Shouldn't I kill even mosquitoes that bite me by first precept? By first precept I shouldn't kill even a mosquito it bite me but when as by 7th precept I can listen music for therapy If things fall into such circumstances like this mosquito biting can lead me to malaria or dengue. Also I've to ask if I can consume yogurt when it's made with help of bacterias they are also living being. I don't mean I'm trying to find breaking precepts,but I stopped killing them really.

The 1st precept is a training rule to refrain from killing 'breathing' things.
The Pali is: "Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami", where the word "pana" means "life" or 'breath", such as in the term "ana-pana-sati".
The 1st precept does not apply to bacteria because they do not breathe.

Strictly speaking, bacteria do not “breathe” as humans and other animals do, but they must still engage in the act of cellular
respiration. Cellular respiration is the method by which cells convert
chemicals into energy that the cell needs to stay alive.
Bacteria

As for mosquitoes, the probability of contracting malaria or dengue fever is very low. I lived in Thailand for 9 years and had dengue fever only once. I can contract dengue fever where I have lived for the last 10 years & have never got it (although one friend did). When I lived in Thailand, there was a period of a few years when hundreds of mosquitoes would bite my feet when I was meditating at sunset. I never got dengue fever or malaria during this period. I felt very free when my mind became accustomed to not worrying about & fearing mosquitoes.
Not killing mosquitoes is beneficial for cultivating metta (loving-kindness), fearlessness & freedom. However, that said, killing mosquitoes is not particularly bad karma. When I first visited Thailand & learned meditation, I did not care about killing mosquitoes & killing a mosquito never affected my samatha (calmness; concentration) meditation. This is because killing a mosquito is kammically a natural act. The mosquito wants to steal our blood & can (possibly) kill us. This is why the kammic results (vipaka) of killing a mosquito are trifling (insignificant).
Most people have killed many mosquitoes & remain mentally normal. Their minds do not become deranged (crazy). Where as the majority of soldiers that kill in war are often mentally affected for life in a negative way. Some ex-soldiers become mentally deranged & even commit suicide. (Here, an ex-soldier must learn to forgive themselves!) This shows the difference between killing many mosquitoes & killing just one or even many human being/s. Kammic consequences (vipaka) follow the law of nature.
The Buddha taught "kamma is intention" (AN 6.63). A mosquito killed with the intention of avoiding malaria or dengue fever is not an unwholesome intention. However, it is still an intention rooted in fear, attachment & a lack of liberation.
For example, to kill a mosquito so it does not bite a small baby or child is probably good karma. If it was known you let mosquitoes bite your small baby, many people would criticize you. You would be blamed & censured for being a bad parent. The government may take your child away from you.
Personally, I would not worry too much about it since not killing mosquitoes is a higher level of dhamma practise. The Buddha did not make strict rules for monks about killing mosquitoes or even about killing animals (for food) for laypeople.

And which is intolerant practice? There is the case where a certain individual doesn't tolerate cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of
flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words;
& bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp,
piercing, disagreeable, displeasing & menacing to life. This is called
intolerant practice.
And which is tolerant practice? There is the case where a certain individual tolerates cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies,
mosquitoes, wind, sun & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words; &
bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp,
piercing, disagreeable, displeasing & menacing to life. This is called
tolerant practice.
Khama Sutta


Why do Buddhists argue that nirvana is nothing in addition to the skandhas? Why do Buddhists argue that nirvana is nothing in addition to the skandhas? I found this, and I hope it suffices to demonstrate that's what the Buddha taught:

  "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in
  form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than
  feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In
  fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?...
  Elsewhere than consciousness?"

  "No, my friend."

  "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as
  form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

  "No, my friend."

  "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without
  feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without
  consciousness?"

  "No, my friend."

  "And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a
  truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to
  declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a
  monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
  annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"

The quote seems to say that the Tathagata is not without form feeling etc..

If nirvana were something in addition to the aggregates, then I'm thinking the Tathagata would be without the aggregates. On the grounds that nirvana is all that the Tathagata is.

In the Yamaka Sutta, Ven. Sariputta, made Yamaka to understand that the five skandas are anicca. If one truly understands this reality the extinction of the process happens in the form of ‘Nibbana’.   If we willingly attach to these five skandas with the nicca sanna, then we suffer. Only in realizing that nothing can be maintained to one’s satisfaction in the long run, can we arrive at Nibbana.

Nibbana is not sunnata or emptiness. The person who attained Nibbana is only empty of the five upadanaskandas. The five skandas remain. It is like this. if we take a water bottle and pour the water out, we say we have an empty bottle. But in reality there is air in the bottle, so the bottle is empty only with regard to water; it is not empty regard to air.

Thus what is meant was that “it is empty of”. There is no absolute “emptiness”. At Nibbana  one is empty of greed (raga), hate (dosa), and ignorance (moha). At Arahanthood, even the slightest bondage to anything material is discarded.

For one who has attained Nibbana, there is only "ditthē dittha mattan bhavissati- sutē suta mattan bhavissati- mutē muta mattan bhavissati” – There is only seeing in the ‘seeing’; only hearing in the ‘hearing’ etc. It is only you and I, that take nimithi & anu nimithi  (impressions of objects) from what we hear or see.

As long as there is greed, ill will & delusion we retain impressions of objects (nimithi anu nimithi) of self & pleasurable things. The impressions stimulate our senses and thus we see people & things around us. Only the minds that are polluted with greed, hatred & delusion associate four elements. The one who sees arising ceasing nature of aggregates sees the emptiness of any inherent meaning & will not retain impressions thereby abandoning the defilements of greed hatred and delusion.


Does understanding the Visuddhimagga require a knowledge of the Pali Canon? I quite fancy reading the Visuddhimagga at some point. I have heard good things about it. However I'm aware that it is a commentary on the Pali Canon and that has put me off starting it.

How much of the Pali Canon would one need to read before you could profitably read the  Visuddhimagga. All of it (daunting), none of it or some. If it is some then which some. What are the parts of the Pali Canon that it would be best to read before the Visuddhimagga?

Like much of Buddhism, your understanding of the text is probably relative to not only your familiarity with Buddhist concepts and theory, but also your own cultivation of the practices themselves.

We went through some of the Visuddhimagga in Winnipeg last year, and I had to explain and elaborate on a lot of the technical aspects of the book using the canon and commentaries. But much of it is easily accessible to the neophyte, especially the first two sections.

Absolutely, reading the entire tipitaka would be the best way to prepare for the Visuddhimagga; go for it! If you can't handle the dauntingness of such a task, beware, because a partial read of the dhamma can give you a lopsided understanding. That's what texts like the Visuddhimagga are for, to give you an overview.

A good way to get a fairly solid overview is to read a single collection, like the Digha or the Majjhima nikaya. Read both if you can, but read them in their entirety, so you get a broad look at the types of things the Buddha taught. The MN can be read one sutta at a time - you can make a chart and check off every time you finish one sutta (there's 152 of them). Bodhi's translations are good. Check out https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.yuttadhammo.buddhisttexts&hl=en

Practice meditation too; samatha if you want to understand the samadhi niddesa aspect, vipassanā if you want to understand the paññā niddesa. In fact, don't read the tipitaka unless you're meditating as well; I would imagine it difficult to understand (or easy to misunderstand) without actually practicing.

But in the end, what's to worry about? It's all good stuff, tried, tested, and trusted by meditators around the world for thousands of years. Good luck :)


Depersonalization phenomenon as described in the Pali Canon According to the gentleman in this video ...

Enlightenment, DP/DR & Falling Into the Pit of the Void ~ Shinzen Young
Shinzen talks about the empowering facets of enlightenment and compares this to "enlightenments evil twin" DP/DR. He talks about the rare occasions that he's encountered a meditator moving in the direction of DP/DR and the strategy he used to "cure" it using mindfulness methods.

... the phenomenon of "depersonalization" is described in the Pali Canon. Could anyone provide the source(s) of this?
As a secondary question- could anyone share their personal experience with/knowledge of depersonalization occurring as a result of meditation?
Thank you

It's hard to be sure what he's talking about, because obviously the Pali canon doesn't use the modern definition of DP/DR.

In the video he says a few things to describe what he's talking about:

That it's "DP/DR"
That it's very rare (so very rare that it shouldn't be used as a reason for not meditating)
That whereas enlightenment is liberating and makes your life bigger or fear-free, the "Falling into the Pit of the Void" experience/phenomenon that he's talking is the exact opposite of that
That it might even be the same (the usual) realization (of emptiness) as enlightenment/liberation, however in these (allegedly rare) cases the person reacts to it differently
That he (as a teacher) treats it by saying to such a student, "That's good! Now that you know emptiness you can rebuild yourself better than before" and then (like a physiotherapist would with an injured person) forces them to exercise (e.g. to concentrate on positive virtues)
He uses the word "nihilism"

I suspect that the description in the Pali canon (of derealization if not of depersonalization) might be of bhanga, see for example the descriptions in this answer.

I find it difficult to think of any place in the suttas where the results of meditation are described as pathological -- but one place might be the Vesali Sutta (which might be a description of nihlism).

The video doesn't say so but I wonder whether pathology/disorder might be understood as some imbalance (see for example, Balancing the spiritual faculties).

