'Metta' versus 'passive acceptance for the wicked'? I've often seen the question asked: "How can we have metta for murderers, terrorists, criminals, etc.?"

Though there are many good answers to these questions, I've noticed that few of them tend to highlight the difference between 'having metta for something or someone', versus 'condoning, endorsing, or even simply tolerating their actions'. Most answers stress that the wicked be viewed as individuals, who -- if they were truly happy -- would not do such terrible things. Therefore, we should wish that they attain that very true happiness. But that doesn't seem to change the fact that by generating metta towards these people, I often feel as though I am passively accepting their terrible deeds, which caused tremendous suffering to others. Do not the wicked "deserve" suffering for the suffering they've caused?

When we generate metta for the "wicked", how do we thus distance ourselves from the horrible actions of our metta-recipients? How do we have unconditional loving-kindness for them without taking on their negative qualities and actions that make the metta so difficult to generate in the first-place?

I think your question contains an implication that one practicing metta will be inclined to do nothing for the person they feel friendly towards. This is not the case at all. A person with metta is inclined towards the benefit of others:

  For among these, loving-kindness is the way to purity for one who has
  much ill will, compassion is that for one who has much cruelty, gladness is that
  for one who has much aversion (boredom), and equanimity is that for one who
  has much greed. Also attention given to beings is only fourfold, that is to say, as
  bringing welfare, as removing suffering, as being glad at their success, and as
  unconcern, [that is to say, impartial neutrality]. And one abiding in the
  measureless states should practice loving-kindness and the rest like a mother
  with four sons, namely, a child, an invalid, one in the flush of youth, and one
  busy with his own affairs; for she wants the child to grow up, wants the invalid
  to get well, wants the one in the flush of youth to enjoy for long the benefits of
  youth, and is not at all bothered about the one who is busy with his own affairs.
  That is why the measureless states are only four as “due to paths to purity and
  other sets of four.”

  One who wants to develop these four should practice them towards beings
  first as the promotion of the aspect of welfare—and loving-kindness has the
  promotion of the aspect of welfare as its characteristic; and next, on seeing or
  hearing or judging that beings whose welfare has been thus wished for are at
  the mercy of suffering, they should be practiced as the promotion of the aspect of
  the removal of suffering—and compassion has the promotion of the aspect of
  the removal of suffering as its characteristic; and then, on seeing the success of
  those whose welfare has been wished for and the removal of whose suffering
  has been wished for, they should be practiced as being glad—and gladness has
  the act of gladdening as its characteristic; but after that there is nothing to be
  done and so they should be practiced as the neutral aspect, in other words, the
  state of an onlooker—and equanimity has the promotion of the aspect of
  neutrality as its characteristic; therefore, since their respective aims are the aspect
  of welfare, etc., their order should be understood to correspond, with loving-
  kindness stated first, then compassion, gladness and equanimity.

  -- Vism IX.108-9 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Clearly a person with a mind of metta is more likely to work to help those most in need; not just to end the suffering of victims, but to end the evil of perpetrators that is the cause of suffering for both.

Do not the wicked "deserve" suffering for the suffering they've caused?

Certainly, this seems reasonable, but does not relate to one's own state of mind. Anger is still evil even when it is based on true assessment of the situation; two wrongs don't make a right.

When we generate metta for the "wicked", how do we thus distance ourselves from the horrible actions of our metta-recipients?

We do it by beginning with lovable beings, then slowly working our way up to neutral, then finally hostile individuals. Any time we find our state of friendliness slipping, we revert back to an easier object.

  If resentment arises in him when he applies his mind to a hostile person
  because he remembers wrongs done by that person, he should get rid of the
  resentment by entering repeatedly into loving-kindness [jhāna] towards any of
  the first-mentioned persons and then, after he has emerged each time, directing
  loving-kindness towards that person.

  -- Vism IX.14 (Nyanamoli, trans)

There is much more detailed info on dealing with anger in chapter nine of the Visuddhimagga, along with quotes from the Buddha.

Is there any concept of "condemnation with metta"?

I think you are under the impression that metta is a mind state to be dwelt in constantly. Buddhism doesn't espouse such a view; constant attention to metta will lead to rebirth in the brahma realms, not enlightenment. No, it is not possible to condemn someone while absorbed in the practice of metta meditation, but it is possible for a person free from anger, who often practices metta, to do so. Metta may in fact lead someone to condemn others, thinking that the condemnation will help them overcome their evil deeds, or help keep others from falling prey to their evil deeds (which would probably be karuna).

  ‘Then Sunakkhatta came to me, saluted me, and sat down to one side. I said to him: “You foolish man, do you claim to be a follower of the Sakyan?” “Lord, what do you mean by this question?” “Sunakkhatta, did you not go to see Kaḷāramuṭṭhaka and ask him a question he could not answer, and did he not thereupon show signs of anger, rage and petulance? And did you not think: ‘I might cause this real Arahant ascetic offence. I don’t want anything to happen that would be to my lasting harm and misfortune’?” “I did, Lord. Does the Blessed Lord begrudge others their Arahantship?” “I do not begrudge others their Arahantship, you foolish man. It is only in you that this evil view has arisen. Cast it aside lest it should be to your harm and sorrow for a long time! This naked ascetic Kaḷāramuṭṭhaka, whom you regard as a true Arahant, will before long be living clothed and married, subsisting on boiled rice and sour milk. He will go beyond all the shrines of Vesālī, and will die having entirely lost his reputation.” And indeed all this came about.

  -- DN 24 (Walshe, trans)


What is a phenomenological perspective? I have seen in answers on this site (about consciousness in connection with rebirth) that Theravada adhere to a phenomenological perspective on consciousness. Can anyone explain for me what it means to have a phenomenological perspective? And which schools does not have this perspective?

Generally, "a phenomenological perspective" refers to phenomenology as expounded by Husserl, and so forth. It is a way of speaking that is typical of contemporary students. It refers to a perspective that underlies the manner in which phenomena appear to one's consciousness, or (a step further) the aspects one's consciousness take.

Therefore, in relation to 'lower rebirth', a so-called phenomenological perspective would approach the way one experiences suffering. The aspect one's consciousness takes when it is subject to this or that suffering.

Generally, such a perspective entails suspending facts and factual inquiries (as in "let us not take rebirth altogether as a fact or a non-fact, and let us not bother with determining whether there is indeed rebirth"). When one suspends all judgments about the supposedly external world (or its quality of being external), that suspension is called epokhē, an ancient Greek term.

From that viewpoint, a phenomenological perspective relates to a form of skepticism.

Some people take another stand by even negating (not just suspending) such or such a phenomena as a fact, as in: "there is no such thing as rebirth and hells, but that doesn't matter because we might very well experience the world in a hellish way". This amounts to a form of criticism.


Searching for a Pali sutta where Buddha said "Enough!" to rebirth speculations There is a sutta where a man kept asking the Buddha about forecasting destinations or future lives or something similar and the Buddha said to the man: "Enough!" and exhorted the purpose or goal of the holy life is to be dispassionate.

Can someone help me locate this sutta? Thanks

SN 42.3 (To Yodhajiva The Warrior) and SN 42.2 (To Talaputa the Actor) both contain the phrase,

  "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that."

The reason why he says "enough" seems to be that he doesn't want to have to tell them that they'll be reborn in hell or the animal realm.

The sutta to the Warrior includes a warning against wrong view; and the sutta to the Actor a warning against delusion, passion, intoxication and heedlessness.


Should I identify myself as formless? Namo Buddhaya.
Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Form is Anatta too. Meaning form is not worth identifying as myself, me or mine.

Does that mean that I should identify myself as formless ? Am I in form or am I formless or I do not exist ?
Similarly for feelings and consciousness. Should I identify myself feelingless? Should I identify myself consciousless( i.e. I will become without consciousness) ? I am pretty confused.

I think the doctrine is saying that you shouldn't "identify yourself" at all. Quoting from this answer

  "You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."

I think that, "I am form", "I am formless", "I exist", "I don't exist", are all self-theories ... theories about self ... and from accepting or assuming any of these theories arises "sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair".

There is also (quoting from MN 2):

  "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

... so if you say that, "I am pretty confused", I think that is what the dhamma was predicting as the result of attending to views of self (i.e. it predicted "a thicket of views", etc.). I remember "a thicket of views" as a warning, a sign, of attending inappropriately to some view[s]-of-self.

See also:

What are examples of identity-view?
How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

And yet I also like Why is the Buddha described as trackless? and The Trackless One?

Perhaps there's some ambiguity: between "not describing (not constraining, not leading) the Tathagata", compared to "describing the Tathagata as 'not' (or describing as 'formless')".

But that kind of consideration is, more or less, stuck right in the middle of "the thicket" again -- so, if the question is confused, I maybe shouldn't try to tie a (clear) answer to a (confused) question.

So instead of this answer, I hope you find its references helpful.

If it helps, I once saw a video (Dalai Lama's guide to happiness) where the Dalai Lama said,

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


Is the Alayavijnana momentary?And is it shared in Yogacara? I am hearing contradictorary things.Is the alayavijnana shared in yogacara?And is it momentary and subject to Kshanabhanga?What does vasubandhu say and the early yogacarins?Please cite sources.

