text:
How important is the Sixth Precept to monks and nuns?
I can only speak from the Mahayana world but I'd be very interested in the Theravada side. I'm suspect it will be enlightening.
How important is the Sixth Precept to monks and nuns? In my experience the few that profess a claim to follow it refer to "noon" as something nebulous or in a different time zone. Every monastic I know eats after noon. Also if it doesn't have to be followed then why? It seems the bending of precepts can be a dangerous thing or like the proverb says "Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works".
Thank you so much for your time.

I'm thinking we may have to close this... we don't really encourage forum-like questions like this. SE is a "best-answer" platform, and doesn't lend itself well to open-ended or opinion-based questions like this. If you want to edit your question to ask about Theravada specifically, there might be a single best answer... but then you are also asking more than one question.

Here's an alleged quote from the Dalai Lama,

After my lunch I come here to my office until about 5:30. Then at 6:00 I have my evening tea-as a Buddhist monk, no dinner, sometimes just a few biscuits or some bread. At that time I always watch BBC television. Then evening meditation for about one hour and at 8:30, sleep. Most important meditation! Sleep is the common meditation for everyone-even for birds. The most important meditation. Not for nirvana, but for survival!

In other words he "eats" but doesn't "have dinner".

In this video Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu explained why he prefered to eat once a day.
It's noticeable that both his companions laughed at time 12:15 of this video.


text:
Barrier of "tumult" during meditation
Could someone help me understand, or at least name, a phenomenon which may be standing in the way of meditative practice. It is so hard to express that I'm at a loss to know where to begin to seek help.
It could perhaps be best expressed as a sudden tumult of sensation (mainly voices and images), like a confused radio or instrument panel on an aircraft struck by lightning. It is almost impossible to comprehend its contents and, sadly, like with very sudden external noises, and the like, jolts me out of practice such that it suddenly irretrievably ends the session. It has no fixed emotional or intellectual content, but is nevertheless strongly emotional and intellectual in an unfixed way, like the sea is strong but fluid. It is not a somatic (body) sensation (ie not tingling, or whatever), but one of the mind. I suppose if pushed, many images include people I love, but that is a tiny part. It is draining.
It begins some time after I transfer from a meditating for calm and emptiness (which is familiar and which I've practised for years, principally through concentration, mindfulness, non-clinging to thoughts and images, awareness of body, etc) into noticing and contemplating the way things are per se, without objective beyond understanding (ie no for).
I'm interested in the scholarship of religion (a theology geek) and so have taken time to understand, intellectually, the ideas behind Buddhist practice, along with many other religions, without any real sense of membership.
But it's only recently that I've begun to consider these in the context of meditation (ie the thing rather than the idea).
I would be interested to know what this is, what the right thing to do with it is in order that I could proceed with meditation, ideally not dropping out of it whenever it happens. Does it help to keep a structure to this form of meditation rather than drifting to it from intellectual knowledge and a calmed state?
If it has a name that I could look for it in books, etc, that would be particularly useful.

(note: I assume you practice vipassana) "suddenly irretrievably ends the session" -- in what sense? I'd suggest that you investigate much closer what is happening there, not the content of myriads of thoughs/images, be mindful as clearly as possible (in that moment) of your reaction (confusion, draining), perhaps your effort to comprehend all of it, the wish to have calm, annoyance... One of the traditional five hindrance-categories is restlessness, that's what you experience. Meditation is not designed to get you rid of it, it is to help you see it as clear as possible.

Sorry for not accepting this yet: I am still working it through.

I won't try to guess exactly what you're experiencing, but one thing that trips people up a lot is the expectation that meditation is a one-way road to greater and greater calm. In reality, there's an initial calming, followed by the emergence of various kinds of experiences at other layers of the mind, some of which are pleasant or orderly, some of which aren't.
One thing that Buddhism teaches is that the mind is a sixth sense alongside vision, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. This means that thoughts and mental imagery are on the same level as sights and sounds- they are data that enters through "your" doors of perception from "outside". They don't belong to you and are largely out of your control.
This is contrary to our usual Cartesian model of thinking that our Thoughts are the expression of our core Self, and it's also contrary to the common idea of meditation as the conscious quieting of all thoughts.
I only have my own experience to go on, but I believe that the ability to achieve a complete stilling of the roiling, random soup of images in our minds is very very rare, if it exists at all, and not a requisite for good practice.

Thank you Rob. That's reassuring. A lot of questions on this site about experiences during meditation ring very true and so are helpful. With it being such an experience inaccessible to direct showing, it's hard to be taught. It helps a lot to hear other people's experiences, such as yours.

Thank you for your answer Rob, which was fascinating: you're right that I wasn't acknowledging the externality of such things.
I don't know what it was, but it went away.

I'm glad the comment was helpful. There's a lot of things on this path that seem to just get up and go away, without explanation. (And they cycle back sometimes, too. The path is spiral-shaped :) )

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should Buddhists use statues with an imagined likeness of the Buddha for veneration?
Should Buddhists use statues with an imagined likeness of the Buddha for veneration? The Buddha discouraged making images in his likeness (Kalinga Bodhi jataka), and has said that the Buddha cannot be likened to a statue.

Do you have a quote from the Suttas where Buddha discouraged it?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j4/j4043.htm "A shrine of memorial (uddesika cetiya) is improper because the connection depends on the imagination only". Uddesika cetiya are Buddha images.

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/BBB-5-Seeing-the-Buddha-1.pdf

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/BBB-6-Seeing-the-Buddha-2.pdf

Also we know that the Buddha was shaven headed, however almost all the statues depicting the Buddha show him with a full set of hair. How would statue venerating Buddhists react to a hairless statue?

Actually, he had hair. http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/2815/471

Good question :) probably not popular with devout Buddhists...

Even though the Uddesika Chetiya is not perfect to represent the Buddha, it doesn't mean that paying respect to it is not meritorious.
Read the story of Pulinathupiya thero.
There was a monastery on a rock called 'Samanga' near the Himalaya forest. There lived a hermit named Narada. He had fourteen thousand students. One day he thought, "I'm living here receiving respect and worship from everyone else, but I don't have anyone to worship. I don't have anyone to take advice from. This is not good!". So he searched for such a person, but couldn't find anyone that is worthy.
But he did not give up the idea.
There was a river called 'Amarika' nearby. He took sand from that river and made a stupa with no Dhatu inside. He likened that to the stupas of the past Buddhas and started worshiping it like a Buddha who is staying nearby. Because of that good deed, he was born in heavens many times and in his last life, he was born to a wealthy family in Savatti. He was able to attain Arhathship at the age of seven by recalling back to that past life.
So, if worshiping to a pile of sand with nothing in it could bring about such an outcome, there's no question of the merits of paying respect to a Buddha statue.
Besides, using a statue to remember a great person is a common practice in civilised societies. There were Buddha statues in monasteries in ancient times when there were many Arahaths. They didn't raise any objection. There are references to Buddha statues in the commentaries(Dhakkhina vibhanga sutta). There have been many debates about certain opinions of ancient Dhamma teachers which were recorded in Kathawattupakaranaya. But there's no record of anyone objecting the reverence of Buddha statues.
None of the statues that exist in the world can be likened to the Buddha 100% as the Thaththaga is Appatimo. The statues themselves have many differences. But most of them have a certain similarity which creates an undeniable sense of respect and awe in us towards the Buddha.
ex: Samadhi Statue of Sri Lanka. The first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru once said he found solace and strength in a photograph of this statue when he was imprisoned by the British in 1940s.

Even though the image will never be same as The Buddha himself, I believe there is nothing wrong with having the image for veneration. Personally, I feel so much peaceful and secure. One of advantages for me is that I usually discourage myself to think any unnecessary thought others than related to Dhamma while I am at a temple where you can usually see big statues of The Buddha.  Nevertheless,

"Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees
  Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing
  Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

Reference from here

Thanks Aknay. If it helps for peace and calmness then there is a benefit. Unfortunately many people use the Buddha image as an amulet, or lucky charm. Almost every other car in Sri Lanka has a small Buddha image on its dashboard these days, to either say 'I am Buddhist', or 'seeking protection and safe travels' from a statue. Then temples compete with each other as to which has the larger statues. Venerating statues quickly turns to superstition and competition.

@KaveengaWijayasekara Agree. Well, deteriorating and disappointing if you look at that way. If you look from other way, we should be glad that we are born in Buddhist country where we can still read a lot of good books in our own language. I remembered the monk mentioned that the change has to start from you. Then slowly educate/teach your family, friends, relatives and so on... I believe that is also the responsibility for a lay Buddhist.

Thich Nhat Hanh said that, when he was seven years old, he saw a picture of the Buddha on the cover of a Buddhist magazine.

He was sitting on the grass ... very peaceful ... smiling. And I was impressed. Around me people were not like that, so I had the desire to be someone like him.

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


text:
Did the Buddha give any advice on how to manage economy?
I was wondering if the Buddha did give any advice on how to manage personal economics?
I assume that the advice would be the middle way as applied to everything else in Buddhism. To stay away from the extremes meaning e.g. spending all of ones money on one thing and instead divide ones amount of money in an equal way.
I remember once reading something about dividing one portion of ones money to food, bills, medicin etc., then one portion to enjoyment, then one portion to charity, then one portion to savings. Unfortunately i have no idea where i read it or if its actually really advice that came from the Buddha.
Thank you for your time.
Lanka

There is good discussion in this article, this article and this article. You can read those for much advice.
For canonical advice:
The Sigalovada Sutta states:

The wise endowed with virtue Shine forth like a burning fire,
  Gathering wealth as bees do honey And heaping it up like an ant hill.
  Once wealth is accumulated, Family and household life may follow. By
  dividing wealth into four parts, True friendships are bound; One part
  should be enjoyed; Two parts invested in business; And the fourth set
  aside Against future misfortunes."

