehead during meditation and even after meditation almost 24 hours.
Also have continure sensation  in head in brain, on top, Side and back side of head ,I am not able to sleep due to it and  I am feeling i am doing some thing wrong. As i understand that i am not monk who engage in meditation 24 hours. Should i do simple anapana, Not vipassana ? What should i do ? How can overcome it ? Or I should leave meditation and leave life as earlier as i was living ?
Kindly provide solution in detail how to do, Like do it yourself ?

Should I do simple anapana, Not vipassana?

Spend 1/3 time in Anapana and 2/3 time in Vipassana. If you are doing a 1-hour session to about 10 to 20 minutes of Anapana and then Vipassana.

How can overcome it?

When you are doing mediation different sesations surcafes due to past conditioning and perceptions surfacing. People experience different sensations like tingling, falling, inflating, deflating, floating, burning, frightening images, please images, traumatic memories of the past, etc. The objective of meditation is to train one's mind to be equanimous to them and face them. So do not get averse, or worried about that you are experiencing and be equanimous about it and continue your practice.

I know how you feel. I'll give you a couple of personal examples and how I was advised by my teaching monks and got past these kind of experiences. (I also practice Vipassana)
Once I was on retreat in Lumbini, and as the retreat went on, my heartbeat kept getting louder and louder. Soon, it was so bad I couldn't focus on my breath or body at all, just this constant annoying heartbeat! It was unbearable! I just wanted to meditate in peace with my pleasant breath. I wished this heartbeat sensation would just stop. I started feeling anxious about it, and started making theories about how to solve my external problems. It must be the coffee I thought.
I went to report to my teaching monk all of this. He smiled, and said "Oh, don't feel bad about your heart! It does such good regular work for you, keeping you alive. Invite this heartbeat in for tea and biscuits, be friends with it. Observe the heartbeat just like the breath. Know when it changes, observe what conditions this awareness of the heart to arise, and to pass."
On another retreat, at the TMC in San Jose, we had a beautiful and silent meditation hall. A few days into my personal retreat, the monk told us they needed to remodel, and meditation would be held in a different smaller room, just some small space for a few cushions, table, and a clock on the wall. Well, soon enough that clock began to seem really loud. I would begin fantasizing about taking it down, or dream of talking to the staff about it "how could you place such a loud clock in a meditation room!" I'd want to say. My heartbeat and breath began syncing and getting in rhythm with the clock. It began to be a struggle, and I felt I had to constantly control my breath and heart.
In the next reporting session with the monk, I brought up the evil clock. The monk said "The clock is not problem. The problem is inside the mind."
In both these circumstances, there was a sensation that was felt to be negative. There was a resistance to them, thinking of this thing as something to get rid of, to control or change. I over focused on them, getting worked up and anxious over them, which spiraled to become worse everyday. That is, until I began to invite them in. I allowed myself to experience them completely, without trying to change them. I practiced Equanimity - it doesn't come immediately, but when you feel disliking, be aware that you are, and soften it, accepting. Know when the disliking arises, and observe it just like anything else.
Soon, when the clock or the heartbeat are no longer identified as an enemy, you begin to find pleasant feelings there too. You begin to have less and less aversion. Soon, the heartbeat or clock are just momentary friends stopping by for a quick chat, and then one goes back to the primary object, feeling even more peace and Equanimity. You'll find you have progressed, and new experiences trouble you less and less. Its all a series of friends stopping by. Just be mindful enough to know when they are coming through your door.

My experience is that these experiences are not as a result of meditation but when you are in meditaion you are more tune with the body and surrounding so you are more aware of the things that always there.
However, you also see other meditative experiences such as Pithi and Sukha.

people who report on their vipassana mediation invented by all those teacher like Mahazi GOenka and so on  always report some areas with weird tingling, vibrations, buzzes and so on. They also add that those weird and annoying vibrations disappear once they stop whatever wrong samadhi they have been taught.
THe most important thing you must do is not panicking over this and stop doing it.


text:
Is Buddhist lifestyle harmless to living beings?
Is the Buddhist lifestyle harmless to living beings? Lot's of creatures are being killed in various human activities (walking, farming, building, etc.) Did Buddhists found a way to live while not harming other living beings? If yes, how?
p.s. For more info, read the same question on this SE.

Buddhism focuses on our intentions, and therefore intentional killing is adviced against.
Obviously, the consequences of our actions may sometimes lead to harm despite our good intentions. In buddhism we are - arguably - primarily accountable for the latter, our intentions, even though consequences also matter.
Also, see this answer written not long ago:
Selling an animal to butcher will break first precept?

Some Buddhists -- especially ordained monks and nuns -- don't kill to eat, and don't even participate in farming or other industries.
They have rules of behaviour -- e.g. not digging earth, except if it's clean builder's sand, and drinking carefully-filtered water -- to avoid accidentally killing.
They eat what's given to them (i.e. donated in charity) -- including meat, like beggars, with another rule that they don't accept meat that killed especially for them.
You perhaps might think of "scavengers" on your Worldbuilding question -- eating what's already dead. I've read that monks won't eat fruit unless a lay-person first ritually damages the fruit (to make it "allowable").
The diet of non-ordained (lay) Buddhists varies, some eat meat but wouldn't want to be people who kill animals, some are vegetarian. There are stories from old Tibet of people trying to dig (the foundations of new building) carefully to avoid hurting worms.
The principle scruple seems to be against intentionally killing. There may be some doctrine which says that some accidental killing is inevitable, and is an example of the fact that the world is a kind of imperfect place, which is a motive for pursing enlightenment instead of re-becoming.

OP: Is the Buddhist lifestyle harmless to living beings?

Following Buddhism, one can ensure one does not intentionally kill.

Did Buddhists found a way to live while not harming other living beings?

This is by following the Buddhist training.

If yes, how?

Buddhist training has the following elements:

Sila - this constraining one's actions and speech. Here one may get the intention to kill but because on follows certain rules or precepts or a code of conduct where one does not harm oneself or other
Samadhi - one develops mastery over the mind where one can suppress any unwholesome thoughts. This way one can suppress any unwholesome intentions like killing.
Panna - here one develops true understanding whereby achieving a state one does not create any unwholesome/wholesome thoughts. Here wholesome thoughts are also eliminated ans these will bring future rebirths. Panna can eliminate eliminate the unwholesome roots which motivate one to kill.

And how do you never harm anything in farming, building, walking, etc.? I have seen Buddhist villages and they are fully complete with houses, temples, agriculture... How come no anta get destroyed?

Buddhists are not supporsed to harm with intention If you are walking and you step on an ant without knowledge and inention then this is OK in Buddhism.

Abuse is a form of misunderstanding and communication. And the essence of the Nobel truths determines life contains suffering. So "No"    but to emancipate yourself and others from suffering is a great deed and is the go. Just like an arrow the impact comes from letting go.

From pulling it out, householder.

Buddhist monks don't kill; exemplifying the benefits of non-violence.
Buddhist laypeople, if taking moral precepts, training to minimize harming.
Obviously, if Buddhist laypeople did not kill insects & worms when farming, they would not have a "life-style". Instead, it would be a "death-style" (for the Buddhists).

MN 97: Dhanañjani Sutta — To Dhanañjani as it's not the teaching of the Jains.


text:
Meditating When Demotivated
I had meditated for some time for 30 min once or twice daily. Now, I am suffering from what seems to be anhedonia, a difficulty in feeling pleasure and being motivated. It makes it incredibly difficult to motivate myself to meditate, and even if I have plenty of time and the yearning to meditate, I cannot seem to sit and do it.
What might one do when motivation is extremely low? Is there no other option than to just 'force oneself' and do it?