Re. the momentariness of the Alayavijnana, the Lankavatara Sutra says:
“Mahāmati, the ālaya-consciousness, which is known as “the tathāgata heart,” is momentary in its being associated with mentation as well as the latent tendencies of the active consciousnesses [but] it is nonmomentary [in its being associated] with the uncontaminated latent tendencies.”
In verse Stiramathi's commentary to I.16 the Mahayanasamgraha, he says that the Alayavijnana is momentary - else the latent tendecies would not be momentary.
In note 144 of Volume Two of A Compendium of the Mahayana, Karl Brunnhölzl writes: “The Pañcaskandhabhāṣya (D4068, fols. 100b.3–101a.3) comments on Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra V.7 as follows. Since the ālaya-consciousness appropriates bodies in one life after another and knows its own object, it is given the name “appropriating consciousness.” It is profound because ordinary beings do not understand it, and it is subtle because noble śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas do not understand it. Or, it is profound because it is the sphere of buddhas and bodhisattvas, and it is subtle because it is not the sphere of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. Since it functions as the support of the seeds of all afflicted phenomena, the verse says, “with all [its] seeds.” In answer to wondering whether this ālaya-consciousness is permanent or impermanent, the verse says, “flows like the stream of a river.” A river flows as a momentary stream by carrying wood, stones, and so on, with it. Likewise, the ālaya-consciousness operates uninterruptedly in saṃsāra as a momentary stream by being associated with the five omnipresent mental factors. Therefore, since it is impermanent, the verse says, “flows like a river.”
Vasubandhu utilizes the river metaphor again in the Trimsatika, when he says in verse 4 that the alaya consciousness "always evolves like a flowing stream,
And is abandoned in the state of arhat."
As for whether the ground consciousness is 'shared' Maitreya/Asanga (and their commentators) deal with that question in the Dharmadharmatavibanga:
What appear to be outer, perceivable in common,
Are perceiving awareness; they are not referents
Existing as something extrinsic to consciousness,
Because they are only experienced as common.
The counterpart is the one in which what is perceived
Is not shared in common. Here awareness’ referent
Is the minds and so on associated with others.
These do not comprise an object of mutual exchange
For perceiving awareness not resting nor resting poised,
Because, for those not resting in equipoise,
It is but their own conceptions that appear;
And because, for those who are resting in equipoise,
It is its faithful reflection that appears
As the object encountered during samadhi absorption.
Finally, both Dharmakirti and Ratnakirti also address the iussue of other minds. You can read their views here --
Buddhist idealism and the problem of other minds by Roy Perret

This essay is concerned with Indian Yogācāra philosophers’ treatment of the problem of other minds in the face of a threatened collapse into solipsism suggested by Vasubandhu’s epistemological argument for idealism.


What is arupa jhana (5th jhana)? When  meditation experience mind  without body loss sensation about the environment  where I am and feel like  mind is in the sky by hearing voice  of birds.is it a jhana?

There is no sound in jhana (Kathāvatthu).


Is Buddhism the Way of Truth? I mean, free from misguidance, from being wrong and misdirected?
And if it the case, where is the evidence?

The spirit of the Buddha's Teaching has always been: "To come, practice, and experience it for yourself". He had long abandoned the ego to prove anything to anyone:

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'
"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.' ~ AN 8.53 ~"


Awake mind after meditation Recently I have started meditating on my own, by observing my breath and rise and fall of abdomen. Half an hour in the morning and half an hour in the night before going to sleep. Sometimes sleep takes over and I go to sleep immediately after meditation. But when I try to concentrate more during meditation, my mind becomes charged and even when I sleep, my mind is awake , although body is resting. I aware that my mind has not shutdown. Is this normal? am I doing correctly? This wakefulness is there till next day. Is this some kind of alpha state of mind? Please help.

But when I try to concentrate more during meditation, my mind becomes charged...

If what you are describing here is concentrate with more effort (rather than meditating for a longer duration) then what you have described is a common symptom of concentrating with too much power & effort.

While beginner meditators often meditate with mental force to counter (suppress) discursive (habitual) thinking, ultimately, Buddhist meditation is based on letting go & emptying the mind (rather than pushing the mind with power & effort).


How does the Buddha define "atheist"? As usually atheist is mean a belief that there is no god. Is there any definition by Buddha about atheist ? I read philosophy that inhumanity would called atheist really other than belief in god .

Atheism falls under ucchedavāda which was vehemently rejected by the Buddha. It is one of two extremes that Buddha avoided by revealing the middle way; Pratītyasamutpāda.

  "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:.."
  -Kaccayanagotta Sutta


Can we reach deep meditative states without teachers? I read that the guidance of a teacher is "highly recommended because not all meditation experiences are spiritually skillful" and that

"It's also very common for solo practitioners to believe they have reached a deep meditative state when in fact they have barely scratched the surface. They may feel the rapture of the first dhyana, for example, and assume that's enlightenment. A good teacher will guide your meditative technique and keep you from sticking anywhere."
Developing Samadhi

Can we take a deep and authentic look, and potentially reach enlightenment without a teacher?
thanks

A teacher is generally required but difficult to find. The Pali suttas say:

  Tathāgatappaveditassa dhammavinayassa desetā puggalo dullabho lokasmiṃ

  Rare in the word is a person who teaches the teaching and training
  proclaimed by a Realized One.

  AN 6.96

For an individual with a keen intellect, this 'teacher' could simply be the Pali suttas. However, even in this case, the discernment of what the Path is must be acutely discerned. Generally, even an intelligent person needs a 'rare teacher' to verbally guide through the true meaning of the Pali suttas.


Theravada using mostly Vinaya and 4 Nikayas There is a Buddhist monk from Theravada tradition that only follows Vinaya and the 4 Nikayas, he avoids talking about Abidhamma or other sources like Jakata Tales, he said some later stories contradicts the Buddha's teachings and gave some interesting examples, he also avoids the commentaries.

He claimed the true Dhamma the Buddha spoke of before dying (to be the teacher) were the Vinaya and suttas in the 4 Nikayas.

I would like to know, is there a tradition inside theravada that follows this logic? I couldn't ask if he was following a particular tradition/school or if it was just his personal view. I would like to understand and explore it.

Bhante Punnaji and Bhante Vimalaramsi (following Bhante Punnaji) and Bhikkhu Nanavira also teach this approach to Dhamma study. I also believe this is a good approach from the point of view of investigating an unknown doctrine. Go to the original sources as much as possible.

In really attemtpting to understand Psychology would it not make more sense to go to Freud first, then read those who came after with their modifications and perhaps misunderstandings? I'd rather generate my misunderstandings first hand.

There are those who say that reading the commentaries is helpful for understanding difficult positions. The reply is how can one be certain that the 'clarification' isn't mystification? You can only know by going to the original sources. Why waste the time going in circles like that?

Trust in the mind! To the clear, calm mind the solution to every problem will be seen.

One needs to remember that what Buddhism is talking about is salvation from the eternal round of pain and misery. Are you going to trust your salvation to secondary sources?

The Buddha says over and over again that he has taught Dhamma in the best way to teach Dhamma. see http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/an/03_threes/an03.123.olds.bd.htm At least until one knows for certain otherwise it seems wise to take the man's word for it. It is, after all, his wisdom one is studying.


Is there a commentary for the Dhammapada? I read somewhere that there was a traditional commentary for the Dhammapada that gave the stories that inspired the Buddha to write the various verses of the text. Does anyone know what that commentary is and is it available on the internet perhaps on something like accesstoinsight or maybe as a printed book?

Yes, there is indeed. The commentarial text includes both these stories and word-by-word commentary on the verses themselves.
The story parts were translated into English long ago by Burlingame as "Buddhist Legends". The PDF version is available here:
http://static.sirimangalo.org/pdf/
in three volumes. (Search the page for "Buddhist Legends", there's eight pdf files)
The commentary on the verses has never been fully translated, AFAIK. Here, as an example, is the commentary on the first verse (not found in Burlingame's translation):