On the subject of "mindfulness" as a possible antidote, according to modern psychology "feelings of unreality (depersonalization or derealization)" can be among the symptoms of "panic disorder" and "acute stress reaction" ... and (to some extent Westernized) "mindfulness based stress reduction programs" is one of the clinical techniques that psychological therapists use to help to treat that.


What does Buddhism say that the laity should do when someone injuries them? What does Buddhism say that the laity should do when someone injuries them?

So in Christianity there is "turn the other cheek", which seems easy to do, if not understand.

  The phrase originates from the Sermon on the Mount in the New
  Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, an alternative for "an eye for an
  eye" is given by Jesus: 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An
  eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That
  ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
  turn to him the other also.

How should we ordinary beings respond to injury?

It is up to each situation. Some case running away is proper, but some case negotiating is proper, etc.

The theory is "The buddhist people will try to keep 1)own benefit, 2)other benefits, 3)public benefit, 4)this life benefit, 5)next life benefit, and 6)nibbāna benefit. They try to keep whole 6 benefits, no bias."

Methods, to keep benefits, are multiple up to consciousness management ability of each person.


What is meant by "No limiting action remains there"? MN 99 In the discourse on the four Divine Abodes, what is meant by "... no limiting action remains there, none persists there."

  Here a bhikkhu abides pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with
  benevolence, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the
  fourth; so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to
  himself, he abides pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind
  imbued with benevolence, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without
  hostility, and without ill will. When the deliverance of mind by
  benevolence is developed in this way, no limiting action remains
  there, none persists there....

http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/bd_dhammatalk/dhamma_talk/subhasutta.htm

MN 99

I am not sure but i think it is something like this from MN 43:

  "The immeasurable awareness-release, the nothingness awareness-release, the emptiness
  awareness-release, the theme-less-awareness-release: There is a way of
  explanation by which these qualities are different in meaning &
  different in name, and there is a way of explanation by which these
  qualities are one in meaning and different only in name.

  "And what is the way of explanation by which these qualities are
  different in meaning & different in name? There is the case where a
  monk keeps pervading the first direction[4] — as well as the second
  direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with
  good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around,
  everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world with an
  awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable,
  free from hostility, free from ill will.

  "He keeps pervading the first direction — as well as the second
  direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with
  compassion ... an awareness imbued with appreciation...

  "He keeps pervading the first direction — as well as the second
  direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with
  equanimity. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around,
  everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world with an
  awareness imbued with equanimity: abundant, expansive, immeasurable,
  free from hostility, free from ill will.

  "This is called the immeasurable awareness-release.

  "And what is the nothingness awareness-release? There is the case
  where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the
  infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] 'There is nothing,' enters
  & remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is called the
  nothingness awareness-release.

  "And what is the emptiness awareness-release? There is the case where
  a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or
  into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of
  anything pertaining to self.'[5] This is called the emptiness
  awareness-release.

  "And what is the theme-less awareness-release? There is the case where
  a monk, through not attending to all themes, enters & remains in the
  theme-less concentration of awareness.[6] This is called the
  theme-less awareness-release.

  "This is the way of explaining by which these qualities are different
  in meaning & different in name.

  "And what is the way of explaining whereby these qualities are one in
  meaning and different only in name?

  "Passion, friend, is a making of limits. Aversion is a making of
  limits. Delusion is a making of limits. In a monk whose fermentations
  are ended, these have been abandoned, their root destroyed, made like
  a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not
  destined for future arising. Now, to the extent that there is
  immeasurable awareness-release, the unprovoked awareness-release is
  declared the foremost. And this unprovoked awareness-release is empty
  of passion, empty of aversion, empty of delusion.

  *"Passion is a something. Aversion is a something. Delusion is a something. In a
  monk whose fermentations are ended, these have been abandoned, their
  root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions
  of development, not destined for future arising. Now, to the extent
  that there is nothingness awareness-release, the unprovoked
  awareness-release is declared the foremost. And this unprovoked
  awareness-release is empty of passion, empty of aversion, empty of
  delusion.

  "Passion is a making of themes. Aversion is a making of themes.
  Delusion is a making of themes. In a monk whose fermentations are
  ended, these have been abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a
  palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined
  for future arising. Now, to the extent that there is theme-less
  awareness-release, the unprovoked awareness-release is declared the
  foremost. And this unprovoked awareness-release is empty of passion,
  empty of aversion, empty of delusion.

  "This, friend, is the way of explaining whereby these qualities are
  one in meaning and different only in name."*

Therefore i would guess that when it is said;
"When the deliverance of mind by loving kindness is developed in this way, no limting action remain there, none persists there"
It means that a mind established in the pervading everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will etc does not give rise to mental, verbal and bodily deeds which would be limiting one's potential for the unprovoked awareness-release which is declared as the superior to the measureless release.

  Now, to the extent that there is immeasurable awareness-release, the unprovoked awareness-release is declared the foremost. And this unprovoked awareness-release is empty of passion, empty of aversion, empty of delusion.


Can the seeds of desires bowed in the past lives can now be eradicated from the mind completely? Desires are the seeds which have effects later or sooner. Can we destroy such seeds without experiencing their effect or Karmas?

First of all, a seed of desire, or a seed of anger, etc. are not karmic seeds (or karmic imprints). They do not ripen in the same way at all. A seed of desire will give rise to a mind of desire. Second, desires are not seeds. The seeds are non-associated compositional factors while an instance of desire is a mind.

Yes, the seeds of the afflictions can be abandoned so that they never give rise to an afflicted mind, such as a mind of anger, lust, etc.

There are two types of abandonment:

Partial abandonment, and
Complete abandonment.

Partial abandonment is also called 'non-analytical cessation' since such an abandonment happens when you engage in Samata and the Jhanas. When you reach a concentration of the form realm (such as a mind of calm abiding, etc.) afflictions of the desire realm are abandoned, but the seeds are still there. This is a partial abandonment, since the seeds are not yet abandoned.

The way to abandon the afflictions together with their seeds is by generating wisdom directly realizing emptiness. When the wisdom directly realizing emptiness acts as an antidote, it abandons afflictions together with their seeds, this is called analytical cessation and it is complete abandonment. According to Prasangika, the first moment of a wisdom directly realizing emptiness does not abandon all afflictions altogether (and their seeds), but merely the intellectually acquired afflictions and their seeds. It is only later, when the wisdom is conjoined with an accumulation of merit (or with the six perfections) that this wisdom is strong enough to abandon innate afflictions and their seeds.

Usually, according to so-called Hinayana tenets, the seeds are abandoned by way of generating wisdom directly realizing the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths.

In any case, such a wisdom is a mind of special insight and is thus a union of calm abiding and special insight. Calm abiding must be attained first.


How should Buddhists receive generosity? There is a lot of advice about dana and the importance of generosity and giving but is there any advice on how to receive generosity? From a western perspective it can be quite awkward to receive gifts or charity so I wondered if there is any specific Buddhist advice on how should this be done - both the actions and the appropriate mental state.

The motivation for this is this you tube video where Yuttadhammo is receiving alms. I found it very striking the manner in which they are received - without any thank you or speech. This could be a cultural phenomena within Sri-Lanka or how alms are received generally - I'm not sure. However it makes me wonder in what spirit generosity should be received from a Buddhist perspective generally.

The lay community consider it a privilege to offer Dana to monks. A monk is a special person who has given up the comforts of lay life in search of spiritual liberation. Offering Dana to such a being is very meritorious(refer to Dakkhina Vibhanga Sutta). So the monks are actually doing a favor to the laypeople by accepting it. When going on alms round, a monk may give a short blessing, but it is not compulsory. If monks are invited to a house to receive the dana, they will usually give a sermon on invitation.

From a monk's perspective, being worthy of it is the spirit of receiving generosity. In the Aggikkhandopama Sutta, lord Buddha explains what happens to the monks who are not worthy of the gifts received.

From a giver's perspective, the receiver needn't have any standards. You can even give food to an animal and expect a 100 fold gift in return, according to Dakkhina Vibhanga Sutta. The more virtuous the receiver, the greater the merit.

Generally, from a receiver's perspective, rather than just thanking as a common courtesy, it's more important to remember the favor and return the kindness as one is able when one gets the chance. SACCAṀKIRA-JĀTAKA gives a good example. Also, one can try to make the best use of the gift received to make the giver happier.


Buddhist teachings on nation building & politics From what I have read, Buddhism seems provide a practical path to follow in everyday life for a commoner to lead a life with lesser Dukkha and a rigorous path aimed at Monks seeking nirvana.

But do any Buddhist teachings prescribe rules for nation building and politics?

For example, in Hinduism (Sanathana Dharma), there is Arthashastra which gives a Dharmic way to engage in politics and run the country.

Since there are nations whose state religion is Buddhism (Cambodia, Bhutan, etc), does Buddhist teaching have anything about laws for governance (like the Sharia law in Islam)?