I found "Encouragements Towards Awakening" By Bhante Bodhidhamna to be especially helpful at motivating me even at my lowest.

If you find some motivation then there are worldly practices to cultivate motivation.
 When the beginners enthusiasm wore off I just googled how to get motivated. Like how to keep to a schedual. You can trick yourself. You just schedule a sit for only 2 minutes. That's easy to actually do and then when you sit you often will have more momentum past 2 minutes. Then you keep doing it and grow a habit and gradually increase your time. This is just an example. There are different ways to be unmotivated.
You can chant up some motivation.
   Read inspirational quotes over and over.
   There are all kinds of little practices.

Contemplate: death may come at any moment hence I have to strive to practice with diligence and without delay. This will create saṃvega and motivate you.

“But how, bhikshu, do you cultivate the mindfulness of death?”
“Here, bhante, I do it thus:
'Indeed, should I live just the time it takes to breathe in and then out, to breathe out and then in, I would wisely attend to the Blessed One’s teaching, much indeed would be done by me!'
Thus, bhante, I cultivate the mindfulness of death.”

(Atthaka) Maranasati Sutta 1

For most folks just starting out on The Path, it is because we've begun to see the most crucial truth Buddha preached - that life is suffering. This is the impetus behind beginning the incredibly difficult and arduous path of meditation. However, when one's will to practice wanes, it's usually due to one of two reasons:
1) They've become content with life as it is. This should be obvious, because if one were truly discontent, with an answer to said negativity right in front of them, they would continue to practice. But it sounds like your mind, on the whole, has tricked itself into believing your current worldview is "good enough". So go into the question deeply and really ask yourself, are you happy enough? Do you have a craving to seek and find Reality? Can you live with your generating negative karma, with all its harmful effects on the world, until you die?
Or
2) You've become disillusioned about your meditation practice. This has happened to me several times, more so when I first began practicing. What's happened is, your techniques are not yielding sufficient benefits that the time and effort invested seem worth it. This most likely suggests that a) you're not practicing enough or b) you're not practicing correctly. Not only that, but when you start seeing the truth in Buddha's teachings, you should grow intensely excited and interested. This is because real meditation takes a fierceness and presence of mind that will come from a will so strong that it can overcome your anhedonia and spur on practice. Ironically, Buddhism is the most selfish belief system in the world until its not, and in the same way this will required to initially get off your ass must over time be deconstructed, dismantled, and discarded.

On a larger scale, you can as Suminda mentioned, reflect on death. Not knowing when or how it will strike, but that it's guaranteed to happen.
Also, reason-based-motivation is probably the most effective way to get the engine going. Write down the very reasons why you choose to meditate. Do a list of all the benefits, short-term, long-term and life-long wise, both for yourself & for others.
Reflect on this list whenever you can. Whenever procrastination comes up, recognize it, allow it to be there, be curious and act in a value-based manner, despite the short-term discomfort.
Gradually, you learn with this method to relate differently to uncomfortable thoughts & feelings, so they have a lesser grip on you. You also experientially come in contact with benefits that meditation has to offer, for example a tranquil mind and being independently with yourself, without distraction.
Before I forget: Failing along the way is to be expected, so be kind to yourself, don't beat yourself up because it's not helping you. See what works and what doesn't and get back on track.

This is because you approach meditation as doing. Your samsaric mind is in the habit of locking in on a goal and taking steps to attain it. In those cases, the goal is something desirable, something valuable, something that should be good to attain. So when you are working towards a goal, you feel good about pursuing a worthy goal and you feel good about making progress towards something valuable.
However, meditation is not "doing". Meditation is "no-doing" or "un-doing" (wu-wei). The object of meditation is letting go. So for your samsaric mind, the goal of meditation is not valuable! There is nothing lucrative for it to lock on. This is why it feels demotivated. The objective of meditation is to kill the samsaric mind. Of course it has not a slightest interest in going in that direction!
There are two ways to solve this problem.
One is to set some kind of goal for the samsaric mind. Like Enlightenment or Nirvana. The more you think about the pointlessness of Samsara and the more you convince yourself how great and awesome it is to be Enlightened, the more motivation you will create for the samsaric mind. This is a good and valid method, especially for beginners.
For more advanced practitioners it may not work though. Because at some point your realization of Emptiness starts to mature and you may not be able to convince yourself that Nirvana or Enlightenment is a THING solid enough to strive for. At some point you begin to see emptiness of it all, and the tricks that work for a more primitive mind no longer work.
When you reach this point you should switch gears and approach meditation as an exercise of wu-wei, not doing. To do this you should focus exactly on being self-sufficient in the moment, on being in peace, on having just enough - without thinking of meditation as something you DO. Makes sense?
When you do it like that, what you practice is suchness which is the real point of meditation. Then, motivation is not an issue, or more properly speaking motivation is not applicable, because strictly speaking you are no longer "meditating". You are just dwelling in peace. Motivation is only needed for going after something. You don't need motivation in order to dwell in peace.


text:
What does Anusaya Kilesa means? How to remove them completely?

(2000 years old Buddhist cave near my village)
Anusaya kilesa is lying dormant karmic influence after attaining Nirvana. I am putting various views as under;

SN goenka told in his speech that it can only remove by Vipassana. He put forward Buddha's journey towards enlightenment, denying every teacher discovered the way, Vipassana.
Dr. Ambedkar says that Vipassana only can't remove it. He emphasis on doing good deeds is the only way with perfected 10 paramitas. He also said Nirvana doesn't mean "Inactive calming down of flame" but that of "blowing out with wholesome deeds"! He is hero in our nation who did welfare of depressed and downtrodden peoples.
The great old Kapila of that day where Siddhartha born, says, when the pot is removed by potter after done, he remove it and stops stroking further. So, for time being that movement of wheel is compared to dormant karmic influence of prarabdha karma. He says in knowledge all karma that previously done and yet to come doesn't exist. But the small portion of prarabdha karma still remains. That portion of karma can be compared to arrow has been released from bow and no one can stop it.
Buddha also said in some poem, "I am unbound, my granery is empty by not putting new grains. I emptied it".

Please all venerable sir and upasakas, clear this doubt. Please answer it with minimum scriptural texts. Personal experience is more I am interested in. Thank you in advance. May all being Happy!

After attaining Nirvana, there is not any anusaya kilesa lying dormant. Nirvana is the uprooting of the anusaya kilesa.
Also, anusaya kilesa is not exclusively karmic influence. Anusaya kilesa starts as a natural in-born element, unrelated to kamma, as follows:

For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion
  ‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him? Yet the
  underlying tendency to identity view lies within him. A young tender
  infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘teachings,’ so how
  could doubt about the teachings arise in him? Yet the underlying
  tendency to doubt lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone
  does not even have the notion ‘rules,’ so how could adherence to rules
  and observances arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to adhere to
  rules and observances lies within him. A young tender infant lying
  prone does not even have the notion ‘sensual pleasures,’ so how could
  sensual desire arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to sensual
  lust lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even
  have the notion ‘beings,’ so how could ill will towards beings arise
  in him? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will lies within him.
MN 64

Anusaya kilesa is "uprooted" by seeing clearly the five aggregates and six spheres are not-self (anatta), as follows:

Bhikkhu, when one knows and sees... nonself, the underlying tendencies
  are uprooted.
SN 35.56

Or as follows:

And what is the way of developing immersion further that leads to the
  ending of defilements?
It’s when a mendicant meditates observing rise and fall in the five
  grasping aggregates.
‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form.
Such is feeling, such is the origin of feeling, such is the ending of
  feeling.
Such is perception, such is the origin of perception, such is the
  ending of perception.
Such are choices, such is the origin of choices, such is the ending of
  choices.
Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is
  the ending of consciousness.’
This is the way of developing immersion further that leads to the
  ending of defilements.
AN 4.41

As for Dr. Ambedkar, his statement is false and an unwholesome wrong view about Buddhism for political purposes.
Also, the truth of Buddhism cannot be understood without scriptural texts.

