text:
Losing in thought and autopilot kicked in
Every day I ride my bike from home to office. It takes 1 hour journey.
During that hour, many times I found myself somehow teleported to certain distance. It is not magic, I simply lost in thought when that happened. I am so absorbed in my own thought that I am clueless to my surrounding, although my autopilot will guide me safely during that teleportation.
that is only an example of many activities where my autopilot kicked in.
Problem is, I feel that it is a mistake to be lost in thought. I feel it is not supposed to happen. I feel I supposed to being in present moment. So to counter it, I try to being aware of my body movement, such as opening/closing gas, shifting up/down gear. I recite the word in my mind when the body move. After doing so, I came to realization that my body movement/reaction is faster that my mind.
the questions are:

Is it really a mistake to be lost in thought?
Is my way of countering have bad effect?

Being mindful.....
It is not only OK to be aware it is essentially something that Lord Buddha asked all Buddhists to do as long as they stay awake. But Buddhist version of "Mindfulness (Sathi)" is a bit more deep, it includes being aware of the mind as well.
We as Buddhists believe that not being aware or not being "Mindful" is the very source of all bad thoughts,actions & words that we choose to exercise.
Even though it is a very famous Word a lot of people do not know that Mindfulness was invented By Lord Buddha.
This is the Buddhist teaching on awareness....
Meditation of Postures full Awareness

Is it bad to have control over wandering mind?
No, Because the mind is in nature wander among memories,imaginations,hopes,desires,thoughts & etc. This is why people are almost always lost in their own worlds. The bad side of this is that being lost like this can cause a lot of trouble.
A mind is by nature very exposed & vulnerable to bad things and as we are not aware of our own emotions and thoughts we often find ourselves in the wrong side of black and white. This is caused by not being mindful.
What you should take from all of this is that you have stumbled apon a good practice and you should develop it further move from "Being aware of the body" to Being aware of the mind.

Here are some links....
Mindfulness of breathing.
four foundations of mindfulness
clear comprehension direct understanding
Satipatthana Sutta - Full teaching on Mindfulness

May triple gems bless you!

Is it really a mistake to be lost in thought?

When Satti is absent you create fabrications hence future misery. Therefore, it is a "mistake" to be lost in thought.

Is my way of countering have bad effect?

You are doing Kayanupassana hence this is one of the solution is being mindful, i.e., mindfulness of the body. In addition be mindful of the bodily sensation when moving like the fabrics touching your body, the wind sweeping over your skin, etc. Also look at muscular pains and pain and pleasure in changing postures.
Ultimately what you have to work with is to realise 4 Noble Truths and Dependent Origination this you can realise through any experience you perceive as good, bad and neutral and this leads to sensation which are pleasant, unpleasant and neutral and even the pleasant and neutral are unsatisfactory due to 3 Characteristics while unpleasant is unsatisfactory on its own and neutral opens us for further existence and it can still give unpleasantness in the future.

I have a feeling you have a deep knowledge over this area. I am too low level in buddhist term to fully understand your word. But I do gain some insight from your input. thank you

I added a bit more elaboration.

@EinsteinFaraday 'Sati' is mindfulness, 'Kaya' is body, and 'Kayanupassana'  is Contemplation on the Body.

I think you're supposed to stay aware instead of daydreaming when you're driving.
Try moving your eyes repeatedly to look at different things: ahead, behind, the traffic lights, the other cars, pedestrians on this or that side who might be about to step into the road, etc.
Also breath enough to stay alert.
And think about what someone might do unexpectedly, don't assume they've seen you until they prove it.
I think it's OK to react to changing road and bike conditions without too much conscious thought, but in order to react (even to react automatically) you need to retain awareness of what's happening around you, you need to have seen it, you need to have been paying attention.
When there's an accident it's usually someone else's fault (e.g. a car turning into your right of way because they weren't paying attention and stupidly didn't notice you), but even though it's their fault there's often something you could/should have done to avoid it. For example a common type of motorbike accident is where you come up to a green light, ride through the intersection, and a car coming in the other direction turns across your path (so it's the car's fault), but the motorcycle doesn't even brake before hitting the car (so apparently the rider wasn't paying much attention either).
Also it's not just about you. When I'm on a bicycle I'm fairly harmless and I'm looking out for my own safety; when I'm driving a car I'm fairly well protected but conscious that unless I'm always careful I could really hurt someone else, and that it's my responsibility to never drive where I'm not looking.

my autopilot is so good that I am never in accident during that mode. the funny thing is, I believe my autopilot also doing things you describe automatically without me being aware of it.

Your body and mind recognizes that the path you take to work is easy, therefore you feel relaxed mentally and physically. Try taking different paths that you have never taken before. This process will make your mind more cautious of your surroundings and paths because everything is new.

I think this is fairly common to those people who are observing where they are or what they are thinking. The presence gets better over time.
So, the idea is to not get stuck in the moment when you got lost. Don't judge. Keep going to this moment or the NOW :)

You're still in the present moment because you can't not be. The daydream happens in the present moment. The issue is one of habitual retreating from the world out of sheer boredom. Just develop the habit of looking from the perspective of pure awareness without getting bogged down by the mind. It's really simple but you have to stick with it over many years. The boredom shifts because once you start REALLY looking then you realise that the real boredom is when you retreat into your mind rather than merely sticking with what you've got. Eventually you can retreat into the mind but the awareness stays open such that you can decide whether you want to or not.

you got the issue right to the point. It is boring when driving, naturally my conscious mind will drift to other 'more exciting' world while letting my subconscious mind handle the boring job. Although in budhism & real world this daydreaming habit considered as a mistake or bad, I myself still wonder why it is a mistake. Even fabrication can be viewed as real if we consider it from another angle. I mean we also learn something from fabrication as well.

It is the issue of host vs guest. Normally the thinking mind is the host and awareness is the guest. We want to flip that. This is "turning the light around to shine on the source". You don't have to stop daydreaming per se, but it happens on its own accord as you follow this process.


text:
What are the 8 Consciousness in Chinese Buddhism
The answeres to the following question: Is the Ocean Samadhi a metaphor or an actual meditation? implply there are 8 types of conciousness in Chinese Buddhism. What are these? How did they originate? Is this there a common text with Theravada which is cited deriving or rationalising this?

From the wiki page:

All surviving schools of buddhist thought accept – "in common" – the existence of the first six primary consciousnesses (Sanskrit: vijñāna, Tibetan: རྣམ་ཤེས་, Wylie: rnam-shes).1 The internally coherent Yogācāra school associated with Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu, however, uniquely – or "uncommonly" – also posits the existence of two additional primary consciousnesses, kliṣṭamanas and ālayavijñāna, in order to explain the workings of karma.[2] The first six of these primary consciousnesses comprise the five sensory faculties together with mental consciousness, which is counted as the sixth.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it fair to ordain a child even when they refuse?
Based on the knowledge I have the only law for a layman in Buddhism is that no child can be ordained without the permission of the parents. However, something I see in this society (especially in rural areas) is that children are handed over to the temples to be ordained (mostly based on something to with their horoscopes) even when the children protest. Am I wrong to say this but doesn't a child's consent matter as well? You cannot be forced to be ordained.

I live in Asia and i am aware of the situation. Yes it is sad and here is how and why it is happening.

The horoscope matter happens because South Asian ideology is dominated by "Astrology". Most of South Asians choose almost everything based on it, child's name,who they are going to marry,their future & etc.
Specially Indians are very obsessed in this whole Astrology thing.

So what actually happens?
There is a Bad Habit among some people, they dump unwanted Cats & Dogs near temples. Sadly some children got so called "Bad horoscopes" with predictions like This child is a lethal danger to the father or mother or something like that.
As some people are obsessed with this so called "scientific practice" they tend to go to extremes. You would be surprised to know people walk away from marriages & relationships based on these predictions too.
So now the "Puppy situation" comes into play. They take children to temples and make them become monks. The temple has no choice here because the temple can't send someone away when the situation is like that.
There is another side to this....
Some parents can't take care of their children. So they would take boys to the temple to become monks. As the temple take care of their education and every other need.The parents are happy that their children are going to have what they would not have if they stay home.
Knowing that some children would not stay in monkhood after they are old enough, the temple still to all that needs to be done for them. There is no bind keeping them from going back. Temples finance the learning of these new monks until  they get a "Bachelor's degree".

This may be a situation in which a child's views or hopes are neglected, But if it wasn't for the temple who knows what will happen to these children?
In my own country we had some terrible incidents, some single parents killing their own children and killing themselves. These events occurred in a short period of time and all these incidents happened because of either Family or Financial trouble.
The Temples provide a roof over these children and give them education. Temples do not hold these children against their will and do not force monkhood. If the children wish to stay without being a monk that is allowed too.

It is as fair as forcing the kids to go to schools, when they refuse. There's usually a probation period as a novice within which they have to prove themselves worthy of monkhood. Even if the parents made the decision based on a horoscope, proper monasteries don't just accept any child unless they see potential for spiritual growth and the Vinaya requirements are met.

You are in school only for few hours. Monk hood is for a lifetime.

They have the option to disrobe.

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


text:
Doing a wrong thing for the right reasons?
So let's say an army officer is caught by the enemies and wants to spill the beans. The patriot officer can either lie and mislead the enemy and get killed or can betray the country by telling all the secrets of the state. So according to Buddhist principles which is worse? Lies or betrayal? Can you lie for a greater cause? If one's intentions are for the greater good can it still be bad karma?

Possible duplicate of Should a person never lie?