The clearest example of this that I can think of is in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (DN 16) where the Buddha was asked (obliquely) by the brahman Vassakara on behalf of King Ajatasattu whether he had a chance at killing off an enemy nation. The Buddha replied with the seven "Conditions of a Nation's Welfare":

At that time the Venerable Ananda was standing behind the Blessed One, fanning him, and the Blessed One addressed the Venerable Ananda thus: "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis have frequent gatherings, and are their meetings well attended?"
"I have heard, Lord, that this is so."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their ancient constitutions?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor,
esteem, and veneration towards their elders and think it worthwhile to
listen to them?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting
women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor,
esteem, and veneration towards their shrines, both those within the
city and those outside it, and do not deprive them of the due
offerings as given and made to them formerly?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do venerate their shrines, and that
they do not deprive them of their offerings."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html
Besides being one of the few examples of the Buddha offering advice on how to run a nation (he was the one who taught the Vajjis these conditions), it also shows how the Buddha never did take sides in political struggle; rather than chastising Ajatasattu, he just taught the dhamma as he always did.


Arahants and exersise Q:

Would an arahant get physically exausted if he/she was to exersise, like if they were to run 5 miles? Would this in anyway shake their mind?

Buddha's mind is unshakable. But they still get tired and has to rest.

"Ananda, speak to the Kapilavatthu Sakyans about the person who follows the practice for one in training. [2] My backaches. I will rest it."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html


Concentration Meditation and Alertness I am wondering how concentration meditation (i.e. shamatha) compares with other techniques or remedies for awareness and alertness. Does anyone know whether meditation increases alertness more than exercise, or nutrition? Or perhaps, I mean to ask how efficient -- if this is a measurable aspect -- focused meditation is at sustaining alertness?

Thank you.

According to AN 11.2 below, it says that skillful virtue (sila) leads to freedom from remorse, which leads to joy, which leads to rapture, which leads to pleasure, which leads to concentration of mind.

It says that there is no need to will for this - it arises out of the very nature of being endowed with virtue and consummate with virtue. This to me is a statement of the efficiency of the use of virtue to lead one towards concentration. Furthermore, I think it is far more efficient to start with the cultivation of skillful virtue and skillful thinking, rather than struggling directly with the five hindrances in meditation.

  "For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no
  need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is
  in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person
  endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.

  "For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises
  in a person free from remorse.

  "For a joyful person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
  rapture arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that rapture
  arises in a joyful person.

  "For a rapturous person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May my
  body be serene.' It is in the nature of things that a rapturous person
  grows serene in body.

  "For a person serene in body, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May I experience pleasure.' It is in the nature of things that a
  person serene in body experiences pleasure.

  "For a person experiencing pleasure, there is no need for an act of
  will, 'May my mind grow concentrated.' It is in the nature of things
  that the mind of a person experiencing pleasure grows concentrated.

  "For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act
  of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees
  things as they actually are.

  "For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is
  no need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they
  actually are feels disenchantment.

  "For a person who feels disenchantment, there is no need for an act of
  will, 'May I grow dispassionate.' It is in the nature of things that a
  person who feels disenchantment grows dispassionate.

  "For a dispassionate person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
  I realize the knowledge & vision of release.' It is in the nature of
  things that a dispassionate person realizes the knowledge & vision of
  release.


Does "married adults living with parents in parents' house" count as breaching the third precept? It's very common for unmarried adult Asians in Asia to continue to live with their parents. Some choose to move out once they're married, some people for some reasons choose to stay even after they're married.

One of the object of transgression of the third precept is having intercourse with those "protected by parents". My understanding is, generally speaking, protected children are underaged children, children who are vulnerable to unwanted advances and financially dependent.

In the case of a married adult couple who is already mature and independent but can't afford to buy a house therefore the adult child with his wife live with his parents in his parents' house, does this count as "protected by parents"? How should one determine the scope of "protected by parents" according to the precept?

I am confident that a married couple who live with their parents are not in violation of the precept against sexual misconduct. If anything the question would apply to the marriage decision (asking parents for consent), but certainly not sexual activity that happens after the marriage.

IMHO the point is that you need consent before having sex, and in the case of young people, you should not treat their own consent as acceptable because they are too young to decide, so any time you aren't sure, their parents should be involved in the decision. Honestly that sounds horrible either way, but we can imagine young people getting married and how the consent of parents would often be a factor in that union not being misconduct, especially in an ancient society.


In Buddhism, is Escapism seen as a bad thing to take part in? In general in Buddhism, is escapism seen as a bad "movement" to involve one's self in? I have seen many posts on SE about separating one's self from one's body, or getting rid of desire, so; would these actions been seen as escapism?

Escapism does not address the core issue. Say you have X experience which you do not like and you distract yourself with Y experience with you take pleasure in. The solution is temporary as Y ends you are left unsatisfied again.

The case of much of the suffering are the unwholesome roots in craving, aversion and ignorance. Buddhist practice aims to remove them.

Now let's take experiance you like. What happens is you think "Ah, I like this" hence the notion of I arises in your mind. Likewise with many forms of craving and aversions. So if you remove the craving or aversion by being equanimous (and also remove ignorance being aware of the arising and passing nature of phenomena) you stop perceiving a self. There is not separation of self from the body, it is just that you do not perceive a self as an entity. Also any perception of self is a concept or abstraction created by our mind which is never in tune with the true nature of what actually is there. Hence you have to get rid of any concepts about self (which in all cases will be wrong).

  Escapism

  How is Vipassana different from escapism?

  Vipassana is to face the world. No escapism is permitted in Vipassana.

Source: http://www.vridhamma.org/Question-and-Answers#escapism


Sutta on which Buddha states the gravity of merits What is the sutta where Buddha says about the order of merits as in for example "Observing the 5 precepts gives more merit than offering alms" and such.

I believe you're looking for Velāma Sutta (AN 9:20). Here's  Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu's translation: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_20.html


How to understand Buddhism original dogma? Buddhism has been evolving dramatically since Buddha created it. Somehow it spawned into many different 'sects' across the world. There are numerous sutra and books on Buddhism. As a beginner, it's really hard to know what to start, but I had a feeling that I need to understand the original dogma/meaning of Buddhism when it was invented. However I heard that most sutra were written by Buddha's disciples, or disciples' disciples, or even laymen; Some of the recordings are contradict each other when interpreting Buddha's true meaning; Some original meaning was lost or probably altered since then.

Anyone has suggestion how I should start and what to read?

I like The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh as a beginning book on the core of the Buddhist teaching. It is well written and modern in style, and covers essentials such as the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path as well as slightly deeper topics. It will give you a grounding and a place from which to appreciate the sutra's.

There are various web based repositories of sutra's which you can explore, I found http://www.accesstoinsight.org to be pleasant and good. The book includes many references to sutra's which you can look up online.

One thing to be aware of in Buddhism is that the different schools hold differing opinions on the words of the Buddha. There is a doctrine called the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma, which sets out the Mahayana view on the Buddha's teaching, while the Theravadan view is that the Pali Cannon which constitutes much of the Mahayana tradition's First Turning is authoritative by itself.

The Tibetan tradition has composed a series of texts called lamrims, of which there have been many following on from Atiśa's 11th-century original text A Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. These aspire to order the sutra's in a logical order of progression for actual practice.


How to deal with difficult in-laws? What are some "skillful means" of getting through holidays, birthdays, graduations and etc. when your in-laws are constantly making passive aggressive statements about you or the way you raise your kids.
Are there Buddhist techniques one can use to aleviate the anxiety and the irritability associated with these situations?

I first encountered the Buddhist perspective on resentment with DN33. It quite startled me because no action was required other than letting go. The day I read this, a car tried to run me over in the crosswalk. So I tried what the Buddha said and it worked. Very puzzling!

DN33:3.2.15: Thinking: ‘They did wrong to me, but what can I possibly do?’ you get rid of resentment.

Another sutta provides more specific help in letting go of resentment:

AN5.161:1.1:“Mendicants, a mendicant should use these five methods to completely get rid of resentment when it has arisen toward anyone. What five?  You should develop love for a person you resent.  That’s how to get rid of resentment for that person.  You should develop compassion for a person you resent. …  You should develop equanimity for a person you resent. … You should disregard a person you resent, paying no attention to them. …  You should apply the concept that we are the owners of our deeds to that person: ‘This venerable is the owner of their deeds and heir to their deeds. Deeds are their womb, their relative, and their refuge. They shall be the heir of whatever deeds they do, whether good or bad.’  That’s how to get rid of resentment for that person. A mendicant should use these five methods to completely get rid of resentment when it has arisen toward anyone.”

May you and your family find peace and an end to suffering.


Is financial speculation ethical according to Buddhism? Imagine someone buys money in foreign currency, then sells it at a profit.

Does Buddhism consider such operations ethical?

Note: One possible reason why it may be unethical is the purpose of money -- to
facilitate the exchange of products and services. When money becomes subject of
trade, it cannot fulfill it main function and this hurts other people. Money to
the economy is like blood to human body -- the more blood you remove from the
body, the worse it will function.

In the Vanijja Sutta (AN5.177), there is defined what kind of businesses a lay person must not indulge in:

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

This does not include currency trading or other kinds of speculative trading.

In both the Dighajanu Sutta and Sigalovada Sutta, gambling is criticized by the Buddha and he states many negative consequences of it.

  "These are the six dangers inherent in compulsive gambling: winning
  breeds resentment; the loser mourns lost property; savings are lost;
  one's word carries no weight in a public forum; friends and colleagues
  display their contempt; and one is not sought after for marriage,
  since a gambler cannot adequately support a family.

On the other hand, the Dighajanu Sutta also seems to be fine with trading:

  "Four conditions, Vyagghapajja, conduce to a householder's weal and
  happiness in this very life. Which four?

