Are 'elements' defined as non-suffering? I'd like to question something from this answer without disputing it, i.e.  there was a phrase it in which I found novel:

  You do this by seeing that your suffering is impermanent and empty (entirely made up of non-suffering elements i.e. made of the joy of your relationship).

Is it generally true that the "elements" of something are non-suffering?

Is this a well-known, implicit part of (or a reason for) the doctrine of emptiness?

Is this part of the meaning of "sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā", i.e. it's that combinations of elements, or compounded things, are dukkhā ... but that elements are not?

Is it difficult to identify what's meant by an "element"? The quoted phrase (the "non-suffering elements of a relationship") seems to me to have colloquial meaning, which might be neither an Abhidhamma-like single-moment-in-time or thought-element, nor the "earth, fire, wind, etc." type of classification of element. Can you summarize how to recognize what's an "element"? Do you aim to perceive elements rather than saṅkhārās, and how do you know when/whether you're succeeding?

I added the mahayana tag because I think the quote is from a Mahayana tradition, but other perspectives would be welcome too.

MN 115 is a comprehensive discourse on elements (dhatu).

In reality, none of the many elements described in MN 115 are intrinsically 'suffering' because they, as mere elements, are not yet mixed with attachment (upadana).

Thus, MN 115 states:

  When, Ānanda, a bhikkhu is skilled in the elements... in that way he can be called a wise man and an inquirer.

The 1st noble truth summarises all suffering as 'attachment' (upadana) and the 2nd noble truth explains the various cravings (tanha) do not give rise (samudhaya) to suffering (dukkha) unless craving creates new becoming (bhava), which is simply more solidified attachment (upadana).

To quote the 2nd noble truth from SN 56.11:

  And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for
  sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

The teaching of the 'elements' ('dhatu') is the same as 'sunnata' ('emptiness') therefore any clear discernment of 'elements' quenches suffering because 'elements' are discerned rather than 'self'.

Again, to quote, this time from MN 62:

  Rahula... there are these five elements, Rahula. Which five? The earth element, the water element, the fire element, the wind element
  & the space element... Now both the internal elements & the external
  elements are simply elements. And that should be seen as it actually
  is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me,
  this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present
  with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the elements
  and makes craving for the elements fade from the mind.

The phrase: "sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā" is unrelated to this answer posted in the question because the word 'dukkhā' in this phrase does not mean 'suffering'. Instead, it means 'unsatisfactoriness', i.e., the incapacity of saṅkhārā (impermanent conditioned things) to bring lasting true happiness.

This is clearly explained, also in MN 115, as follows:

  Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation
  as permanent ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It
  is possible that an ordinary person might treat some formation as
  permanent ― there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is
  impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could
  treat any formation as pleasurable ― there is no such possibility.’
  And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary person might
  treat some formation as pleasurable ― there is such a possibility.’ He
  understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person
  possessing right view could treat anything as self ― there is no such
  possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary
  person might treat something as self ― there is such a possibility.’

Therefore for example, inanimate objects, such as rocks, trees or stars in the sky, are 'unsatisfactory'; they cannot bring or be relied on for true pleasure; but they are not 'suffering'.

To avoid doubt, Dhammapada 278 explains the experience of "sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā" results in liberation rather than suffering:

  "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
  purification.

  Dhammapada 278

You are mistaking Saṅkhārā for concepts. Concepts are perceived as stable and satisfying.
Saṅkhārā means conditioned phenomena. That refers to physical elements and the rest of the five aggregates.
All saṅkhārās come under the first noble truth for being deficient, impermanent, unpredictable & conditioned. But there will be no mental suffering if you do not cling to them. Think of it as a fire. You don't get burnt as long as you stay away from it. But that doesn't mean the fire isn't hot.

There's no non-suffering element except for Nibbana.


What is non-duality in Buddhism? I noticed some questioners on this site using the term "non-duality".

What is non-duality in Buddhism?

This is a well-known idea in Hinduism i.e. advaita. But does it exist in Buddhism?

Is it an official term in Buddhism, or just a convenient Western philosophy terminology to describe a concept just like the terms "ontology" or "epistemology"?

How is it used in Theravada and Mahayana? What are the Pali and Sanskrit terms for it?

AN 10.29 seems to have the word "advayam" which Bhikkhu Sujato translates as "non-dual" but Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as "undivided". Not sure if this is related.

There's a post here on that subject, which isn't long but difficult to summarise: The Dharma of Non-Duality

In the first (main) part the author says:

The word for "non-duality" is advaita
The Buddha didn't use that term (because it was already used then to mean "union of soul with God")
The Buddha did teach "non-duality" is many ways -- e.g. "neither self nor no-self", "middle way", "form and emptiness" (in the Heart Sutra), and "dependent origination implies neither self nor other"
Nagarjuna "used non-duality" in his Mulakarika
Etc.