I Buddhism what matters is the roots (greed, hatred, delusion, non greed, non hatred, non delusion).
Greed, hatred and delusion are unskillful as they give results which you would perceive unfavorably hence resulting in a unpleasant sensation in the future. They are unskillful as they reap an undesired result and is not connected with the goal in Buddhism which is to be free from unsatisfactoriness which is to transent the sphere of perception and sensation (sanna vedayita nirodha).
Non greed, non hatred, non delusion are skillful as they reap experiences which you perceive favorably in the future.
So it depends on the root or volition behind the action. The same action can be done with different motivation which decide whether it is skillful or not.

I'd think the officer could simply remain silent, and avoid both assisting the enemy and incurring the karma of lying.

As of my understanding if he did any wrong, it will come to him as bad Karma. And Good will come as good Karma. Lets say the officer here lied and protected his country. He will be punished for lies and will be blessed with the good work of protecting the country.
Can anyone lie with a not lying intention? I think we can't. If we want to lie. Then we are lying and we know we are lying. Purposes may be good. But the real intention can't be good (In here, lying is wrong, but the purpose of lying is good).
This is how I understand.

The officer could just do nothing or better yet the officer could send loving-kindness and compassion to the "enemy". Loving the enemy well is a good tool  to get out of that situation.
Both lies and betrayal are wrong because they will lead to suffering in the future if not right away according to the Buddha's teaching (Buddhism).


text:
What is meditation and are we dulling the mind through what is considered formal meditation?
I ask this with a healthy skepticism.
What is meditation? Is it the style that is put forth in the texts or traditions, like Tibetan or Indian or whatever tradition? For example,  sit down and dedicate time to meditate. And is the definition of meditation objective or is it a subjective experience/practice? For example, Marcus Aurelius' writing, Meditations. Can following a train of thought intentionally, not compulsively, be considered meditation?
I wish to question why we sit down to meditate for sometime. I have been giving answers on this site, giving so-called "practical advice" about sitting and meditating and then it struck me that I may be dulling the mind through this. Meditation seems to lend you to a certain calmness, which is good, but if I may say, a certain suggestibility.
I accept that the mind's activity is fairly ceaseless. Is this an altering of the state of mind in a sort of long term negative way?
What I mean is, it seems to me that sometimes I can't seem to distinguish between "dulling of the mind" and "calmness" through meditation.

Quite the opposite, sloth/torpor is one of the Five Hindrances that will be abandoned through meditation. See a similar post here: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/14043/does-meditation-giving-you-joy-because-there-is-lack-of-suffering-or-does-it/14060#14060

@santa100 My question is more about questioning about the whole experience than reading the text. What is your experience, not what you expect to experience.

The big difference between a dull mind vs a calm mind is that the former's awareness level is very low. In a calm mind, the awareness is extremely sharp. The mind instantly cognize what's going on. It's just that it simply cognizes without any bias reaction. A common expression is: "in the seen there is only the seen". A dull mind couldn't even barely see anything.

It sounds like a result of the process of suppressing the mind. You don't want to do that. Just accept everything as it is.
My approach is more to do with the reversal of the roles of the thinking mind and awareness in ordinary life. Normally the thinking mind is in control and awareness takes a back seat, but through persistence it's become the opposite. This feels more like the thinking mind is just having a rest, rather than it being dulled. I can switch it on whenever I want and it works probably better than it used to.
There really is no need for meditation because you can just use life as the grinding stone for the self. It's something you can do all the time and is no different to your ordinary life plus perhaps the idea of throwing yourself into circumstances that would be beneficial to your refinement. All you have to do is stay in that unborn mind state as much as possible. It just eats through everything of its own accord, just as it should do in meditation.

There really is no need for meditation because you can just use life as the grinding stone for the self. I don't know why but I took to this point rather kindly.

I have edited the question. Please check and modify your answer if you wish to.

Meditation can be described as

remove the roots with a view to develop revolution towards the aggregates whereby you do not attach or averse or deluded by its true nature to the sensation or unsatisfactoriness that follow when you perceive any corporeal form or mental abstraction as favorable, unfavorable and neutral
remove the 5 hindrances with a view to develop revolution towards the aggregates
understand the universal characteristics with a view to develop revolution towards the aggregates

Meditation should be practiced from the point you wake up to the point your fall to deep sleep. Sitting meditation is to sharpen your skills at applying mindfulness during the course of the day.
Calmness can lead to sloth and torpor if it is not balanced with effort. In which case you have to increase the frequency you move the mind into the object of attention even when it does not wander away.
Also be mindful of the arising and passing of sensations with equanimity to abandon greed, hatred and delusion. This is described in Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2.

What is the object of attention, apart from the breath? Can it be something I am doing at work? You see how it is dynamic?

You can choose Anapana and / or Sathipattana. Main point is to be aware of arising and passing of sensation and your perceiving something as favorable, unfavorable or neutral and limiting through proliferation which you are not aware of (dwelling in the past or future daydreams and fantasies though if is planning work it is OK while being aware).

I have edited the question, please check and modify your answer if you wish to.

"Meditation is a precise technique for resting the mind and attaining a state of consciousness that is totally different from the normal waking state. It is the means for fathoming all the levels of ourselves and finally experiencing the center of consciousness within. Meditation is not a part of any religion; it is a science, which means that the process of meditation follows a particular order, has definite principles, and produces results that can be verified." (https://yogainternational.com/article/view/the-real-meaning-of-meditation)
For the past year I have devoted myself to meditation & yoga. Every day i rise at 4am and begin yoga by 4:30am in order to prepare the body for the meditation session; meditation begins at 5:15 and usually lasts until 6am.
Its not easy. It wont make sense at first because you're mind is too addicted to sensory stimulation in your day to day life. It "feels better" to have your eyes open and to be interacting with your senses because that is all we've known in Western Society. Looking inward is dull at first and sitting with your eyes closed with "nothing to do" seems boring to someone caught in a web of habits formed subconsciously since birth. Dopamine plays a large part in your day to day decision making (see my explanation here https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/13213/what-causes-dopamine-in-our-body) and the activities you choose to take part in every day can eventually take over your entire life without you noticing.
Over time, meditation becomes your source for peace, reflection, and appreciation for silence. The understanding and love for meditating is a relationship you must build with yourself. Its the most intimate relationship you will ever form in your life.Its not going to come after a week of practice, nor a month, nor (from my perspective) even after a year; but slowly, if you devote yourself to it every day, you will begin to understand the benefits in your waking life. You understand how to be mindful, how to limit speech, how to become aware of an emotion when it arises, but have the power not to act on it if you choose. I am just now beginning to see this in my own experiences, and a year ago today i would have had a very different definition for meditation.
Mindfulness = Meditation. You must be mindful in everything you do while going about your day to day activities. Slow down, be aware of everything as intensely as possible. Living in the NOW has been proven to limit the activity in your brain & allow you to remain calm throughout the day. Daydreaming, a wondering mind, disassociation, doing too many things at once.... all of these are signs of an out of control mind. You need to concentrate every effort on controlling this.
If you are to fully experience all life has to offer, in order to reach your highest potential as a human being, you need to quiet the waves of your mind. Meditation, mantras, & chanting are all ways for you to focus your brain on ONE thought wave at a time as opposed to hundreds; they're tools to use in order to reach the point of stillness that allows you to reflect and converse with the universe. If they do not make sense now, with repetition, these words will resonate with your heart over time and you will FEEL the validation in your soul.
Honestly, I'm even astounded I've been able to convey my own definition of meditation in such a clear and organized manner, a year ago this would not have been possible! It certainly wasn't as easy to attain this knowledge as it was to present it just now! Have faith, i promise its not just "dulling your senses", its shutting out the distractions so you can function at your fullest capability.
References:
https://yogainternational.com/article/view/the-real-meaning-of-meditation

Meditation is not exclusive to Buddhism. I think that is what is confusing you.
First understand “meditation:”

What is meditation

Literally, it is just thought, reflection, contemplation, consideration. None of which leads to “dulling of the mind.”
Next, understand “Buddhist meditation:”
Buddhist meditation is just thought, reflection, contemplation, consideration of the lessons of Buddhism.
At its core, Buddhism is about reducing the suffering in the universe. If you decided to engage in some Buddhist meditation, all you would have to do to get started is engage in thought, reflection, contemplation, consideration of how to reduce the suffering in your own life and the lives of those around you. You might realize you have been treating your wife badly lately and recognize how you could stop doing that, and resolve to stop doing that. At that point, you are already well on your way.
So meditation is not nearly as complicated as you seem to think it is. And neither is Buddhist meditation. You don’t have to be in a certain pose or doing a certain kind of breathing, although some people like to do that. You don’t have to be going over certain tenets of scripture, although some people like to do that. You don’t have to attempt to completely empty your mind, although some people like to do that.
The reason that people sit when they meditate is because if you lay down, you might fall asleep! How is that for complicated and mysterious?
Also, you don’t have to be quiet. There is musical meditation. You can engage in chanting, for example.
An important thing to note is that when people try meditation — whether Buddhist or not — most of them report that it improved their lives.
A final thought: we evolved from earlier primates who literally sat around and ate leaves for 9 hours per day. That is a lot of meditation. It shouldn’t really surprise us that our brains and bodies enjoy some quiet time. Especially when we might have even more to think about than our distant ancestors.


text:
Life after death
As a follower of Buddha I believe in sansara, a never ending cycle of death and birth which only ceases by cessation of desire. I have many friends who are of different faiths that don't believe in this. They strictly believe in one life and thereafter a judgement day where god holds accountable everyone for what they have done during there lifetime.  The point that I use to support my claim is that we are all born different, some poor some rich, some healthy some sick and so on. But they counter argue by saying that it is all God's test. If you are rich they it is either a reward or a test to check if that privilege is used live a good life and consent to the will of god. If one is poor that is also a test by god. While I have some points to counter argue I have never been able to give a convincing answer.
My intention is not to convert them or to undermine their faith in god. But it would be nice if I could rid them of some of the delusional thinking that they got going so that some day they would realize life for it really is. How can I do this?