  "The accomplishment of persistent effort (utthana-sampada), the
  accomplishment of watchfulness (arakkha-sampada), good friendship
  (kalyanamittata) and balanced livelihood (sama-jivikata).

  "What is the accomplishment of persistent effort?

  "Herein, Vyagghapajja, by whatsoever activity a householder earns his
  living, whether by farming, by trading, by rearing cattle, by archery,
  by service under the king, or by any other kind of craft — at that he
  becomes skillful and is not lazy. He is endowed with the power of
  discernment as to the proper ways and means; he is able to carry out
  and allocate (duties). This is called the accomplishment of persistent
  effort.

The Sigalovada Sutta is also fine with investment in business:

  By dividing wealth into four parts, True friendships are bound; One
  part should be enjoyed; Two parts invested in business; And the fourth
  set aside Against future misfortunes."

So, the question is, would currency trading and other types of speculative trading be considered a form of gambling or a form of trading or a form of investment?

If it is gambling, then it is not good. If it is trading (like trading of goods e.g. retail sales) or a kind of investment, then it is alright.

So, which is it? This is open to interpretation, and is probably best analyzed by the experts at the Economics Stack Exchange.

Regarding the point that currency trading may be harmful to the economy - this is similar to the topic of meat-eating. Business in meat is wrong livelihood, but eating meat, that was bought dead and frozen from the supermarket, is not wrong for lay people according to the Theravada tradition. Please see this question for more details.

Similarly, if an individual does not have any direct intention to harm others, but the action indirectly affects others, this is not wrong but may not be preferable.

Also related, is the story of the hunter's wife from Dhammapada 124. Please read this answer for more details.


Can consciousness exist externally? Sometimes I feel that my consciousness is separate from my body. How can this be explained in Buddhism? What is this state ? Can consciousness exist externally without physical body?

Can consciousness exist externally without physical body?

In The Immaterial World this is possible. There might be times you fee so in meditation. Maybe when you enter Infinite Conciousness Absorption but even without this there maybe instances you may fee so.

  What is this state ?

You been born in an Immaterial World.

  How can this be explained in Buddhism?

You have generally have Nama & Rupa. In Immaterial World you just have Nama but not Rupa.

  Sometimes I feel that my consciousness is separate from my body.

This is not possible as I would believe you to be human hence having Nama and Rupa, in which case conciousness cannot exit without a physical body. This is the case in any other plane of existance other than The Immaterial Worlds.


Will actors really go to hell? In the Talaputta Sutra the Buddha says that actors will either be reborn as an animal or go to hell

  When an actor on the stage, [he thinks that] after death, he is reborn
  in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now,
  there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you:
  either hell or the animal womb.

Why does the Buddha have such a dim view of actors? I can imagine all kinds of professions that would be less ethical than acting. Was acting a very different sort of profession in Indian 2500 years ago? Would the same kind of fate be shared with actors today? Are actors frowned upon in modern day Buddhist countries?

The motivation for this question is that I am due to give a talk on right livelihood at a local Buddhist centre. The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately there was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really justify this harsh opinion so I just muttered an apology and moved on.

Many Thanks for any/all responses.

The Buddha quote from the sutta says that anyone with some passion, aversion or delusion, reinforces it by watching the actor's performance. The actor too is intoxicated with emotions due to getting into character to play the role. And by acting out the role on stage, the actor has the intention of getting the audience to experience the same emotions. This intention is karma.

So, this is a question about Right Livelihood. The butcher had the intention and actions to take the life of the animals he slaughtered. And in this case, the actor had the intention and actions to reinforce emotions in the audience that are filled with passion, aversion or delusion. So, it stands to reason that such an acting career is not following Right Livelihood. This surprises me too, but it makes sense.

However, if the acting role results in reinforcement of thoughts and emotions that are conducive to the dhamma, then that can't be wrong in any way, can it?

  The last time I did this talk I told this story. Unfortunately there
  was an actor in the group and she was shocked. I couldn't really
  justify this harsh opinion so I just muttered an apology and moved on.

Exactly! For the very same reason, the Buddha said "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that" and refused to answer the question the first time. An actor shouldn't be put off or judged as being a bad person in public. This will take them away from the dhamma. After all, acting by itself is not bad. It's about intentions.


How is sexual misconduct explained in regards to the five precepts? The 3rd precept is:

  I undertake the training rule to avoid sexual misconduct.

How is this precept explained?

Marriage is defined differently in different cultures, so are the commonly accepted rules in a given society considered as non-misconduct? If not, how should one determine the scope of misconduct according to the precept?

In MN 41 (and elsewhere), the Buddha describes sexual misconduct as follows:

He is given over to misconduct in sexual desires: he has intercourse with such (women) as are protected by the mother, father, (mother and father), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also with those that are garlanded in token of betrothal.
(Ñanamoli, Trans)

The commentary explains this passage as follows:

Māturakkhitātiādīsu yaṃ pitari naṭṭhe vā mate vā ghāsacchādanādīhi paṭijaggamānā, vayapattaṃ kulaghare dassāmīti mātā rakkhati, ayaṃ māturakkhitā nāma. Etenupāyena piturakkhitādayopi veditabbā. Sabhāgakulāni pana kucchigatesupi gabbhesu katikaṃ karonti – ‘‘sace mayhaṃ putto hoti, tuyhaṃ dhītā, aññattha gantuṃ na labhissati, mayhaṃ puttasseva hotū’’ti. Evaṃ gabbhepi pariggahitā sassāmikā nāma. ‘‘Yo itthannāmaṃ itthiṃ gacchati, tassa ettako daṇḍo’’ti evaṃ gāmaṃ vā gehaṃ vā vīthiṃ vā uddissa ṭhapitadaṇḍā, pana saparidaṇḍā nāma. Antamaso mālāguṇaparikkhittāpīti yā sabbantimena paricchedena, ‘‘esā me bhariyā bhavissatī’’ti saññāya tassā upari kenaci mālāguṇaṃ khipantena mālāguṇamattenāpi parikkhittā hoti.

Rough translation:

In the case where the father is gone, or the mother provides support such as food and clothing, the mother guards [her] thinking "I will give [her] to a good family when she comes of age." This is called "protected by the mother". By the same means "protected by the father", etc., should be understood.
When families come together and, even when the fetuses have just reached the womb, make an agreement - "If I have a son and you a daughter, let there be no getting to go to another; let her be for my son." Even in the case of a fetus that is protected thus, it is called "having a husband".
"Whoever goes to a woman of such and such a name, such a penalty is for him." Thus, a penalty is established by a village or a house, or a street; this is called "as entail a penalty."
"Even to the extent of those who are garlanded" - to the last extreme of all, with the perception that "This woman will be my wife", by tossing some garland over her head, there is "those that are garlanded".

Soooo, it doesn't seem all that culturally dependent. Some points of note are:

Polygamy isn't included in the precept at all;
State-condoned prostitution doesn't seem to be considered immoral either. Illegal prostitution is considered wrong, but only because of the penalty it brings.
Infidelity doesn't appear either; in the Sigalovada Sutta however, the Buddha says that a wife is to be attended to "by being faithful to her". It seems likely, therefore, that the reverse of the description here is to be considered as implied; if you are in any one of the protected situations yourself, engaging in a breach, even with a woman who is not so guarded, would be immoral.

Basically, the point is that breaching an existing relationship, including parental guardianship, is a breach of the precept. It doesn't seem likely that this would be affected by cultural norms; as the Buddha notes, as long as there is a claim and it is breached, it is wrong sexuality.
It's worth noting, of course, that in (Theravada) Buddhism all intentional sexual activity is inherently immoral; this precept just attempts to lay down some general principles for those unable to commit to celibacy.


Did the Buddha teach Engaged Buddhism? Did the Buddha teach some measure of "Engaged Buddhism", to maybe more of a lay person audience?

Did the Buddha ever teach "Engaged Buddhism" to the Bhikkhus?

What Buddhist scriptures support Engaged Buddhist teachings?

Is it proper for a Bhikkhu  to be political in anyway in the world or in the monastery?

NOTE: Engaged Buddhism generally refers to people who actively engage in the world in order to transform it with positive Buddhist ideas &  practices.

UUU (btw. good to use simply given and more comfortable to use such names, it gives the questioner and answerer more seriousity, who would sacrify normaly to a UUU and have not certain discomfort with it?) and who ever also seriously interested, here in short but selfexpanding if going deeper, answers to the single questions:

Did the Buddha teach some measure of "Engaged Buddhism", to maybe more of a lay person audience?

In regard of being a perfect disciple, he praised people who teach and also act according the Dhamma most. But one is also fine in just carrying about himself, since the Buddha knew that circumstances and possibilities of being are different and had no illusion of creating a "good" and peaceful Samsara.

  Sikkha Sutta: Trainings

  This sutta is one of a series explaining AN 4.95, which rates individuals of four types. The lowest is the one who doesn't practice for his own benefit or for the benefit of others. Higher than this is the person who doesn't practice for his own benefit, but does practice for the benefit of others. Higher still is the person who practices for his own benefit, but not for the benefit of others. Highest of all is the person who practices both for his own benefit and for the benefit of others. Thus, as explained in this sutta, it is best if you not only follow the precepts but can also get others to follow them as well.