The Dighajanu Sutta states:

"And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
  the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
  wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
  penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
  my outflow will not exceed my income.' Just as when a weigher or his
  apprentice, when holding the scales, knows, 'It has tipped down so
  much or has tipped up so much,' in the same way, the lay person,
  knowing the income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood
  in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus
  will my income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my
  income.'
"These are the four drains on one's store of wealth: debauchery in
  sex; debauchery in drink; debauchery in gambling; and evil friendship,
  evil companionship, evil camaraderie. Just as if there were a great
  reservoir with four inlets and four drains, and a man were to close
  the inlets and open the drains, and the sky were not to pour down
  proper showers, the depletion of that great reservoir could be
  expected, not its increase.

The Adiya Sutta discusses the 5 benefits obtained from one's wealth. The fifth is charity.
And don't forget that income should come from Right Livelihood, as stated in the Vanijja Sutta:

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

25% enjoyed, 25% saved, 50% on business. I agree but these numbers must be drastically altered if you are poor.


text:
eye movement during meditation
During my past several meditation sessions, which have been getting a little longer (approx 20 minutes now), I have noticed that my eyes twitch and move involuntarily -- it feels similar to the eye movements you can see when people are in REM sleep.
As far as my meditation is concerned, it feels very distracting -- it typically occurs when I feel like I'm on the precipice of deeper concentration, but it results in so much motion and tension that it typically breaks my concentration.
Has anyone else encountered this before? After googling around, I found one meditator explain that this was a sign of slipping into "trance," not of deeper concentration. Is that a thing? Any thoughts on remedies? Thanks!

Question: are your eyes open or closed? I have been having the same thing happen to me (eyes open), and it always seems just at the precipice of getting deeper into that concentration state. I don't have a lot of experience so I was wondering if it was a neurological thing specific to me, or just to be expected with concentration meditation. I also notice that it coincides with the peripheral objects (those objects I am NOT concentrating on) starting to fade out or become distinctly surreal.

Eyes closed. It's been getting better as I train myself to notice it, but not get caught up in it

Any update on how it goes, Ian? I started to experience the same eye movement in my last couple of meditation sessions. It comes when I reach a deeper state of concentration and reminds me of REM sleep movements as well (eyes closed too). I can deal with it for some minutes, although it's a bit uncomfortable.
Did not find much about it on the web..
Have you trained to not let it happen? Thanks!

Yeah, I've definitely learned to ignore it. Now I don't even notice it, and it doesn't really happy as much anyway. I guess that's the point of meditation-- you learn to deal with a lot of minor annoyances, and get to much deeper truths as a result :)

If you feel alert, and not sleepy or distracted while it happens, it may be one of the things that naturally occurs as you start to get deeper concentration.
A number of vaguely unpleasant experiences can spring up- aches, itching, etc.; they come with the territory, and aren't problems in and of themselves, although they may feel frustrating when you're starting to enjoy the sense of concentration.
Take note that it happens, and take note of the feelings of frustration or distraction as they emerge. If you have time, see if you can sit until you get to the other side of it; but don't worry too much if you can't, right away. It's likely a sign that you're doing well, believe it or not.

I started experiencing the same phenomenon a few months back. Originally, the eyes movements were very controlled, but during one session they went absolutely insane, rapidly jerking in all directions. In the beginning, I was quite fascinated, as it reminded me of REM sleep as well.
However,  I began experience these eyes movements incessantly, involuntarily, in and out of meditative states, to the point where it would happen at work and I would have to leave my desk until my eyes calmed down. To be honest it happened so much that my eyes actually physically hurt and I had a lot of trouble sleeping. I've had a CT SCAN, MRI, EEG, and so far they doctor's are very much out of their territory..in other words they have no idea what is going on. They do however don't believe it to be a seizure, so perhaps that will help calm your mother.
I would just say be careful, as this has caused a lot of unwanted chaos in my life.
Good luck with it!

Good advice to bear in mind

I use a form of concentration practice called zhine that is used in Tibetan dream yoga. It is similar to kasina, in that it involves sitting and staring at a little coloured disc. You're supposed to keep your eyes from blinking and gaze constantly at the disc. If the eyes move it's very noticeable! But, you do learn to deal with it effectively.
What I have noticed is that the movements of my eyes correspond with movements in my mind. As I become more concentrated, my eyes move less. The eyes are the windows to the soul, after all. (Note: the eyes are constantly moving, but in very small, generally imperceptible ways. Just to be clear, I'm referring to the movements that we would actually call movements in general life.)
I also find that when "on the precipice" before a deeper level of concentration, extra mental energy occurs. I think this is because the energy being wasted in unconcentrated mental activity becomes available as that activity ends. It feels good and can manifest as joy, and/or can be overwhelming and distracting. If I make an effort then these changes are not distracting and actual form the basis for entering the next level. Greater mental energy allied with good focus are, naturally, what you'd require for a deeper level, so it would seem to follow.
The main thing I try to remember is that it is not the goal to become concentrated, it is the goal to practise concentration. Concentration is a by-product of concentration practice. Just as stronger muscles are by-product of physical exercise. What's important in both is to focus on a) doing it, and b) following the correct technique.
Nowhere have I ever seen a practice include the directive "and when you lose concentration, become annoyed with yourself". Distraction is normal, all you need to do is to be aware you've lost some focus, and then refocus.
Hope that helps.

When you meditate some of your old stock of conditioning / fabrications comes to the surface when you are not creating new fabrication. This is like old fuel burning (wood at the lower layers) when you are not adding new wood to the fire. When some of the old stock of fabrications or karma start coming out in quick succession this might lead to a "storm" or "lollercoaster experience" like vibration or pulsations or even eye movements.
Also when concentration is deepening vibrations (twitching, pulsing, etc.) do arise. This is due to Piti.

Whenever you feel your eyes moving too much or straining during meditation, relax all tension around the eyes. Your eyes will tense up again, and when they do, relax the tension again. Check in with the tension on your eyes every few moments, and repeat this relax step as many times as necessary. Eventually your eyes will get used to staying relaxed and it will be easier to notice when you're straining them. It also helps you balance your energy in meditation by letting you know you're trying too hard.
Pay attention to what it feels like for your eyes to be relaxed when you close them naturally in your daily life, like when you brush your teeth, or wash your hair or lay down to sleep. Try to notice the position of the eyes and how relaxed they are. Then try bringing that, or replicating that feeling, when you start meditation.
Once you're familiar with this feeling and your eyes are relaxed, experiment with increasing your mental concentration without moving or straining your eyes. Walking meditation is an excellent way for you to learn how to develop concentration without unintentionally focusing or squinting your eyes.
If nothing else works, don't meditate for a day 2-3 days so that your eyes can rest and you can break the bad habit. Sometimes time itself is enough to reset our habitual actions.

I get this too, don't fight it ! Let your eyes go out of control and relax. My eyes tend to go wild right before the calm. This typically tastes a lot of energy out of me and I sometimes end with a temporary headache. But sometimes if you relax enough and just let your mind take you,  you will discover pretty intense emotional things. Many times I have gotten almost visions or strong connections with something much greater and I cry istantly before I even know what hits me. It's honestly so incredible and beautiful.

https://www.adf.org/rituals/meditations/basic-meditation.html, that is actually the first clue that you are falling into deeper meditation, at that state it is very good for your brain, and you are stimulating that part that only happens when you are asleep, but you are doing it while awake. It takes me about 15 minutes into meditation to reach this point. Just keep going and you'll reach a new level. <3

I get this rapid eye movement as soon as I start my meditation, however the movement isn't whats breaking my concentration, it is a pain right on top of my eyes. I do meditate with my eyes closed. But is it bad that I get this so fast?

Dear friend, it seems you have a question. If you have a question, then feel free to ask it. If you see someone asking the same thing, look at that question's answers and see if it helps, if not ask your question. If you think that the people who answered the previous question can answer your's too, then ask it in the comments or invite them to a chat in the chat rooms. You should not use answer section to ask questions.

Okay I will re-do my question properly later. Thank you.

i do agree the REM is sign of deep meditative state, so what you experience is a gateway already. My personal experience is one REM state during meditation at a guru house( part of yoga teacher training in Inida). The last day i got REM state , while the guru is saying wonderful. The REM lead me to a certain vision, and it was so vivid. However, after i was back, i hardly get to the REM during meditation. Now i am studying lucid dream. REM can induce a perfect lucid dream during medtation if you can get into the state.So for you, for those can easily get REM, it is your advantage. Try to make good use of that to lead to your a dream state. I also wonder if anyone know how to induce REM.

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


text:
What is Enlightenment, according to Robert Wright?
Robert Wright had a course about relations between Buddhism and modern psychology. I didn't have chance to watch the whole course, and I'm wondering how he sees enlightenment from that perspective. I hope I can get an answer from someone who attended the course or knows Robert Wright's take on enlightenment from other sources.

I've read Paul Bloom's review of the '"Evolution of God" by Robert Wright, though he says it's a brilliant book. His thinking is inconsistent, contradicting himself as he argues as an agnostic. >  In Bloom's word "he argues, religions like Buddhism have sometimes “outperformed the Abrahamics.” But this sounds like the death of God, not his evolution."  I quote " Also, it would be a terribly minimalist God. Wright himself describes it as “somewhere between illusion and imperfect conception.” ". How do you make out someone's view if they are inconsistent in their thinking.