Realities have mind as forerunner, have mind as chief, are formed of mind.  If, with a mind corrupted, one speaks or acts, because of that, suffering follows him, just as a wheel the foot of the one pulling the burden.
Therein, each and every mind of the four realms, categorized as sensual-sphere wholesome, etc. is called “mind”. But, in this passage, being fixed, determined and defined by the power of the doctor's arisen mind, just a mind associated with aversion and accompanied by displeasure was obtained. In reference to “having as forerunner”: having become because of it going first, they are associated with it.  in reference to “realities”, there are actually four types of reality, under the headings of virtue, dissemination, study, and non-being/non-soul.  In regards to these, in “dhamma and non-dhamma do not indeed both have the same result.  Non-dhamma leads to hell, dhamma causes to reach a happy destination.”,  this is called “dhamma as virtue”. In “I will disseminate the dhamma to you monks, beautiful in the beginning...”, this is called “dhamma as dissemination”.  In “So here, monks, some young men of a good families bring the dhamma to complete fulfilment: the sutta the geyya...” this is called “dhamma as study”.  In “But indeed, at that time dhammas exist, aggregates exist.” this is called “non-being dhamma”.  This indeed is also called “non-soul dhamma”. Of those, in this instance non-being/non-soul dhamma is intended. The meaning of that is the three formless aggregates - the aggregate of sensation the aggregate of perception and the aggregate of mental formation.  Because, these are spoken of as “mind is the forerunner of them”, they are called that which has mind as forerunner.
But why is mind, arising in a single instant together with these, of a single base, with a single object, not before nor after, called “forerunner”? By the meaning of being condition for arising. Just as where many villains are doing evil deeds together like pillaging, etc., when it is asked, “Who is the forerunner of these villains?” whoever is the condition for them, having depended on whom they do that deed, he, whether Datta or Mitta, is called “the forerunner” of them. Thus should the completion of this matter be understood. Since, by the meaning of being condition for arising, mind is the forerunner of them, so they have mind as forerunner; whereas they are not able to arise with mind not arising, mind, however, does indeed arise with some mental concomitants not arising. Further, by virtue of being ruler over, mind is foremost in regards to them, so they have mind as chief. For, just as senior villains, etc., are chiefs of villains, etc., by ruling over them, so, as the mind is ruler of those mental concomitants, they indeed have mind as chief. Further, just as whatever is fashioned with wood, etc., all of those wares are called made of wood, etc., so, as those mental concomitants are themselves fashioned from the mind, they are called mind-made.
In reference to “with a mind corrupted”, the meaning is with a mind corrupted by incoming faults beginning with covetousness.  For the bhavaṅgacitta is an normal mind that is uncorrupted.  But  just as clear water tainted by incoming blue colour, etc. is thus categorized as blue water, etc., and not new water, nor either the former same clear water, even so is that mind corrupted by incoming faults beginning with covetousness, and not a new mind, nor indeed the former same bhavaṅgacitta.  Thus the Blessed One said, “Radiant, monks, is this mind; yet indeed, it is defiled by incoming defilements (AN 1.49).” So, if with a mind corrupted a man speaks or acts, speaking, he speaks only the fourfold verbal misconduct; acting, performs only the threefold bodily misconduct; not speaking, not acting, while there exists that mind corrupted with covetousness, etc., he fulfils the threefold mental misconduct.  Thus he fulfils the ten means of unwholesome action.
In regards to, “because of that, suffering follows him,” the meaning is, because of that threefold misconduct, suffering goes after that individual; by the power of misconduct, in the four states of loss or in the realm of humans, going both as a body-entity and otherwise, thus by this explanation bodily and mental suffering as a result follows that state of being.
Just like what? In regards to “just as a wheel the foot of the one pulling the burden”, the meaning is, like a wheel the foot of the ox harnessed in the yoke, pulling the yoke. For, just as that ox pulling even for one day, even for two, even for five, even for ten, even for half-a-month, even for a month, is not able to leave behind, to abandon the wheel; then indeed, when he is advancing to the front, the yoke presses on his neck; when retreating to the back, the wheel strikes against the flesh of his legs.  Oppressing by these two means, the wheel is in-step with the feet of that ox.  Just so, with a mind defiled, having fulfilled the three types of misconduct, an individual  is set in hell, etc..  Gone into such and such places, both bodily and mental suffering rooted in misconduct follows after him.  This is the meaning.


Won't bad karma cause a chain reaction? So consider the situation where you did something bad like killing someone (or something less serious) which means that you now have bad karma. So now something bad needs to happen to you, considering all things this thing will statistically caused by another person doing something to hurt you (physically or mentally) which adds to their bad karma and so on.

My question is what would have to be done to stop this chain reaction?

Your bad Karma does not cause bad Karma for others. If another person gets a mindset to kill, it's not a result of your bad Karma. It's a result of his own aversion and volition. But your bad karma can place you at the wrong place at the wrong time.

ex: A crocodile might attack anyone who gets into the water. Your bad karma can place you at the river when the crocodile is waiting to grab a meal.
Coconuts fall down from coconut trees whether you killed someone or not. But your bad Karma can place you under a coconut tree when a coconut is falling down.


What is "Pattichha Samuppadha" in buddhism i want clarification about what is "patichcha samuppada" its in

"Anekajati sansaram  sandhavissam anibbisam
Gahakarakam gavesanto dukka jati punappunam"

“This tour, this cycle of existence, has run
 through numerous births without encountering,
 looking for the builder, the creator of the world
 and self. For, repeated birth is painful.”

Link

Pratityasamutpada means "gradual auto-emerging". It describes the process by which a newborn baby develops subjective experience of "I" and "desirable/undesirable objects" and "the world".

Information is an ever-present part of the universe. All physical interactions carry information. As these interactions have some amount of regularity (they repeat in patterns) - the baby accumulates information.

As information accumulates, it becomes more and more complex and integrated, until it can reflect or represent something about the world. Now it can be called "mind".

This process evolves until it culminates in recognition, when the baby can recognize something from before, and associations when it can relate things that were somehow connected before.

The process evolves further until the baby develops notions of objects or entities, each having a stable identity. The baby begins classifying these objects as "desirable" and "undesirable" based on experience of peace or disturbance that they bring. It starts pursuing desirable objects and avoiding undesirable.

Then gradually the baby develops a notion of "I", as the subject that experiences contact with the objects, and as the entity that pursues an object and enjoys the result.

In the baby's mind there is entire world, with people, objects, problems, and happy moments. It grows, matures, gets old, and dies.

Then the cycle restarts when a new baby is born. It starts from scratch again, going through the same process. This goes on indefinitely.

Every generation starts with complete ignorance of the fact that nothing completely disappears and nothing appears from scratch, and that everything keeps transforming from one form to another. Every person grows up assuming that he or she is completely separate from everyone and everything else. Then they begin pursuing some selfish goals and fighting with each other. The cycle repeats on and on.

If only they knew that this world of separation is an illusion! They would teach their children to live differently! No pursuit of stupid material goals, no fear of death, no fighting, no murdering the planet! But they don't know and so the cycle goes on and on and on...

This is "the cycle of existence" that "has run through numerous births".

  Thus, this twelvefold dependent arising — which comes from several different causes and conditions, is neither permanent nor impermanent, is neither compounded nor uncompounded, is not without cause or condition, is not an experiencer, and is not something exhaustible, something destructible, or something that ceases — has proceeded from time immemorial, without interruption, like the flow of a river. - The Rice Seedling Sutra.

Now, if you look at this process from afar, you will see that it's not really about an individual baby, it is about the overall pattern of subjective experience emerging from information and then taking its model of reality for reality itself. The exact way this happens, the reason it relates to Buddhist Ethics, and the way to undo it, is the heart of hearts of Buddhism.


Can anyone identify which suttas these quotes (having to do with the sense of self) come from? This document contains instructions for ridding the sense of a personal self. I was wondering which suttas (or other texts) the quotes at the end come from:

  “By rightly understanding ‘I am,’ one makes and end of suffering.”

and:

  “The eradication of ‘I am’ is the attainment of Nibbana here and now.”

I think the first one is for example the Kutuhalasala Sutta (SN 44.9) (S iv 398), the relevent sentence in that translation being:

  Instead, he describes him thus:

    "He has cut through craving, severed the fetter, and by rightly breaking through conceit has made an end of suffering & stress."'

I think that "rightly breaking through conceit" might be a translation of of the same text as "rightly understanding ‘I am’" (because "breaking through" = "understanding", and "I am" = "conceit").

There's more about the relationship between "conceit" and "identity view" in the answers to this topic.

Another translation is here:

  But, he declares of him, thus:

    “He has cut off craving, and through full mastery over conceit, he has
    made a total end of suffering.”

This gives the Pali in a footnote:

  Acchejji taṇhaṁ vivattayi saññojanaṁ sammā,mānâbhisamayā antam akāsi dukkhassâ ti.

Here's part of a dictionary definition of one of those words, Abhisamaya

  Abhisamaya, (abhi + samaya, from sam + i, cp. abhisameti & sameti; BSk. abhisamaya, e. g. Divy 200, 654) “coming by completely”, insight into, comprehension, realization, clear understanding, grasp, penetration.

So you can see how that word might be translated as "understanding" and/or "penetration".

A later part of that same dictionary definition says,

  sammā-mān’âbhisamaya full understanding of false pride in ster. phrase "acchecchi (for acchejji) taṇhaṃ, vivattayi saññojanaṃ sammāmānâbhisamayā antam akāsi dukkhassa" at S.IV, 205, 207, 399; A.III, 246, 444; It.47

... in other words:

It's a "ster. phrase" (maybe "stereotypical phrase"?)
That dictionary translates it as "full understanding of false pride"
It can be found in several suttas, including S.IV (205, 207, and 399), A.III (246 and 444), and It.47.

And indeed, as stated in that definition, here it is again at the end of (for example) the Nissaraniya Sutta (AN 5.200) (A iii 245):

  He has cut through craving, has turned away from the fetter, and by rightly breaking through conceit he has put an end to suffering & stress.

So it's found in at least two of the suttas (quoted/hyperlinked above), and presumably found in at least all 6 of the suttas referenced in the dictionary definition above.


Does karma force things to happen? I know karma matures with the right conditions but does it ever force things to happen with the certainty that it will happen?

Like for example can earning a specific karma say that it's going to force an effect, like when somebody does something good that means they'll become a private buddha in the future. Does it sort of "force" or push things in the direction of the karma to happen or is it still just waiting for the right conditions.

It doesn't force things to happen because karma by definition has no self which can force anything.
Karma doesn't really exist as some punishing entity (like a Western God), which is what the word "force" implies in your question.

In Buddhism and Hinduism, the chain of causation that binds beings to the Wheel of Birth and the natural conditions that stem from it, creates a torrent of karma all of which must be satisfied in life after life until samadhi/bodhi can be achieved.

"Conditions" can be anything by the way. A condition can be being in a certain situation, seeing a certain characteristic of a person (e.g. maleness, femaleness), or even "having a body". Oftentimes I believe that karma has an effect that is beyond time, simultaneously immediate, near, and far..


Does the question further? Sometimes, a lay person would approach the Buddha and ask a question, such as, "If I earn all of the money in the world, will she like me?" to which the Buddha would reply, "It does not further". As the answer would not further his ultimate purpose, which is to give. (The question frames the asker as a 'taker', or 'possessor', or 'manipulator', etc.).

Does the answer to the question, "What are the pitfalls to improvement?", further my purpose to improve?

Does the question "what are the pitfalls to improvement?" further the purpose (to improve)?