In regard to a layman's relations he gave advice to be secure in all directions: Sigala- sutta, The Layperson's Code of Discipline

In regard of community duties and engagements, he set out rules only for the Sangha of Monks and mostly very voluntary to take on. Most is a matter of duties in relation between teacher and disciples: Cv 8: Vatta Khandaka — Collection of Duties but even in teaching Dhamma by monks the prefix "I a monk wishes..." is always present, so it was of most interest for him, that people strive for their own liberation also for monks. Yet not to speak of his non-encouragement in getting additional burdened for laypeople how have already enought duties out of their dependency and dealing in society by themselves.

Did the Buddha ever teach "Engaged Buddhism" to the Bhikkhus?

No at all, not in the way it is generally understood.  A Bhikkhu is not asked to help in any way with outwardly things but more over, out of good reason, limited and "discouraged" to help in usually wordily ways, since it would make the path for liberation invisible for many in that way.

Making a living provide a favor for supporter in giving wordily help and assistance like sadly many popular monks do, the Buddha called "animal art" and such is a heavy offence and corruption. How ever, in some cases Bhikkhus are allowed to give also help in frame of food, cloth, shelter and medicine if having or ask for such, but that is restricted to people like father and mother or people near the Sangha and training. (See also under politic and taking side below.)

Even in regard of being engaged in helping by teaching the Dhamma, there are cases where the Buddha called those who have not gained something lasting for themselves, called Bikkhus "worthless monk" to provoke to do the real desk fist: The Story of Thera Potthila

He encouraged sometimes disciples of him, who have reached at minimum Streamwinning, e.g. Noble Ones, to teach the Dhamma for release of engagement, liberation, if willing and able. A encouragement given to his disciples who have all already gained path and fruits or even liberation, which is often "misused" by so called "Dammaduta"-monks, monks who teach or even missionaries engaged in improper ways putting often Vinaya on the second place for doing so.

He also mentioned that it is good to approach and rebuke sectarians from time to time, like the householder Anathapindika once did and of course always praised the gift of Dhamma.

Not and nowhere it will ever accrue as a duty to "rescue" others, at least because it's not possible. Those with less dust in the eyes how ever, have all possibilities to follow and receive support.

What Buddhist scriptures support Engaged Buddhist teachings?

Some, or better most, take certain rebirth stories as indirect encouragement, but the Buddha did not teach to follow his non-perfect history but provided the best way for one self and all others with the engagement in the Noble Eightfold path.
All scripts supporting such are later and defiled developments of those not seeing benefit of ending engagement in a wheel of causing suffering for one self and all others.

Is it proper for a Bhikkhu to be political in anyway in the world or in the monastery?

Not at all. It's either corruption, meaning that one maintains his livelihood and supporters with such and taking side, a heavy offence: Saṅghādisesa 13, or it is simlpy strong wrong view of a Bhikkhu, not understanding the aim and purpose of the holly life. Everybody is goid advised a avoid political involved monks and those monks taking on side, which ever side it might be. Such a person, a person with wrong view, is no admirable friend or teacher for a good and also not a place for having much benefit of ones gifts.

Did the Buddha teach Engaged Buddhism?

Yes, he likes you to be full engaged in the best you can do for you self and all other being, in accessing and walking the Noble Eightful Path with your actions in mind, speech and bodily deeds and he does not like you to just talk about it and think how it would be but to put it into action as your whole life's purpose if ever possible and willing to do something beneficial for your self and all others.

Having abounded engagement but fully being engaged in his path, you become a real hero and not another fool not seeing the arrow placed in the own heart.

If having additional question, feel being given to ask also here, since it allows more independence of engagement in the world and its aims.

Since this a good lesson for those with eyes and the strong impermanence of comments, Atma likes to add a short discussion from another good and proper answer in words.

  Maybe worthy to add the "duties" of engagement of them: The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways: (i) they restrain him from evil, (ii) they persuade him to do good, (iii) they love him with a kind heart, (iv) they make him hear what he has not heard, (v) they clarify what he has already heard, (vi) they point out the path to a heavenly state. http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara_en.html if liking to add
  – Samana Johann 2 hours ago
  You have read this teaching incorrectly. The teachings states: "thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder ". In other words, the householder first shows faith in the monk. I have no faith in you, for example, therefore it is sinful & a transgression of you to try to teach me. Regards
  – Dhammadhatu 2 hours ago
  Not sinful & transgressing Dhammaduta and good that you understood the teaching rightly, but called dukkhata and so not encouraged by the Buddha for his disciples to engage and of course it bears the danger of making disrespect in regard of the three juwels usual. So it seems two worlds, that of right and wrong view do not easy come together if not making sacrify at first place in faith. And as told, it's for the sake of those able to be healed that those who are lost also receive Dhamma. May it be an emergency hint.
  – Samana Johann 14 mins ago
  It's all a good sample for many think about "engaged Buddhism" here, so Atma hopes you can provide enough generosity to do not delete the more subtil teachings for low wordily sake as Dhammadhatu usually does, calling it "emptiness. Mudita in advanced.
  – Samana Johann 9 mins ago
  "Monks, even a monk who has long penetrated the Dhamma in this Doctrine and Discipline would do well to refute the wanderers of other persuasions with the Dhamma periodically in just the way Anathapindika the householder has done." Ditthi Sutta: Views Some sad "good that the teacher(s) are gone, now we can do as we like", some others simply knew that they had receiced a lot of goodness and walked without correcting the lost on in the foodsteps of gratitude.
  – Samana Johann 4 mins ago

At the end, as a person who actually gave up all wealth, pleasure and gain to sacrifice all gifts to engage for the welfare of the "poor", meaning not only talk around, likes to share a usual proof of the Buddha before he gave leave to monks desiring getting dhammically engaged, usually not expected to live further for a long: Punna Sutta: An Punna (Puñña, one having merits)

So when you are really already in the position of Punna, and really able to bear all this and able to live exclusively on the goodness of others without calling for rights and demanding this or that: Go on and sacrifice that what you have righteously made to your own and share the accumulations you have gained being really your on and gifts. Be a great field of merits in this world so empty of possibilities for many.

Anumodana!

You may find a maybe extended version as well as given space for discussion and further question, dedicated for the Sangha and their follower her. Fell given with strings only pulling torward Nibbana:

[Q&A] Did the Buddha teach Engaged Buddhism?

(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains.
There might be parts that have been edited by others. The fact of not reconstructing it does not mean to approve such by the author if not mentioned in a visible way. Sadhu for editing spellings and layout, Nyom Chris.)


In which Sutta, Buddha wore cloth of dead body? It is difficult for me to find the reference about Gautama Buddha wore robe made from cloth which was wrapped to a death body. Which part of Sutta do I have to reference?

Can we calculate how long Buddha wore this?

It is in  SN 16.11.

  ‘Your outer robe of patches is soft, Kassapa.’–‘Venerable sir, let the Blessed One accept my outer robe of patches, out of compassion.’–‘Then will you wear my worn-out hempen rag-robes? ’–‘I will, venerable sir.’ Thus I offered the Blessed One my outer robe of patches and received from him his worn-out hempen rag-robes.

However, the English translation doesn't mention that the Buddha wore a cloth wrapped to a dead body instead it just mentions worn-out hempen rag-robes. In the pali version it says the robe was paṃsukūlāni (rags discarded on the ground).

The Buddha has obtained it from the dead body of a servant named Punna lying in the cemetery (this part is in the commentary). He wore this robe until he exchanged it with Maha Kassapa.


How can I be happy at other's happiness? How can I be happy at other's happiness ? How can I develop my willingness to see others' being happy ?

If I define a happiness level, scale of 0 to 100 about being happy at others' happiness, I think I'm at the 25-50 level. How can I promote it to 90-100 level ?

Sometimes, I do loving-kindness meditation. But I'm looking for some kind of understanding / wisdom about being happy ? How can this help in path to the enlightenment ?

Or Should I do loving-kindness meditation to gain that wisdom ?

If you have a child then when your child is happy you are automatically happy, and that happiness you experience is 100% without holding back, that is because your love and compassion for your child is unconditional.  The same type of happy feeling you must get if your thoughts are pure towards others happiness.  Jealousy is the reason why you cannot feel 100% happiness for others when they are happy. You need to develop loving kindness and compassion towards others what we call Metta meditation.

Every day 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes in the evening you can practice Metta meditation. Find a suitable place - calm environment in your house. Sit and close your eyes and stay focus by saying a prayer, if you are a Christian say a prayer few times and bring your attention without allowing your mind to wonder, then when your mind is calm you say, "May I be well, May I be happy, may I be joy, may I be safe, may I be peaceful", repeat this three times, then you say the same but to your immediate love ones, "May my closest family and friends be well, may my closest family and friends be happy...", etc., three times, ( you must concentrate and have feelings when you are saying these words),  after that you say three times, "May my normal family and friends be well, may my normal family and friends be happy...", etc., last you say three times, "May my enemies be well, may my enemies be happy...", etc., finally you say, "May all beings in this cosmos be well, may all beings in this cosmos be happy, ...", etc, three times, then you start all over again from the beginning. When you start doing this for few months, you will gradually develop your loving kindness and compassion, you may see changes especially if you have a pet at home it helps, because every living being you must have compassion and loving kindness, you will soon start to have compassion towards even a cockroach and will not want to harm, you let it live and have compassion for it's misfortune of being born as a cockroach.