To know if somebody is inconsistent, we need to know what he says. So far nobody has provided any answer about what Wright says about the Enlightenment, so discussing its possible inconsistency is pointless.

When this class was originally offered, I took it.  Sorry to say, but I may not have watched those videos, as I don't remember what he said.  However, an email just came into my mailbox; the course has now been made available in "on-demand" mode, so you can watch the videos yourself to see what he said: https://www.coursera.org/learn/science-of-meditation

Your question gave rise to an interest in this course which I began today, finishing week one. Enlightenment is covered in weeks three. I will pay special attention and get back to you regarding your question.

I took this course and my feeling is that Robert Wright is more into about asking questions rather than giving answers. At most he would give you potential answers, but it's up to you to decide for yourself what is "the answer".


text:
Trouble understanding the notion of interconnectedness
I started meditating regularly a few months agowith the aim of practising mindfulness,  primarily using Headspace.  I also read Sam Harris' Waking Up and listened to the Science of Mindfulness lectures by Ronald D. Siegel.
I find a lot of the ideas very compelling (living outside of the present moment as a source of unhappiness, the impermanence of all things) and I am also beginning to see the benefit of meditation for my mental state.
The only concept I have trouble taking on board is the interconnectedness of all beings.  I have read various descriptions, some coming from the modern, Western take on mindfulness and this notion still doesn't resonate with me. My reaction remains 'we're not connected whether we believe in separate selves or not.'  So perhaps I'm taking this too literally. Is interconnectedness just a way of saying 'we're all in the same boat and will have a run of bad luck in the end' rather than some sort of mystic connection?
I'm not sure how clearly I stated what my confusion is but I would appreciate any insight.

interconnectedness sounds like the universal soul concept of Hinduism. Buddhism rejects that.

I couldn't judge but it seems to be kicking around in the context of Buddhism as well: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernie-glassman/buddhism-and-occupy-wall-street_b_1136501.html

Ah that is Mahayana. I was speaking from a Theravada Buddhist perspective.

"Interconnectedness" in Buddhism arises from the principle of "dependent origination". Dependent origination is an alternate way of viewing cause-and-effect relationships. Rather than saying "A causes B", (that is, one fixed object or idea leads to another fixed object or idea), it says instead:
"B arises and is supported in dependence on A, so that if A passes away, B also passes away".
That then extends to the fact that A also depends on supporting conditions, and those supporting conditions also depend on other supporting conditions, and so on and so on ad infinitum. Nothing exists independent of supporting conditions that allow it to continue existing.
So your "being" exists dependent not only on other beings, but on a whole mess of other conditions (such as the composition of your body, the environment...) and all those things also have infinitely long chains of dependence. As a result, everything is in flux and nothing has a completely self-referential, independent existence.
(This, by the way, is the source of a common misconception that Buddhism teaches that "nothing exists" or "nothing is real". It does teach that nothing exists absolutely, but things most definitely do exist in relation to their supporting conditions, which is why you should still look both ways before crossing the street :) )
You can take this on a very empirical and non-mystical level. But through practices like vipassana where you start to get a felt sense of the constant flux, the constant creation/destruction of your own experience rooted in ever-changing conditions, welllll... you could start to feel that there's something mystical (or at least, indescribably big!) about it.
Editing to add something more to the point of your question: Practice also brings ever-widening insights into the way that you impact others and the way they impact you, which aren't necessarily "mystical", but they are subtle, and call into question the boundaries of your personality. It's more mundane than "I am one with the universe"; but it's richer than "stuff happens". Somewhere between the two :)

I follow the argument about causal relationships but it seems that different people have entirely different experiences: living in a country ravaged by famine vs. being brought up in a loving home in a Western country. There is a tenuous connection between any two people but to say they are interconnected or the same doesn't seem justified to me.
Also, some people seem to be inherently more mindful. A friend of mine who has never meditated is one of the most serene people I know. Naturally focused on the present, undistracted, never brooding on the past or future. Most of us aren't like that.

Well, the connections between 2 different people are too numerous to grasp, and they all flow through other connections. And connectedness doesn't necessarily imply identicalness... although if you move your perspective outwards, all people-- and, further still, all living beings-- and further still, all matter-- look more and more identical. I know that sounds absurdly reductionist, but as insight knowledge progresses, our incredible malleability and sensitivity to our surroundings becomes clearer.

My reaction remains 'we're not connected whether we believe in separate selves or not.'

I think the idea of "self" and "separate" go together: if we are not a "self" then we are not "separate selves" (because, where is the boundary?), and we are therefore interconnected: isn't that right?

The article you posted (Arising to the Interconnectedness of Life? A Buddhist Perspective on the Occupy Movement) doesn't seem to me especially clear on the subject. IMO the clearest part of its message is to avoid seeing other people as Other and therefore behaving inhumanely.

In this video, Dalai Lama's guide to happiness, the Dalai Lama says,

I never consider myself as something special. If I consider myself as something different from you, like I am Buddhist, or even more, I am His Holiness the Dalai Lama, or even if I consider I am Nobel Laureate, then actually you create yourself as a prisoner. I forget these things, I simply consider I am one of the seven billion human beings. We are mentally, emotionally, intellectually, we are the same.

The video is 8 minutes long and you could watch it. He goes on to say that people get fulfillment of purpose, and "always feel happy", from helping others, etc.

Both the interdependency and interrelatedness of phenomena are profound things. They cannot be fully grasped or understood by the intellect. It can be helpful to think about these things in order to grapple with them but that is the limit.
When practicing insight meditation and thereby transforming the intellectual "book knowledge" into experiental knowledge is what creates understanding of reality. When reality is taken as an meditation object insight into how reality functions can arise.
Think about it like going to a restaurant and reading about all the dishes on the menu cart. Can one then understand the flavour of the food? What if one reads the menu cart, orders the food and then eats the food. Can one then understand the flavour or the food? The last option is the experiental knowledge while the first option only gives access to intellectual knowledge which will only give one the ability to peek through the door. The last option will give one the ability to open the door and walk into the room.
There is a chinese school of Buddhism called Huayan School of Buddhism which you can take a look at. They "specialize" in the interdependency/interrelatedness of phenomena.
In there is also the story about Lord Indra and his Jewelled net. In short the story goes that Lord Indra has in his palace a big 3D net of jewels and in each interslice there is a jewel. When looking at that jewel you can see the entire net of jewels and when looking in the jewel of the superficial jewel again you can see the entire net of jewels. That goes on ad infinitum. This is called infinite regress.
You can look at interdependency of phenomena by using the method of analysis and thereby looking at phenomena at a minute basis - like looking at them in a microscope. In insight meditation one can clearly see that phenomena are caused by other phenomena and that phenomena arises on basis of other phenomena. Phenomena cannot become established by themselves. The fact that conditioned reality changes all the time can be seen. The impermanence is due to the fact that phenomena are being set up by other phenomena.
Another way to look at it is by looking a detail and context. Take a tree for example. The tree consists of bark, leaves, trunk, flower. But the tree in a way also consists of rain water, sunlight and earth. Without these non-tree elements there is no tree. So phenomena are merely reflections of other phenomena and no "single, permanent or unchangable" phenomena can be found in the conventional reality.
Lanka

Here's something on dependent origination by Sogyal Rinpoche (Sogyal Rinpoche (2009), The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, Harper Collins, Kindle Edition):

...all things, when seen and understood in their true relation, are
  not independent but interdependent with all other things. The Buddha
  compared the universe to a vast net woven of a countless variety of
  brilliant jewels, each with a countless number of facets. Each jewel
  reflects in itself every other jewel in the net and is, in fact, one
  with every other jewel... Think of a tree. When you think of a tree,
  you tend to think of a distinctly defined object; and on a certain
  level...it is. But when you look more closely at the tree, you will
  see that ultimately it has no independent existence. When you
  contemplate it, you will find that it dissolves into an extremely
  subtle net of relationships that stretches across the universe. The
  rain that falls on its leaves, the wind that sways it, the soil that
  nourishes and sustains it, all the seasons and the weather, moonlight
  and starlight and sunlight—all form part of this tree. As you begin to
  think about the tree more and more, you will discover that everything
  in the universe helps to make the tree what it is; that it cannot at
  any moment be isolated from anything else; and that at every moment
  its nature is subtly changing. This is what we mean when we say things
  are empty, that they have no independent existence.


text:
Dependent origination arising of feeling
I'm just reading about dependent origination and wonder how different individuals have different feeling even if contact is the same?
It only makes sense if condition for arising of feeling is not only just phassa (contact).
Let's say if I hear a sound and feels unpleasant. Others might not necessarily feel the same. So what would be the other factors in arising of feeling?