"Not to convert them, but to rid them of delusional thinking" isn't clear to me. Would it be better to rephrase the question to ask more specifically about Buddhism: for example, would, "Is 'X' considered to be delusional thinking according to Buddhism, and if so why?", be a better question, for various specific values of X?

They counter argue by saying that it is all God's test

If testing is the purpose, what is the logic behind creating children who are born severely retarded or in a vegetative state? They are not even able to grasp the concept. Why use torture techniques like horrible diseases, deformed births, famine, floods, earth quakes etc. for testing? If a human used similar techniques, he would be called a sadist or a psychopath.
Also, if the so called God needs to test something, he is not all knowing. If he is not all knowing, he is not almighty either.
It's hard to convince both theists and atheists about Samsaric existences until they start meditating.
Once one starts to meditate, one can see that things don't just get created out of the blue. They come to be due to causes. It is only logical to think that birth also resulted in the same way.
One also sees how craving leads to clinging which in turn constructs life. It would be illogical to think that the pattern ends at death or a god will take over all of a sudden.

Test for the humans rather than a test for god himself. It's like a teacher who knows all about a subject giving a test the students. Apparently children with /diseases/ deformities go to heaven automatically and such children are a test for their parents. So basically since heaven is eternal they argue that this time period of suffering is nothing. What type of a meditation can I suggest them to understand cause and effect?

A teacher gives a test to a student to assess the student. If the teacher already knows everything about the student's capability, a test is pointless.   Children with deformities also suffer, not just the parents. What is the point of that suffering? In any case, it still doesn't rule out the god being sadistic. Any flaws of the creation is the fault of the creator.
Vipassana meditation is what they have to practice. But they won't get far as long as they have such fixed views.

@SankhaKulathantille Well it's like sitting an university entrance exam. Those who pass go to uni and those who don't, don't. Not that I agree with this anyway. Can you suggest a good source to learn about vipassana meditation?

So the God doesn't know if they will pass or fail in the first place? :)
Here's a good video on Vipassana

Exactly my point. They say God has given us free will and so on. Anyway thanks a lot

Free will is freedom to do things. If freewill implies that the god does not know if a person would make wrong choices, such a god is not almighty. If the god knew, why created the person in the first place?

@SankhaKulathantille check this out when free https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F6KL8poW8A

The video completely ignores the point that the god knew that the person will make a wrong choice even before he created him.

@SankhaKulathantille Yes I agree and check the first few minutes of this video where your question is posed to this person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2W7hLwQbzk . Sorry if I am troubling  you with such material

Still doesn't answer the question. He was hopelessly trying to cover up the real issue with unrelated statements. The same teacher student analogy was used. But it doesn't apply as in this case the teacher created the student knowing that he would fail the test. That makes both the creation and the test pointless unless the god is like a kid who wants some toys with different character traits to amuse him :)

@Heisenberg This kind of reasoning is called 'apologetics' -- see for example How to answer “Why do evil and suffering exist?” -- theologians have been having/improving their arguments on these subjects for many centuries. If you can persuade someone using this kind of argument then I'd guess it's because they're not a very expert theologian.

@ChrisW are you referring to Sankha's arguments?

@Heisenberg Any and all "logical" arguments, for example, "If God was omniscient then he wouldn't need to test people?" and "If God was omniscient then he already knows what we're going to do therefore there's no free will?" and "If God was omnipotent then why is there evil and suffering in the world?" If you want an expert (theological) answer to these questions, IMO Buddhism.SE isn't the right site for these question.

@ChrisW Ok. The videos I shared provides answers to these arguments and he is I bet one of the most popular (or maybe the most popular) Islamic scholars at present. Sankha saw the flaws in this scholar's arguments and I suppose what he pointed out was true.

We have to all believe that we at least have this life let alone past or future lives. In Buddhism one thing connected or leading to the final goal is to develop revolution towards you aggregated through understanding of the 4 Noble Truths and Dependent Origination. Even moment to moment the wheel of DO is tuning whereby an existance in one form passes away to create a new existance. Even this initially you do not have to believe, but keep an open mind that it is not false until it is verified. (If you think it is false then it is unskillful and the results would elude you.) With this view start practicing and you will get to verify that it is true in the span of this lifetime and hence interpolate to to multiple lives as death and rebirth is only a special event in the turning of DO.

May I ask you how you acquired all this knowledge about Buddhism?

I would guess it is from meditation and analysis of the meditative experiences, logical thinking and reading.

I'll get to the root of your issue.
If you were a true follower of Buddhism you wouldn't have fixed beliefs. If you want to rid your friends of delusion then start with yourself. Any fixed belief is delusion. No ifs buts or maybes.
Buddhism 101

The best way to get them to use their heads and come to senses is asking the right questions. Lord Buddha did that to convince people how wrong they are.

Question 01

Why severely deformed or mentally retarded people are born?
With a Mentally retarded person there is nothing to test, because they themselves are not aware of what they are doing and there is no point judging   a poor thing like that.
Severely deformed people can't do anything, most of the time they can't even take care of their own basic needs. So what is the point judging them.

Question 02

What's the deal with God being male?
A person can be Male,Female,Transgender depending on certain Hormones,Bone Structures,Muscular Structures and etc. But the very immediate sign of gender is the actual body part itself.
If God made man in his form and the God is male that means that the God has a penis. Unfortunately a Penis has only two functions Urinating + Inseminating.
  Either the "God" has a pair of kidneys because he has a penis or he has a Female partner. Again in simple English a Penis is capable of only two things called "Peeing" & "SEX".
So it is very ironic to think about a certain being who claims to have a Male member without the need to "urinate" or to have "Sex". What's the big deal huh?
Well they might say something like "God wanted us to Evolve and have Kids". Well remind them that "Evolution" itself is a forbidden topic when it comes to "God,Almighty" & Clearly a man was made and how conveniently Sexist of god he made the Female to accompany the man and keep him occupied. And there is no mention of Kids in those religions.
If they say,Oh god does not have a penis.he just gave a one for the man he created. Ask them then what makes God a "Male"?

Question 03

Ask about the appearance
In God worshiping religions (other than Islam) it clearly says that god created a Man in his form.
A Man sadly has some things on him. A Man has a Nose,Mouth also Pairs of Hands,Legs,Eyes,Ears. The thing about these Organs are that they all have a function.
Eyes need light to see,
  Ears need Vibrations to hear,
  Nose pump Air to lungs,
  Mouth crush food & send to the Digestion system,Legs exist to overcome >Gravity.
If a God created Man in is form it means he also have Eyes,Ears,Hands,Legs. Eyes are For capturing light,Ears are for Listening to Vibrations,Legs are for overcoming gravity.
The best of all is the shape of the Head. Here's why....
We all have adorable round Skulls,but why? To accommodate our lazy brains. IF it wasn't for our over-sized brains we will have smaller heads. The thing with the brain is that it is made of Cells and like any other alive body part it needs a continuous supply of blood to live. So this so called "Almighty" is made of Cells like us and has a blood supply too. Remind me why he is holy!
  Oh he made humans right? lets see how to crack that puzzle.

After all the answers they give ask this....
The deal breaker
Say i clone myself so i can make someone like me (Like they say in their books "God made man in his image") and keep making clones like that until i have about a few billion clones and say to them "I am your god & i made you so be loyal to me".
Now i made about a few million Blind,Deaf,Deformed & Mentally handicapped clones. Because i want to test their faith in me. Now i also see that the clones are at war and they are killing each other but i do not intervene because i want to test their faith. Then i see a whole continent called Africa dying literally out of hunger and thirst but nope not now.
Sometimes clones are not faithful enough so i send a few Tornadoes and maybe a couple of hurricanes and a tsunami just to remind them who the boss is. Yes it makes a couple of million people homeless but now they need to have faith in me even though i will do noting to ease their lives.
I see Terrorists say my name and shoot missiles & artillery towards towns full of innocent clones, Those innocent clones are crying. Hugging their dead they say my name and pray for me but still it is all a test so i do nothing.
So seriously this is what i do.So tell me what am i,

A "God"

or

A "Super villain"

IMO it would be better to ensure that Buddhism is the subject of your answer ...  instead of making (naive) arguments about the beliefs of other religions (see e.g. Was Adam anatomically God's image?) ... the question isn't clear but IMO this answer is "not an answer" and is off-topic.

@ChrisW , i have answered the last part of the OP's question.  And i quote "But it would be nice if I could rid them of some of the delusional thinking that they got going so that some day they would realize life for it really is. How can I do this?".  This is what i have answered. Forgive me chris but the way i have presented the questions in my answer can get someone who is deeply in a creationism  to think again.


text:
Looking for a letter exchange between Zen Teacher and (female?) student
a few months ago I looked up one of the questions, and there was a link to a specific letter exchange. However, no matter where I look here or on search engines, I can't find it. If I'm not mistaken, it was between a female student and a Zen teacher/master.
The student was terminally ill, but managed to attain higher forms of consciousness/enlightenment. Shortly after she attained enlightenment, she felt that she was dying and informed the Zen teacher of this, who then came in the last few days of her life to pay a visit.
The Zen teacher then published this letter exchange, where he also made notes on the letters, explaining how she developed further and further.
Does anyone know about this and can post a link?

Here is a link again: Yaeko Iwasaki´s Enlightenment Letters to Harada-Roshi and his Comments
This is published in The Three Pillars of Zen.


text:
Why is dukkha bad?
I know this question maybe sounds odd and like a tautology, but in Buddhism the word dukkha seems to mean both the objective 'property' of being not satisfying and the subjective suffering. So is the goal to experience dukkha objectively, but not subjectively?

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have also a Help Center and a Resource tab that you might like.