It depends. In the simplest case, yes of course - and Buddha talks a lot about this in the Pali Canon: For any obstacle Xi: what is the exact nature of Xi? what are the necessary and sufficient factors required for Xi to arise? which factor Xi-1 of these factors can we remove to prevent Xi from arising? (Repeat recursively as needed for the factor Xi-1 in place of Xi, and then its necessary factor Xi-2 etc. until X0) Finally, what is our exact plan of attack to uproot the whole chain?

Now, as Mahayana practitioners figured out, the desire to advance on the path can itself be a major pitfall. This is even recognized in the Pali Canon itself, which says that udhacca-kukkucca (restlessness and anxiety about one's Dharma practice) is one of the fetters that must be eradicated on the advanced phases (along with arrogance & conceit on the other extremum).

My favorite illustration of this is Dutiya Anuruddha Sutta (AN 3.128 or 3.130 or 131 depending how you count):

  Then venerable Anuruddha came to venerable Shariputra and said:
  -- As much as I, friend Shariputra, look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, see things with thousandfold-superhuman vision, train in confidence unmovable, in awareness undimmable, in tranquillity imperturbable, and in focused mind unscattered, still I can't "having stopped feeding the asavas, achieve liberation of mind".
  -- All these dharmas, friend Anuruddha, of the kind "I look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, I see things with thousandfold-superhuman vision" -- this is your conceit.
  And the dharmas like "I train in confidence unmovable, in awareness undimmable, in tranquillity imperturbable, and in focused mind unscattered" -- this is your udhacca.
  And the dharmas like "still I can't "having stopped feeding the asavas, achieve liberation of mind" -- this is your kukkucca.
  You'd better, friend Anuruddha, these three dharmas abandon; To these three dharmas not attending, on the deathless aspect focus your mind.

In this scenario, worrying about one's improvement was actually itself an instance of "feeding the asavas".

Compare this with the following verses from Prajnaparamita-Ratnagunasamcayagatha which says:

  Also, not the position of body, nor of feelings, nor thoughts, nor volitions,
  Nor of consciousness -- position even a little does not bother him.
  Thus, not getting stuck on any single dharma, without a "home",
  Not clinging, he attains Enlightenment of the Lucky Ones.

  Having stopped again and again wavering searching for wisdom,
  "Whence?", "Why?" -- of such dharmas empty,
  Having stopped getting upset, caught up, or scared,
  Soon he can reach Enlightenment, such Bodhisattva.

So yes, inquiring into the pitfalls to improvement does further, including inquiring into these notions of "inquiring" and "improvement" themselves.

P.S. and what is that "deathless aspect" (amrita-dhatu) that Shariputra was talking about? As is said in KN Ud 1:10,

  Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.


Losing enlightenment I would like to ask if someone has known an enlightened being who lost it.

Is there any Buddhist texts about this?

I believe it can happen with some brain problem maybe.

I don't know if this is something that is possible. Steve Taylor has done a 10 year study of enlightened (I use that word extremely liberally in the case of his study) individuals in which he documents some cases where people have lost the state in his book The Leap - The Psychology of Spiritual Awakening. However, in my opinion his 10 year study only really scratches the very surface. I say this because there are many who are fooled into thinking that they are enlightened when in fact they probably entered a jhanic state for sometime then lost it. This is the tomfoolery of awakening. Jhanic experiences can be drastically life changing and one can attach that change to a conclusion concerning their spiritual discovery only to become disappointed by the certainty of impermanence.

Additionally, from the Buddhist perspective, enlightenment occurs at Sotapanna stage when one enters the stream but one is still subjected to conditioned states in the stream. Apparently, there is a place where conditioning no longer has any influence, termed nibbana or enlightenment. Im not sure how one could fall back from the stream having realised knowledge of the four noble truths and suffering.


How can mindfulness be maintained while receiving and processing information? It seems that when I process information, be it at work or with people in general, I struggle to not be swept into a cerebral/cognitive space. How can this be remedied/avoided?

At different points throughout your day, try moving your feet, wiggling your toes, knocking one foot on another, until you regain good awareness of your lower body. Also try to push your lower abdomen out.

In general, try to get in the habit of watching various parts of your body, stretch them, put them in comfortable positions. Neck, legs, waist, diaphragm, face muscles - everything. The more you recover awareness of your body, the better your connection with emotional/subconscious mind will be.

My Zen Master called this "coming downstairs" (from one's head to one's body and heart)


Did Lord Buddha teach any other meditation technique than the Anapana? Meditation and cultivating awareness is the heart of Buddhism. You need meditation for attaining jhanas and also for doing Vipassana, metta bhavana...

So as far as I've discovered, the only meditation that Lord Buddha taught was sitting and watching the breath. But nowadays many masters and mystic have very different techniques for different kind of people. Because not all people has the same temperament and cannot go into trance by just one single method. And as tathagata also had so many different disciples, did anapana worked for all of them and all of them attained jhanas, stillness of mind, etc. by practicing anapana alone or there was other meditation techniques, if so what are these techniques?

P.s. I know about walking meditation, loving-kindness and other awareness meditations explained in satipatthana but they are not specifically techniques. What I'm looking for is the sitting meditation techniques when anapana does not work.

You sit for two hours like a log and expect to reach samadhi? Well, I'm sorry to disappoint, but your expectation of meditation as "technique" is completely, utterly wrong. You can't achieve Nibbana, Enlightenment, Liberation, or however you call it, by sitting and mechanically doing something pointless - this is not how it works.

Meditation is cultivation. Buddhist meditation is cultivation of cessation of dukkha. This cultivation is gradual, step by step - from coarse to fine.

In your meditation you should cultivate cessation of dukkha by cultivating:

  non-arising [anuppādāya] of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
  abandonment [pahānāya] of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
  arising [uppādāya] of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
  maintenance [ṭhitiyā], non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen.

How exactly you do this? By following anapanasati sutta:

  Breathing in, I am aware of my whole body. Breathing out, I am aware of my whole body.
  Breathing in, I calm my whole body. Breathing out, I calm my whole body.
  Breathing in, I make it joyful. Breathing out, I make it joyful.
  Breathing in, I make it happy. Breathing out, I make it happy.
  Breathing in, I make my mind happy. Breathing out, I make my mind happy.
  Breathing in, I concentrate my mind. Breathing out, I concentrate my mind.
  Breathing in, I liberate my mind. Breathing out, I liberate my mind.

In other words, as you sit there and breath, you should deliberately focus and apply effort to step by step abandon the evil unskilful qualities:

Craving for physical pleasures
Craving for emotional pleasures
Craving for mental pleasures
Craving for praise and approval
Craving for your body to be different
Craving for your mind to be different
Craving for your life situation to be different
Craving for the world to be different
Negativity
Self-beating
Worry that what you are doing is not perfect enough.

and you should specifically focus and deliberately apply effort to generate skillful qualities:

Faith or Motivation to continue this practice
Energy or Good Mood
Mindfulness or Remembering these instructions
Concentration or Stable Mind
Wisdom or Understanding How Mind Works
Confidence
Tranquility

You can do all this through:

Talking to yourself
Thinking about certain things
Remembering certain things
Imagination and visualization
Reviewing and re-evaluating your past experience
Reviewing your attachments and letting go
Reviewing your preconceptions and letting go
Looking at your breathing and letting go
Looking at your psychosomatic feelings in the body and working directly with them
Looking at your mind and working directly with it.

You do it starting with coarse, big, most obvious issues. Then you do smaller and smaller stuff. Then at the end, you look at your "mind of practice" itself - how and why you are doing it, and apply the same exact process to that.

That's it.


Why have I awoken Now? I am riddled by this question lately and it necessary for my progress on path of Dhamma. My question is, why is it that in this life time I have became obsessively bent to attain nibbana while everyone around me is living in total oblivion. I mean if I had so many rebirths in past lives exactly what was I doing all these quantillion lives, was I never told the dhamma. If I was told, then why am I not already enlightened. Was I dumb or something all these lives not to have awaken to the truth of suffering? What must have been my mistake all these lives? How can I rectify that mistake so that I can felicitate my nibbana in this life?

-- "why is it that in this life time I have became obsessively bent to attain nibbana"

There is a traditional Buddhist teaching that explains this Awakening through a combination of lucky causes and conditions. When the conditions are unlucky, they are known as "Eight Conditions in Which There is No Freedom to Practice Dharma". When the conditions are lucky, there are known as "The Ten Advantages" or "The Five Individual and Five Circumstantial Advantages". I will not quote them here verbatim, for fear of simplistic reification - instead I will try to explain the idea behind it.

Awakening happens when your life conditions are "just right". Being "just right" means they are not too bad but not too "worldly good" either.

On one hand, there has to be enough good luck to be born in the right place at the right time to encounter Dharma, and your personal circumstances should be good enough to allow you to pay attention to it. Meaning, you need to be born in the right historical period in a civilized country that has Dharma available in some form, when there is no active war or other issues that would completely distract from anything but survival. You also have to be born a human or other type of sentient being that has its mental faculty in a good functional order.

On the other hand, you need to have enough suffering in your life and enough confusion to push you to seek some sort of resolution. If your life circumstances are too structured from birth, for example you are born to a family that has everything running well and under control, you may be so completely preoccupied with worldly activities of study, work, art, making business etc., that you will have zero interest in Dharma even if the Buddha himself were to teach you.

Just enough suffering and confusion -- but not too much -- because too much suffering and confusion leads to perverted worldviews, excessive aggression, extreme pessimism/hopelessness/nihilism, an idea that one can only get happy by abusing others, incurable cynicism, addictions etc.