That's true in every sense.When one realised five aggregates and 6 sense bases sphere are impermanent i.e.rising and passing of sensations and when he not clig to it he attain Vision of Anatta or Uncreated, or unborn.So after attaining that vision where no footing of earth, space, universe, sun, moon, air,  no coming, no going, no being, nor non being, nothing but still everything found.When one attain the vision his body not there, nor universe. But for some time being.And eventually he land back to body but he found some change already happened inside. Like a witness inside.I am asking that!

According to Theravada teachings, Anusaya will be removed only by following the Noble Eightfold Path. Samma Sati (Goenka re-introduce this as Vipassana) is the seventh factor of the Noble Eightfold Path. Dana or giving Sila or virtues are only one aspect of the Noble Eightfold Path. (third, fourth and fifth factors of Noble Eightfold Path)
Noble Eightfold Path has to be practiced in its entirety. For instance, if you try only to practice Vipassana, it is not sufficient unless Vipassana is incorporated with Noble Eightfold Path.

I appreciate your answer, sir. It's truly correct. Then can one assume that the seeker is at seventh factor then at Samma Sati stage. So, can one assume if he act accordingly in seventh stage, then the eighth is final end i.e. in Samma Samadhi? Do it means he is close to it? Then it occurs that seeker is attaining union with something? Is it not?

This seventh step explained by A saint in India.He says: Do  not  do  like  fools  who  look  in  the  mirror  and  think  they  have two  faces. The  proper  way  of  observing is  similar  to the  fire  which  merges  into  its  original  latent  form  when  fuel  is  over  or  tongue tasting  its  own  taste  or  eye  seeing  its  own  pupil  that  is  one  should  observe it  with  the  feeling  of  non-duality. Once  this union is  attained  one  does  not  return  from  it  to  be reborn. People  who  are  full  of  knowledge, purity and faith only  can  reach  this  state. __Dyaneshwari


text:
Can Buddhists make very eccentric vows?
Can Buddhists make very eccentric vows, and in what sense might these affect their karma?
I do believe in karma, in some sense, but am struggling to understand something specific -- and a little strange. Suppose person A vows that, as person B is about to be hurt, they will suffer in their place. The event occurs, but person B, in some ill defined sense, does not suffer as much as they otherwise would. Person A then suffers some grave misfortune (perhaps unconnected).
Is person A at fault for their misfortune, karmically speaking?
But this is a just so story. Specifically: is there any form of vow, in any tradition, which can lead to suffering for you, but good karma for others?

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

is there any form of vow, in any tradition, which can lead to suffering for you, but good karma for others?
Well I think that some people, perhaps wrongly, interpret the Bodhisattva vow as leading to suffering to you, because it's a vow to delay your own nibbana which would cause your own rebirth and continued suffering.
As a second possible example, santa100's answer mentioned 'vows making things happen magically' -- the one thing I remember that might be like that is Sacca-kiriyā -- there are several examples in the canon -- that might be like a vow, and like magic which benefits others ... but harmless, though?
The whole idea seems odd to me, as if there's a fixed amount of bad kamma floating around which somebody has to suffer for and it doesn't quite matter who -- like the converse would be killing people as a sacrifice to gain good fortune for yourself, as if kamma were a 'zero sum' situation -- instead I think that virtue and enlightenment are supposed to benefit everyone, not be harmful.
Then again people do make decisions which seem to be altruistic and self-sacrificing.
Anyway -- you might be interested in Sacca-kiriyā.

"virtue and enlightenment are supposed to benefit everyone, not be harmful" i like the tenor, but you need a reference. also, there are everyday examples of self sacrificing behaviour for altruistic reasons, which are, arguably, virtuous.

thanks for the link btw, it is a great answer to the question especially as it was originally phrased

you need a reference I thought it was a standard theme, of the Pali suttas at least -- e.g. there's https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/bl034.html but I think there's another/better reference, that some people try to benefit self and some benefit others and some benefit both.

self sacrificing behaviour I understand what you mean conventionally but "self" contradicts the anatta doctrine -- if all dhammas are non-self what does "self-sacrificing" mean? Hard to think of an example in the sutta, except perhaps leaving "everything" behind to become a monk, and/or perhaps laypeople being generous with dana -- gifts of requisites (and perhaps of respect).

yeah that's a great reply, thanks! virtuous action is good karma, which i believe form the link Sacca-kiriyā is, is not bad karma!

i still wonder if one can create bad karma from Sacca-kiriyā by vowing not to intend to do something (independent of whether one does or doesn't do that). so the vow is virtuous, but then...

Not sure if vows alone are sufficient to auto-magically make things happens as one wishes. It's much more likely that intention coupled with concrete actions that will bring about the desired result. So in the case of person A, the event's more likely to happen due to s/he following up with actions that helps person B and maybe at the cost of some suffering to himself. About the concept of collective kamma, it probably is just individual kamma bundled together. An example is the atrocities committed by soldiers during a war campaign. Together they all took part in killing, raping, and plundering their enemies' city. So in some distant future, some catastrophic event happens to a group of people, which on the surface seems like "collective" kamma, but in fact the underlying driving force is still individual kamma manifesting itself.

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

Um, a Buddhist can make any vow they please. And eccentricity is only in the eyes of those who judge him/her. To the practitioner, it is simply a necessary step on the path to Satori. And again, the karma generated by one's vows is wholly dependent on that person's own observations about self and world. You are in no position to judge here, so the question is pretty moot with regards to others, and completely subjective in terms of yourself. Namaste.


text:
Mahayana-specific definition of "a buddha"?
We all know the Pali Canon's definition of "The Buddha". The Buddha is one who discovers The Dhamma all by himself without external help, therefore by definition there may be only one Buddha until the teaching is completely forgotten and thus can be re-discovered.
In Mahayana, the situation seems to be different. When Mahayana texts speak about "a buddha" they seem to put a different meaning into this word. In Mahayana, a buddha is someone -- or indeed anyone -- who has attained anuttara-samyak-sambodhi - the Complete and Perfect Enlightenment.
At the same time, it does look like in many Mahayana contexts, the term "buddha" may be used rather too liberally. I'm not talking about the precepts, or the laity (which is what I am, at best). We all know that the Dalai Lama is said to be a tulku of Avalokiteśvara, and is presumably a Bodhisattva on the 10th -- correct me if I'm wrong -- Bhumi, and very, very close to enlightenment. I don't know of any similar claims in Tantric traditions outside Tibet. But the Tantric teachings propagated to Tibet via certain Indian masters, ones that East Asian Buddhism claim to share lineage with. Similarly, I know that some contemporary Korean Son monks have claimed to be Buddhas.

Seongcheol was widely recognized in Korea as having been a living
  Buddha, due to his extremely ascetic lifestyle, the duration and
  manner of his meditation training, his central role in reforming
  Korean Buddhism in the post-World War II era, and the quality of his
  oral and written teachings.