The nature of Dukkha will become very clear when practicing insight meditation. One will come to see that conditioned phenomena are unsatisfying due to them being impermanent.
It is likened to a glass cup with a little, almost invisible crack in it. That glass is in a process of breaking up already when it has come into existence. Or a bridge where the pillars have tiny cracks in them. From far away the bridge look solid but when taking a closer look, the pillars are breaking up, soon to fall apart.
Mahasi Sayadaw likened the break up of conditioned phenomena, here the physical body, to a dilapidated house that can come down at any time.
All conditioned phenomena are dukkha because they do not last and they are uncontrollable, since one cannot make them stay any longer just because one wants them to. Likewise painful phenomena will not go away just because one wants them to.
If you want to understand this in the deepest way, you have to practice insight meditation and see this with your own eyes.

Dukkha arises from any feeling which you would perceive:

pain - this on itself is painful
pleasure - this is painful when you part with it
neither pleasure nor painful - this will also change into pure pain or pleasure followed by the pain of parting with it as you still creating conditions for future existance

There are multiple shades of Dukkha as in the above description where the most gross is pain as when you are picked with a pin. Any sane being may it be human or animal will not enjoy being picked with a pin. Since there is no satisfaction in such experiences or being do not perceive it the be desirable Dukkha is undesirable.
These sensations or feelings arise from the perception that an experience is:

favorable -> pleasure
unfavorable -> pain
neutral -> neither pain nor pleasure

All these experiences are conditioned. When the conditioning factor disappears so does the sensation associated with. The conditioning factors are not permanent nor in your control to keep experiencing pleasure. Also you might get bored with an experience and then you perceiving this as favorable experience will change where by changing the sensation or feeling experience.
There are few things happen when you experience a sensation of feeling:

pleasure - develop greed to experience more
pain - you develop aversion towards it and want to get rid of it or experience less of it
neutral - you are ignorant of the fact that you are still in the process of creating future experiences whereby you will experience pain

With the above reaction your mind start creating thoughts on:

in the future I should be like this or do as such
in the past I should have done as such

Also in striving to realise the sensation you crave for, you would take action which in some cases might not be wholesome.
All the above creates conditioning (Sankhara) for future experiences which again will be unsatisfactory. The conditioning are from 3 sources which are discussed above:

mental conditioning arising from perception and sensation
verbal conditioning arising from thinking and pondering, this is called verbal as you need to think and form the speech before you talk
bodily conditioning tied with the breath, when you are to do something unwholesome you would be agitated hence when you plan and execute your breath will be hard

So the objective of Buddhist meditation is to examine this perceiving (favorable, unfavorable, neutral) and sensation or feelings (pleasure, pain, neutral) or unsatisfactoriness (due to painful experiance, change of a pleasant experience, being in conditioned existance) objectively and equanimously knowing the to arise and pass away so you do not lose the balance of your mind due to craving and clinging whereby you create further conditioning (Sankhara) which keep you rolling in misery or unsatisfactoriness (Dukkha).
Based on: Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Pañcak’aṇga Sutta, Bahu,vedaniya Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta, Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2, Samma,ditthi Sutta

So is the goal to experience dukkha objectively, but not subjectively?

The goal is not to experience Dukkha, but to cease it. In other words, to attain Nibbana.

in Buddhism the word dukkha seems to mean both the objective
  'property' of being not satisfying and the subjective suffering

Under the first noble truth, it says Pancaupadanaskanda is Dukka. Which means the five aggregates of clinging are suffering. It doesn't say five aggregates are suffering. Otherwise Arahanths will also be suffering.
When we discuss Dukkha conceptually, we talk about it subjectively. But Dukkha is always objective. There's experiencing. But there's no experiencer.

Why is Dukka bad?

It depends on the definition of 'bad'. It's like asking why is 'oak' a tree? Or why is 'rice' a food?
According to the dictionary, 'bad' is explained as "not good", 'evil', "inferior in quality", "below standard", "not satisfactory". All those terms can be associated with 'suffering'.

it's interesting that your statement about dukkha is opposite to mine - while you state it's always OBjective, i say it's always SUBjective... also i wonder how arahants can experience brahmaviharas if they don't experience suffering, because i think to be able to sympathize with others one must be able to feel at least a modicum of their suffering

Not necessarily! One need not touch fire to know that it burns. Arahants have no view of self. So it cannot be subjective. Even if you are not enlightened, to practice compassion, you need not feel sad. Sadness is the near enemy of compassion.

Why is dukkha bad?

Dukkha as "pain" is considered bad because it is intrinsic to the nature of beings to want to be away from pain (even those who put themselves in danger or chose to subject themselves to pain do so either in order to avoid another, usually more threatening pain, or to create a pleasure feeling that subsumes it).
Dukkha as "unsatisfiability" is considered bad because of our (perpetually nurtured) inner thirst and fundamental anxiety; because of our inclination for craving and clinging to things that expire. We find ourselves in a state of continuously "lusting for". We expect pleasuring things to be everlasting, we hold to them (similarly, we often delude ourselves into thinking some pains are never ending), yet, we find ourselves in a realm where no phenomena is permanent. And then, we become surprised when they are transformed into something else; then, pain arises because what was once pleasuring is no more.

The goal encompasses seeing this fundamental characteristic unfolding in every bit of our experience.

one cannot experience dukkha objectively other than by way of indifferent perception of suffering of other beings
experience is always personal and intimate, even when one perceives suffering of others one cannot appreciate it unless one identifies with them through empathy by mentally putting oneself in their shoes and finding out how YOU would feel
so once one knows something as suffering it's invariably through the lense of one's own experience
the goal to the best of my knowledge is cessation of suffering
why is suffering bad? sounds like a profound question, answering offhand i'd say it's bad because in attempts to escape from it people act stupidly, hastily, irresponsibly, imprudently, making a mess out of this world

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Birth of Buddha
The story of the birth of prince Siddhartha tells us that he walked and talked right after birth. That he even said that he will become a Buddha in this life and end the cycle of life. But after this he seems to have forgotten what he knew about being a Buddha even on the day he left the palace to find the truth. He started off knowing he would become Buddha, then becomes very confused with all the life experiences as a prince and has no idea what to do or that becoming a Buddha is the answer to it. How is this possible? Is it a flaw in the story or is my understanding of the question poor?

Related: Is there any truth in the legend about the birth of Siddhartha?

Prince Siddhartha was insulated from anything that might prompt him from renouncing the householder's life. Not being fully liberate at that point the natural tendency of the mind is to enjoy such experiences. There is no record where he forgot such fate but I would presume that he would have expected to be a Universal Monarch as this is what would have been feed to him constantly. Maha Saccaka Sutta mensions that

Then, Aggi,vessana, I thought thus, ‘I recall that when my father the Sakya was occupied while
  I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from
  unwholesome states, I entered upon and abided in the first dhyana that is accompanied by initial application
  and sustained application, zest and joy born of seclusion.

perhaps there could be some forgetting or setting aside. But when he left the palace I would expect he would have expected to be a Buddha otherwise he would not have followed through in renouncing to find the truth.

This is the Buddhist equivalent of "Why did Joseph have to go to his ancestral homeland for a census, even though it makes no sense and flies in the face of everything we know about the Roman census?" or "Why do some of the gospels trace Jesus's ancestry back to King David through Joseph, when Joseph was in no way involved in the conception of Jesus?"
In all 3 cases, the answer is: Because it's obviously bullshit, added after the fact to make the Founder seem more divine and impressive. You can rationalize and cherry-pick if you want, and come up with a story that sort of works, but there's no need: newborn infants don't talk, and the historical Buddha likely had no idea as a child what he was going to do in adulthood. Assertions to the contrary in an ancient text that wasn't written down until hundreds of years after the event can be safely disregarded.
In general, separating the historical facts of the Buddha's time from the legends that grew up afterward is very difficult, although Stephen Batchelor has spent a lot of time trying to parse this out (in Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist and After Buddhism).

Are you telling this because it is scientifically impossible for a baby to walk?

More because it's a) logically absurd and b) completely irrelevant to the philosophy and practice of Buddhism. If anything, attributing supernatural or superhuman abilities to the Buddha undermines the central notion that anyone can follow in his footsteps and realize awakening through practice.

I doubt people follow Buddha because of the superhuman and supernatural abilities that he possessed. For me a Buddha by definition is a superhuman

There are many deities mentioned by Buddha himself. Rejecting their existence itself is considered to be wrong view


text:
Should we "ignore" feelings while being mindful and aware of the present moment?
When I am not judging any moments of life and taking it all in, should I give importance to feeling anything at all? I tend to get very rational and "accepting" about things. A feeling of letting go arises, which makes me feel very passive? It feels like there is no time for a feeling because we are losing the next moments by living inside a feeling, either positive/negative.
Also am I doing this right? Sometimes, it is like I am shutting that emotion up because I don't want to give in to a feeling. Why would I not want to give in to a feeling that makes sense at that point of time? That is mere repression.
Any thoughts on this?

When are you not taking it all in?
It's already in awareness before the mind can do whatever rationalisation that you've been trying to do. This is acceptance. It's not about the thinking mind accepting anything other than that awareness already has it covered.
It's already there. You don't have to sort it out in your head.

This is more like the simple, experiential answer we need nowadays. It maybe valuable to read some texts, but simply putting those translations out here seems like regurgitating.