So when these multiple "just right" causes and conditions come together all at the same time, we have this phenomena of Awakening - one day you come in touch with Dharma and you are interested. This is the moment when your negative seeds (suffering, confusion) and your positive seeds (open mind, intuitively right values) germinate in the ground of lucky circumstances.

This combination of positive and negative factors is very important. This is why human condition is so valuable, compared to other life forms. It gives just enough positive and negative factors in just the right proportions. It does not happen all the time, true, but still a million times more frequently than with almost any other type of sentient life. We are lucky to be messed up just enough to Awaken! :))

-- "Why am I not already enlightened? What must have been my mistake all these lives? How can I rectify that?

As you can imagine, there's any number of mistakes you could have made, but here is one traditional list, known as "The Eight Intrusive Circumstances". I will list them here in brief, it could be one or more in your case:

you failed to overcome negative emotions dominating your mind.
you were intellectually lazy and did not want to make effort to study Dharma.
you failed to identify a confused teacher as such, and wasted your chance by following incorrect teaching.
you were a procrastinator when it came to meditation.
you failed to cut the self-perpetuating cycle of negative karma, and it claimed your freedom back.
you did not say "no" to worldly people in your life that wanted you to do what they thought was important.
you always prioritized solving your worldly problems over Dharma.
you fell victim to the temptation of using Dharma as a source of money, power, or fame - and lost connection with genuine virtue.

I'm sure there are countless other potential mistakes one could have made, but this should get you started. There is much more on this topic in a book I recommend, "The Words of My Perfect Teacher" by Patrul Rinpoche.


Why is Nanavira considered controversial? Why is Nanavira considered controversial?
I've overheard conversations about Nanavira Thera, and people seem to be in three groups:

1) He's a heretic.

2) He's a genius sotapanna.

3) Nyana-who?

But I've never heard why group 1 consider him to be a heretic. I know he claimed to be a stream-enterer in a letter after he committed suicide... Super controversial, but there has to be more to it than that?

If I had to speculate I would suggest that he was very intellectual.
That can be intimidating.

From the site Nanavira.org:

  Notes on Dhamma has been variously described as "arrogant, scathing, and condescending", as "a fantastic system", and as "the most important book to be written in this century". The Ven. Ñānavīra Thera himself remarked of the book that "it is vain to hope that it is going to win general approval... but I do allow myself to hope that a few individuals... will have private transformations of their way of thinking as a result of reading them".


Increases in Physical Energy, Virya I had conjectured that a few things could increase my energy. Lately, I wonder about physical and mental energy. I thought of reading as expending effort, but I realize now reading is mostly a mental activity. Aside from physical activity, what activities can help with energy? Here, I ask specifically about:

Meditation's effect on physical energy and vigour
Any other activity potentially linked with energy and vigour: possibly chores, activities involving movement, activities not involving movement, etc.

Thank you.

The Kusita-Arambhavatthu Sutta (AN8.80) provides eight grounds for the arousal of energy. In the original Pali version, it appears that the word used is "viriya".

  "There are these eight grounds for the arousal of energy. Which eight?

  "There is the case where a monk has some work to do. The thought
  occurs to him: 'I will have to do this work. But when I am doing this
  work, it will not be easy to attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't
  I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the
  attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is
  the first grounds for the arousal of energy.

  "Then there is the case where a monk has done some work. The thought
  occurs to him: 'I have done some work. While I was doing work, I
  couldn't attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I make an effort
  for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he
  makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the
  reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized. This is the second grounds for the arousal of
  energy.

  "Then there is the case where a monk has to go on a journey. The
  thought occurs to him: 'I will have to go on this journey. But when I
  am going on the journey, it will not be easy to attend to the Buddha's
  message. Why don't I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of
  the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the
  attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is
  the third grounds for the arousal of energy.

  "Then there is the case where a monk has gone on a journey. The
  thought occurs to him: 'I have gone on a journey. While I was going on
  the journey, I couldn't attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I
  make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the
  reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the fourth grounds for
  the arousal of energy.

  "Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a
  village or town, does not get as much coarse or refined food as he
  needs to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: 'I, having gone
  for alms in a village or town, have not gotten as much coarse or
  refined food as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is light &
  suitable for work. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the
  attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is
  the fifth grounds for the arousal of energy.

  "Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a
  village or town, does get as much coarse or refined food as he needs
  to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: 'I, having gone for
  alms in a village or town, have gotten as much coarse or refined food
  as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is light & suitable for
  work. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized?'1 So he makes an effort for
  the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is
  the sixth grounds for the arousal of energy.

  "Then there is the case where a monk comes down with a slight illness.
  The thought occurs to him: 'I have come down with a slight illness.
  Now, there's the possibility that it could get worse. Why don't I make
  an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the
  reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the seventh grounds for
  the arousal of energy.

  "Then there is the case where a monk has recovered from his illness,
  not long after his recovery. The thought occurs to him: 'I have
  recovered from my illness. It's not long after my recovery. Now,
  there's the possibility that the illness could come back. Why don't I
  make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained,
  the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the eighth grounds for
  the arousal of energy.

  "These are the eight grounds for the arousal of energy."

If you consider the ability to concentrate the mind, as a kind of mental energy, then according to the Mettanisamsa Sutta (AN11.16), metta or loving kindness is one way to gain mental concentration easily:

  "Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release
  (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of
  loving-kindness (metta), by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by
  constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as
  a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by
  living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into
  practice, and by establishing them. What are the eleven?

  . 1. "He sleeps in comfort. 2. He awakes in comfort. 3. He sees no evil dreams. 4. He is dear to human beings. 5. He is dear to non-human
  beings. 6. Devas (gods) protect him. 7. Fire, poison, and sword cannot
  touch him. 8. His mind can concentrate quickly. 9. His countenance is
  serene. 10. He dies without being confused in mind. 11. If he fails to
  attain arahantship (the highest sanctity) here and now, he will be
  reborn in the brahma-world.


How are/would newly discovered Suttas (and Sutras) be dealt with? How are/would newly discovered Suttas (and Sutras) be dealt with, specifically be they of content contradicting -- or even just differing slightly from -- previous material and/or for totally new, original material discovered?
Can example(s) be given on how whatever is done, or not done, happens --  especially any instances kept from the public.

The Pali Sutta Pitaka has multiple editions including the Sri Lankan (PTS), Thai and Burmese (Sixth Council) editions.
Here, I list links to footnotes by the translator (Ven. Thanissaro) commenting on the differences between the three editions for various suttas - SN 42.10, Ud 5.9, Ud 8.6, Ud 3.2, Ud 2.7, Ud 4.8, Ud 1.5, Ud 8.7, Ud 6.10. These footnotes will give you some concrete examples.
The Pali Sutta Pitaka corresponds also to Sanskrit Agamas and the Chinese version of Sanskrit Agamas. There are also the alternative version of the Pali suttas in Sanskrit called sutras.
You can find a very good example in this answer comparing the Pali sutta SN 12.67 with the Sanskrit sutra SF 155 and Chinese Agama SA 288. There's also a scholarly commentary in that answer by Ven. Dr. Analayo.
On this university profile page for Ven. Dr. Analayo, you can find links to more of his scholarly writings, which should give you more examples.
I don't think any such differences are kept hidden from the public. In Buddhism, differences in phrasing is not important, as long as the meaning is unchanged, as evidenced by the following quote from MN 103.

‘The venerable ones agree about the meaning but differ about the
phrasing. The venerable ones should know that it is for this reason
that there is agreement about the meaning but difference about the
phrasing. But the phrasing is a mere trifle. Let the venerable ones
not fall into a dispute over a mere trifle.’


Is it acceptable for Buddhists to celebrate Santa Claus at Chistmas? I'm a lay Buddhist and it's almost Christmas, and I would like to know if it is acceptable for Buddhists to celebrate Santa Claus. I have children and want them to be happy. Does anyone know the answer to this question? Thanks! P.S. My question is somewhat related to this one.

To quote the eminent Rev. Lovejoy - "Santa doesn't leave presents under the Bodhi Tree!"  ;-)
https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1dfa24e6-d8cf-48c2-9f6d-2f5eaef9209e
Of course it's acceptable!  If Buddha isn't merriment, then what good is it?


What is the difference between Jhana and Samadhi? In Sutta pitaka we find two Suttas namely Jhana sutta and Samadhi sutta.
 What is the difference?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html

Samadhi is a general term for concentration. Jhanas are stages you achieve in Samatha meditation when your concentration reaches a certain level.

To give an analogy, Samadhi is like the temperature of ice. When the temperature reaches a certain level, it becomes water. That's like reaching the first Jhana. If you keep heating, it will become steam. That is like reaching the second Jhana and so on.


Where did Nanavira Thera deviate from the commentaries I came across that the Ven. sir (http://www.nanavira.org) interpreted the Dependent Origination without the traditional 3 lifetime interpretation.

Are there other places he deviated? What are they and what was his interpretation? How are the others who hold similar view?

Most of it is available in his Notes on Dhamma, and some more in the Letters. In other words, anyone interested is welcome to do their homework. Some examples:

  Cittavīthi, ... of which so much use is made in the Visuddhimagga ... is a pure scholastic invention and has nothing at all to do with the Buddha's Teaching

...

  ... the erroneous notion of anuloma-gotrabhu-magga-phala, supposed to be the successive moments in the attainment of sotāpatti. It is sometimes thought that the word akālika as applied to the Dhamma means that attainment of magga is followed 'without interval of time' by attainment of phala; but this is quite mistaken.

...

  Phassa, 'contact', is defined ... as the coming together of the eye, forms, and eye-consciousness ... But it is probably wrong to suppose that we must therefore understand the word phassa, primarily at least, as contact between these three things.