I do not believe this is a complete anomaly. Huineng (the 6th Patriarch in China), as well as writing a "Sutra", was said to be on the 10th Bhumi (at least -- though I have read some Western commentators say this is just impossible with standard definitions of the Bhumis) by his disciple Shen-hui, whom I believe all Soto and Rinzai Buddhists, in deed all Buddhists that base their teachings primarily on Huineng, claim is in their lineage.
I am aware that some Tantric traditions do teach "Buddhahood in this very body".
But equally, there is a tradition of great humility in Mahayana Buddhism. The great Tientai (which mutated into Japanese Tendai) master Zhiyi claimed not even to have the appearance or semblance of enlightenment to his practices. Zongmi, who I believe may still be important in Korea, was of a similar, Hua-Yen and Ch'an, mind.
So, where is "the bar"? E.g., are all genuine masters Buddhas -- or near as darn it. That may seem crazy. But are all Buddhas, according to the Mahayana, reborn from the Tusita heaven?

Please no "from the sutta/agama standpoint, all of this is nonesense" answers. Real Mahayana answers only.

Is there a distinction to be made between 'Buddha' and 'buddha'? I've spoken to a friend of Wei Wu Wei who claimed to be a buddha and was not even a Buddhist. I wasn't inclined to argue since to me this is possible, but how it fits in with the sutra teachings is another matter.  .

most M, traditions say we're buddhas by having original enlightenment (hongaku). i think but am unsure that some traditions say that buddhahood in this body need not be by a mahasattva (celestial bodhisattva). hth @PeterJ

@user3293056 - Yes, this was sort of what I was getting at. There is inevitably some confusion over the definition of 'buddha',

I think the Buddha nature is the meaning of life.
As it pertains independent of birth and death, and impermanence, but also depends on them. Just like meaningfulness.
And those that can manifest it in their everyday affairs are Buddhas in that sense. Here is Dogen writing on Aryadeva pointing to Nagarjuna's (bodily) manifesting of the Buddha Nature:

Now,  among  those  skin  bags,*  past  or  present,  who  have  heard
  the  Buddha  Dharma as It has spread through the heavens above, the
  world of humans, and the great thousandfold worlds that comprise the
  universe, which of them has said that the look of someone manifesting
  his or her Spiritual Body is what Buddha Nature is? Throughout the
  great universe, the Venerable Kānadaiba alone has stated it. The rest
  have merely asserted that Buddha Nature is not something seen with the
  eyes, or heard with the ears, or grasped by the mind, or whatever.
  Because they have not realized  that  the  manifesting  of  one’s
  Spiritual  Body  is  Buddha  Nature,  they  have  not stated it.
  Although their ancestral Master was not loath to manifest It, their
  ears were shut so that they never heard about It. Since they had not
  yet comprehended what their Spiritual Body was, It was not something
  that they ever fully discerned. Hoping to see the meditative state
  that is free of characteristics as something with a form  resembling
  the  moon  at  its  full,  they  respectfully  bowed,  but  their
  eyes  had  not yet caught sight of It.

i hope no-one minds my accepting my own answer. nb, most commentators think that (for Dogen) buddhahood is not the manifestation of the buddha nature...

Traditionally in Mahayana (esp. Zen and Tibetan) the student considers the teacher to be a perfect expression of the Eternal Buddha-Nature, "eternal buddha" in short. While the teacher himself traditionally downplays his realizations, sometimes as far as "These are the words of my perfect teacher and I'm just a dumb guy" etc.
The first point goes in line with the idea that all Teaching about ultimate Reality is by definition an expression of said Reality. Therefore anything or anyone that teaches Sat-Dharma is a continuation of Dharmakaya of Buddha - a continuation of Buddha in short - hence "the eternal Buddha":

I, Kuntuzangpo, am the original Buddha of all, and through this prayer
  of mine, may all you beings who wander in the three realms of samsara
  realize this self-arising awareness, and may your great wisdom spontaneously
  increase.
My emanations will continuously manifest in billions of unimaginable
  ways, appearing in forms to help you beings who can be trained.

The second point goes in line with the Mahayana realization that Enlightenment is attainment of no-attainment, and so does not represent anything special to be proud of:

Subhuti again asked, “Blessed lord, is it true that when you attained Complete Perfect Enlightenment, nothing have been attained?”
The Buddha replied:
This is right, this is right, Subhuti. As to Complete and Perfect Enlightenment, there is absolutely nothing that I attained, and this is why it's called Complete and Perfect Enlightenment.

thanks for the answer. what do those masters say about the tusita heaven, do you know?

TUSHITA is the network name of my Chromecast device.


text:
Eight wordly winds, tanha or upadana?
In essence, the concepts of

eight worldly winds
tanha
upadana

seem to describe the same phenomena.
Is there a specific reason that they are described separately?

The "winds" are "just" objects, the objects, being touched on avijja, tanha and upadana arises. So they do not describe the same, but are chains of depending co-arising, good householder.

Simalar question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9378/what-is-the-difference-between-craving-and-clinging/9380#9380

To me, these are three entirely different things.
Eight Worldly Winds are an allegory for a list of egoistic concerns, like being obsessed with fame, blame, etc.
Tanha (thirst) is a metaphor for craving something unattainable, in other words an inner conflict between "is" and "should".
Upadana (fuel) is a metaphor for "feeding" an unhealthy state of mind by repeatedly thinking about topics that sustain the state.
While in some situations they may occur closely together, they refer to three entirely different phenomena.

Are you saying that tanha isn’t a problem when it pertains to things we can achieve?

Erik, when we can achieve reasonably and without conflict, then it doesn't become Tanha, it's just following path to a goal.

And what is the reasonably? Seeing desire after it as it's cause. One who takes on isn't free.

Like in god realm, Samana, there's no place for Tanha when things go smoothly, but still not free, right.

Eight world winds, tanha and upadana are synonyms for lamp oil, flame and wick. Because of lamp of eight wordly winds oil is generated, because of tanha or flame it burns and the wick or upadana is main support to consume oil and support that to the flame. They are 3 stands never ever seperated. When one leads to 7th i.e Samma Sati one can know and see 3 triads. How to destroy the three is in 8th. Because of 8th, the Samma Samadhi it can be destroyed with blowing out the fame. Samma samadhi means watching all the working of lamp with that of detachment in every day life. No fuel to be generated. But Samma Samadhi needs the Sword of Knowledg i.e. Vision of Unborn. Hope this answer what you are looking for. May all beings happy!

One does not progress toward release from the winds by means of effort in concentration, as right concentration has the requirment of it's condition. As long no vision of going forth, the path can not develop.

Yes. True.That's what I mean honorable sir.  But, forgive me, you may not agree, although I am fool, but the Eightfold path I love. It's like "God is watching over you, he know what you are doing, he is beyond good and evil that's why he is knower of deeds".That's real Samma Ditthi. How can one who know, he is watching, commit misdeeds? Ordinary people doesn't know it! Doing good deeds are virtues. Never in any place Buddha condemn them but he condemn inactivity and misdeeds both. Life lived with good deeds is Nibbana. It's life of peace here and now. Not a goal to be found after death.

When rejoicing in good undertakings themselves, not much thinking toward results and gains, then of cause there is bliss here and now and beyond, being clear of what is kusala and what is akusala. Nothing to fear once these has become clear, good householder. Sharing ones merits toward the world (Gods, Devas, Sangha, wise...) as governing principle .

Is "are synonyms for lamp oil, flame and wick" your own explanation, or can you reference the text which contains this explanation?


text:
Transferring merit to someone living who isnt open minded to receiving it
I have read previous posts on this topic here but wanted some clarification. I want to transfer merit (I am familiar and have great faith and practise with the Therevada tradition, and so am interested in this strand of Buddhism...), to someone who is currently experiencing great difficulties and is not open to buddhism or really anything that can help. If I were to transfer merits, it would have to be done without the person knowing and I was wondering if this would give any benefit to the person. Any advice given to this person directly would definitely be unwelcome.....and I want to help in whatever way possible.