You must also learn to let go of things that you normally attach to, and it is easy to start with material things, eg, you might like to wear only expensive brands of clothes, you will need to change the mindset of not making yourself important by wearing ordinary not so expensive clothes, this is a way to change your mindset which helps you to let go of things.

You can gradually let go of other things little by little, until you feel there is no competition between you and others, until this happens your jealousy will not disappear, that means your happiness level to go up you need to gradually get rid of your jealousy ( which arises due to ego). You can gradually increase the times of your Metta meditation.

Wisdom what is discussed in Buddha Dharma is not the same kind of wisdom what the west talks about.

May you be happy and well


How does a forest-dwelling dhutanga practitioner get food? According to "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Bhikkhu Ariyesako:

  The Buddha suggested that the basic source of food for bhikkhus was
  that received on the morning alms round (pi.n.dapaata). This daily
  dependence on alms food reminds both the bhikkhus and the lay devotees
  of their interdependence and prevents the bhikkhu from becoming too
  isolated from the lay community. He 'meets' them every day and eats
  the food that they share with him. Several important rules are
  concerned with this as well as a major section of the Sekhiya Training
  rules.

On this page, āraññika dhutaṅga refers to:

  "the one who has the habit to dwell in a country side lodging remote
  from villages", that is to say the one who lives remote from inhabited
  areas.

And the ukkaṭṭha āraññika, the noble practitioner of the āraññika dhutaṅga is defined as:

  The bhikkhu who is a noble practitioner of the āraññika dhutaṅga is
  resolved to dwell and dwell into a forest monastery (remote from
  inhabited areas) a all the time, during the three seasons of the year
  that are summer (from March to June), the monsoon (approximately from
  July to October) and winter (approximately from November to February).

The "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" also states:

  In the Buddha's time some ladies were ambushed and raped on their way
  to give food to bhikkhus living in a dangerous jungle area. Their
  family criticized the bhikkhus for not warning them of the hazards. If
  lay people intend to give food to a bhikkhu(s) in such a danger zone
  then they must announce that to the bhikkhu(s) beforehand so that the
  bhikkhu(s) has a chance to warn them or reduce the threat.

  The rule can be summarized: "Eating an unannounced gift of staple or
  non-staple food, after accepting it in a dangerous wilderness abode
  when one is not ill is [an offence of Acknowledgement.]"
  (Paatidesaniya 4; BMC p.488)

So, how does an ukkaṭṭha āraññika get his food? Only from lay people who dare enter the potentially dangerous forest area to give them food or can they eat food that they can find in the forest like fruits?

If they eat fruits etc. in the forest, wouldn't that be a violation of another rule requiring the monk to get his food from alms?

Here, I assume that an ukkaṭṭha āraññika does not go to inhabited areas for alms, by the very definition of "ukkaṭṭha āraññika".

The page you linked for āraññika dhutaṅga seems to already have an answer:

A "forest monastery" is a monastery situated at least 500 (curved) bows lengths from the doorstep of a house situated on the remotest spot of a village.

This sounds like only a few miles away, so totally within walkable distance.

The bhikkhu who practises the āraññika dhutaṅga must fulfil several daily duties, such as performing his food collection by means of his bowl.

...

When the time has come to go collecting his food, the bhikkhu conveniently closes his robe, takes his bowl and proceeds to a neighbouring village in order to receive his daily meal. Before proceeding to the village, he puts into order all that which remains outside of his lodging and properly shuts down the door. If the path leading to the village is rough, he can tread it with his feet dressed in sandals. However, he must remove them and set them aside just before crossing the entrance of the village. He must minutely observe all sekhiyas. He enters in houses with attention and manages remembering his own location (in order to trace back the house of a dāyaka who invites him to come collecting his food at his home), he avoids entering while not collecting food or in case of emergency. He avoids being too slow or too fast while entering and going out of houses. When he waits standing with his bowl, he stands still neither too near, nor to far from the house. He never waits too long in front of a house. When his collection is completed, he doesn't go to people's house, without good reason. He doesn't waste his time into idle talk. He enters his forest monastery without delaying.
When he enters back his forest monastery, he conveniently performs all allotted domestic duties, such as the storage of drinking water for various uses, or sweeping. When darkness already came down, he lights up some oil lamps. So as to avoid any danger caused by animals, he catches up a stick for protecting himself. He tries to trace back the location of the stars and the four directions (South, East, North, and West) so as not lose himself. He pays attention to the calendar (regarding uposatha days, etc.)
If a bhikkhu who lives in a forest monastery has an unhealthy instructor or preceptor and the monastery doesn't receive any medicines (or medical materials likely to heal the later), he must take him to a village monastery, where he will easily receive all necessary cares. By doing so, the bhikkhu who practises the āraññika dhutaṅga should leave the village monastery before dawn so that he will have reached the forest at dawn time. If the state of health of his instructor or preceptor has worsened, he must remain in the village monastery for the sole task of looking after him. In this case, no worries for his dhutaṅga. The state of mind being the main element, the dhutaṅga is not broken.

So it sounds like visiting the village is allowed (and even required!) for food collection, and staying in the village overnight is allowed for emergencies.


Did Japanese Buddhists once use sky burial? In the Chinese Wikipedia article on sky burial, there's a section saying that sky burial is illegal in Japan:

  棄屍嫌疑

  在某些地方，天葬的行為，可能觸犯遺棄屍體的罪行。

  日本

  刑法第190條（死体損壊罪）

Google translation:

  Dumped suspect [My assumption for translation: Illegality of
  abandoning bodies]

  In some places, burial behavior may violate abandoned corpses offense.

  Japan

  Penal Code section 190 (dead body damage Huai crime)

Did Japanese Buddhists once use sky burial for their dead? Or is the ban just a broader ban that just happens to include sky burial?

I was curious about this question and I found some sources that might answer this question more or less:

...in ancient Japanese society, prior to the introduction of Buddhism and the funerary practice of cremation, the corpse was exposed in a manner very similar to the Tibetan sky burial.

This excerpt is from the wiki article on Excarnation.

The following link opens to a part in an ebook that might help answer this question:

https://books.google.com/books?id=CZM2AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=Excarnation+~Japanese&source=bl&ots=DF_qKCS7PC&sig=H9zvNsP284SQteLueDyDmyvWmjI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQurPevcDKAhVW2mMKHS6ADKkQ6AEIMTAG#v=onepage&q=Excarnation%20~Japanese&f=false


How could craving be the habit of reification? Below, it says that "craving" is the habit of reifying things, resulting in the notion that we need ever-increasingly more things to live happily.

How could craving (tanha) be the habit of reification (papanca)? How does it link?

From Piya Tan's commentary of Cetana Sutta (SN 12.38-40):

  What is interesting here is Mahā Cunda’s statement (from MN 144)
  that rebirth and suffering are rooted in "emotional dependence"
  (nissita), which the Majjhima Commentary explains as arising on
  account of craving and view (MA 5:83). "Craving" is the habit of
  reifying people, things and ideas, resulting in the notion that we
  need "more and more" to live happily; "view" is the delusion that
  sustains and moves craving, and its necessary opposite, hate.

Reification is simpistic naive superficial perception. It's a generalization of the same problem that children have with toys. A child sees a new shiny toy and because he does not think deeply, because his perception is superficial - in his mind the toy is attractive and desirable.

Reification is seeing the outer image and buying into its glow, its fake promise to make you happy.


I am addicted to Masturbation. What can I do? I meditate daily for 5- 10 minutes with Breathing meditation. So, far I have curbed my Porn addiction. But, finding it difficult to keep away from masturbation.

I keep telling myself, that I am wasting my time, water and every potential. But still I find it hard to keep away from the compulsion. It may be because I read in a medical book, that masturbation was normal. But, every time after doing the deed; I'd feel guilty and depleted of energy.
The compulsion is strongest whenever I go to have a wash. If it arises when I am alone, I can keep myself away - through by strenuous exercise or playing rock music on my piano. But, I re-lapse every time I go on to take my wash. Now, it's hardly like I could keep from washing myself. What is the best medicine that the greatest way would recommend me to do?

Let me start by telling you that I've been in your situation too. So, you are not alone in this.

Denial, repression, justification and guilt: these are four responses/reactions/habits/behaviors that are useless and even harmful when trying to overcome some unwholesome pattern.
If you notice that something is unhealthy (whether for your mind or for your body), you can overcome your obstacle without the need of those four mentioned reaction.

The first step is to accept that something unskillful is being done. I chose the word 'unskillful' over 'bad', because the latter has some culturally loaded and might imply moral connotations. But in this specific situation, if I stick to your post, there's nothing inmoral being done. Understand that and learn to take away from you that innecesary moral shame. Apparently, you are not harming anyone else.

Secondly, you should understand that what you are experiencing are the fruits of some ingrained habit. Your mind has learn how to react under certain stimuli or conditions (those being both internal -from the mind- or external). That habit is NOT "you". That learnt pattern is the consequence of conditions that came together out of your control and will; for instance, you were in your teenage years, you were confused by your feelings, you wanted some information, and some information came to your hand, casually, the one telling you that masturbation was normal. And it is! It is a normal behavior, in the sense that statistically, most people do it a lot at some point in their lives. But to this particular matter, statistics have nothing to do with this, because you want to get rid of something you perceive as detrimental to your mental well-being.