What is Dharma-Body of the Buddha? And then I remembered a passage I had read in one of Suzuki's essays. "What is the Dharma-Body of the Buddha?" ('"the Dharma-Body of the Buddha" is another way of saying Mind, Suchness, the Void, the Godhead.) The question is asked in a Zen monastery by an earnest and bewildered novice. And with the prompt irrelevance of one of the Marx Brothers, the Master answers, "The hedge at the bottom of the garden." "And the man who realizes this truth," the novice dubiously inquires, '"what, may I ask, is he?" Groucho gives him a whack over the shoulders with his staff and answers, "A golden-haired lion."

This story is quoted from Huxley's The Doors of Perception. What is the meaning of the story?

The meaning of the story is that spiritual and mundane, mind and matter, information and media - are two sides of the same coin. Our nature from primordial times is pure and not different from Buddha nature.

We think there's some truth or escape to be found outside of this world, but the truth is, this world is only an interpretation we make, the escape then is to be free from the interpretation. The one who gets this is the one who loses all but still has the guts to laugh. We call this, the Golden-haired Lion.


How to be kind when you don't like people or the world? I'm not sure I make a very good Buddhist. The thing is I really don't like people. They constantly disappoint me. I find most people to be so stupid. Take for example half of America and the idiotic orange leader they have elected. What kind of idiots would elect a bigoted narcissistic fool such as this?? I don't care if it's "wrong speech", I'm not going to be polite about it, the man is a delusional scumbag and such a negative force on the planet.   I cannot feel any compassion or kindness for him or his ignorant redneck believers. If someone killed him I would honestly feel glad. Yet a short distance away in Canada there is one of the most compassionate amazing leaders ever to grace the earth.  Go figure.  America seems like hell on earth to me.
Most of the world seems to currently be controlled by dangerous mentally ill people. A lot of the time I dont even want to be here anymore. The amount of money it costs just to scrape by and survive this life now is another reason that I don't want to be here. A life that is sustained by money feels so meaningless. Sure life is more than about money but let's face it without it you die and nobody cares less. It's all so screwed up.

What really matters is whether you follow the noble eightfold path and you understand the four noble truths.


Pure Land Schools' version of the Three (or Four) Marks of Existence I'd be grateful for references to some of the major Pure Land schools' versions of the Three (or Four) Marks (Seals) of Existence:

Impermanence (anicca)
Suffering (dukkha)
No-self (anattā)
Liberation (nirvāṇa)

Addendum -- pointers to the individual topics in any Pure Land tradition would be fine -- does not have to be all together.

Jan 6 -- beyond my own answer, with three references, I would still be grateful for further items, plus explanations of where the three marks (that is, the somewhat philosophical ideas so crucial to Theravada and Tibetan schools) fit into Pure Land in general, and on the specific texts I found.

Here is something on Shin, with a bit of discussion on the individual topics -- http://www.nembutsu.info/primshin.htm -- plus this at the very end (emphasis added):

  Conclusion

  We urge readers to examine the following essentials because, when
  viewed in isolation from them, a skewed view of Shin Buddhism will
  result: the Four Noble Truths; the Three Signata, namely, anatman or
  'non-self', anitya or 'impermanence' and dukkha or 'suffering'; and,
  finally, Nirvana, which - as we have seen earlier - in Shin Buddhism
  is synonymous with Amida Buddha and the Pure Land. These are the
  teachings upon which Buddhism is grounded.

Also, from the book:
Pure Land Buddhism
Dialogs with Ancient Masters
by Patriach Chih I and Master T'ien Ju
translated by Master Thich Thien Tam
at http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/pureland.pdf

  Merely achieving rebirth in the Pure Land is attaining the stage  of
  non-retrogression. As stated in the sutras:

  “Those who achieve rebirth all dwell in correct samadhi.”

  It is also stated in the Amitabha Sutra:

  “Sentient beings who are reborn in the Western Pure Land are  all at
  the stage of non-retrogession.”

  The Treatise on the Ten Doubts [Question 6] states that there are five
  reasons why those who are  reborn achieve non-retrogression:

  ...

  c) In the Western Pure Land, the birds, water, forests, trees, wind
  and music all preach the Dharma of ‘suffering, emptiness,
  impermanence and no-self.’ Upon hearing this, practitioners  begin to
  focus on the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha;

  ...

Does anyone know the significance of The Treatise on the Ten Doubts in Pure Land? I cannot find much online.

In -- The Sutra of Visualization of the Buddha of Infinite Life -- at http://www.fodian.net/world/365_sutra_1.htm III, VI, XVI -- here it is in III:

  Pure breezes of the eight pleasing qualities are produced by these
  rays of light, causing the musical instruments to play in voices which
  proclaim the truths of ‘suffering, emptiness, impermanence and
  non-self.’

Interesting that in these last two, emptiness is added to make 4 marks.


Goal of liberation in yoga/meditation - Isn't it Boring? I see that the goal of yoga/meditation is liberation from the karma and from the birth/death cycle. People say that it is the ultimate happiness forever. But wouldn't that be boring and monotonous if there is happiness forever?

In Buddhism, Nibbana refers to liberation from suffering (dukkha). It is also referred to as the highest bliss (nibbanam paramam sukham) in Dhp 204. The word sukha is translated in this context as bliss, but in other contexts, also as happiness.

Boredom is a type of suffering. An enlightened person is free from this type of suffering too.

We have 3 types of feelings - pleasant feelings (usually associated with sensual enjoyment), painful feelings (usually associated with aversion) and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings (usually associated with boredom and confusion). Feelings here include forms with eyes, sound with ears, odor with nose, taste with tongue, touch with body and ideas with mind.

When an unenlightened person experiences neither-pleasant-nor-painful (or neutral) feelings, he may experience boredom. But when an enlightened person experiences neutral feelings, he experiences bliss.

So, is unending happiness or bliss a source of boredom? Not for the enlightened one.

What causes boredom?

The neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings also known as neutral feelings, normally make us bored or dissatisfied. Cravings (tanha) would lead one to seek pleasures (kama tanha) or to become something or achieve something (bhava tanha) rather than sit around all day experiencing neutral feelings that don't bring satisfaction. No feelings at all, would also be a cause for boredom and dissatisfaction.

The first noble truth states that there is suffering.

The second noble truth states that the cause of suffering is craving. This includes the suffering of boredom too.

The third noble truth states that with the cessation of craving, comes the cessation of suffering. This includes the cessation of boredom too.

The fourth noble truth shows the path to end suffering, which is the noble eightfold path.

This answer may also be helpful.


How to Develop Insight - Samathayanika If I practice tranquility meditation how would I go about developing insight.How does a samathayanika realise Nibbanna.

As per the Visuddhimagga:

  Herein, “purification of view” is the correct seeing of mentality-materiality.

  One who wants to accomplish this, if, firstly, his vehicle is serenity, should
  emerge from any fine-material or immaterial jhāna, except the base consisting of
  neither perception nor non-perception, and he should discern, according to
  characteristic, function, etc., the jhāna factors consisting of applied thought,
  etc., and the states associated with them, [that is, feeling, perception, and so on].

  When he has done so, all that should be defined as “mentality” (nāma) in the
  sense of bending (namana) because of its bending on to the object.

  Then, just as a man, by following a snake that he has seen in his house, finds
  its abode, so too this meditator scrutinizes that mentality, he seeks to find out
  what its occurrence is supported by and he sees that it is supported [588] by the
  matter of the heart. After that, he discerns as materiality the primary elements,
  which are the heart’s support, and the remaining, derived kinds of materiality
  that have the elements as their support. He defines all that as “materiality” (rūpa) because it is “molested” (ruppana) [by cold, etc.]. After that he defines in brief as “mentality-materiality” (nāma-rūpa) the mentality that has the characteristic of “bending” and the materiality that has the characteristic of “being molested.”

  Path of Purification, XVIII 2-4

Basically, it entails using the jhana factors and their physical support as a basis for insight - seeing them as impermanent, suffering, and non-self to the point of realizing the four noble truths.


How can one relate Buddhism epistemology of Thought and Attention to its Western counterpart? There are at least two possibilities, and no doubt many more besides.

The first one turns around the Cartesian dictum, "Cogito ergo sum", "I think therefore I am".  René Descartes got off to a brilliant start and then promptly took a wrong turn, completely missing the point of his inadvertent discovery.

He turned right, taking the very 'doubt' that he took as evidence of his 'existence', making it the keystone of his entire intellectual edifice.  Instead, he should have turned left and investigated it.  So as to realise it's causal factors, thereby realising it's true nature, "... thus I am simply the result of that thought".

The second possibility considers the two Grail Legend questions.  "What does it mean?" and, "Whom does it serve?"  The first investigates the object of attention.  The second investigates the subject himself, using the same principles, in the same way, to find the same answer.

One could also think of a teaching given to Carlos Castaneda, Don Juan's "second attention": though others might not agree.

I. "I think therefore I am". In Buddhist and Hindu Meditation, thought is simply one more aspect of samsara. Thought is ultimately realized to be a hindrance. The goal is to "go" beyond thought and beyond no thought to one's "natural self" (Hinduism) or "dharmakaya" (Buddhism). One realizes the ultimate truth. (I.e., thinking is part of awareness. In meditation, moving past awareness into realizing one's natural self, or dharmakaya, is possible.) (There is something past or beyond "thought and no thought". There are (seem to be) many alive today in that state of Liberation. )

So, your statement, " I am simply the result of that thought", does make sense. No thought, no "I", but something is still there. Meditation helps you learn what that is/you are.