One who is not related, hasn't given the conditions to receive, can not gain a share. Yet the share isn't done useless, as it's the givers merit and the many able being touched by it, benefit as well, good householder. May you and others be able to take a share on this gift of Dhamma.

actually the person in question is related - does that make a difference?

It was clear, good householder, that she talks about a near "blood" relative, but althought sometimes helpful does it not match the meaning of relation here. Simply doing what is good. Whether another is able to take it or not, is his/her thing. Thats an importand lesson, Nyom.

In relation it's ones duty to wish for helping. But not always direct possible. So likewise in a teacher-disciple relation under monks, 1. try personally (without lifting one self is other is elder), if not working 2. try to find other relatives, friends, he/she would listen. if not working as well: one keeps up the wish and possible waits for the right chance. mn103 gives also stepps in regard of it.

It was once said that...

If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, no merit comes of that, and no outcome of merit. --SN42.13

A more effective approach to merit is given in AN5.45:

When a mendicant enters and remains in a limitless immersion of heart while using a robe …
  alms-food … lodging … bed and chair …
  medicines and supplies for the sick, the overflowing of merit for the donor is limitless …
  These are the five kinds of overflowing merit, overflowing goodness. They nurture happiness, and are conducive to heaven, ripening in happiness, and leading to heaven. They lead to what is likable, desirable, agreeable, to welfare and happiness.

Merit flows as gifts are used towards progress along the Noble Eightfold Path.

According to Buddhist teaching, you can transfer merits only to the departed relatives living in the Peta realm. You can't transfer merits to a living human.

Nonsense. Sharing merits, rejoicing with merits of others, are two importand ways within punnakiriyavatthu, householder. How would the Buddha ever had taught living beings? Why do people receive alms? That's micca ditthi. Grave one.


text:
Is it bad karma to think but not claim that one is enlightened, or just bad for your practice?
Is it bad karma to think but not claim that one is enlightened, or just bad for your practice? With respect to the latter, the Surangama Sutra springs to mind, and its advice for dealing with unusual states during meditation. Similarly, Tientai taught that without understanding we unenlightened people are not yet Buddhas, our faith that we are does not work, and we do not experience sudden enlightenment.
But is it actually bad karma, if we don't claim to others to be?

The tag '[tag:the-buddha]' is, "For questions about the Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) as a person - his life, sayings, actions, etc." ... so I edited the tag to [tag:mahayana] instead. The tagging on this site isn't very accurate but one purpose we use to for is to identify which school[s] the Q&A is related to. Your writing "we are not yet Buddhas" here is probably related to your previous question, Mahayana-specific definition of “a buddha”? (which I also rettagged as mahayana).

See also this answer to the meta-topic titled, Theravada and Mahayana -- or according to the FAQ, "This is one site for all schools. If you want an answer from the perspective of a specific school, then please add the corresponding tag to your question
(for example, [tag:theravada], [tag:mahayana],  [tag:zen], and so on)."

It is delusion, with all resulting kamma. This case is addressed in MN1:

They perceive extinguishment as extinguishment. But then they identify with extinguishment, they identify regarding extinguishment, they identify as extinguishment, they identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

It may sound like progress, but it isn't. In fact, the Buddha would say the same about conquerers such as Alexander the Great, who grasped at earth:

“Take an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons. They perceive earth as earth. But then they identify with earth, they identify regarding earth, they identify as earth, they identify that ‘earth is mine’, they take pleasure in earth. Why is that? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

Constrast this with how the Buddha describes a Realized One. Notice that identify view is absent:

He directly knows extinguishment as extinguishment. But he doesn’t identify with extinguishment, he doesn’t identify regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t identify as extinguishment, he doesn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering, and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies. That’s why the Realized One—with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all cravings—has awakened to the supreme perfect Awakening, I say.”

Per MN1, even a trainee "shouldn’t identify as extinguishment, they shouldn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they shouldn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? So that they may completely understand it, I say."
Furthermore, per MN1, only "an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones" would "identify as extinguishment."
Therefore, if we can agree that uneducated ordinary persons are entangled in suffering and kamma, we can infer that to think of oneself as enlightened is unskillful, uneducated and ordinary, with all corresponding kamma.
Other suttas reiterate this cautionary point about non-identification with extinguishment in different ways. For example, there is MN44:

“A mendicant who is entering such an attainment does not think: ‘I will enter the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I am entering the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I have entered the cessation of perception and feeling.’ Rather, their mind has been previously developed so as to lead to such a state.”

Both MN1 and MN44 stress non-identification even for those with experience of extinguishment such as stream-winners. In our practice, we should note that mind is included in good conduct (DN33). And therefore if we do not speak unskillfully, we should also avoid thinking unskillfully.

Three ways of performing good conduct: by body, speech, and mind.

could you add a reference for (this particular) delusion being bad karma? that's more what the question is about, not what attitude it is

I got the impression from this answer that a stream-winner might have "truthful conceit" -- i.e. an accurate (true) assessment of the extent to which they are or are not even partially enlightened (i.e. according to "the four stages of enlightenment"). N.B. that that answer, is maybe "theravada" or "early buddhist" and not "mahayana" -- the same tradition as but a counter-point to this answer which references MN 1.

Thank you both for your comments. I have added more analysis of MN1 as well as references from other suttas that describe how it is unskillful to think of oneself as extinguished.

"Our faith that we are" is a direct disregard to Chan. Surangama Sutra  supported the Chan school. Looking at Chan there is the question: What is Buddha? The answer follows in a modern sense: " about 5 five pounds of flour."
The faith part is only one pillar. No building can be constructed and to think that you have one is certainly bad karma. It's evidence of a incompetent. To claim it finished will result in great suffering.
Others here will bring about obtainment and this issue also as it's connected. The Zen reflection point, or another sobering point to keep with you is that enlightenment or not doesn't create absolution. You remain a victim of cause and effect. Now a nose arrives before you do so there's value to Chan  (the school of sudden enlightenment.)
Chan generally isn't considered an active school because of the teaching. If you are given it quickly and earned it why would there need to be a school for it?  Karma isn't really a matter of white and black or the basics of justice. That's a western misunderstanding. It's a root of suffering in the senseless observation of other that is only a reflection of yourself that's meaning that was intended to be reflected.

i am going to downvote for now, because without a reference it is just an expression of your opinion on buddhism. language like 'absolution' and 'victim' and 'western misunderstanding' also seem very polemical, though i enjoyed the sense you took my "nose"

I also struggle with this answer. I wouldn't even agree that Chan is all about ';sudden enlightenment'. I would rather say it is all about embodied practice as opposed to analysis and sutra reading. If I had to pick a school this would be it and my first Buddhist text, the one that hooked me, was from this school   so the idea it is dead I find rather odd. .  .

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


text:
Through which medium does kammic information travel after the break-up of the body?
If we understand kamma-vipaka as the process of creation and perpetuation of habitual volitional deeds, we can see that, in a living being, there's a medium through which behavioral information is stored and expressed: the nervous-system and its constituents. Information is stored through the reinforcement of synaptical conections. If we agree on that, it seems that there's no need for additional explanations for the arising and ceasing of behaviors.
How does this happens after the break-up of the body? How is information transferred from the last moment before death to the newborn? Does that information waits until the formation of the brain? Is it stored in the DNA?
Do the buddhist texts offer any clue to understand this process? Do you know something that could help me to understand this process?
I know DNA and the role of the nervous system are recently known and understood (at least in part) phenomena. I'd be happy to learn about any hypothesis or tentative explanation for this process.
I don't know if this question is a valid one for this site. If it's not, feel free to close it; I'd understand.
Thanks for your time and patience!
Kind regards!