In a second part (posted as a long comment on the first part), Hans Gruber argues that neither Nargajuna nor the Buddha teach non-duality:

Non-clinging isn't non-duality
Emptiness isn't non-duality, and different things are different even if they are dependently originated
Moving towards liberation (by reducing ignorance etc.) isn't non-duality
The Buddha didn't teach non-dualism as a metaphysical principle, instead he taught dependent origination (also didn't teach anatta as a metaphysical principle or abstract terms, but only as a "predicate" or "practice instruction" applicable to concrete terms i.e. any and all dhammas).

AN 10.29 seems to have the word "advayam" which Bhikkhu Sujato translates as "non-dual" but Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as "undivided". Not sure if this is related.

Yes I expect it's the same root: a+dvaya ("not a pair").

Looking at advaita compared with advaya reminds me of, I wonder if it's similar to, tatha versus tathata -- where one is the adjective (e.g. "true" or "non-dual, single") and the other is an abstract noun ("truth, suchness" or "non-duality") -- or Suñña versus Suññata i.e. "empty" versus "emptiness".

That might fit with Hans Gruber's saying that the Buddha didn't non-duality as a principle (e.g. as an abstract noun).

Buddha rejected the two extremes of existence and non-existence and taught Dependent Origination. As far as I understand Buddha rejected an individual soul or universal soul.


Doubts about Karma and/or Rebirth I have been a staunch follower of the Buddha's words for the past 1.5 years. I do believe in the Buddha in so far as the Denial of God, Creationism, Destiny is concerned but considering the events in my life and what I see around, I am now absolutely sure that there is no Karma nor Rebirth.

In my own life experience, I was married about an year back, arranged by my family according to the traditions. Obviously I did not know the Girl before marriage nor had any sexual relations with her. It so followed that after marriage following a few days of sex with me she went ahead and had sex with her boyfriend (her friend close to her before marriage).

What followed was - She obviously found him to be more suitable for her sexual desires and immediately after that she started mentally irritating me and abuse followed. She did other stuff (like creating fissures in family) and ultimately left me after a few months. Now she is extremely happy and posting happy messages and photos in social networking and abusing me happily. The marriage laws in my country are pro female and I cannot do absolutely anything.

But the fact of the matter is that she is extremely happy (both sexually and otherwise) while I feel cheated and wronged.

Further I do see in my country in India due to a hierarchical Caste system, extremely poor people made to clean others toilets etc and pick trash due to their birth. I just spoke to an old man (about 65 years old) who told me (while crying) that he has been doing this job (cleaning toilets and picking trash) for 45 years and he is not allowed to do any other work except this and there is nobody to help him because the traditions in the country are like that.

I would like to ask you for those who believe in Karma: Where is Karma acting?

The failure of your marriage could be due to a past bad Kamma you have done. But it is also a result of you giving the chance for that past bad kamma to come into fruition. There are 4 factors affecting the results of past Kamma. Payoga Sampatti is one of them. It means skillfulness, diligence and intelligence. You can use this to avoid the results of certain past bad Kamma.
You probably could have avoided such a heartbreak had you at least got to know her as a friend for about an year and studied her character. Even in proposals, you can do that, after both families agree. You didn't have to marry her immediately.

You should stop focusing on the girl who left and use your Payoga Sampatti to do a better job in the future when selecting partners. Focusing on her will likely create hatred in your mind and make your situation worse. If she has done wrong, she will suffer for it in the future. But your situation will not improve whether she suffers or not. She could be enjoying life now because of her past good Kamma, her own Payoga Sampatti and Upadi(good looks) Sampatti.

In case of the old man, one is born into a low caste because of the following reasons:

  There is the case where a woman or man is obstinate & arrogant. He/she
  does not pay homage to those who deserve homage, rise up for those for
  whom one should rise up, give a seat to those to whom one should give
  a seat, make way for those for whom one should make way, worship those
  who should be worshipped, respect those who should be respected,
  revere those who should be revered, or honor those who should be
  honored. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the
  break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of
  deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she
  is low-born wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a low birth:
  to be obstinate & arrogant, not to pay homage to those who deserve
  homage, nor rise up for... nor give a seat to... nor make way for...
  nor worship... nor respect... nor revere... nor honor those who should
  be honored. -Cula Kammavibhanga Sutta

Karma is action or intent based on desire. And also accumulated Karmas lead to rebirth. In India people get married for fulfillment of sexual desires which society does not allow if you are a bachelor. You are a guy who cannot love and in return cannot get love and therefore jealous. If she has moved on so can you. Where is Karma coming into picture? Have a heart first and become generous. Meditation can help you reach there. After that contemplate on Karma. If you go deep in Meditation you can see your past lives and Karmas. Just do not rely on theory of Karma, see it, experience it. Religion is about practice it is not an intellectual affair. Unfortunately majority of people read/write about Karma but few gets to a point of experiencing it. Please do not be one of them. Live your life well and meditate and you will get your answers.