Any experience you should be equanimously and objectively aware of perceiving (desirable, undesirable, neither) and sensation (pleasant, unpleasant and neutral) of the arising and passing or the sensation devoid of any craving or clinging while keeping though proliferation in check.
When you let go there is a feeling of renunciation with again is 3 types according to Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta. A house holder seeks sensual pleasure and is temporarily satisfied or unsatisfied by the experience by perceiving and desirable or undesirable or neither. When you renounce householders life you strive to stop this perceiving by understanding the universal characteristics of the experience (changing, unsatisfactory, non self). In this letting go there is a pleasure also whis is non sesual nature. See: Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Pañcak’aṇga Sutta, Bahu,vedaniya Sutta
There are 18 mental examination:

(1) On seeing a form with the eye,
  one explores a form that gives rise to pleasure,
     one explores a form that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
        one explores a form that gives rise to equanimity.
(2) On hearing a sound with the ear,
  one explores a sound that gives rise to pleasure,
     one explores a sound that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
        one explores a sound that gives rise to equanimity.
(3) On smelling a smell with the nose,
  one explores a smell that gives rise to pleasure,
     one explores a smell that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
        one explores a smell that gives rise to equanimity.
(4) On tasting a taste with the tongue,
  one explores a taste that gives rise to pleasure,
     one explores a taste that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
        one explores a taste that gives rise to equanimity.
(5) On feeling a touch with the body,
  one explores a touch that gives rise to pleasure,
     one explores a touch that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
        one explores a touch that gives rise to equanimity.
(6) On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,
  one explores a mind-object that gives rise to pleasure,
     one explores a mind-object that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
        one explores a mind-object that gives rise to equanimity.
Thus there are six mental explorations with regards to pleasure; six mental explorations with regards to pain [displeasure]; six mental explorations with regards to equanimity.
  ‘The 18 kinds of mental explorations should be understood,’ thus it is said in this connection.

See: Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta, Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta
Where you have to examine the sensations hence you doing it right. This plays a role in removing the roots. See: Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2

Should we “ignore” feelings while being mindful and aware of the present moment?

If one practices Samatha Meditation, one would exclude all other objects except the primary meditation object, e.g. a kasina device or the breath.
If one practices Vipassana Meditation, one takes the object that has arisen in the present moment and observes it with objectivity and non-interaction. In this way the object will reveal its true nature for the meditator, thereby granting access to insights into how reality functions.
If a feeling arises and one does not want to pay attention to that feeling, then aversion has arisen. One now shifts object and take the aversion as the primary meditation object.
Feeling (vedana) is one of the Four Satipatthanas, so one would take it as an object when doing Vipassana Meditation.
So whether or not one should ignore an object depends on what type of meditation one practices.
Hope this helps.
Lanka


text:
Is homosexuality a sin?
"Homosexuality" is a hot topic everywhere in the world now. But is it a sin according to Buddhism? Does it cause a breaking of the third precept? I have heard in a sermon that people are born gay because of breaking the third precept severely in previous births and people are born as females for also breaking the third precept (not as severely I suppose). I know that where I come from if the government accepts gay marriages the monks will be the first to protest even before the church does! Is it because it is a sin?
(PS: I am totally fine with someone being gay)

Isn't this question a duplicate of What is the attitude toward homosexuality in Buddhism?

It is not a sin.
Lust is born out of desire. Desire is one of the root defilements (kilesas).
It can manifest itself in different ways, e.g. sexual preference, body type preferences etc.
Lust is still lust, no matter what object its involved with.

I'm shocked at some of the responses here - to try to twist the precepts of Buddhism to condemn something that one finds personally abhorrent is counter to everything The Buddha taught.
Yes, allowing lust to dominate your thoughts is counter to the path of enlightenment but the question was that of homosexuality - not sex. Those that are quick to condemn homosexuality are perhaps tainted by cultural or prior religious indoctrination and should look at heterosexual practices that seem to be accepted all too readily.
I have never seen anything in Buddhist teachings that forbids a man to find companionship with another man or likewise between two women.
I would suggest that as long as any relationship is based upon loving kindness and continual compassion towards the other person, it is not forbidden.
Of course I could be wrong. :)

It is not forbidden for laymen only for monks\

I agree - although monks are not permitted relationships with the opposite gender either.

@Phil. You are not wrong.

it's not a sin for the simple reason that a concept of sin is alien to the Dhamma, if anything it would be an unskillful, impure act
on the basis of sexual misconduct description from the Nikayas it's impossible to construe that being homosexual or engaging in homosexual sex per se is a violation of the precept

He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man.

Cunda sutta (AN 10.176) but it's a stock passage found elsewhere across the four NIkayas

1st of all Buddhism does not prohibit or have anything against being gay. But Hethorosexuality is unwholsome as it is rooted in desire, though lay people may engage in such activities, within Sila. Homosexuality activity needs to have stronger attraction than is Hethorosexual avtivity, which is more unwholsome. When engaging in any sexsual activity if compaired to a fall, Hetrosexuality say is a 3 foot fall, hence you get hurt in the long run less, Homosexuality is a 6 foot fall, which you you are likely to get more hurt by this in the long run than Hethorosexuality, as weight of attaction is stronger between partners. Incest is more grave like say a 9 foot fall. There will be future society when this also may become accepted, according to the quote below. In each case the attachment is relative. Also historically hetrosexsual people have been less liberal, but current liberal practices have more attachment than in the past so more unwholesome mind moments.
Any form of sexual attraction including being gay is based on desire which is unwholesome and result experiences which are painful in the future. Buddhism deals with correcting your mental tendencies by getting rid of the roots which creates misery. This is done through practicing Vipassana and is a gradual process. Through Vipassana you can transcend any sexual preferences and orientation. To get more insights into this it is best you take a course at: https://www.dhamma.org or http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/
See: Saññoga Sutta

According to the Dīgha Commentary, here “abnormal lust” (adhamma,raga) refers to incest, that is,
“lust between mother and mother’s sister and father’s sister and maternal uncle’s wife and other such
improper situations” (mata matuccha pituccha matulanī ti adike ayutta-t,thane rago); “neurotic desire”
(visama,lobha) refers to excessive greed by way of consuming things (paribhoga,yuttesu pi thanesu atibalava,lobho,
in other words, excessive materialism and consumerism); and “deviant practices” (miccha,dhamma)
refer to sexuality “between men and men, women with women.” (DA 3:853)

Homosexuality is a deviant practice (miccha,dhamma). This is rooted in excessive lust.

Now, bhikshus, amongst those humans whose life-span was 500 years, three things were widespread,
that is, abnormal lust, excessive desire and deviant conduct.
With the increase of abnormal lust, excessive desire and deviant conduct,
the life-span of beings declined, their beauty declined, too.
For these humans whose life-span and beauty were declining, whose lifespan was 500 years, that of some of their children was 250 years, and some 200 years.

More lust in deviant practices is worse off that non deviant pratice like hetrosexuality, which in some cases in the past may have been less rooted in desire, but both are rooted in unwholesomeness.
See: Cakka,vatti Siha,nāda Sutta
Sin is violation of God's will or religious ideal. In Buddhism there is no concept of God's will but with respect to ideal we can consider anything creating unwholesome fabrications as a sin then it will be. Sila general deals with more stronger Karma with can influence rebirth. In this context it is not clear cut but still in contravention of the religious ideal as homosexuality is considered a deviant practice.

Yes I agree but what I am asking is whether that act alone is a sin. Like robbing, lying

Updated. See if this answers your question.

Thanks for the additional info. But having lust is not a sin but a root cause. For example I have a wife and the lust and sexual relationship with her cannot be a sin. If I have the same sexual relationship outside the marriage it is a sin. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you are saying is that being gay makes a person more inclined to sin but the act alone is not a sin?

It's like playing violent video games. It makes your mind more crueler and it may lead you to commit violent and sinful acts. But the act of playing the video game by itself is not a sin

The word sin originated and derives its present meaning from a non Buddhist context. In Buddhism one division of Karma is Karma which can cause rebirth (planning to kill and follow through) and which cannot (could not follow though for some reason). If you consider sin being Fabrication with the strength or rebirth then perhaps this might not be a sin if there is no cheating and there is fidelity. But again this is hard for me to ascertain with the level of knowledge and insight I have.

Playing video games is a sin but may not be a grave sin. Some of the violent thoughts itself is a mental sin.

Thanks. Your last comment just made me think of a very interesting question which I will post soon!

BS. If one is operating from a position of essence there is nothing to stick to. You can do any act through the application of selfless intent and generate no karmic residue. Following dogmatic beliefs is like driving blindfolded, whereas operating from source is taking the blindfold off and knowing right then and there.

maybe it's deviant, only that the quoted passage says nothing to the effect, so it's only a speculation

Where does it specifically say that 'Homosexuality is a deviant practice'?

Your link to Piya Tan's commentary is most useful. Sadhu for sharing.

It is in the references I provided.

@KaveengaWijayasekara “deviant conduct” (miccha,dhamma) as
homosexuality, ie, sex “between men and men, women with women.”

This is not in the suttas. However, we have deviant sexual conduct defined as incest.

No abnormal lust (adhamma,raga) is incest. Deviant sex is homosesuality according to cometery.

I think we agree that it is defined in the commentaries and not directly in the suttas. Would you agree that a person in a committed monogamous homosexual relationship, would be preferred to a promiscuous heterosexual?

Being promiscuous you are breaking a precept which is worse off than being gay. Being in a faithful relationship with worse off than being celibate. This will further worsen there things like BDSM, abnormal fetishers will become more widespread and socially acceptable and then finally incest also will become socially acceptable in some future period. All this is relative.

For householders sex is wholesome provided you are in a loving relationship. Incest or not is not the issue. First few humans were incest that is the reason we are all here. If one is not satisfied by his or her spouse he/she will resort to extra marital sex and that is not sin.  Denial of sex itself is unwholesome.  Please read about Freud who has attributed all mental disorders to unsatisfied libido. Buddha did not say anything explicitly about sex for householders. Until and unless one is enlightened it will be very much part of our lives whether we accept it or not.