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

also see What is passed from life to life in the process of rebirth?

I don't know but perhaps I read that later schools (i.e. early schools but later than the Pali suttas) developed the doctrine of "store-house consciousness" -- ālāyavijñāna in Sanskrit -- as an answer to this question (i.e. to explain the phenomenon):

... and finally the fundamental store-house consciousness (ālāyavijñāna), which is the basis of the other seven. This eighth consciousness is said to store the impressions (vāsanāḥ) of previous experiences, which form the seeds (bīja) of future karma in this life and in the next after rebirth.

Something like that has been mentioned a few times on this site: Posts containing 'alaya'
One of the comments to this question claimed that Buddhism is "exclusively an idealistic philosophy, and not materialistic at all" -- in any case I don't know how to understand "store-house consciousness" and whether it is or was seen as a physical/material "medium" (which your question was asking about).
I think the first five consciousnesses are involved in physicality, that the last three consciousness instead have the "mind" as their "cognitive sensor" -- the Wikipedia article translates the eighth as simply "memory", which perhaps isn't assumed to be entirely associated with one body or one person.
There's a book The Buddhist Unconscious: The Alaya-vijñana in the context of Indian Buddhist Thought. Skimming through it, I think it says that the Abhidhamma originally describes mental processes as being a series of moments (thought-moments), and as such it wasn't good at explaining how or what chains those moments together -- and it was for that purpose, i.e. to explain (or "model") that, for which one or two additional types of consciousness (translated as e.g. "memory") were added to Abhidhammic doctrine:

The text is claiming,
  in other words, that neither samsara nor Nirvana are explicable without the
  continuity of mind the alaya-vijñana epitomizes – explicating, in effect, the
  opening verse in MSg I.1:

“As this [alaya-vijñana] exists, so do all the destinies
    as well as the realization of Nirvana.”

And then

Karma, rebirth, and the alaya-vijñana
The sections called the action defilements (karma-sadkleka) (MSg I.33) and the
  birth defilements (janma-sadkleka) (MSg I.34–42) largely focus upon the
  processes of rebirth. These were conceptually problematic because the series of
  material dharmas is completely severed during these periods of transition from
  one lifetime to the next. The text addresses both such junctures within the traditional three-lifetime interpretation of the formula of dependent arising: those
  which occur between the karmic formations (sadskara) and vijñana, and
  between appropriation (upadana) and existence (bhava). Since vijñana was the
  only factor explicitly stated, in both the early Pali and Abhidharma traditions,
  to continue from one lifetime to the next, the continuities of all the factors that
  must “last as long as samsara” would have to persist in some kind of relationship
  with this ongoing stream of vijñana – at least at these crucial disjunctions. This
  much was shared by the various Abhidharma schools, though their explanations
  of the exact processes involved varied considerably.
MSg I.33, for its part, argues that this form of vijñana must be the
  alaya-vijñana:

I.33. For what reason would the defilements consisting of action (karmasadkleka) be impossible [if there were no alaya-vijñana]? Because there
    would be no consciousness conditioned by the sadskaras (sadskarapratyayam vijñanam). Without that [alaya-vijñana], existence (bhava)
    conditioned by appropriation (upadana) would also be impossible.
    (MSg I.33)

(The "MSg" being cited is the Mahayana-sadgraha)
I think that's saying there's rebirth from one moment to the next within a person's life,  then at a death the rebirth from one person to another.
I think previous questions on this site have been answered along the lines of, just that there isn't a law of nature which says that consciousness is bound to a specific body -- that saying so would be a materialist view.

Thank you Chris for such thorough answer. I'm choosing this answer as "the correct one" not because I think it's true or because it makes more sense to me, but because of its sources. I have no way of knowing (at least currently) whethet this is the truth or not. Thanks, again for this answer! Kind regards!

IIRC in secondary school they taught in Physics class that descriptions of reality aren't exactly "true", that they are (per "philosophy of science") just "more-or-less good descriptions" -- for example "a photon is a particle" is kind of true, and conversely "a photon is a wave" is kind of true, and so on for every other "physical" description -- a description is a.k.a. a "model", and some models are "good" because they fit what's observed and make useful predictions.

So maybe asking "whether this is the truth or not" is a bit too black-and-white -- perhaps we're meant to ask whether it's a useful theory (i.e. a useful description).

Questions of King Milinda say, "it is nama-rupa that is reborn". When the King asks whether it is the same nama-rupa, Nagasena says, it is not the same, but this nama-rupa arises in causal continuity with the previous nama-rupa, and thus we talk about "rebirth".
Questions of King Milinda also compare rebirth to a memorized verse passing from one person to another, and to a flame passing from one lamp to another. It is clear that rebirth is about causal continuity and the passage of (some) information.
Japanese Zen patriarch Dogen explained that the underlying nature of mind is not separate from the underlying nature of the rest of material world. In numerous explanation in Zen and Vajrayana there is a rather clear consensus that the nature of mind are dynamically interacting relationships, both inside the person, and between the parts of the world.
So when we are talking about rebirth we are talking about continuity of interacting relationships implicitly "stored" or "encoded" in the fabric of activities happening in the world at large.
So the media that carries the karma after the break-up of the body is the world itself. People, things, activities, relationships carry the imprints of the previous existence into the next.
At least, this is my understanding.

Thanks Andrei! In your opinion, how can we connect this interpretation with the idea of arahanta being able to remember "past abodes" when attaining Nibbāna? Kind regards!

I do not know ;)

Thanks for the honesty. I really appreciate this. Have a wonderful day, dear Andrei. :)

However, remember MN2, Sabbasava Sutta: "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?'", also MN131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta: "You shouldn't chase after the past …And how, monks, does one chase after the past? … 'In the past I had such a form (body)'... 'In the past I had such a feeling'... 'In the past I had such a perception'... 'In the past I had such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the past I had such a consciousness.' This is called chasing after the past. "

Also, in Salistamba Sutra: "Venerable Śāriputra, whoever sees with perfect wisdom this dependent arising, perfectly taught by the Bhagavān, as it actually is … such a person does not reflect on the past thinking, ‘Did I exist in the past, or not? What was I in the past? How was I in the past?’ Nor does such a person reflect on the future thinking … Whichever dogmas … whether they involve belief in a self, a being, a person … such dogmas … are all abandoned at that time. Fully understood as false, these dogmas are severed at the root and wither like the head of a palm tree, never to arise."

I see. Thanks for those sutras. I tend to intepret tevijja as the experiential understanding of karma on "oneself" (i.e. how past intentions and volitions affected the course, presence and diminishing of dukkha), and the experience of the ceasing of all past kamma on "oneself" at the present time, attaining Nirvana. Does that make sense? Am I seeing something incorrectly? Kind regards!

RE: "oneself"... I imagine several trees standing in such way that their shadows fall in the same spot on the ground. When one of the trees shakes for whatever reason (wind, a bird, a pig, a human) - the shadow moves. Someone who is only aware of the shadows, may study the interactions between the shadows of birds, pigs etc. and the combined shadow they see on the ground, without realizing it is actually five separate trees. Speaking about past karma in terms of "oneself" is like that. But someone who sees in 3D will not think in terms of a single entity, they know there are multiple trees.