"From phassa as a condition, vedanā arises. With the absense of phassa, vedanā does not come to be" (paraphrasing).
The above is not quite a description of a detailed cognitive chronological process for the arising of a specific pleasant/unpleasant feeling. It declares on what basis something (eg. vedanā; any vedanā) comes to be, and on what basis something does not.
It's also strange to see it as "two people experiencing the same contact", which may also lead one to think that two people experienced the same experience (which they never do).
A summary of a not-quite chronological cognitive process is described in the suttas as originating in phassa (from external sense base, internal sense base and corresponding viññāṇa) going through sañña and vedanā. A detailed analysis is elaborated in abhidhamma (image from Abhidhammatha Sangaha):

It is difficult to give a specific cause for why one person experiences an unpleasant feeling while another person experiences a pleasant feeling while a third person experiences a neutral feeling all from making contact with the same object and using the same sense base.
There could be many reasons. We must remember that one cause has as its basis many other causes which again has many other causes as their basis which again has... You get the meaning. The workings of kamma is very difficult to comprehend and the Buddha remained silent on topics like that. You have to be a Buddha to fully comprehend this extremely fine-woven, interpenetrated, interrelated web of causes and effects in order to precisely pinpoint why one person feels a certain feeling while another feels something different. Take a look at the Four Imponderables
I once listened to a video where a man told about a phenomenological thought-experiment based on the cultural bagage of people meaning the different experiences that a person had in life that molded that person into who they are. This is more philosophical than buddhist but i think it can illustrate how this mechanism works.
We have 30 people sitting in a room. All together next to each other. 15 meters in front of them is a gramophone player. Soon it begins to play. It plays Beethoven Symphony No. 9. Sound travels at 343,59 metres pr. second but now we slow down the sound waves to a few metres pr. second. The song is now being played. The sound waves begin to travel towards the people in the room.
At this point the sound waves are mid ways into the room. They have not yet reached the people. At that point the sound waves now represent all the different feelings those people can produce. They can all produce the same feelings since they are human beings and therefore have a specific amount of feelings in their register.
Now the sound waves hit the people and the people make contact with the sound. Now feelings begin to emerge in those people. One person feels joy. Another person begins to cry. One person feels anger. Another feels sadness. Another person also feels joy.
All these people feel different feelings based on the same object - those sound waves. Some also feel the same feelings. Now why do they feel different feelings?
According to the cultural bagage they all have different childhood, experiences, likes, dislikes, external influences etc. All these are the reasons for why they experience the object differently. As i said before this is not buddhism BUT if you can see the mechanism beneath you can get the idea of the interwoven set of causes that cause people to experience the same object with the same sense base differently.
In the same way when speaking in buddhist terms we of course operates with causes and conditions not only in this life but in many previous lives as well.
The different chains in dependent origination is the same for all people but the the causes for e.g. contact can be different since one person might have a negative memory about an object while the second person has a positive memory about the object or a similar object. In the cognizing process of an object there is a stage at where the percieved object is linked/compared to previous experiences of that object or similar objects. In that way previous experiences play a role in determining what kind of feeling will arise when making contact.
Of course there are many more different causes but this could be one of them - different previous experiences of the same object or similar objects.
Where do you read about Dependent Origination?
I would recommend this discourse on Dependent Origination by Mahasi Sayadaw. This is well written, comprehensible and filled with jewels of knowledge.
Lanka

We all experience life in different ways.  We have different parents and are raised in different cultures with different values, morals, and social norms.  We all learn at different paces with different results.  The human body is the equipment by which we interact with the the world of material form.  This equipment is inundated with sensory information.  Literally thousands of pieces of data every millisecond.  Each of us filters this material and chooses what seems to be relevant to us at that particular moment.  We don't all choose the same information as particularly relevant to us at the same instant.  So though there maybe a hundred thing becoming dependently arisen within our sphere of observation, we maybe only aware of a few or even one or two of them.
Another point to keep in mind is that everything we are aware of (dependently arisen), is already in the immediate past. We are always reacting to past observations and our emotional responses are always responses to that immediate past experience and have no reality in and of themselves.
"For the monk whose mind is calmed and who hath cut
The cord of lives, his faring on in births
Is done with.  Freed is he from Mara's bondage."  Meghiya IV;10

For each person the sense faculties are different so the sensation in different. Say X has a numb spot and someone touches it then the sensation you get is different for a person who doesn't have such condition.
No sum total of the fabrications in any two people are the same. So their faculties will be diverse and thesensory abilities.
Much of the sensation from contact is when you sense something, then recognised and you mentally react to it by how you perceive the experience. Also each persons perceptions are different thus this aspect of the feeling also differs.


text:
What's the buddhist stance on cognitive behavioral therapy?
Is it a good idea to expose yourself to situations that trigger fear and anxiety and use meditation to get through it, or is the desire to overcome fear and anxiety "bad" because it's technically a desire? (And fear and anxiety are only temporary states anyway and should be recognized for being just that.)
Would it even be possible to meditate through a triggering situation since one wouldn't be calm enough to see clearly in such a situation?
To put it more simply: could meditation be used as a substitute for CBT? If not, does Buddhism encourage or discourage CBT?

FWIW, there is Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) targetting depression and anxiety, which ist mindfulness plus some elements of CBT.

Is it a good idea to expose yourself to situations that trigger fear and anxiety and use meditation to get through it [?]

Maybe -- and it depends on what you mean by "meditation". But since the context is about CBT, I'm not sure this would be advised, specially without professional assistance.

or is the desire to overcome fear and anxiety "bad" because it's technically a desire?

Desires for well being, for good, and further aspirations are not considered "bad", on the contrary. In Buddhism, two technical terms for things we strive to overcome are craving (pali taṇhā) and clinging (pali upādāna). These are specific kinds of desire that present problems.

(And fear and anxiety are only temporary states anyway and should be recognized for being just that.)

Indeed, they should. But again, in context of CBT, I don't think recognizing the temporariness of such things are usually enough for remission.

Would it even be possible to meditate through a triggering situation since one wouldn't be calm enough to see clearly in such a situation?

Again, it depends on what you mean by "meditation". If you mean bringing up attention and mindfulness, calming the breath and "observing", yes, naturally.
Of course, the success will mostly depend on one's skill, and how strong these fears and anxieties are. Thus, if the former is weak and the later are strong, intentionally putting oneself in such situations where more harm can be done is probably a bad idea.

To put it more simply: could meditation be used as a substitute for CBT?

As someone who is not a doctor, but only familiar with DBT (a form of CBT) and who was close to people with disorders who relied on such therapy: hardly. While "mindfulness meditation" is considered an important and integral practice in the process, I personally think is nowhere near an adequate substitute of the entire therapy program. I also don't know of any research suggesting the remission efficacy of disorders with meditation only vs. CBT (or DBT).

If not, does Buddhism encourage or discourage CBT?

I don't see anything in these therapies that would present a dilemma  with the Buddha's teachings.

In context of CBT, I don't think recognizing the temporariness of such things are usually enough for remission. – can you explain more on this? What would make it enough in CBT (and related therapies)?

To put it more simply: could meditation be used as a substitute for CBT? If not, does Buddhism encourage or discourage CBT?

I don't have formal education in this but from what i've so far figured, in general the Dhamma superceeds in explaining behavioral conditioning but the general principles of CBT are similar.
When treating addiction a therapist might ask for something like a three page essay on how a patient's life could be in 5 years if managed to the best one's ability; and another essay on the worst possible outcomes and failure.
This is generally how The Buddha trains people as well;

"Kesi, I train a tamable person [sometimes] with gentleness, [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness & harshness.
"In using gentleness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such are the devas. Such are human beings.'
"In using harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is bodily misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such is hell. Such is the animal womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'
"In using gentleness & harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is bodily misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such are the devas. Such are human beings. Such is hell. Such is the animal womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'" https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.111.than.html

This kind of training is also similar to behaviorism theory as operant conditioning because it modifies the motivation circuitry by giving of attention to reward & punishment.
However The Dhamma training goes further in modifying the circuitry than classical psychological conditioning because it sets one up to experience life-changing 'religious' experiences through meditation.
In psychology this aspect of behavioral modification is poorly understood and the closest thing is research on psychedelic experiences which proved to have drastic effects on changing character.
Psychology & psychiatry is connected to quantum mechanics through a niche discipline of 'general semantics' which posits that sanity is basically synonymous with having an understanding of the nervous system and it's coming into play as to observation mechanics.

General semantics is concerned with how events translate to perceptions, how they are further modified by the names and labels we apply to them, and how we might gain a measure of control over our own responses, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral.

...
The influence of Ludwig Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle, and of early operationalists and pragmatists such as Charles Sanders Peirce, is particularly clear in the foundational ideas of general semantics. Korzybski himself acknowledged many of these influences.[45]
The concept of "silence on the objective level"—attributed to Korzybski and his insistence on consciousness of abstracting—are parallel to some of the central ideas in Zen Buddhism. Although Korzybski never acknowledged any influence from this quarter, he formulated general semantics during the same years that the first popularizations of Zen were becoming part of the intellectual currency of educated speakers of English. On the other hand, later Zen-popularizer Alan Watts was influenced by ideas from general semantics.[46]
General semantics has survived most profoundly in the cognitive therapies that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. Albert Ellis (1913–2007), who developed rational emotive behavior therapy, acknowledged influence from general semantics and delivered the Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture in 1991. The Bruges (Belgium) center for solution-focused brief therapy operates under the name Korzybski Institute Training and Research Center.[47] George Kelly, creator of personal construct psychology, was influenced by general semantics.[48] Fritz Perls and Paul Goodman, founders of Gestalt therapy are said to have been influenced by Korzybski[49] Wendell Johnson wrote "People in Quandaries: The Semantics of Personal Adjustment" in 1946, which stands as the first attempt[citation needed] to form a therapy from general semantics.
Ray Solomonoff (1926–2009) was influenced[50] by Korzybski. Solomonoff was the inventor of algorithmic probability, and founder of algorithmic information theory (a.k.a. Kolmogorov complexity).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics

I doubt that Korzybski was exposed to Buddhist texts because his work's expression is quite different, he falls short of drawing many conclusions and the expression is much aligned with the physicists, therefore itt Buddhist influence is redundant.
Imo they probably mostly worked it out from experiments done on dogs where pavlov's students would confuse make dogs crazy and theory of quantum mechanics.
Thus being connected to both QM and Sanity, this is the closest behavioral disciplines have come and it is very far imo.
However behavioral therapy doesn't offer any categorically new experiences such that would override the base motivations like sensuality and therapy is generally aimed at finding outlets and damage control.
Dhamma offers training that will uproot defilements altogether through meditative attainments.
Whether it is good to expose oneself to anxiety & fear.
Setting oneself up to experience anxiety & fear can be good and necessary if the fear & anxiety are irrational.
If the fear & anxiety is rational then it is stupid to set oneself up to experience this. An example would be fear of blame from smart people and shame of wrong-doing associated with hypocrisy. That fear & shame guards the world from bad behavior and it is proper.
Whether desensitization is optimal for this or that person, that depends..
Another thing is that people in the west don't really know much of what the Buddha taught, nothing beyond rebirth and some heavenly nirvana thing. Therefore Buddhist convictions would be classed as magical thinking by many therapists, if one was fixated in that. It's kind of ironic.
The alignment with Buddhism isn't evident if one isn't familiar with the general course of development. People know only a few words like mindfulness as they read it about in a popularization of a popularization.
Also as psychologists aren't deep into physics, GM isn't taught in universities as it's very complicated to include for a psych major, one need not to be able to explain what precisely is a feeling to learn practical therapy. Therefore one can't really expect practicing clinicians to know the connection.


text:
What is the link between calligraphy and Zen?
Often the Zen books I've read such as Zen Mind Beginners Mind are illustrated by calligraphy oftentimes by the author themselves. Also Zen figures such as the hermit and poet Ryokan are also known for their calligraphy.
Is there a particular link between Zen and calligraphy? Are the two practice's mutually supportive in some way or is the link purely a matter of both Zen and calligraphy being important in Japanese culture - the link been purely coincidental?

I am sure you've heard of Ensō, but other folk who visit may not have, though it's clearly more effect than cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ens%C5%8D

nice question; zen basically means 'think' ; inferring 'Zen' here as intended as the contemplative Buddhism with Zazen & Koan & Otera etc, the two overlap (& Calligraohy is an Art), eg Teachings written with Brushes; and, writing with Brushes can be sort of contemplative; the book passage mentioned below may be misleading/ inaccurate; good question from earlier on site; if interested in that & other things theres a cht window 'Buddhism1' opened for general aspects re Buddhism. Asker's consistently helpful contributions are appreciated. thank  you :)

According to the short description of this book calligraphy predated the development of Buddhism in China and Japan. It also says the following about calligraphy:

"... Calligraphy executed by Zen masters is said to reveal their understanding of the Dharma. It is common practice Zen monks and nuns to learn the art of calligraphy as a part of their monastic training..."

Here you can see some calligraphy letters used in Zen Buddhism and here is a Prezi presentation of Buddhism and Calligraphy. Here is a quote from the presentation:

"... There are strokes in the characters as there are "eyes" in the sentences of Zen masters. Only those who have the "eyes" can know it. - Huang Tingjian.

Here is a very interesting website on Buddhist Calligraphy in ancient China. In here you will find:

Relationship between Buddhism and Calligraphy
Forms of Buddhist Calligraphy
Calligraphy in Manuscripts
Calligraphy in Inscriptions
Calligraphy and Buddhist Practice

Here is an article on Zen Art. This is a quote from the artiel:

"... There is a tradition of art practice within Zen. Art arises spontaneously and manifests the buddha-nature within you. Art practice is mindfulness training. The art relies on a foundation of technical training that is then expressed in spontaneous practice. Zen art tends to be simple, sometimes stark, and always lovely ..."

And another quote:

"... Japanese calligraphy is an art form spiritually expressed through Zen. The artist must be in touch with buddha-nature in order to create an expression of enlightenment. The brush stroke must come from a union with the world; no separation must exist — no I and pen, just the act itself. Japanese calligraphy dates back to the seventh century, where it was part of art practice and meditation in monasteries. Often, the subject of a Japanese calligraphy and painting would be a koan. One of the most common examples of zenga is the open circle, called enso. The simplicity of the enso was particularly popular during the Edo period of Japan in the eighteenth century. Enso symbolized enlightenment, emptiness, and life itself. In the series of ox-herding pictures previously mentioned, the eighth step in the sequence (both ox and self vanish) is represented by enso. During the execution of the calligraphy, the slightest hesitation on the part of the artist will cause the ink to blot on the thin rice paper, and the calligraphy will be ruined. Technique is learned and perfected over many years before such spontaneity is possible. Once the boundary between art supplies, art, and self are gone, the art can be executed ..."

Lanka


text:
Zen's concern with "reality" vs. being in the present
In "Zen Mind" Suzuki says: "The true purpose is to see things as they are, to observe things as they are, and to let everything go as it goes". To see things as they are... doesn't that involve an understanding of past and future? Past and future are part of what it is... no? So my question is... if Zen is so concerned with seeing things as they are, why is it only concerned with the present? Isn't the past and future part of what it is? If your mind is in the moment, doesn't it miss the future and past?

Though I might soon sound like a stuck record, the Wild Fox Koan from The Gateless Gate is worth studying when you first become aware of these things.
Zen holds building conceptions and understanding of the world its nature and causes, -- of causation, dependent origination, etc -- distinct from a direct insight obtained by practice. A conceptual understanding is considered necessary but insufficient (and distinct from) to insight through practice, just as owning an almanac is useful in seeing the moon and planets but is not actually seeing them, and is certainly not the planets themselves. This is also a great help when understanding issues of will and agency (which are never far behind).
Conceptions of the past and future are not a part of what is: they are a part of our understanding of what is. The future will come in time or else it will not, and the past, well, you've already missed it. It's very easy to mistake the present for our understanding of it: to have a head-up-display so full of symbols and geometrical constructions that it completely obscures the view.

Not sure if I am understanding this correctly. I'll go back and read it a few times and check out the link, but if I had to sum up what you wrote I think it says "zen is concerned with understanding through practice, since you can't be in the past or future you can only interpret them, which is only your interpretation and not reality". Thank you for the response.


text:
What is ignorance in Buddhism and what are examples of ignorance?
Wikipedia describes ignorance and delusions. This appears to be academic and do not find examples that are easily related.

What is ignorance?
How is it different to delusions or are they the same?
What are real world examples of ignorance?

Ignorance in Buddhism is not knowing the the Four Noble Truths.It is not knowing the truth behind suffering.

"And what is ignorance,...Not knowing about dukkha.
  MN 9 (Ñanamoli/Bodhi, trans.).
Avijja, the Pali word for ignorance, is the opposite of vijja, which means not only "knowledge" but also "skill" — as in the skills of a doctor or animal-trainer. So when the Buddha focuses on the ignorance that causes stress and suffering, saying that people suffer from not knowing the four noble truths,...
  Ignorance by Thanissaro Bhikku

Ignorance is similar to delusion but with subtle differences.In order to find the difference between delusion and ignorance i will first provide a definition for 'delusion'.

a belief that is not true : a false idea
  Merriam-webster dictionary

Comparing this definition with 'ignorance' in the buddhist context,delusion is a view based on ignorance.Delusion is similar to wrong view and ignorance is the not knowing itself.
To give a real world example,a person drives a car badly but think he is driving a car well.The person is deluded.Why is the person deluded?Because the person doesn't know what is good driving and bad driving.(Ignorance).The lack of knowledge in itself is ignorance and the actions that stem from it is delusional.

Thanks. It is my understanding that ignorance gives rises to reaction, to which effect gives rises to consciousness. This is further elaborated at http://creative.sulekha.com/ignorance-motivating-thought_52851_blog. If the abolition of ignorance is the 4 noble truths, where does one start?

@Motivated You have to start by developing the Fourth Noble Truth: Which is the Path to Cessation.The Eight Noble Path.Start with sila(virtue) then samadhi(concentration),then panna(wisdom).This is a more complete guide http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html

@Motivated i also have to add that the abolition of ignorance is the clear seeing or knowing of the four noble truths.Not the four noble truth in itself.As the four noble truths are just a fact on why we are suffering.It depends on our ability to see it.So i have to emphasise the importance of seeing clearly as that is what abolishes ignorance.

Thanks Orion. I have come across the articles at Access to insight however as with many texts, the description is overtly academic in my opinion. Is there a guide, book, literature that is written in a way that can be expressed as stories? For example, if i wished to share this with a child, it would be far simpler to give similar stories that encapsulate the knowledge.

@Motivated I hope you are ok today! Joseph Goldstein mentioned in one of his Insight Hour talks that good stories are like a treasure. For some reason I would try reading tales of the world. I also like dhammatalk.org for a comprehensive list. Plenty of stories there, like the one about Hawk and Duck: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN47_6.html ♂

See also Introductory/Beginner books on Buddhism, but for children (including a suggestion to look into school books).

There are two types of ignorance:

Ignorance of not knowing (such as explained by Orion; and there is also not knowing [about] karma, and so forth). As Tsongkhapa writes in the Middle-Length Lam Rim:

Ignorance Ignorance is afflicted un-knowing due to a mind that is
  unclear with regard to the nature of the four truths, actions and
  their effects, and the Three Jewels.

ignorance which is a mistaken mode of apprehension.