East is hypocritical about sex and West is obsessed with sex. It is high time we change our attitude and take it as a Nature gift and use it carefully and beautifully. No one throws gifts away. Certainly not me.

the word 'sin' means to 'miss the mark' thus similar to the Pali 'akusala' or 'unskillful'. that is why Christians confess 'sins' & Buddhists confess 'transgressions'. 'sin' & 'transgression' is the same & thus exist in Buddhism

This is more-or-less a copy of another answer, and this answer too has been flagged as offensive. Please see my comment here.

Monks were expelled for homosexual activity, both heterosexual and homosexual activity is not allowed for monks and nuns.
So it is considered as sinful or harmful.

"At that time the venerable Upananda, of the Sakya tribe, had two
  novices, Kandaka and Mahaka; these committed sodomy with each other.
  The Bhikkhus were annoyed, &c.: 'How can novices abandon themselves to
  such bad conduct?'
They told this thing to the Lord Buddha, &c.
'Let no one, O Bhikkhus(Monks), ordain two novices. He who does, is
  guilty of a dukkata offence.'" - (Mahavogga, 1.52)

Homosexuals aren't allowed to be monks, neither are those who practice heterosexual activity.

"Now, what is the taking on of a practice that is pleasant in the
  present but yields pain in the future? There are some brahmans &
  contemplatives who hold to a doctrine, a view like this: 'There is no
  harm in sensual pleasures.' Thus they meet with their downfall through
  sensual pleasures. They consort with women wanderers who wear their
  hair coiled in a topknot.
"The thought occurs to them: 'Now what future danger concerning
  sensual pleasures do those [other] brahmans & contemplatives foresee
  that they have spoken of the relinquishment of sensual pleasures and
  describe the full comprehension of sensual pleasures? It's pleasant,
  the touch of this woman wanderer's soft, tender, downy arm.'" -
  Cula-dhammasamadana Sutta

The logic in your opening paragraph says that "it (homosexuality) is sinful" -- but really I think it's that "sexual activity of any kind (whether hetero-, homo-, or mono-) is incompatible with the monks' rules and ideals."

I agree, but if it's sinful for monks it's sinful in general for all as well.
Monks have to follow strict rules to make enlightenment easier.
Lay followers don't follow the rules of a monk, but the things considered harmful for monks in general is also harmful for all.

Sin a Christian concept. There is no sin in Buddhism. There is code of conduct for Monks but not for householders regarding sex. Where did Gautam Buddha speak about sex as harmful thing? Over-indulgence is harmful but attending to Nature's call is essential. For example when there is urge to urinate one has to urinate. If one does not then there are repercussion on health. Similarly sexual urges need to be satisfied otherwise it will create physical and mental disorders. Please read Freud about it. Freud attributed all mental disorders to libido.

So it's "sinful" for lay people to work for a living, buy food, be in a room alone with a member of the opposite sex, eat after noon, handle money, own things, etc.? I think that morality for lay people is more usually described as the five or ten precepts (the third precept defines sexual misconduct).

@ShashankKhare I think it's just semantics to differentiate between "evil deeds", "sins", etc....many times Gautama Buddha spoke of sex as a harmful thing that causes bad things to happen. Your reasoning or point of view is nearly exactly what was described in the Cula-dhammasamadana Sutta (believing there is no harm in sensual pleasures).
It is very difficult for many people to understand but I finally understood what he was talking about, but I don't want to talk about it.

@ChrisW monks followed certain rules to make enlightenment in this lifetime easier. But certain deeds lead directly towards bad things happening and one of these deeds is sexual activity. This however doesn't mean that all people who indulge in sexual activity will go to a bad destination.

How many times did Buddha talk about sex as something which causes bad things to happen for householders? Can you give references? Sex is a natural phenomenon but with humans it is no more because of excessive lust. But if there is no "excess" it is wholesome. Meditation corrects the excess part. But if you are saying meditation will cool your senses down to zero, you have misunderstood. If body heat goes down to zero one dies. So till time you are alive, you are sexual by nature. But yes enlightenment takes away the hankering part.

@ShashankKhare of course everywhere sex is considered something harmful to the Buddha. It is difficult to understand, perhaps you should just get married to one wife to avoid sexual immorality.

Morality is not part of Buddhism. There is nothing called sexual immorality. Its a Christian concept.

@ShashankKhare your mind is obviously attached to and clung onto hating Christianity or dividing yourself away from Christianity, why talk to such a foolish human? Sexual activity being viewed as immoral is something found is many religions besides Christianity. What is difference between saying "a harmful deed" vs. "a sin"....the difference is small and subtle. Neither heterosexual nor homosexual activity leads towards enlightenment. Do you think that by engaging in heterosexual or homosexual activity you'll become an arahant?

Well you are not aware of tantric traditions of India. In Tantra sex is used as a path to enlightenment. But its practice is limited because of inherent dangers. Please understand sex is called sinful in almost all religion because people are afraid of tackling it. I am not against Christianity. I am against all people who have myopic view of teachings of great masters including Jesus and Buddha. If Buddha talked abour sexual conduct of monk please limit it to monks. Why are you guys attempting to extend it to householders? Do not reinterpret Buddha.

@ShashankKhare well from my own personal observations it may be possible to avoid the unperceived pains of sexual activity but only if you have a well-developed body and mind...nearly exactly as The Buddha says in the Lonaphala Sutta, but overall in my opinion it is pointless to debate certain morals like this, it is much more important to develop concentration and destroy unconscious painful feelings and insecurities so that eventually one becomes an arahant or paccekabuddha...monks are also not allowed to do things like singing, dancing, watching shows, etc..but once the goal is achieved IDK

If sex is natural there is no pain. Most of the sex is due to cravings in the mind not in the body. Your personal observation is biased against it because sex causes imbalance (commonly felt and pretty much part of traditional medicine texts such as Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine). If you know how to balance yourself the repercussions of sex can be avoided to large extent. What i am saying is simple. If you crush your bodily urges through repression it will dull your senses and chances of enlightenment will diminish.

I marked this answer down because it is obviously wrong.

@Dhammadhatu well why do you think it's wrong for? Maybe for the lay people homosexuality is not sinful just sexual misconduct is sinful but for monks homosexuality is definitely sinful as well heterosexuality and many other things

You already know the sinfulness you wrote in your answer. Eating food after noon is also a "sin" for monks. But you know it is not a "sin" for laypeople. Similarly, homosexuality is not a "sin" for laypeople. Yet you sinfully wrote the give the impression "homosexuality is a sin for all people". Obviously, you have personally slandered the Dhamma-Vinaya to gratify your own personal prejudices against homosexuality.

Sure I understand but the goal of a monk or nun is to achieve arahantship here and now whereas for the lay people achieving arahantship is really difficult. It's still implied that heterosexuality and homosexuality is a sin at least for monks. I do not have prejudices against homosexuality I spoke out against heterosexuality in other posts and never mentioned anything against homosexuals before.
Both heterosexual and homosexual activity don't lead towards arahantship.

Shashank, There is no such thing as "sin" in Buddhism. Karma, yes, but not sin. Although, it is a rule for monks to avoid sexual relations, it does not apply to the laity. However, it seems to me that meditation will diminish sexual appetite regardless of monk or lay person. In the mean time, it is good to control sexual desire as there is a proper place, a proper time, and proper partner. It is kind of vague what the last one means, but at least it forbids adultery. As for being genetic, the latest and most extensive scientific studies I have seen suggest that homosexuality is NOT genetic.

The Pali suttas are silent on the matter of homosexuality. The matter of homosexuality is only mentioned in the monk's Vinaya, where certain types of ex-homosexuals (but not all) are forbidden from ordaining as a monk.
Further, homosexuality does not fall into the definition of 'sexual misconduct', which essentially is having sex with individuals who are in existing relationships (such as having sex with another person's husband or wife or with a child/teenager still living in the care of their parents).
It follows homosexuality itself is not a 'sin' or 'transgression' in original Buddhism.

I can not comment, so I will post here.
"Miccha dhamma" is never about homosexuality. The comment of the Cakkavattisuttaṃ (DN 26) is wrong.
The word "miccha dhamma" and other two words are also appear in the Palokasuttaṃ (AN.3.56), and no comment about homosexuality here (as far as I know).
Obviously, "miccha dhamma" just means any wrong doctrines or something away from sammā (involving greed to others' belongings or possessions) which happening in natural and man-made disasters, not some specific action.
The three words (adhamma-rāga), (visama-lobha), (miccha dhamma) have the similar meaning. The meaning of rāga is similar to lobha, and the meaning of visama is similar to adhamma & miccha dhamma. So, it does not mean some specific action, and the three words are just some ancient pali collocations.
That wrong comment just came from some medieval homophobic buddhists like any homophobic Buddhists in the Modern times, whether he is living in Sri Lanka or not, whether where he living colonized by Britain's CHRISTIAN CUSTOM or not.
Non-majority is not deviant practice, as left-handers are not. However discrimination against minority is deviant practice, so anyone does so is deviant.
And I must say if homosexuality involving any of this, then Buddha would say more in other suttas, not just appearing in the mouth of some medieval homophobic commentators and their homophobic followers.
The comment of Palokasuttaṃ (AN.3.56) also mentioned (adhamma-rāga), (visama-lobha), (miccha dhamma), but it does not mention anything about homosexuality. You can see：" Micchādhammaparetāti avatthupaṭisevanasaṅkhātena micchādhammena samannāgatā. Devo na sammā dhāraṃ anuppavecchatīti vassitabbayutte kāle vassaṃ na vassati. Dubbhikkhanti dullabhabhikkhaṃ. "
Another Buddhism scripture《大薩遮尼乾子所說經》（Bodhisattvagocaropāyaviṣayavikurvāṇanirdeśa) also mentioned  that the miccha dhamma is about learning Tirthika's doctrine.  (於諸外道非義論中起義論想。於無益論生利益想。於非法中生是法想。於末世時。非是智者所作論中。以為正論。生於信心。熏修邪見。以為福德。是名邪法羅網纏心)
This [Tirthika's doctrine] is the correct meaning of the DA 26 "Miccha dhamma", not the ridiculous, discriminative explanation and its bigot speaker.
The Counterfeit of the True Dhamma（SN 16.13） said：「when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma arises in the world, then the true Dhamma disappears.」.
Those homophobic followers let a counterfeit of the true Dhamma arises, as they wrongly explain DA 26.