According to Buddhist teaching, Kamma is the field (hence Kamma itself is the medium) and the citta is the seed. As per Malinda Phanna, thre is no time delay between Citta.

How is information transferred from the last moment before death to the newborn? Does that information waits until the formation of the brain? Is it stored in the DNA?

I haven't seen anything explicitly mentioned in the Suttas, but there's the Abhidhamma's concept of rebirth-linking consciousness/patisandhiCitta which might have something to do with it. About the question of some sort of "storage medium" for kamma info, we don't know for sure if kamma is solely and exclusively stored in the physical/material nervous system that we know of. Afterall, the kind of "material" we know of only takes up ~ 4.5% of all the stuff out there in the universe. What if its store in some combination of dark matter/dark energy which until this day continues to elude all scientific instruments. Dark matter is so subtle that it simply goes right through our bodies and all measuring instruments without leaving any trace! And then there's the possibility of inter-body kamma manifests instantaneously without resorting to info. travel through the speed of light, kinda like the phenomenon of quantum entanglement and its "spooky action at a distance" in modern physics. Obviously all this seem like those forest leaves the Buddha didn't tell us...:-)


text:
Question about going forth (while having children & wife)
Do the scriptures somewhere mention that it's appropriate to go forth when having a wife & children?
According to the scriptures Gotama, the Buddha-to-be,  left his palace & his parents to reach enlightenment, but leaving one's parents is quite different than leaving one's wife and his child.
Reference to scriptures is highly appreciated!

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

When Rahula was born the Buddhisattava was contemplating to renouncing a householder's life hence he said "rāhulajāto bandhanaṃ jātaṃ", meaning "A rāhu is born, a fetter has arisen".
So a kid and a wife bind you to with the burden of responsibility. There were many monks who left householders life with families to become monks at the time of the Buddha. Even now in Buddhist countries, this happens.
Going forth is leaving aside ones household responsibilities to wife, children, parents, relatives and friends, so that one is free from these responsibilities, hence having more time to practice the dhamma.

Not responsibility, Nyom. For higher responsibility, beyond kamakuna. This is seen in such way just by those no faith yet, rejecting going forth. Total wrong perceived.


text:
Relation of Productivity and Entertainment
I've read a question here on music, which caused me to ponder the relationship of effortful, productive behaviours and of consummatory behaviours. I wonder:
Are productive, beneficial behaviours such as spiritual practice, intellectual pursuits, or artistic endeavours benefitted by entertainment as music, films or games? Or do such forms of entertainment detract from other more meaningful goals?
I'm wondering because I surmise maybe entertainment produces positive emotions, which are positive in themselves. However, I am uncertain of my conclusion; what is the Buddhist view on these topics?
Are positive emotions only virtuous if accompanied by an underlying motivation towards a meaningful aim?
Thank you

There is work and there is play and both can be clung to. Personally I cannot motivate myself if there is no play so what I do is try to turn all my play into productive work.  I make music and I try to incorporate that into the Dhamma like I try to incorporate the need for food, clothing, shelter and medical care into spiritual practice.

Are productive, beneficial behaviours such as spiritual practice, intellectual pursuits, or artistic endeavours benefitted by entertainment as music, films or games? Or do such forms of entertainment detract from other more meaningful goals?

In a general sense (going outside the scope of buddhism), without an overarching scientific, philosophic or religious framework for defining meaning it is impossible to discern whether these things are beneficial or mere distractions.

I'm wondering because I surmise maybe entertainment produces positive emotions, which are positive in themselves. However, I am uncertain of my conclusion; what is the Buddhist view on these topics?

One way to address this is through the concept of vipallasa:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.olen.html

Are positive emotions only virtuous if accompanied by an underlying motivation towards a meaningful aim?

In a strict sense, pleasure seeking is not virtuous in buddhism. Without the moral precepts (sila) in buddhism it would be hard to discern what is virtuous or unvirtuous.

Average laymen need only observe the 5 precepts so can pursue any artistic endeavours or watch any of them.
When observing Uposatha one can take the 8 or 10 precepts where one devote the day to dhamma practice setting aside other household activities. In this case, one puts aside entertainment also.
Entertainment produces unwholesome states:

Tāla,puta Sutta
Therefore, for a serious meditator, this will be a stumbling block.
Also, see: A Buddhist Perspective on Entertainment An Enigma Named Thalaputa

I don't think that the scriptures say that lay-people can heedlessly engage in any entertainment. The Buddha definitely taught to the lay that restraint also should be practised and that good friends and morality is to be sought out.


text:
Is there a connection between the Hindu and Buddhist Centres of Psychic Energy?
Further to my earlier question --What is the method for "Coupling of the Serenity and Insight Powers" referred to in the Path of Discrimination? -- a fresh question has surfaced based on the book Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism by Lama Govinda.
On page 133 of this book reference is made to "The Doctrine of Psychic Centres in Hinduism and Buddhism". As a Theravada Buddhist, the concept of psychic centres and kundalini shakthi was never alluded to, as I thought it was not a part of the Theravada doctrine. However, now, in the context of the earlier question referred to on the method for coupling of the serenity and insight powers, there seems to be a direct link between the Hindu and Buddhist Doctrines. The essential difference is that Hindu Psychic Centres (chakras) are static whilst the Buddhist ones are dynamic -- see page 134:

"The Buddhist system is less concerned with the static-objective side of the chakras, but rather with that which flows through them, with their dynamic functions i.e. the transformation of that current or nature-energies into spiritual potentialities."

Since at the Moment of Enlightenment the Buddha is said to have generated sufficient Energy to "rock the entire universe" and the above question is also in the context of coupling the insight (vipassana) and serenity (samatha) Energies at the Moment of Path Entry, could we now see a connection between the Kundalini Shakthi of Hinduism and the Vishwa Shakthi (Cosmic Consciousness) of Buddhism?

I have been thinking about this for a while as you meditate one gets experiences which are similar to those described in yoga texts. The yoga texts discuss energy centres and the flow of energy through them starting from the Muladhara.
In Theravada Buddhism, all these experiences related to Kundalini are categorised into Piti. Also, there is no reference to for awakening and making it flow through the chakras. I guess this might be since these experiences can be a source of attachment to the blissful feeling this is not directly related to letting go of craving and also people may be preoccupied with these experiences than developing higher wisdom.
Path consciousness happens balanced with the Jhana when insight and calm are well balanced:

The First Jhāna Sotāpatti Path-consciousness together with initial application, sustained application, joy, happiness, and one-pointedness,

The Second Jhāna Sotāpatti Path-consciousness together with sustained application, joy, happiness, and one-pointedness,

The Third Jhāna Sotāpatti Path-consciousness together with joy, happiness, and one-pointedness,

The Fourth Jhāna Sotāpatti Path-consciousness together with happiness and one-pointedness,

The Fifth Jhāna Sotāpatti Path-consciousness together with equanimity and one-pointedness.

These are the five types of Sotāpatti Path-consciousness.
So are the Sakadāgāmī Path-consciousness, Anāgāmī Path-consciousness, and Arahatta Path-consciousness, making exactly twenty classes of consciousness. Similarly there are twenty classes of Fruit-consciousness. Thus there are forty types of supra mundane consciousness.

In the 1st - 3rd Jhana there is Piti which can be taken as the similarity with kundalini.

The key issue appears to be Energy or "Iddhi-padas.' This question is focused more towards the art of Coupling such Energies, at the moment of Path Entry, as against the mechanics of obtaining the jhanas. The Buddhist Dictionary by Ven Nyanatiloka in the context of "Being connected with the Path" states that the  Iddhi-pada (p.76)"through making Intention a predominant factor, reaches concentration....(Chanda Samadhi). Vajrayana Buddhism refers to Intention as Dharani or as Visualization. Yogis appear to ignore Iddhipada.  Perhaps Intention ensures seamless Coupling of two Energies? Perhaps?