II. Different strokes, etc. This question actually divides certain Tibetan Schools of Buddhism. Well, seems to. It's more like there seem to be many Buddhist Traditions, and "schools" within those traditions. If everyone thought the same way, only one tradition, indeed only one religion would be needed. My experience has shown me that I am the type that prefers to investigate the subject, "me", as I seem to have more success in that type of meditation. (And don't get me started on Carlos Castenada. I was so disappointed that his books turned out to be fiction. Never read another word after that revelation. Was a fun read up to then, though.)


Regarding Nicca and Anicca natures of Avidya and Prajna If Tanha (Craving) is caused by Avidya (Ignorance), and Avidya is originated and sustained by Tanha, then the origination of Avidya is part of a recursive cycle with no beginning. Yet Prajna (Wisdom) (as delivered through the Dharma) is purported to extinguish Avidya (Nirodha - Cessation). How can something with no beginning (cycle of dependent origination) have an end (Nirodha)? And likewise how can a state with no end (Nirvana) have a beginning (Nirodha)? Are Avidya and Nirvana therefore Nicca (Permanent and Unconditioned) or Anicca (Impermanent and Conditioned)?
Put another away, if Prajna is Nicca, how could it give way to the origination and sustenance of Avidya in the first place? If Prajna is Anicca and has a beginning, then how can we say that Nirvana (which requires Prajna) is Nicca?

If Tanha(craving) is caused by Avijja(ignorance) and if Avijja is sustained by Tanha, the cycle cannot be broken using Avijja and Tanha. But that doesn't mean it cannot be broken using something that is not a link of the Paticca-samuppada(Dependant Origination). Panna(wisdom) or within this context Vijja(non-ignorance) is the opposite of Avijja. It takes out the root cause of Tanha. This breaks the perpetual cycle.

  how can a state with no end (Nirvana) have a beginning (Nirodha)?

Nirodha is not a beginning. Nirodha refers to end of all suffering. That is achieved by cutting off the cause of suffering: Tanha(craving). Tanha is cut off by non-ignorance(Vijja). The word Nibbana(Nirvana) refers to the unconditioned Dhamma(reality). It is uncaused and unborn. Hence it has no beginning or end.

  Are Avidya and Nirvana therefore Nicca or Anicca?

Avijja here refers to not knowing the four noble truths, not seeing impermanence, suffering and non-self. Avijja is not a thing to be permanent or impermanent. It only points to the lack of Paññā(Wisdom). Nevertheless, Moha(delusion) as a Cetasika(mental concomitant) is caused and it dies when the accompanying thought dies. Therefore it's Anicca(impermanent).

Nibbana is Nicca(permanent).

  if Prajna is Nicca, how could it give way to the origination and
  sustenance of Avidya in the first place?

Paññā is not Nicca(permanent). Paññā has to be cultivated. It belongs to the Sankhara(mental formations/activity) aggregate of the Pancakhanda(Five Aggregates).

  If Prajna is Anicca and has a beginning, then how can we say that
  Nirvana (which requires Prajna) is Nicca?

Nibbana is not dependant on anything. As mentioned above, it is unborn and uncaused. Paññā(wisdom) is required to cut off the defilements that prevent one from seeing Nibbana.


Is violence or destruction ever correct? In the introduction to Thich Nhat Hanh's Zen Keys, Philip Kapleau suggests there are times when one can or must rebel.

  ... In this type
  of creativity ow intuitive wisdom and joy are naturally
  brought into play.

  All this does not mean, of course, that attempts at
  bettering working conditions and making work more
  meaningful, such as we are witnessing today as a reaction against robot-like mechanization of the workplace,
  are worthless. But for a worker constantly to resent his
  work or his supeliors, for him to become sloppy and
  slothful in his working habits, for him to become embittered toward life-these attitudes do most harm to
  the worker himself and serve little to change his working conditions. When it's time to work one works, nothing held back; when it's time to make changes one
  makes changes; when it's time to revolt one even revolts. In Zen everything is in the doing, not in the
  contemplating.

He doesn't elaborate. I found the line surprising. But Buddhists fight in Myanmar.

Is it ever necessary to deviate from non violence?

The Buddha warned against anger and his warning is quite precise:

  SN1.71:2.3: What’s the one thing, Gotama, whose killing you approve?”

  SN1.71:3.1: “When anger’s incinerated you sleep at ease. When anger’s incinerated there is no sorrow.  O deity, anger has a poisoned root and a honey tip.  The noble ones praise its killing,  for when it’s incinerated there is no sorrow.”

And even if all those around us may be cruel, the Buddha says quite directly:

  MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

Yet even if we did the above and returned justice for injustice, kindness for cruelty, that would be incomplete. It would be incomplete because it would only benefit ourselves.

  AN4.95:1.1: “Mendicants, these four people are found in the world. What four?

  AN4.95:2.2: The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others...

  AN4.95:3.1: The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.

  AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.

Here again the Buddha teaches:

  AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is
  the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

From these words we can understand that we might be able to help others rebel against suffering. We can share the Noble Eightfold Path with those who will listen.

  AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view. What two?  The words of another and proper attention.

That might be the ultimate rebellion. The rebellion against suffering.


What should a 11-17 years old Buddhist do? Can a 11-17 years old meditate and become arahant?
Is Buddhism only for adults?

It all depends on the individual's effort and potential, and how much Dhamma they've been cultivating since countless previous lives. Sorta like child prodigies who can become accomplished medical doctors, mathematicians, or musicians in their teens.


What is right view regarding rebirth? What is right view regarding rebirth according to the Buddha? Is it:

a) Rebirth stops after breakup of physical body for all even if
craving is not eradicated
b) Rebirth continues eternally after
breakup of physical body for all even if craving is eradicated
c)
Rebirth stops after breakup of physical body if craving is eradicated. Rebirth continues after
breakup of physical body if craving is not eradicated.
d) Other?

If possible, please provide sutta references.

Householders, what if just taking A Safe Bet?


Can one reach enlightenment if they need to care about the wellbeing of another? If one need to care about the well-being of another (physical health, mental health), one needs to constantly check their status to update information and act fastly. That makes one constantly worry. Therefore they cannot reach enlightenment. They can't even start meditation, even though one can temporary leave them a couple hours or even days to take care of yourself.

Is that correct?

A long time ago, before Gautama Buddha, in the time of Kassapa Buddha, there was a potter named Ghaṭīkāra. He was not a monk, but he was Kassapa Buddha's chief attendant. Puzzled about this, his student Jotipāla asked Ghaṭīkāra why he had not gone forth and become a monk given that Kassapa Buddha was so close by.

  MN81:11.2: ‘Dear Ghaṭīkāra, you have heard this teaching, so why don’t you go forth from the lay life to homelessness?’

Ghaṭīkāra answered quite simply.

  MN81:11.3: ‘Don’t you know, dear Jotipāla, that I look after my blind old parents?’

Not everybody gets to be a Buddha's chief attendant. Ghaṭīkāra was special. And what Kassapa Buddha said about Ghaṭīkāra was also quite special. Kassapa Buddha said:

  MN81:18.15: He looks after his blind old parents.  And since he has ended the five lower fetters, Ghaṭīkāra will be reborn spontaneously and will become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.

If you are a caregiver, you understand impermanence, love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity. Take heart from Ghaṭīkāra's example and practice as you can, the Noble Eightfold Path lays open before you. Ghaṭīkāra was a lay non-returner. Perhaps you can be one too.

Who was Jotipāla?

Jotipāla was Gautama Buddha in a previous life...that, too, is in the sutta.


Vinaya non-offence complications? From suttacentral Parajika rules:

  "Non-offenses - There is no offense: if it is unintentional; if he
  does not know; if he is not aiming at death; if he is insane; if he
  is the first offender." PJ 3

What happens to unintentional second offenders? The ignorant/under-informed? If one kills unintentionally, but aware of the offence of killing, where does one stand?

The Patimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, on pages 49 through 50, uses the word "or" (not "and"):

  Blanket exemptions. In addition to bhikkhus who do not know they are
  being assaulted or do not give their consent when they do know, the Vibhanga
  states that there are four special categories of bhikkhus exempted from a penalty
  under this rule: any bhikkhu who is insane, possessed by spirits, delirious with
  pain, or the first offender(s) (in this case, Ven. Sudinna and the bhikkhu with the
  monkey) whose actions prompted the Buddha to formulate the rule. The
  Commentary defines as insane anyone who “goes about in an unseemly way,
  with deranged perceptions, having cast away all sense of shame and
  50
  compunction, not knowing whether he has transgressed major or minor training
  rules.” It recognizes this as a medical condition, which it blames on the bile. A
  bhikkhu under the influence of a severe psychosis-inducing drug would
  apparently fall under this exemption, but one under the influence of a more
  common intoxicant would not. As for spirit possession, the Commentary says
  that this can happen either when spirits frighten one or when, by distracting one
  with sensory images, they insert their hands into one’s heart by way of one’s
  mouth (!). Whatever the cause, it notes that insane and possessed bhikkhus are
  exempt from penalties they incur only when their perceptions are deranged
  (“when their mindfulness is entirely forgotten and they don’t know what fire,
  gold, excrement, and sandalwood are”) and not from any they incur during their
  lucid moments. As for a bhikkhu delirious with pain, he is exempt from penalties
  he incurs only during periods when the pain is so great that he does not know
  what he is doing.

  These four categories are exempted from penalties under nearly all of the
  rules, although the first offender for each rule is exempted only for the one time
  he acted in such a way as to provoke the Buddha into formulating the rule. I will
  only rarely mention these categories again, and—except where expressly stated
  otherwise—the reader should bear them in mind as exempt in every case.

So I read that as saying that any one of the conditions is reason for it's being a non-offence; and that the only condition for exemption that's only applicable once is being a first offender.