Let me do a little digression about that last point: keep in mind that the buddhist teachings were directed to two main target audience: householders and monks/nuns. And most restrictions and rules were focused that second group. To householders, lay-people and normal citizens, there were some precepts recommended for a ethical and skillful living. For most of them, their goal life was to live a happy worldly life (not in a derogatory sense of the word "worldly", but as in contrast to life in monastic reclusion), with families, jobs, possession, houses, projects, hobbies, etc. Relinquishment of these worldly goals and ways of life is not a requisite for holseholders; for them, the precepts (5 or 8, depending on you level of commitment to the buddhist path) are more than enough.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/atthasila.html

Back to the second point: as I said, you are not the habit. There is nothing to be called "you" in that behavior (nor in anything you consider as part of "your" identity, but that goes beyond the point. For more info on that, I'll put some references below). And so, it is useless and a illusion to get involved with that sexual desire in a personal fashion. A wise and skillful way to respond to such desires is to observe them in an impersonal way, just like when a zoologist is trying to look for some animal in the forest to study its appearence and behavior. Try doing the same with that mental event: when desire arises, instead of thinking "Oh no! Here comes this desire again. I'm so weak" or something alike, notice the desire, and tell to yourself "desire", and so your mind will know what just happened and won't get involved in a personal way, getting carried away by the streams of negative emotions. If you let yourself be carried by guilt and anger because of your desire, then you will feel angry and guilty for feeling anger and guilt for the desire, and so on; and so, an endless cycle of anger and guilt goes on and on. After the desire (or any negative process) was identified and labelled, let it go, feeling the tension in your body as it becomes relaxation. For some (myself included), this process of "labelling" your unskillful and unwholesome reactions is a very effective way to alter the usual way your brain reacts to situations and stimuli.

Notice how, by doing the above mentioned, you are not denying nor repressing your feelings; you are recognizing them, and choosing wisely what to do with it. By doing this, you will start modifying your habitual reactions. Your main tool to doing so is your attention and awareness: pay attention to your mind and body, but stop assigning any personal feature to these mental and bodily processes: they are just habits and processes, nothing more, nothing else. Notice them as they arise and go away. If you give them more importance than due, you feed such negative behaviors; but if you take away their nourishment, they will starve and cease to exist.

In third place, it is useful to understand how preferences (likes and dislikes) are created. Some of them a formed by association between an already pleasent stimulus and some neutral stimulus. Others are formed from the development of ideas about what is good and what is bad. But independently of the process of origination of preferences, desire and aversion depend on our perception of the world and the stimuli we face in our daily lives. And perception is conditioned and influenced by our worldview and thoughts. What we think is 'good', we desire; what we consider 'bad', we want to escape from. But those categories and labels are subjectively created, and those labelling do not depend on the object/phenomena itself, but on how does your mind interpret and perceives such objects.

So, you could start by asking to yourself some questions like: when does sexual desire arise most frecuently? And why does it arise at such occasions? What do I perceive as desirable, and why? Is the object of desire satisfying by itself? If I obtain what I desire, will my search for it disappear permanently? Why do some objects in some context give rise to those desire, while in other contexts do not? Am I attached to the object itself or to whatever the object makes me feel? Did I always feel this way about the object of desire; if I haven't, then why?

Remember to use the same logic before explained when asking those questions to yourself: whatever feeling arises, notice it impersonally, try to identify it, and once you learn from it, let it go. And the next time that feeling arises, you will be acquainted to it, and the whole analysis won't be necessary. And maybe sometimes new conclusion may appear as your attention and understanding get sharper everyday.

Ajahn Chah, a wonderful Thai monk and teacher, explains it this way:

Someone recently asked me, "As
we meditate and various things arise in the mind, should we investigate them or just note them coming and going?" If you see someone passing by whom you do not know, you may wonder, "Who is that? Where is he going? What is he up to?" But if we know the person, it is enough just to notice him pass by.

You can find an anthology book with this quote in here:

http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/No%2520Ajahn%2520Chah.pdf

And lastly: be kind to yourself. Patience, kindness, consistency and honesty are key. Let attention become your best friend, and don't turn that friend into a police officer waiting to give you a ticket everytime you feel anything unwanted.

If you think about masturbation as a big issue, it will be a big issue. If you see it simply for what it is (a habit caused by conditions and events that came together out of your control and will), changing your mind will become way less tedious and distressing.

EDIT: I added a few more details concerning perception and subjectivity.

EDIT 2: As someone suggested, the use of the words "unfortunate conditions" may be misleading. I rephrased it as "conditions that came together out of your control and will".

And the links about the wrong pespectives on identity and the "self":

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html

https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/anatta-and-the-four-noble-truths/

https://secularbuddhism.org/2012/07/14/if-not-self-then-what/

And here are two videos by Ven. Yuttadhammo about how to use the "labelling" method in your daily life and in your meditation sessions, and about how to deal with masturbation and addictions in general:

https://youtu.be/hLvU7ppM4vE

https://youtu.be/W5Lg9P-VekA

May you have a wonderful and peaceful life!


What is the feeling-clinging aggregate? Is it the actual sight, sound, smell, taste, tactile sensation, idea, or the feeling based on them.

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, there are these five clinging-aggregates. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as an a clinging-aggregate.

  [...]

  "And what is feeling? These six classes of feeling — feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of intellect-contact: this is called feeling."

  -- SN 22.56

  "There are, O monks, these three feelings: pleasant feelings, painful feelings, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings."

  -- SN 36.1

  "Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the feeling aggregate."

  -- SN 22.48


Is shellfish aquaculture considered a wrong livelihood? I am currently employed on an aquaculture farm that specializes in clams and oysters. According to our modern system of taxonomy, both of these organisms are considered animals. I also know that a profession in which one trades animals is not right livelihood. However, according to this site, clams and oysters don't really have brains. Furthermore, according to wikipedia, it would seem that the nervous system of the mollusk doesn't really function to sense pleasure or pain. So, I am wondering- does trade in shellfish count as wrong livelihood? If so, how does one determine what is an animal and what is not according to Buddhism? If one is meant to go by whatever their respective society defines as an animal, surely this definition will change and therefore make this aspect of right livelihood unreliable, right?
Thankya

The Vanijja Sutta is the standard definition of "wrong livelihood" and is, as you saw, not specific. It says, in its entirety (at least in this translation),

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

FYI in this commentary on the Vinaya, on page 308, it says,

Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2 only when one is possessed
by non-human beings. Thus, in more ordinary circumstances, one may not eat
raw fish or meat even if of an allowable kind. This would include such things as
steak tartare, sashimi, oysters on the half-shell, raw eggs, and caviar.
Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the
bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the
purpose of feeding bhikkhus (Mv.VI.31.14)

So, apparently, according to this, oysters (and eggs and caviar too) are considered flesh or meat.
Whether you're vegetarian is slightly up to you. This article too (of unknown authority) says not to "steam live clams or eat live oysters" but explains why it's seen as relatively OK to buy meat under certain circumstances.
There was an argument between the Buddha and Devadata apparently, with the Buddha's not mandating vegetarianism because he didn't want the Sangha to be difficult for lay people to support.
FYI one of the criteria for the "no killing" precept is whether you're conscious that the being is alive and that you intend to kill them: killing someone by accident if you thought they were already dead, for example, wouldn't be breaking the precept. So, who knows, maybe it's partly up to you decide or to be aware of whether they count as "animals" or "meat" or "sentient".
I found this modern paper which claims that they're not especially sentient, but I doubt that's canonical.
And some people would have you know that even being a vegetable farmer or crop farmer presumably wouldn't prevent the deaths of worms and possibly field mice and so on.
Anyway, good luck with finding a solution.
And don't know any context to the Vanijja Sutta (it's in the Anguttara Nikaya as a list of five things). You'd think that if "Right Livelihood" were important enough to be in the Eightfold path then it would be better defined; but maybe it's better defined for monks than it is for laypeople; or maybe it's tangential to the main message, i.e. the Buddha's messages wasn't especially about right livelihood.
The book The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity which is a bit of compendium of rules for lay people doesn't talk about "right livelihood" exactly but does say "don't destroy life". It claims that the Gihi Sutta (although I don't see this there) says that you should avoid trapping animals unless you're too sick or weak to farm.


Is a straight spine/spinal posture during seated meditation critical? I notice, in images of monks and lay people in seated meditation, that many of these various persons appear to be using very poor posture, e.g. slumped and not erect. Written instructions and video instructions often recommend adherence to a straight spine and/or an erect posture. I think the Buddha simply instructed that one sit, without specific instructions about an erect straight-spine posture. Therefore, I find myself confused and distracted regarding "correct" posture. My breathe seems to be more natural and relaxed if I "slump" just a bit and dispense with the "straight spine". Although, I've also noticed that when I notice that my attention to the breathe has wavered I have gravitated into a more pronounced "slump"! SO, what is most acceptable and correct?
Thanks for any advice that is offered :)

Don't look at posture as a matter of right and wrong, correct or incorrect.  Ideal posture exists for the sole purpose of helping you develop concentration.  The general idea is that an upright body equals an upright mind.  Slouching is going to cause you to fall into sleepiness.  Your mind will go as slack as your body.