The entity of ignorance which is 'a mistaken mode of apprehension' vary depending Tenets. For instance, Prasangika-Madhyamikas tend to define it as the conception of inherent existence of person and phenomena.
Though, all Tenets posit this ignorance as:

An affliction. It is thus called 'afflicted ignorance'
The first of the twelve links of dependent-arising
The root of cyclic existence
The basis on which depend all other afflictions

Likewise, through the darkness of ignorance obscuring the clear mode
  of subsistence of the aggregates, the deception regarding the
  aggregates as a self arises, and from that the other mental
  afflictions arise.

A wrong consciousness
A conceptual consciousness
Concealing reality
The exact opposite of the exalted wisdom directly realizing emptiness

Although in general ignorance is posited as the mere opposite of
  knowledge, here it is the opposite of the knowledge realizing the lack
  of true existence

Superimposition of [a non-existent mode of existence, which vary in dependence of Tenets]
And so forth.

In Mahayana Buddhism "ignorance" has a special meaning. It's not just not knowing stuff, it's making generalizations and assumptions based on superficial observations.
It starts with us making a generalization about things we don't fully know. Once we have made this mistake we have set ourselves up for trouble. Indeed, if we operate based on flawed assumptions it's only a matter of time before we clash with things as they really are. Unfortunately, most of us keep on grasping to our assumptions even after they are proven to be false. We keep on craving for things to be as we imagine them and suffer when they don't agree. Thus it is said that craving is the immediate cause of suffering, grasping (or attachment) is its condition and ignorance is its ultimate root.
You can see this mechanism at play in most conflicts: from global political and religious confrontations to a kitchen argument between you and your teenage child. It is in the nature of the developing human mind to make observations and build assumptions, even if both are simplistic and flawed.

Ignorance is not seeing things as they are due to clouding by our perception, views, unskilled nature scattered nature of our mind. In relation to unsatisfactory nature of existence, it is not seeing the 3 marks of existence, the 4 noble truths and dependent origination.
Delusion can be the perception and view itself.

Avijja is uneducation about causes and effects, that arise and banish, or ariseless (NIBBANA).

The Pali term for ignorance is avijja. Avijja is sometimes equated to delusion (moha). But this is obviously a mistake because delusion involves false belief whereas ignorance is a lack of belief. There is a vast difference between false belief and the lack of belief. There is at least some hope in finding our false beliefs because they show up when we find relevant true beliefs. But lack of belief leaves us blind. Intellectually, of course, we can find new truths (such as the Dharma) that deal with intellectual ignorance. But that is not what avijja is about. Avijja is about a lack of awareness or perceptual knowledge. Without the appropriate awareness, a person remains ignorant in the sense meant by avijja. Knowing the Buddhist teachings is a good start, but only mindfulness meditation can deal with avijja. In my own practice of 50 years of mindfulness meditation, I can look back at earlier times and realize that, even though I was very familiar with Buddhadharma, my avijja was vast. And now, even though I am now aware of the foundations of the Teachings, I know that, on the level of awareness, the universe I have yet to explore is vast. Such is the nature of avijja.

What is ignorance?
Answer:  Not knowing the law of cause and effect.
How is it different to delusions or are they the same?
Answer: A delusion is based upon ignorance.
Delusion is a thought that comes about by poor interpretation of input we come into contact with.
For example: you smile at a person or see a person and that person believes there is a deep relationship.
What are real world examples of ignorance?

speeding in a 35mph zone unaware of the sign
not knowing the time at a given moment
not being aware of some important phenomena such as a storm in another town.

Deluded belief is when a person does something wrong and knows that it's wrong but does it anyway. (Or knows something is wrong, etc. Or Believes something wrong and knows that it's wrong but continues with wrong belief).

Will add:
Ignorance is:

ignoring the neurobiological tendency of the mind to get "addicted" to pleasurable things with several repetitions: "whatever we often think and ponder upon, that becomes the inclination of the mind".
ignoring the negative, afflictive, repulsive, aversive in our minds, like the greed people, wanting only good stuff. As everything changes, we get good AND bad (although ultimately there is no good or bad, just THIS HAPPENING)

For me, the above was a personal insight and helped relate to he already mentioned Four Noble Truths  and the noble Eight-Fold Path ♾
♂

Ignorance or avijja, in the context of dependent origination, is the force of nature that gives rise to the mind-body phenomena, and also gives rise to the underlying tendencies that drive us towards craving. It's the natural or evolutionary instinct that drives us towards survival, sensual enjoyment and individual existence. And, according to the second noble truth, the cause of suffering is craving.
Delusion or moha, in the context of the three poisons, is a state of mind that clouds the mind from seeing things clearly and be stuck in manifesting one or both of the other two poisons - greed or lust (raga) and aversion or hate (dosa).

I liked Tenzin Dorje's answer to this question. In it, he mentions two types of ignorance. The first is ignorance of various kinds of knowledge. The second type of ignorance seems to refer to a specific misunderstanding arrived at as a result of ignorance.
That second type of ignorance dovetails nicely with this footnote from Ajaan Maha Boowa in his bio of Ajaan Mun. He calls it fundamental ignorance. I found it insightful, and worth sharing:

Here Ãcariya Mun contrasts relative, conventional reality (sammuti) with Absolute Freedom (vimutti).

The citta, the mind’s essential knowing nature, has been dominated by fundamental ignorance (avijjã) since time immemorial. This fundamental ignorance has created within the citta a center or focal point of the knower. The existence of that false center engenders an individual perspective which is the nucleus of self-identity. This “self” forms perceptions of duality (the knower and the known) and from there awareness flows out to produce the world of the 5 khandhas and of all sensory experience, which in turn reinforce the knower’s sense of individuality. It all begins with the currents of the citta, which flow out to create the entire sensory world, the world of conditioned phenomena. Because of this, it is said that all physical and mental phenomena are relative, conventional realities (sammuti). They exist only relative to the knower, the one who perceives them. As such they are merely conventions that the citta has brought into being and given a subjective identity to in order to experience its own manifestations. In turn, these manifestations become incorporated into the citta’s sense of its own identity. Thus the known becomes indistinguishable from the knower, and duality comes full circle, trapping the citta in a web of self-delusion. The citta is reduced to depending on its manifestations to assess the nature of its own existence.
When fundamental ignorance has been destroyed, the focal point of the knower disintegrates, which causes the “self” perspective to disappear from the citta altogether. With the disappearance of self-identity, all manifestations of the citta, all relative, conventional realities, are divested of their power to deceive and no longer appear within the citta. Although they do continue to play a role, in the form of the 5 khandhas, as long as the Arahant remains alive, they are no longer incorporated into the citta’s identity and have no part in conditioning its outlook. This is called vimutti – absolute freedom from all conditions. No conditions whatsoever exist for this freedom.


text:
Can Metta improve one's luck?
Since one can benefit so much from practicing Metta, can it also helps improving one's luck?

Yes. For 2 reasons I can think of:

Creates good Karma on which some can give results in this life time
Makes you pleasant and likeable hence increasing chances of some one dealing with you and supporting you

Luck is preparation meeting opportunity.
As discussed in this answer, Metta makes one dearer to others, strengthens one's mental concentration, brings peace to one's mind, grants protection by the Devas (gods or angels) and provides protection from harm (e.g. fire, poison sword).
So, if you can have a better relationship with others, then this improves your social networks. If you have better mental concentration, then you can correctly identify opportunities that appear before you. If you have protection from harm, you may be led away from unfavourable situations.
Metta therefore, forms part of the right preparation that will allow you to seize the opportunities that come your way.
However, we should bear in mind that worldly luck is not permanent (anicca) and is part of the suffering (dukkha).

Thanks for ur response. How is it part of suffering? I'm not quite following.

Joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain, good luck and bad luck, gaining and losing loved ones, good health and wealth, life and death - all of these are not permanent. There will be ups and downs. And these go on forever. That's suffering.

Sure... It might even expand your perception of "luck" so you can recognize the positive events that are always present but go ignored because we are the universe loving kindnessly bounded to ecah other through unconditional conditions...


text:
Politics within the Sangha
Where there is a group of people, there will be politics and organizational dynamics. This should be no different with the Sangha.
For example, monks trying to cause dissent or schism, monks who disobey instructions, monks trying to gain power over others, monks who are envious of others, monks trying to get the attention of the Buddha or their abbot etc.
How did the Buddha handle such situations in his time?
How are such situations handled within the Sangha today?

Isn't it disappointing that even those whom we thought are considered more enlightened beings compared to the laity are also facing such problem in Sangha? I always thought it's more peaceful and harmonious in Sangha as most of the time spent on meditation and dhamma talk and less time spent on all these worldly issues. =(

Yes. Devadatta seems to be the most famous example.

could zen discourses be thought of in those terms ?

There are some organizational/procedural rules in, for example, the Theravada vinaya.