After Budhha Siddharta Gotama had not teached about a GOD/the abrahamitic GOD, how can something be a "sin" in buddhism?

Sex is not sin. Only for monks its forbidden. Householders are supposed to have sex irrespevtive of body type. Homosexuality is a byproduct of unnatural living. Scientists claim its genetic. Religion says its because of unnatural living these defects are creeping in. Also it might be due to unnatural lifestyle.
Therefore lifestyle correction which includes meditation is required. If homosexuality is lifestyle induced it will go sway on its own. Still my answer is it is not sin at all. Its just a choice.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Thought or intention is always karma?
"Chethanaham bikkawe kamman wadami".

Dear Bikkhus, I introduce thought as karma. It is after having thought
  that we engage in action physically, verbally and mentally. (
  Nibbedhika sutraya)

My question is simple. Does thought or intention alone become karma? Or does it need to have certain characteristics (Sorry if this word is inappropriate) for it to become Karma? If intention alone is karma whether we engage in action in though, word or deed what is the point of good deed?
 Can we just "think" that we are helping the poor and have good karma? Can we "think" that we are giving dhana to monks and have good karma? In the context of good karma, can we just have good intentions and thoughts of good deeds and get the same karma that we get from physically engaging in such activities?

The weight of kamma will vary depending on various accompanying factors like thought alone, thought accompanied by action, the severity of the results of the action, etc. See Ven. Nanamoli's "Discourse on Right View" for a detailed analysis: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel377.html

Thought is what decides Karma. Same action with different motivation or volition can be bad or good depending on the motivation or volition. That is volition is what becomes Karma.
If you follow though with your intentions then this can lead to rebirth linking Karma. If you don't it will be weaker Karma.
If you have the volition but not the means to follow through then it will be a weak Karma as discussed above.
Volition bears fruit based on the root and level of mental lethargy or whether you or someone else has to prompt or motivate you to do something. If you have the thoughts but not the desire to do it then the root are missing or very weak hence there is unlikely to be Karmic results. If there is lethargy but there is genuine desire, the roots weak but present hence will have diminished Karmic results. More than the thoughts, imagination of doing something, visualisation of doing something, what counts is motivation or volition or desire to do the thing, though such thoughts could lead to desire or motivation or volition to act. As discussed above all factors may not align to successfully follow through nevertheless karma is created but at different intensities of potential results.

My question is simple. Does thought or intention alone become karma?

As you implied, in the sutras, karma is defined as volition manifested through body, speech and mind. Karma can be thought as volitional action where "action" is any manifestation of "yourself", either externally visible (e.g. movements, words) or not (e.g. thoughts). Also, it seems that, at least from Buddhaghosa's lens, the volition and the action are not synonyms, but occur simultaneously (and there's no karma [fruits] without volition).
So a volitional thought is karma; is action. But, say, a different action than a physical movement, which is also different action from a utterance.

Or does it need to have certain characteristics (Sorry if this word is inappropriate) for it to become Karma?

It needs volition to be karma, to be a [morally/karmically significant] action.

If intention alone is karma whether we engage in action in though, word or deed what is the point of good deed? Can we just "think" that we are helping the poor and have good karma? Can we "think" that we are giving dhana to monks and have good karma?

A volitional thought of helping someone is a karma of thinking of helping someone; it's fruits are those produced by the thinking of helping someone.
On the other hand, a [series of] volitional action[s] with a disposition of helping someone has as fruits those produced by all the actions that, performed with the disposition to help, helped someone.
The fruits are different, as the actions are different.
Furthermore, it's not the appearance of an action that qualifies the karma (or if some expectations were fulfilled or not, e.g., if someone was helped or not), but whether the karma/volition is rooted in (non)ignorance, (non)hatred, (non)greed.

In the context of good karma, can we just have good intentions and thoughts of good deeds and get the same karma that we get from physically engaging in such activities?

No. Another way of thinking of karma results is the aggregates: your body, consciousness, perceptions, mental faculties, etc. One point of view would be to see "who you are" as the result of your past deeds. In this sense, "you" are the product of your actions (of body, speech and mind).
Conventionally, if you are a person who "frequently thinks of helping people", then you end up becoming such person: "one who frequently thinks of helping people" -- you are not a person who engages in helping people, as helping people is not an activity you've been engaging at; thus, you should expect distinct karmic outcomes.
From my understanding, (and glossing over) how much commitment, time, energy is devoted to some performance, how much it demands from your mental and physical faculties (how much it reconfigures them, or how much it reenforces habits), then that much is the transformation that one suffers [the transformation of becoming], and so, as far as volition is involved, that much fruit is expected to ripen.

As far as I understand, the better translation for "cetana" in English is "intention", and not "thought". That is an important difference in English which may not be so clear for someone from Sri Lanka (although I thought it must also be a clear difference in Pali and that Sri Lankan language should probably be much closer to Pali than English). But I am not really sure about this.
So that is where I think the misunderstanding could come from. You can think about doing something without actually intending to do it.
But only if you intend to do it (and of course that also involves thinking) you will actually do it (or at least make some initial movements to do it, or build up the inclination to follow through with it at some point).
And so I think that is the reason why the Buddha taught that

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."
  AN 6.63

It could be interesting to find the reason why the Sri Lankan quotes of the Nibbedika Sutta here put "thought" in the translation, and if they have maybe come to a differently adopted meaning of "cetana" over time. Or if the usual English translations of cetana with "intention" are missing out somehow on the "thought" aspect. But it seems to me that it would be actually impossible to have an intention without thought. Or so I think.

I don't know whether the OP nor the translation are from Sri Lanka.

Oh, I thought somehow that this kind of spelling with many 'h's and 'w's was something I had seen from Sri Lankan sources sometimes, and thought actually it could also be direct Sri Lankan language, but I am actually not sure about it, and might have been a totally wrong assumption.
Thanks for pointing out.

Kamma is defined as "action" or as "intentional action" or "a deed done deliberately", not "thought".
So in no way an intention become kamma?
I think that "intention" can become kamma, but maybe not "intention alone" (or maybe I didn't understand what you were asking when you wrote, "intention alone").
Intentions have consequences (e.g. if I intend to do something and then I do it -- then "doing it" is a consequence of "the intention", not to mention a proof of the intention, and the "doing" has further consequences).
Also thoughts are themselves consequences (e.g. if I do something unwise and as a consequence have confused thoughts; or, do something benevolent and as a consequence have a better memory).
In your OP you seemed to be hypothesizing a thought without any consequence (e.g. "intention alone without engaging in action") ... and I think that, "no, kamma is defined as action".
I think that kamma in Buddhism is complicated:

It may ripen soon or (much) later
It's not the only thing that affects e.g. birth
Being able to see kamma is a supernatural power

Given that things happen as a result of "conditions", I think of kamma as a "condition" of things happening.
I don't have a precise explanation of karma so I didn't want to say much about it. I think that one important thing to know about karma is that Buddhism is down on (i.e. it argues against) the two extremes of "eternalism" and "nihilism" ... one example of "nihilism" might be the belief that actions have no consequences (and maybe that therefore nothing matters) ... whereas Buddhism teaches that such nihilism is wrong view and that (on the contrary) actions (and intentions) matter and have consequences.
If you look at the second factor of the eightfold way ("Right Intention") part of the definition is,

Cultivating skillful ways of thought
[He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father.

... where "good and bad actions" links to the description of kamma.

Perhaps I really didn't understand your question though. E.g. you wrote...

If intention alone is karma whether we engage in action in though, word or deed what is the point of good deed? Can we just "think" that we are helping the poor and have good karma?

It's not clear to me what you mean: how can you think you're doing something without actually doing it?
I thought it might be a partial answer to your question though: to say that 'kamma' and 'intention' aren't synonyms. Maybe kamma is a consequence of intention, e.g. as described in the first verse of the dhammapada ... but a hypothetical "intention without consequence", if there even is such a thing, doesn't sound to me like the conventional meaning of the word kamma.
Maybe the intended meaning of your question was a thought experiment, though, i.e. a way to ask whether the very intention changes anything apart from (or as well as) whatever mundane effect the generous action has? In that case the answer might be yes: e.g. an intention to be kind might be related to your view (e.g. self-view). Whether the intention is a consequence of view, or whether intention has as its consequence an alteration of your view, is harder to say ... to resolve that (logical) difficulty it's easier to say that they (intention and view) arise together, are conditions of each other.

So in no way an intention become kamma?

I edited the answer to try to address your comment.

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

That's the wrong attitude. Whether it's good karma or bad karma it's still karma. A buddha leaves no footprints. Some people also throw around the term "middle-way". Same thing. Buddhism is not about doing good. When you see those things it's really just a beginner's trick to create enough balance to progress.
Thought doesn't come into it because true selfless action is void of thought.

So you think one could reach anything without actions? The Buddha did not taught such and that Buddhism is not about doing good, is sure a news. But maybe we need to be more advanced to understand that. Many people act thoughtless, of cause. But I would doubt if that could be called even on the way, Mr/Mrs Cameron.

A pure mind is unborn. Unborn of thought, and therefore unborn of good/bad. Of course there are thoughts, but you are not them. Good/bad, happy/unhappy, they're all just thoughts or ideas. There are 2 sides of the coin for everything, but that coin isn't real. It's just an idea. An idea that differs depending on what perspective you want to take. Normal life is when you are one side of the coin or the other. Nirvana is when you are outside of the coin, merely looking at it. This is no different than your mind right now.