Further to the above comment, page 73 of 'The Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism" by Lama Govinda, refers to a chapter on the "Double Role of the Mind (Manas). This chapter refers to the Role of the Siddhis.(aka Iddhipada in Theravada). This appears to provide a more specific solution from the Vajrayana standpoint, to this problem of making a break through into the Noble Path Moment, that has presumably bedeviled many Theravada  yogis. Vajrayana refers to eight types of Consciousness as against the six in Theravada. This distinction may clear the air to a degree, for non Vajrayana yogis.


text:
Nature of Spiritual Writings
When I write certain texts, in the presence of inspiration, the topic turns towards high ideals, for example beauty. The phenomenon is odd and prevalent in my life: I have written hundreds of such texts, where the topic of beauty appears almost spontaneously. It usually generates a strong awe.
I'm unsure what is going on in these cases; am I generating some archetype? Am I engaging in a spiritual process? I even write beauty as 'Beauty', with a capital 'B', to suggest its ideal nature, which was common in western history.
Or, in the context of Buddhism, am I generating more attachment? Basically, despite me not feeling attached, I consistently and inevitably return to the topic of beauty and high ideals, almost in an obsessive manner. People I've shown these texts to say they don't quite follow what I'm saying in them.
For such a somewhat spiritual experience, how can I know whether I'm doing something meaningful and legitimate, or just causing more attachment?
In sum, I'm asking how this experience -- or other spiritual experiences -- are evaluated in Buddhism.

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

When doing your writing see what feelings you get and does it lead to:

a decrease in unwholesome states and/or increase in wholesome states
an increase in unwholesome states and/or decrease in wholesome states

“What now, bhikshus, haven’t you known me to have taught the Dharma in this way:

THE 2 KINDS OF PLEASANT FEELINGS.

Here, when one feels a certain kind of pleasant feeling, unwholesome states grow in him and wholesome states lessen;
but when one feels another kind of pleasant
feeling, unwholesome states lessen in him and wholesome states grow.

THE 2 KINDS OF PAINFUL FEELINGS.

Here, when one feels a certain kind of painful feeling, unwholesome states grow in him and wholesome states lessen;
but when one feels another kind of painful feeling, unwholesome states lessen in him and wholesome states grow.

THE 2 KINDS OF NEUTRAL FEELINGS.

Here, when one feels a certain kind of neutral feeling, unwholesome states grow in him and wholesome states lessen;
but when one feels another kind of neutral feeling, unwholesome states lessen in him and wholesome states grow.’?”

... [more detail description of the above follows in the Sutta]

Kīṭā,giri Sutta
If what you write increases lust, fantasy/delusion, greed, etc. then this is unwholesome.
Since ou writing is spiritual it might be wholesome if you write is in line with the Dhamma.
One way to discern how unwholesome states arise is as follows:

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings;

Pahāna Sutta
Dealing with sensations at a more granular level can be found in: Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta

Is there any way to improve one's capacity to discern whether it produces wholesome or unwholesome states? The topics are usually virtuous, but I sometimes doubt / worry that it is unwholesome, without much evidence that it could be unwholesome.

I updated it accordingly.

I don't know what spiritual writing you're talking about, of course.
From my own experience, text[s] like Speaking of Siva (translations of devotional poetry from Bhakti saints) is attractive -- similarly Gibran's The Prophet -- actually I've read a lot of literature, my Dad used to read to me before I could even read for myself -- it's attractive, I find it attractive and engaging, it engages a part, a vocal part, a 'talky' and somewhat rhythmic part of my mind, my brain. I'm not sure it's especially 'spiritual'? It's entertaining and engaging.
Maybe I'm a 'sucker' for literature (as well as friendly speech) -- you mentioned Beauty, for example -- I even get hung up on how well authors like Tolkien use punctuation marks in their dialog.
So I guess it's like music, it's kind of harmless as a hobby -- and the suttas don't recommend music, do they, see also the seventh precept -- though Buddhist literature itself apparently uses a lot of poetic metre (the Dhammapada).
You might also/alternatively want to experiment with what is in a sense 'liberating' -- with not 'engaging' the mind; and perhaps with what's overtly ethical -- perhaps just practical, perhaps generous, etc.
It's not only rhythm that's attractive, perhaps it's also the familiar -- if you "delighted in it" in your first exposure then you may want to seek it out or to recreate that experience again -- almost the very definition of attachment. So vocabulary, like Beauty but also even Ethics, might be hollow.
Here is a famous Christian saying, on approximately that subject (I don't know an equivalent Buddhist one):

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; etc.

It's often read as a text at weddings.
Anyway, and leaving aside the topic of "Christian love" compared with any Buddhist ideals, I think its point is that "speaking with the tongue of angels" isn't of itself a virtue.

This quote from Margaret Fell suggests a similar problem:

We are all thieves, we are all thieves, we have taken the Scriptures in words and know nothing of them in ourselves

A Buddhist-tradition equivalent might be "the finger pointing at the moon" ("the finger" being words, and "the moon" enlightenment).

Maybe it's the opposite i.e. that the allure is specifically the bit that isn't meaningful or valuable :-( ... for example if I wrote, "Meaning guides the mind while Beauty guides the soul". The Buddhist archetype seems to me to maybe begin with ethics (rather than aesthetics), maybe even end with ethics too. The dhamma may be akaliko, but words seem to be conditional.

I expressed myself pretty lousily, I meant to say more: "Words that are ONLY alluring only have allure, but lack meaning." I don't doubt that meaning is the essential quality of valuable speech haha

"So you don't, doubt?", he asked playfully. "Maybe you should doubt, and doubt that? :-) Maybe I doubt ... better than to be certainly wrong, am I right? I once read, "Don't study the subject: study the teacher." Maybe (I'm not sure) what's good or meaningful about buddha-vacana is the fact of its being taught by the Buddha, i.e. because it allows us to study the Buddha, and possibly meaningless (or 'empty' and without 'essence') if it weren't for that -- though I note that the Buddha himself said he revered the Dhamma itself, since he had no other teacher to revere."


text:
Nature of Integrity in Buddhism
Following an answer I received previously, I wonder a question I deem somewhat important:
If a person preaches ideas or advice related to the dharma, but fails to live by those values, is this person lying? If not, is there still a consequence in terms of the person's mind, perhaps integrity?

It's not very conductive for one self and others, but higher as the person who neither praises nor does himself under the four. No need to state that acting unvirtuose is unskillful. So the 2. lowest person.

This is not lying unless you pretend or say you follow the advice.
Dhamma practice is a gradual exercise hence one does not become perfect at once but it is a matter of putting int the effort to increase one's perfection:

cultivate what is wholesome which one does not already do
increase what is wholesome which one already does
abandone what is unwholesome which one already does
prevent the arsing of what is unwholesome which one does not already do

There is a Sutta to say that there are four types of persons.

A person who helps themselves but no help to others.
A person who does not help themselves but help others
A person who neither helps themselves no others.
A person who help themselves and help others

Canonically (perhaps according to the vinaya) I think that the definition of "lying" includes "intent to deceive".
Comparing how you live to an ideal might be self-view or conceit see e.g. How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
Note that comparison (conceit) can be beneficial in some circumstance, if you use it as guidance for betterment (see e.g. the Bhikkhuni sutta, or the advice to the young Rahula)