On page 29 it says,

  If any of these factors is missing, the penalty changes. For instance, object: If
  the bhikkhu kills a dog, the penalty is a pacittiya. Perception: If he cremates a
  friend, thinking that the friend is dead, then even if the friend is actually alive but
  severely comatose, the bhikkhu incurs no penalty. Intention: If he accidentally
  drops a rock on a person standing below him, he incurs no penalty even if the
  person dies. Effort: If he sees a person fall into the river but makes no effort to
  save the person, he incurs no penalty even if the person drowns. Result: If he
  tries to kill a person, but only succeeds in injuring him, he incurs a thullaccaya.

Pages 76 though 78 (which I won't quote here in full) discuss intention w.r.t. killing; briefly:

  The non-offense clauses state that there is no offense for a bhikkhu who acts
  unintentionally, not knowing, or without aiming at death. In the Vinita-vatthu,
  unintentionally is used to describe cases in which a bhikkhu acts accidentally, such
  as dropping a poorly held stone, brick, or adze; removing a pestle from a shelf
  and accidentally knocking off another one. Not knowing is used in cases in which
  the bhikkhu deliberately does an action but without knowing that his action
  could cause death. An example would be giving food to a friend not knowing
  that it is poisoned. Not aiming at death is used in cases where the bhikkhu
  deliberately does an action but does not intend that action to result in death.
  Relevant examples include trying to help a bhikkhu who is choking on food by
  slapping him on the back and inadvertently causing his death; telling a bhikkhu
  to stand on a piece of scaffolding while helping with construction work, only to
  see the scaffolding collapse; describing the joys of heaven to an audience, only to
  have a member of the audience decide to commit suicide in hopes of going there.

  Thus, to fulfill the factor of intention here, a bhikkhu must be acting
  intentionally, knowingly, and aiming at death.

Page 78 suggests that acting when aware of danger might or might not count as intentional:

  In discussing the topic of pitfalls, the Commentary also treats the issue of
  how much of an intention counts when setting up a situation that might cause
  death. Specifically, it asks whether—while one is digging a hole for another
  purpose—a passing thought that “this hole could kill anyone who fell into it”
  would fulfil the factor of intention under this rule, or whether this factor would
  be fulfilled only if the original purpose for digging the hole was to cause death.
  The Commentary notes that opinions are divided on this point, but it sides with
  the latter position.


How to Practice After Stream Entry as Opposed to Before? I follow the notion that when the false view of an independent, permanent "self" is annihilated for the first time this is Stream Entry. The Dharma no long is merely a question mark, and it's not dependent on rituals, or merely following rules. These first three fetters can't continue in the face of such an experience.
But how is the practice after Stream Entry different that before?

"In Buddhism, a sotāpanna (Pali), śrotāpanna (Sanskrit; Chinese: 入流; pinyin: rùliú, Tibetan: རྒྱུན་ཞུགས་, Wylie: rgyun zhugs), "stream-winner", or "stream-entrant" is a person who has seen the Dharma and consequently, has dropped the first three fetters (saŋyojana) that bind a being to rebirth, namely self-view (sakkāya-ditthi), clinging to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa), and skeptical indecision (Vicikitsa).
The word sotāpanna literally means "one who entered (āpanna) the stream (sota)", after a metaphor which calls the noble eightfold path a stream which leads to nibbāna. Entering the stream (sotāpatti) is the first of the four stages of enlightenment."
-- Sotāpanna (wikipedia)

Also see Agataphala Mahānāma Sutta (A 6.10) -- The Discourse on Mahānāma (on the fruition-attainer)

Not different. If one wishes, one has to do an effort to turn the Wheel of Dhamma, develop the eightfold Path, as before.

One who has reached such stage knows this, having lost all doubts in regard of the path.


Can good karma, bad karma or neither good and bad karma arise or not arise from not doing? "Not doing" in this sense is to mean the absence of any form of action that originates from thought (for instance physical form like speech, bodily movements) in such a way that reduces the physical forms impact upon sentient beings in its environment.

I realise that I'm heading into one of the unconjecturables here but for practical purposes. I don't think it'll lead me to vexation. This curiosity has arisen through partial insight into karmic laws in which the knowledge of karma became demystified into a rather obvious, almost mechanistic natural working of things. I wanted to try to understand at least from the periphery of the insight, from what Buddha said and from what others practising Buddhism understand so that I can cross-reference the three.

Additional

In an example from the Buddha, he chose not to be a father to his son, Rahula (not doing) in favour of seeking his own liberation. His thoughts were of himself. I imagine this would have caused considerable discomfort in Rahula and this discomfort would have been further compounded when Rahula learned of the meaning to his name: fetter or ball and chain.

In an example from my own experience, a person became quite angry with me last week. I remained calm and non-responsive, guarding the senses - essentially watching after myself. I still gave a portion of my attention to the person via eye contact. Because of my "not doing" they became more frustrated. I recall thinking, "this person is lost in their emotions". I received a message from them later that day saying they had cried and let it go.

*As I write this addition, Andrei's answer below seems to resonate here.

Rephrasing Buddha, there's action that leads to good experience, action that leads to bad experience, and action that leads to dispassion and liberation.

Of course the word "karma" itself means "doing" or "action". But my teacher said, the wise sees nondoing in doing and doing in nondoing. Meaning, if you choose to drink coffee, you implicitly choose to not drink tea on that occasion and vice versa. In Mahayana terms, an "act" is empty. It is something we isolate and put a label on but in actuality it is just a point we focus on in context of everything else. When we begin seeing it like this, we begin getting closer to the Buddha's perspective.

As my Zen Master said, whenever there's choice, there's confusion. From Buddha's omniscient perspective, there's no more confusion, no action, no choice - only from the perspective of a sentient being.

Another thing that needs to be said, not all karma is personal, which makes sense if you realize that "person" is another empty point of focus. There's also group karma and other even broader kinds of karmic tendencies that don't rely on an individual action per-se. So even if you don't personally act (don't choose) you are still subject to these extrinsic tendencies. It's only when you are free from any group identification as well, is when you begin to get free from the fruits of karma.

Sorry, upon rereading this I can see it comes out a bit unclear, but this is a summary of my understanding as of the moment, based on what I have learned.


How do the concepts of anatta, rebirth and karma coexist together? Although I have read quite a lot of books about Buddhism, almost all of them were meant for the Western layman so I consider myself to be a beginner compared to most of you here. I hope you can forgive me for possible inaccuracies or inconsistencies in my question. I'm hoping to get answers from Buddhists firmly rooted in the tradition, although of course everyone is most welcome to share their points of view.
I have problems coming to terms with the seeming paradox between reincarnation and anatta. How can there be rebirth (which could also include the remembrance of past lives) when there is no soul or inherent self? When searching online most answers refer to all phenomena being interdependent, empty and transient, which is fine, but basically comes down to a sort of Lion King's Circle of Life analogy (beautiful as this still is).
But this explanation fails to point out why karma also matters in Buddhism in relation to rebirth. If you are born in an animal's body, you are generally considered to have less karma in stock than when you are born in a happy Buddhist household (or in the Pure Land). How do rebirth and karma rhyme with the concept of anatta?
I understand that in your present life you could benefit significantly from pursuing a virtuous life and following the Noble Eightfold Path, and it could have a minute positive change for the world after you're gone, but can you also benefit substantially from living virtuous in your next life after the demise of your current body? If so, how?
I really appreciate the Buddhist tradition, but the above concepts currently seem contradictory to me. I hope someone can show me the way out of my maze.

Alas, the maze you spoke of is large and different people are stuck in different parts. That's why I asked,

"Forget for a moment the idea of reincarnation (or rebirth) from
life-to-life and instead concentrate on the situation in this very
life and apply the following three concepts: anatta, rebirth (from
moment-to-moment), and karma. In your mind, can they coexist together
without contradiction?"

to which you replied,

"If you see rebirth only from moment-to-moment I see they can coexist
together. If you see rebirth as in being born according to one's karma
or remembering past lives I currently don't see them coexisting
together logically."

Thanks! This helps to narrow down which part of the maze you are stuck in. I think your answer indicates that you believe there to be a material difference between rebirth from moment-to-moment and rebirth from life-to-life. This is the root of your misconception.
To unravel this misconception, let's look at your questions in the context of rebirth from moment-to-moment.

"How can there be rebirth (which could also include the remembrance of
past lives) when there is no soul or inherent self?"

What's the big difference between rebirth from moment-to-moment and rebirth from life-to-life? It is the death and break up of the body, yes? This tells me you are identifying the body as the self. That the body is somehow identified with or acts as a vessel for the soul/inherent-self that passes from moment-to-moment in this very life. That with the break up of the body at death you believe this soul/inherent-self is annihilated right along with the body. That having no more body the soul/self/atman is extinguished.
Believing such, you haven't truly dealt with the implications of anatta which says that no soul/self/atman can be found in the body or dependent upon the body. The truth is that no such soul/self/atman really exists. We perceive that it exists just like a magical illusion. This illusion continues on from moment-to-moment in this very life and it continues on from life-to-life to the very same extent and in the very same manner. If you believe that the illusion dies or is annihilated with the death and break up of the body, then you don't truly understand it to be an illusion at all! Rather, you are regarding the illusion as a real and genuine fact that has died with the break up of the body.
I would encourage you to think and meditate on anatta and rebirth from moment-to-moment and see if you can generate the same perception of a contradiction that you can so readily with rebirth from life-to-life. When you can perceive this seeming contradiction, then I propose you'll be that much closer to understanding the real meaning of anatta. It can be mind blowing :)