How did the Buddha handle such situations in his time?
There are two famous schisms in the time of the Buddha; the Devadatta schism and the Kosambi schism.
In the former case, new, inexperienced monks were led astray by bogus teachings and the Buddha sent his two chief disciples to explain the truth to them.
In the latter case, the Buddha tried to invoke the seventh means of settling disputes (adhikaranasamatha), called "covering over with grass" - i.e. agreeing to leave the past transgressions behind and start fresh. The monks refused and the Buddha abandoned them.
To some extent, it's not very instructive to ask "how did the Buddha handle X", since he was fully enlightened and knew how to best deal with every specific situation. Better to ask is how the Buddha taught one should deal with sangha politics. In this instance, he left fairly specific procedural teachings on how to avoid and deal with such affairs.
Briefly, the seven adhkaranasamatha for dealing with disputes and legal cases are:

Settling in front of the transgressor
Settling based on a confirmation of enlightenment
Settling based on a confirmation of insanity
Settling based on an admission of guilt
Settling by a vote of the majority
Settling on punishment for evil-doers
Settling by covering over with grass

Beyond this, there is specific and lengthy instruction in the vinaya regarding schisms, and there are various teachings on dealing with power struggles, envy, disobedience, etc.
How are such situations handled within the Sangha today?
Rather poorly, for the most part. But "the sangha" is a huge and diverse conceptual body that for all intents and purposes doesn't exist as a single entity. Various sects, traditions, and even countries have their own sanghas now, and each sangha has its own means of dealing (or not) with such problems. For the most part, it is far more difficult to actually deal with monastic transgressions in modern times; without the stability of a large body of enlightened beings, it's much more "every monk for himself", unfortunately.

The nature of our present time is very different from Buddha's time: after the printing press "politics" really started taking on an industrial and corporate mission.
On the other hand, the ruling monastic order, the Vinaya in particular was passed on entirely orally. This should answer your first question. Any question on how Buddha handled X, can be answered in the Vinaya.
In my opinion, it is frequently contextual and oftentimes impractical for our times.
We live a different day today: a day of bodhisattvas and renaissance men.
As for specific cases of "politics" which didn't really exist on such an organized level for lack of printing press, there is the case of Devadatta taking over the initial political expression of Buddhism. (Osamu Tezuka's Buddha manga beautifully renders this story.)
Eventually Devadatta tried to kill Buddha, too, symbolizing the message from Buddhism about poltiics: "power corrupts."
Even more broadly, contrived action corrupts, especially socially contrived action tends to create backlashes within and without. We are one collective organism and when good is born, evil persistently tries to take over, day and night.
When there is no contrived good, there is no contrived evil.
This is why Buddhism and Taoism philosophy are often very close, with Taoism taking an even more non-interfering attitude towards things, having the overall expression of "let all karma go up and down, when everyone tires of controlling and contriving, they will rest within the natural order."
The Buddha himself didn't do much in terms of managing the Sangha, just like any of the Zen masters (who are even more strict, some forbidding writing or taking notes). Even when he passed on leadership to Mahakashyapa, all he did was raise a flower and smile (likely paranormal methods of transference involved).
How is politics active in Buddhism today?
Highly active! There is SGI international, Tibetan Buddhism affecting politics in China, and with the marriage of Buddhism and scientific brain analyses, an overall recognition of the importance of samatha and vipassana meditation for happiness and maturity.
I think we have reached an excellent point today and there are many different "politics" with simple rules in smaller meditation circles to clear echelons of managerial staff, teachers, web developers, etc. for mini Buddhist societies. It certainly doesn't seem like the Buddhadharma (whether in the form of Buddhism or other traditions which focus on Insight Meditation) is nearing any sort of Dharma Extinction Age (where it is said that people will be reading and studying but few will have any Realization).


text:
Ignorance of others when practising the teachings of the Buddha
Ignorance is described as not knowing about dukkha. If one knows dukkha and understands the cause of dukkha is starts with ignorance, how does one traverse ignorance of others?
For example, the Buddha one would imagine would have had to experience the ignorance of others. Would he have ignored it? Would he have attempted to enlighten them? Would he have empathized with them?

The Buddha saw(not experience) the ignorance of others and the potential for them to overcome it. Buddhism in the world is the result of his efforts to show them the light.

@Sankha Kulathantille - If i were to see ignorance of others like the Buddha did, would he have simply let others discover this on their own or would he have awaited for them to approach him?

You can't see ignorance of others like the Buddha. The Buddha had a special knowledge called the Asayanusaya-nana which knows the Anusayas or inclinations relating to the seat of mental disposition and kilesa that may arise of the living beings. Also the Indriyaparopartyatta-nana - which knows the maturity or otherwise, i.e.' the depth of the faculty or 'sense of knowledge', of the living beings. It happened both ways. People approached the Buddha and the Buddha also surveyed the world every morning looking for beings who had the potential to realize the Dhamma.

@Sankha Kulathantille - Are you suggesting i cannot be a Buddha if i am unable to see the ignorance of others? If the Buddha surveyed the world, you are also suggesting he had supernatural powers which seems to beget the idea that he was man not a deity.

No! Deities don't have those knowledges. There are 6 such knowledges only a Sammasambuddha can have. I'm guessing that you are coming from a belief system where special powers are reserved for angels and gods. In Buddhism, that's not the case.

@Sankha Kulathantille - I don't come from any belief system. The concept of special powers generally alludes special beings be it angels, gods, or any other. If the Buddha was man like any other, were his powers supernatural or simply observations?

In Buddhism, humans can develop their minds to attain many special powers/knowledges. But these 6 are reserved for a Sammasambuddha.

It'd be best to move the discussion to chat.

Ignorance is a personal thing, and Buddhism speaks of a specific kind of personal ignorance -- that of dukkha.
The ignorance of others is irrelevant. Yes, one tries to help others, but transcending ignorance is a matter of transcending ONE'S OWN IGNORANCE and implies nothing about the ignorance of others.  However, one might be in a better position to be patient and hence work with others.

Thanks. You mention helping others. How does one help? For example, if the person i interact with fails to or simply does not want to see the bigger picture, be it work, personal or other, what does one do?

@Motivated You have to analyze the situation and decide the best course of action -- skillful means.  Insofar as you have transcended your ignorance, you can see the situation more clearly without your personal distortions and thus are more likely to be of service.  This includes realizing if you cannot be of service.  Some people simply refuse to be helped, and you might have to acknowledge that they are a loss and move on to those you can help.

Thanks. The reason i ask is how do you move on especially if these are the people you work with, or are family.

@Motivated what do you mean by "moving on"?

Apologies for the belated reply. When i say move on, it is in relation to the comment you made i.e. "they are a loss and move on to those you can help". So if one finds that person one interacts with is unable or unwilling to see another perspective, how does one simply move away from an attempt to show this person otherwise?

@Motivated one simply lets the person be.  For instance, if I have a extremely negative friend who refuses my attempts to help him, then I'll stop trying to help him. If his negativity is starting to affect me, then I'll limit contact or even end the friendship. This is what I mean by moving on; stop trying to help, and if the person's problems are negatively impacting you, moving away from the person to the extent possible.  Compassion is good, and we want to extend our limitations, but we also have to know our limits, while trying to extend them.  Does this help?

Yes it does help. I am curious though whether the limitation can be perceived as 'running away'. For example, when faced with the inability to do more than you already have and the attempt to limit contact, moving away or possibly foregoing a relationship, what does it mean in terms of our limitations especially if these are 'family' or close friends?

Do you mind if i dropped you an email? Mine is motivatedgorilla [at] gmail DOT com


text:
What do buddhists do in a situation of war where all able-bodied men must become soldiers?
I was reading a chapter called "The Buddhist Stand on the Death Sentence" on p. 390-393 in the book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda. In here it is written that the law is supreme and that buddhists must always respect and obey the laws of the country they live in and that if they break the law they must also accept the punishment.
Then in the end of the chapter he talks about the situation where war breaks out and all able-bodied men are to be conscripted as soldiers by law of that nation.
Being a soldier requires one to maybe engage in killing of other beings or maybe become forced to commit unwholesome actions that one does not want to do since it will break the buddhist ethical code and precepts. But if they choose not to do it they will be breaking the law of that nation.
What do buddhists do in that situation?
Thank you for your time.
Lanka

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/11/buddhism-bin-laden-death-dalai-lama

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/20156/did-most-of-the-american-riflemen-in-combat-during-world-war-ii-avoid-firing-at

That would be an unfortunate situation. Many 'Buddhist countries' have and are fighting wars where people who are Buddhists are engaged in warfare.
What can a Buddhist do if he is conscripted?
Not all Buddhists are at the same level of virtue, tranquility and wisdom. So it would depend.
Some may refuse to kill and harm and face the consequences.
Others may seeks vocations which does not involve killing.
However, if you are to go to the front
Be mindful
Accept responsibility
Never 'delight' in killing or harming, even an enemy
Contemplate the drawbacks of hate, the ego, self-views (collective and individually)
Once a week keep the Uposatha practice (re: Visakha uposatha sutta)
Practice metta (to one's colleagues and even the enemy, remembering that one could have born into the other side, and be fighting his current comrades.)
Samsara is a dangerous place, there are many times and places where hearing and practicing the Dhamma is impossible. So it is also worth considering to contemplate 'what do buddhists do in situations which are conducive for the Dhamma?'. Many waste such rare opportunities, squander it chasing after sensual pleasures and feeding the ego.


text:
Is it useful to meditate upon hunger?
I have read that even hunger - a physical sensation in the body - is useful for an object of meditation. Given the fact that I am often hungry and am quite aware of this sensation in my body...and given the fact that I easily gain weight when I allow my hunger to dictate my actions (i.e overeat or eat without thought)...I thought it would be useful for me to see what insight I might get into examining this sensation more deeply.
I was wondering what others' experiences were with using hunger itself as an object of meditation. Normally I just try to focus on the breath (I am still attaining to the 1st level of concentration practice) but thought this might make for an interesting deviation. Assuming that this is a reasonable object for concentration practice, how do I actually go about it?

Depends on the type of meditation you do. Is it Samatha(concentration) or Vipassana(insight)?