On a more mundane level, if you tend to tilt forward in your sitting, a couple of other things are going to happen.  For one, after about a half an hour, the middle of your back is going to start to hurt.  You might also feel tension in your shoulders as your muscles struggle to keep your body upright.  You might also notice that as you lean forward, you start to restrict air flow.  It's not like this is going to cause you to pass out, but it will be harder to do deep, abdominal breathing.

And remember, this is an ideal.  No one is going to smack you upside the head if your posture goes a little slack (well, unless you are studying at a Rinzai temple!).  Maintaining correct posture is only going to benefit your sitting.


practicing the brahma viharas in meditation Is there clear instruction about how one should practice the brahma viharas in the teachings?

Should one go through each one in order [metta - karuna - mudita - upekkha] or is it possible to do i.e. only karuna (in a formal meditation sitting)
Why is it that (from my perspective) many meditation teacher only seem to focus on metta ('loving kindness') meditation (and not the other 3). Is there a particular benefit or is it important to practice it in order to get into the 'cycle' of the brahma viharas?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu said the other Brahma viharas are applications of Metta, and that is why Metta is the core focus in the practice.

  Of these four emotions, goodwill (metta) is the most fundamental. It's
  the wish for true happiness, a wish you can direct to yourself or to
  others. Goodwill was the underlying motivation that led the Buddha to
  search for awakening and to teach the path to awakening to others
  after he had found it.

  The next two emotions in the list are essentially applications of
  goodwill. Compassion (karuna) is what goodwill feels when it
  encounters suffering: It wants the suffering to stop. Empathetic joy
  (mudita) is what goodwill feels when it encounters happiness: It wants
  the happiness to continue. Equanimity (upekkha) is a different
  emotion, in that it acts as an aid to and a check on the other three.
  When you encounter suffering that you can't stop no matter how hard
  you try, you need equanimity to avoid creating additional suffering
  and to channel your energies to areas where you can be of help. In
  this way, equanimity isn't cold hearted or indifferent. It simply
  makes your goodwill more focused and effective.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/headandheart.html


What are the "seven stations of consciousness" supposed to mean? DN 15 includes the utterance of the "seven stations of consciousness", where the later six equate with the six of the eight jhanas, namely:

  1. There are sentient beings that are diverse in body (kāyā) and diverse in perception (saññino), such as human beings, some gods (devā) and
  some beings in the underworld.

  2. There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and unified in perception, such as the gods reborn (ābhinibbattā) in Brahmā’s Group (brahmakāyikā)
  through the first absorption

  3. There are sentient beings that are unified in body and diverse in perception, such as the gods of streaming radiance (ābhassarā).

  4. There are sentient beings that are unified in body and unified in perception, such as the gods replete with glory (subhakiṇhā).

  5. There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond perceptions of form (rūpa). With the ending of perceptions of impingement, not
  focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’,
  they have been reborn (upagā) in the dimension of infinite space.

  6. There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite space. Aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’, they have
  been reborn (upagā) in the dimension of infinite consciousness.

  7. There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness. Aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, they
  have been reborn (upagā) in the dimension of nothingness.

The deva (godly) abodes attained with each rupa jhana are listed in AN 4.123, namely, brahmakāyikā, ābhassarā, subhakiṇhā & vehapphalānaṃ.

Now, the above utterance in DN 15 omits the 4th jhana or gods of abundant fruit (vehapphalānaṃ).

My question is what are the "seven stations of consciousness" supposed to mean (for example, why do the permutations of 'diversity' and 'unity' exist in the various jhana & states of being) and why, in particular, does this utterance omit the 4th jhana?

Piya Tan's analysis of DN 15 (on pages 160 through 163, i.e. page 16 through 19 of the PDF) explains that,

  According to Brahma,jāla S (D 1) and Pāṭika S (D 24), this is not a “station for consciousness” because no
  consciousness is found in the beings there. All cognitive activities are suspended here. As soon consciousness arises
  in a being there, he vanishes from that world

It cites many references including e.g. DN 1 to begin with ...

  There are gods named ‘non-percipient beings’.
  Santi, bhikkhave, asaññasattā nāma devā.

  When perception arises they pass away from that group of gods.
  Saññuppādā ca pana te devā tamhā kāyā cavanti.

A STUDY OF VIÑÑĀṆA IN ABHIDHAMMA (by Ho Thi Lien) includes a description of what is meant by "unified in body" etc. (see pages 30 through 32 i.e. pages 42 through 44 of the PDF). It appears to be paraphrasing the DN commentary, for example:

  ‘Viññāṇaṭṭhiti’ means ‘abodes or supports of consciousness’, ‘the stages
  of sentient beings’. In the Dīghanikāya and its commentaries,86 the stations of
  consciousness are classified into seven kinds as follows:

  2) Nānattakāya-ekattasaññī = Beings who have different bodies but the
  same perception are Brahmās of the first jhāna plane who are born first in the
  Brahmā abode. Although their bodies and life spans are different, they have the
  same rebirth linking consciousness, which is the first jhāna. According to the
  Dīghanikāya Mahāvagga commentary, beings in the four apāyas are also
  included in this category because they possess different bodies but the same
  type of rebirth-linking consciousness, which is ahetuka akusalavipāka
  santīraṇa.

  3) Ekattakāya-nānattasaññī = Beings who have similar bodies but
  different perceptions are those living in the second Brahmā abode. They have
  similar bodies but different perceptions. While in the first jhāna their minds are
  associated with both vitakka and vicāra, in the second jhāna, the minds are
  associated with vicāraonly but not vitakka; and in the third jhāna, both vitakka
  and vicāraare forsaken (according to the pañcaka method).

The footnote says,

  86 D. II, 58, DA. II, 99 -102, DṬī, 114 -116 (CSCD).

I presume the "eight liberations", which immediately follow in DN 15, also refer to these stages.

Piya Tan's analysis quotes the Paṭisambhidāmagga to say that the first few liberations are associated with meditations using internal and external kasinas (perhaps you'll disagree with that -- so far as I remember, perhaps I'm misquoting you however, you associate the jhanas with making "letting go" as the "object").


Four Nutriments in the context of Satipatthana? In relation to the sutta SN 47.42 can you explain how you understand the following?

  “With the origination of name-and-form there is the origination of
  mind. With the cessation of name-and-form there is the passing away of
  mind.

  “With the origination of attention there is the origination of
  phenomena. With the cessation of attention, there is the passing away
  of phenomena.”
   SN 47.42

I also wish to know the difference between four nutriments and the condition (paccaya) in dependent origination.

Four Nutriments and Dependent Origination
4 Nutriments is what is required to sustain life. Dependent Origination (DO) describes the same from the origination point of view.
DO does not mention Edible food which is one difference, Though it is needed to sustain the body.
Craving and clinging in DO relates to volitional thought as it is I or mine who subject of craving and clinging and these volitional thoughts.
Sense impression / contact is common to both. So is consciousness.
Though the 4 Nutriments do not cover feeling explicitly they are integral part of both:

"In that manner, I say, O monks, should the nutriment sense-impression be considered. If the nutriment sense-impression is comprehended, the three kinds of feeling are thereby comprehended. And if the three kinds of feeling are comprehended, there is, I say, no further work left to do for the noble disciple.

Similarly craving which is not explicitly a part of the 4 Nutrimens but found in the explanation hence an integral part of both:

In that manner, I say, O monks, should the nutriment volitional thought be considered. If the nutriment volitional thought is comprehended, the three kinds of craving are thereby comprehended. And if the three kinds of craving are comprehended, there is, I say, no further work left to do for the noble disciple.

SN 12.63 - Puttamansa Sutta
Samudaya Sutta presents this slightly differently to Puttamansa Sutta.
This perhaps can also be viewed as a condensation of DO.
Four Nutriments in the context of Satipathana
How this relates to Satipatthana is as follows:

a monk dwells exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing [ body | feelings | mind | dhammas ] in the [ body | feelings | mind | dhammas ], removing covetousness and displeasure in the world

(Magga) Vibhaṅga Sutta
"Removing covetousness and displeasure in the world" means you have to be equanimous to the sensations either pleasant or unpleasant originating from: body, feelings, mind, dhammas. (This also is found in Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta and Titth’ayatana Sutta rendering of the Satipatthana which makes it more clearer.) In either cases (pleasant or unpleasant [or neutral]) they are due to contact. To make sure your attention is wise attention you should contemplate on impermanence also. Pahāna Sutta also mentions how you should deal with sensation, i.e., to be equanimous than reacting with craving aversion and ignorance. Wise attention, knowing the 3 Characteristic (being free from Vipallasa - see Vipallasa Sutta), displaces ignorance. Cover coming craving or ensuring than any experience (pleasant, unpleasant or neutral) does not lead to craving ensures liberation:

And if the three kinds of craving are comprehended, there is, I say, no further work left to do for the noble disciple.

Cessation of Name-Form by starving yourself. It is by understanding
how consciousness arises due to fabrication. Karma / fabrication are formed from activities. This again can be overcome by not generating unwholesome roots, i.e., be equanimous to sensation seeing their impermanence.
See:

The Four Nutriments of Life An Anthology of Buddhist Texts translated from the Pali, with an Introductory Essay by Nyanaponika Thera