But as we know, the pure mind is unknown to a ordinary run-a-mill-person and to dream about having a pure mind is as less as what the Buddha taught as perceptions of nibbana, but simply the path to it and this path is paved by good actions/intentions and this is called Buddhism. To call this idea or that of some perceptions Buddhism is merely useless for everybody. Do you think that either the questioner nor you have gone beyond good and bad while still living next a refrigerator and hold on 1001 things?

One might sit Aeon next to it when thinking everything is fine, Mr/Mrs Cameron. Its not the time to give up the boot, which is of cause not the aim but needed to cross the further offshore. And there than it is proper to say there is no good or bad and take Buddhism aside.

It's really not that hard. You can sit here and hear a dog barking outside without even such a thought of what it actually is. It arises in pure mind which is no different than your mind right now. Once you get your foot in the door by realising it's nothing special THEN you can start to dwell in it more and more until it takes over completely. Good deeds have nothing to do with it.

O yes... That is why this kind of approach is useless, when normal people listen to high teachings...The Lost Wallet
It's as if you leave home and lose your wallet. It fell out of your pocket onto the road away back there, but as long as you don't realize what happened you're at ease — at ease because you don't yet know what this ease is for. It's for the sake of dis-ease at a later time. When you eventually see that you've really lost your money: That's when you feel dis-ease — when it's right in your face.

The same holds true with our bad and good actions. The Buddha taught us to acquaint ourselves with these things. If we aren't acquainted with these things, we'll have no sense of right or wrong, good or bad." To put it into the words of a teacher who speaks Zen as well But even better you stay simply by the Buddha who never taught such a dullness path.

Can you do that "not so hard" when eating salt? Can you eat a cup of salt? You know, Mr/Mrs Cameron, Dhamma is not just about talking.

And regard of the middle of the middle this would be useful to understand the middle taught by the Buddha: The Middles of the Middle Way. From the simple steps till the highest.

Enlightenment or no enlightenment, wallets will be lost. Refinement happens when you feel the dis-ease. In a way it's a blessing. If you are residing in the unborn mind then it just eats it all up and dissolves. Please don't consider this a "high teaching". You can find it also. Anyone can. It just takes a bit of getting to know yourself. Don't put it off until you're more high level because that time will never come. The matter can be resolved by anyone, right now.

That middle way article is exactly my point and it would serve you well to actually understand it.

Where are you Cameron? And what would the Buddha teach you where you are? One does only see what one likes to see, yet forgetting where one is. And one is really in problems when taking the leaves as hard wood. But once people have been missleaded they are seldom to save and that is why the Buddhas only hard battles have been against people who teach such ways. If Cameron likes to understand more, he is welcome here: "Evil views" & Hell - niyata-micchāditthi

You're a fine example of someone only seeing what he wants to see. The buddha wasn't buddhist. Far out! Can it be any clearer? Find the essence of it all and stick with that. I'm done here.

Maybe the problem is that people like to be Buddha (bhava tanha) but don't like to do what he told. Some like to be Buddhists (bhava tanha) and some don't like to be "simply" students (vibhava tanha). Somebody who is doing the taught is someone with objectives, Cameron. Not one dreaming about things and waiting Awakening to come without the burden of work and training, not letting go but walk the bright side.

@Cameron please feel free, always, to flag comments whenever you think that's appropriate. You're more-or-less welcome to discuss comments if you like (discussions might get migrated to chat unless they're short and relevant to the answer), but if it would be argument instead of a discussion then it's likely better to flag it.

. It is after having thought that we engage in action physically, verbally and mentally. ( Nibbedhika sutraya)

Yes, we just thinking is kamma, too. It is called "manokamma".
In abhidhamma, concentration meditation and insight meditation, are just manokamma. The practitioner has word, deed, and mind to develop thinking, especially wisdom-mind-factor. The practitioner can not develop meditation by word or deed.
My english is terrible, therefore I can not understand the other questions, so I will answer just what I understood.

Thought or intention is always karma?
In very simple answer is "no it is not".  Further clarification is given below.

Chethana and Kamma (Intention and Action)
One can refer the Nibbedika Sutta Discourse of Gautama Buddha to learn about Cetana (Intention) and Kamma (Action). A most used part of a Sutta passage for this effect is
Chethanàhan bhikkhave kamman vadàmi,
Indeed when the above is mentioned there is an often omitted section which goes together with the above sutta passage.
That is
Cetanàhaü bhikkhave kammaü vadàmi, cetayitvà kamman karoti kàyena vàcàya manasà,
(Nibbedhika sutta)
Unless one doesn't take into account the meaning of the whole sutta passage, a distorted meaning surfaces for the reader.
The correct meaning coming out of the sutta passage should be ,
"Bhikkhus, intention I say is action. Having intended one does action by body, speech and mind."
"Chethana" - Intention is one of the 52 mental factors. They are not behaving alone.  They always behave as bunch. Each Consciousness these mental factors there according to the relevancy of the purpose of the Consciousness. Suppose the purpose is wholesome then 7 universal mental factors, few of the Occasional Mental factors, and Wholesome Mental Factors with Pragana and relevant illimitable and abstinence factors.
Same way in Unwholesome purpose 7 universal mental factors, few of the Occasional Mental factors, and unWholesome Mental Factors. So Intention Factor always with few of others and these each factor has their own role.
Also, to complete Karma there are few things fulfill whether it is wholesome or unwholesome. Below given few are unwholesome so that you can measure the wholesome.

For killing:- 1. There must be an animal to be killed. 2. You must be aware of the animal. 3. There must be the idea of killing, a plan formulated. 4. The plan must be carried out. 5. The animal must die. Killing an adult more serious than killing a child.

For stealing, there must be:- 1. Another's property. 2. Knowledge that it is so. 3. Intention to steal. 4. Effort to steal. 5. Actual removal of the item.

For sexual misconduct, there must be:- 1. The thought to enjoy. 2. Consequent effort. 3. Means to gratify. 4. Act of gratification.

For lying, there must be:- 1. An untruth 2. Intention to deceive. 3. Utterance. 4. Deception takes place.

When completing these kamma it includes thousands of millions of trillions or chiththa's and we call them Mind Process or "Chiththa Vithi" Each Chiththa Vithi include 17 Chiththa's or Consciousnesses. Each Consciousness has "7 Jawana" Consciousnesses which are playing main role in Karma. Each Jawana Consciousness creates it's own Future Karmik actions called Result or "Vipaka".  According to those Vipaka your future rebirth or life will decide and that is called Samsara Journey. Even Heaven it has a Dukka or Sorrowful Painful lives.
Lord Buddha told us this is very hectic sorrowful painful and if want us to stop this rebirth just followed eightfold path to Nirvana and free from rebirth.
For further reading to understand the process well:

Cetana and Kamma (Intention and Action)
Consciousness Process from the beginning
The way to end Suffering - Noble Eightfold Path
Four Noble Truths

May Triple Gem Bless you!!!

Thoughts alone become Karma whether they are followed by actions & words or not. Lets see why....

As you already know mind is capable of generating Karma just like the body. When a body does something it is not Body's thought, it is just the execution of thoughts that turns into actions. Same theory applies to the words.
As thoughts are followed by the actions feelings are followed By thoughts. Thoughts are the execution of mind's activities. Just like actions & words are the executions of mind's activities.
As Lord Buddha taught there are three types of thoughts...
1:-Thoughts that create "Attachment"
2:-Thoughts that create  "Collision"
3:-Thoughts that are "Neutral"
Above 1 & 2 create Karma but the 3rd does not because it is neutral and therefore unable to create attachments,collisions or deceiving thoughts.
So if any thought that can be taken into the categories 1 & 2 obviously create Karma.

Can thoughts of doing good alone Create Karma?
Yes, If you want a good Example look at the very famous "Meththa Meditation" (also known as - Loving Kindness Meditation). Even the thoughts of doing a good thing create good Karma. And one must be aware that this is a two way street, meaning thinking of bad creates bad karma too.
This is a very important concept only found in Buddhism. Even though there are few other religions that use the word Karma they do not have a full definition on how exactly karma should be defined.
So my friend you should know....
The minute you start thinking or planing some good deed it create good karma.
The minute you plan bad it creates bad karma.

All fine aside of the "As Lord Buddha taught there are three types of thoughts..." Which falls out of the context of the rest. Thought is usually a sankhara come into being by touch and this or that will. There are indifferent thoughts, constructions one does not erect till an end, just staying confuse. Not sure if the idea of neutral thought is good, since just a thought of an awakened mind would not cause kamma or without the roots lobha, dosa, moha. But are they generally without of moha, this indifferent thought?

When Upasaka (Atma forgot the name, sorry, maybe once again) looks at this table, he will see that even this generally called "neutral" things have impact not to speak of those rooted in not knowing.

Bhante, it is nice to see you again. By three types of thoughts i meant a simple general categorization of all thoughts (Thoughts that get attached, Thoughts that collide, Thoughts that are born from wrong perceptions {Loba,Dosa,Moha} ). I did not intended to imply Neutral thoughts are good. I completely agree with the comment of yours. What i meant was that generally Neutral thoughts are not as much effective in generating Karma compared to Loba & Dosa. My point of reference is "Samadhi Meditation", In it thoughts are Neutral and therefore does not create Karma....... @SamanaJohann

....Because Neutral thoughts are not coming from the bad roots (Loba Dosa Moha). @SamanaJohann

This is only My understanding. Please correct me if i'm wrong. @SamanaJohann

@SamanaJohann , And my name is "Shashi". Remember i said it would be hard for others if i used my real name :-)

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