Whatever is useful. I am still very new, although I understand the basic difference between these two types of meditation, but don't have an idea which would be more appropriate. Quite honestly, at my stage, I don't really have the meditative tools sharpened yet, so insight meditation might not be appropriate for me. This is also why I pretty much focus just on the breath. My crazy mind is still all over the place a lot of the time.

A crazy mind is not an issue for insight meditation. You are not trying to calm it down in Vipassana. You don't focus on hunger in Samatha. You select something continuous and steady. But in Vipassana you should meditate on hunger or any other sensation that arises at any given time. Here's a good beginner's guide for you.

See also topics about the sixth precept.

Mmm, 6th Precept - I just don't see how not eating after noon fits in with my lifestyle. And it flies in the face of everything we know about nutrition today. May have been a good idea 2500 years ago for monks, but not for me. :-)

Absolutely... this is an important topic for new monks and intensive meditators alike. As the Buddha himself said in the Sabbasava Sutta:

“What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by enduring? Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, bears cold and heat, hunger and thirst, and contact with gadflies, mosquitoes, wind, the sun, and creeping things; he endures ill-spoken, unwelcome words and arisen bodily feelings that are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, distressing, and menacing to life. While taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who does not endure such things, there are no taints, vexation, or fever in one who endures them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by enduring.

Reflecting wisely means, of course, with sati, hence meditating.
Relevent, I think, is the Mahasi Sayadaw's discussion on self-mortification:

A wrong interpretation as to what constitutes self-mortification is being made by some teachers in contradiction to the teaching of the Buddha.
According to them, earnest, tireless effort required for meditation amounts to self-mortification. This view is diametrically opposed to the exhortation of the Buddha who advised strenuous, unrelenting exertion (labour) even at the sacrifice of life and limb to attain concentration and insight.
"Let only skin, sinew and bone remain. Let the flesh and blood dry up. I will exert incessantly until I achieve the Path and Fruition I work for." Such must be the resolute firmness of determination, counseled the Buddha, with which the goal was to be pursued.
Thus strenuous, relentless efforts in meditation practices for achievement of concentration and Insight should not be misconstrued as a form of self-torture. Leaving aside meditation practices, even keeping of precepts which entails some physical discomfort is not to be regarded as a practice of self-mortification. Young people and young novices suffer from pangs of hunger in the evenings while keeping the eight precepts. But as fasting is done in fulfillment of the Precepts, it does not amount to mortification.
For some people, the precept of abstaining form taking life is a sacrifice on their part; they suffer certain disadvantages as a consequence, but as it constitutes the good deed of keeping the precept, it is not to be viewed, as a form of self-mortification. In Mahādhamma Samādāna Sutta of Mūlapaṇṇāsa, the Buddha explains that such acts of sacrifice at the present time is bound to produce beneficial results in the future. The Buddha said; "In this world, some people abstain from taking life, causing some physical and mental sufferings to themselves. They take up the right view (of not killing) for which they have to suffer physically and mentally. These people, thus voluntarily going through suffering, to keep; the precepts, at the present time, will after passing away, attain the higher abodes of the devas. These ten meritorious deeds are known as good practices, which produce beneficial results in after life through suffering for the present.
Thus any practice which promotes Sīla, Samādhi and Paññā is not profitless, not self-mortification which is not to be indulged in, but beneficial and is in line with the Middle Path which should certainly be followed. It should be definitely noted that only that practice which does not develop Sīla, Samādha and Paññā but results merely in physical suffering constitutes self-mortification.
(from Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta)

As for a means to practice, it does depend on whether you are practicing samatha or vipassana. Practicing samatha, you would bear with it by ignoring it in favour of the main object of focus, e.g. the breath. Practicing vipassana, you would focus on the hunger as physical and mental aspects of experience, perhaps noting it as "hunger, hunger" or "feeling, feeling", as well as any associated mental and physical phenomena that arise surrounding the hunger.
Hunger, being an existential phenomenon, would not make a proper object of samatha meditation.

Like Sankha said "it depends on what kind of meditation your doing"?
If your doing insight meditation you can meditate on the physical sensation of hunger.
However,if your doing concentration practice it is not useful to use the physical sensation of hunger. Why? Because physical sensations keep changing.In concentration practice you need a relatively fixed object to concentrate on.This will ensure greater stability in concentration.
So this depends on what kind of meditation you'd like to practice.

Thanks for making that distinction. Right now I am mostly doing concentration practice. I am looking forward to getting into insight meditation, but I don't feel my current ability to concentrate is sufficient for that yet.

Being hungry has 2 parts:

physical sensation of hunger
thought proliferation due to this sensation like though of food, what you want to eat, etc. which cause more sensations due to sentiments and emotions associated with these memories when they come in contact with the mind sense door

You have to tackle this in couple of ways:

reduce though polifration

realise and return to the object of meditation. At this point ignore it.
calm down the fabrications at least the verbal fabrications to start with and mental fabrications

tackle the physical sensation

arising of gross sensations can be of limit in development of higher concentration and insight as it can be a distraction. But at some stage of meditation when you look at the sensation aware of the arising and passing, the sensation will dissappear. If that is the case use it to get rid of the sensation by looking at the arising and passing of phenomena but keeping your mind in balance so it does not turn into a craving to get rid of the sensation. At this point you are using the sensation of hunger as the object.


text:
Significance of hand placement in forming mudra
In Suzuki's "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" (online copy here), instruction is given on how to form the specific hand position (mudra) when meditating. He advocates "put[ting] your left hand on top of your right." This is the position I have been using in my short months of meditating, and is the position also taught to me at my local Zen center.
However, this resource, by Ven. Mahathera Nauyane Ariyadhamma, advocates the opposite: "back of the right hand over the palm of the left."
Question: why the difference? and, Does it even matter?

Short Answer: It doesn't matter.
Long Answer
Some postures are said to be more conducive to concentration, and perhaps this is true to a certain extent.  Perhaps there is something with certain hand placements which may help keep people a bit more focused (maybe the bare attention required to keep fingers barely touching, for instance). However, don't make too much of this.  Ultimately, how you sit is a means to help facilitate your concentration and mindfulness, unless you believe that your suffering in life can be solved by how you hold your hands.

I figured as much but I saw the discrepancy and was curious. Another thing Suzuki advocates is to not rest the hands in the lap, but to actively hold them just above the lap...which doesn't do my posture any favors, so I've also relaxed that aspect as well. I'm focusing more on correct posture than specific hand placement.


text:
If physical action causes reaction, doesn't mental action cause reaction too?
For example, Newton's third law is that if a body acts another body, so the other body reacts to the acting body.
Now consider a mental action, for example one person who loves another person: that action doesn't always cause a reaction, the other person doesn't love a person who loves.
Is not the law of action and reaction, of cause and effect, also true for mental actions as it is for physical actions?

I think it is true for all. How do you think? ?

If that's the case, if a dog bites you, you should bite it back :) In Buddhism it's causes and effect. Not action-reaction.

Newton's law has nothing to do with emotions, or loving, or anything else like that. It is a 'law' that governs the physical universe, and any body with mass that exists within it.

Is this really a question about Buddhism? "What do you think?" questions aren't really proper for this format at any rate...

Newton's third law is a part of abstract framework nowadays called classical mechanics, where it says how abstract entities called forces behvae withing this system. It is rather irrelevant to the working of your mind.

@ChrisW, ah ok! Did not realize it was a duplicate. Is there a way to undo a vote to re-open? (I didn't do the major editing on this btw. I just added a couple of missing letters to the main edit.)

Is Newton's action- reaction law true for only on the body? Isn't it true for our mind?

In relation to kamma the physical universe has a tendency to balance itselt out towards the zero-state. The various conservation laws can be an example of that. Take for example the law of conservation of angular momentum. If you alter one of the vectors the others vectors will "react" and change in accordance in order to maintain the zero-state.
The most common example used is the ice skating figure doing a pirouette. Here the skater begins with arms stretched out and thereby having a large moment of inertia. Then the skater pulls the arms closer to the body and thereby decreasing the moment of inertia. In order to conserve the angular momentum something else has to change and that is the angular rotational component.
In the same way when we commit actions by body, speech or mind there will be an reaction. Like when disturbing the universe it will wobble a bit and then balance itself out again.
When that is said i do not think that your question is really about buddhism and it maybe better to ask the question on Physics SE since you will probably get a better answer there.
When answering your question i tried to make the reaction-mechanism of our actions a bit clearer by making a comparison between the physical universe and kamma (i do not know if such a comparison is valid and this one is merely for the sake of understanding the mechanism). In buddhism we call that cause and effect as its also been mentioned previously in this thread.
Lanka

Physical laws govern relatively simple systems.  A human being is a vastly more complex system, with a huge number of physical laws coming into play with even the simplest of interactions.  Thus, you shouldn't try to apply action/reaction in this area.
If I bump into something, my mental reaction is the result of a huge number of factors, including how I perceive the event, my state of mind and my history with regards to those events.  Each of those in turn is hideously complex, and if you do arrive at basic physical laws, it will be at a much lower level than what presents itself to me (and you'd end up with a huge amount of them).
This fallacy is all too common. Many people try to apply scientific concepts to Buddhist ones, and it's a mistake.  Newton's laws don't give you ready  predictions for human behavior, conservation of energy does not support rebirth, etc...
If you are really interested in studying this, I recommend studying scientific laws on their own, then moving up to complex systems, and emergence.  If nothing else, it will give you an idea of what a gross oversimplification people make when they make this mistake.

(Just a note: action & reaction in physics is not a causal principle: both happen exactly simultaneously to satisfy equilibrium principles.)

@eudoxos thanks!  I adjusted the answer accordingly.