Can a bad karma happen just only with a thought without any physical or verbal action? Do we collect bad karma just only with an instant thought without any physical action or verbal action?

Yes, from multiple suttas we see that karma can be done by way of the mind and intentional thoughts only. In fact, according to the first verses of the Dhammapada, the mind precedes all mental states. It's more important than words and actions.
From Nibbedhika Sutta:

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

From Mahakammavibhanga Sutta:

After doing an intentional deed to be experienced as pleasant by way
of body, speech, or mind, one feels pleasure. After doing an
intentional deed to be experienced as painful by way of body, speech,
or mind, one feels pain. After doing an intentional deed to be
experienced as neutral by way of body, speech, or mind, one feels
neutral.”

From Bhumija Sutta:

"When there is a body, pleasure & pain arise internally with bodily
intention as the cause; or when there is speech, pleasure & pain arise
internally with verbal intention as the cause; or when there is
intellect, pleasure & pain arise internally with intellectual
intention as the cause.

From Kamma Sutta:

And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with
speech, or with the intellect. This is called new kamma."

I'm not sure -- there might be something about this in the Abhidhamma, which I don't know.
I think that when a thought arises, that's a result of past karma.
But an "action" can be mental, as well as (or instead of) physical or verbal. And for example, when a thought arises (as a result of past karma), then an action such as deciding whether that thought is skilful or unskilful -- that action is karmic.


Silence and emptiness I never understood silence or emptiness in Buddhism and how is experiencing them beneficial?.Is it a way for experiencing the arising of experience ?

Silence in Buddhism refers to Citta Visuddhi. This means the purification of the mind, or quietening of the mind. It doesn't mean no sound. This is when the mind attains highly concentrated states called the Jhanas. When the mind is in these states, your defilements are silenced or subdued. This is a good base for the development of insight meditation.

'Emptiness' is a nature of all realities. It doesn't mean empty in the literal sense. It means being empty of a self or a soul or an entity. This is a truth one realizes with insight meditation. It is one of the Three characteristics of all condition phenomena. Realizing them lead to enlightenment.

Emptiness or Silence in Buddhism means End itself or cessation of every stock of karma. It's a state of nullification of every karma. The state can be compared to a Potter uses his mud to wheel for making a pot, then he stroke and when pot done he stopped stroking. So, the ready pot is emptiness. But holding onto that is also not wise thing. Another example is that, when all impermanent things burns, there remain the ash. Ashes can be compared to emptiness. And nullification of karma as that of process of burning .


What does Buddha and Buddhism say about fighting against enemy of dharma? What does Buddha and Buddhism say about fighting against an enemy who is hell bent on wiping out all buddhists in the name of religion? Should a buddhist actively participate in war against evil? I would like to have an answer both from a buddhist layman and a soldiers perspective. An active resistance to injustice in general. Thank you.

I personally find it difficult to accept that Buddhism is compatible with violence:

The first precept is I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.
On the eightfold path, the definition of right and wrong livelihood (career) prohibits Business in weapons (also, slavery and prostitution, meat, intoxicants, and poison)
When you consider whether you should be "fighting against an enemy who is hell-bent", remember the verses at the very beginning of the Dhammapada,

  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
  follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness
  follows him like his never-departing shadow.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
  There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

However, there are nominally Buddhist countries, which have soldiers. For example,
In Defense of Dharma: Just-War Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka includes innumerable quotes, from people who are arguing for and against violence, including quotes like,

  "Though some Sri Lankan Buddhist interpreters of Buddhism, including the
  Venerable Walpola Rahula, have claimed that “violence in any form, under any
  pretext whatsoever, is absolutely against the teaching of the Buddha,” and thus
  of Buddhism, some Buddhists that I interviewed in Sri Lanka during the summers
  of 1997 and 1998 suggested that war can be justified if certain criteria are met. In
  this chapter, I shall highlight the “just-war thinking” that a section of Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka argues shaped Dutugemunu’s conscience, and examine what
  foundation there is, if any, for such thinking in Theravada Buddhism, in general."

  "we have to peacefully fight our enemies"

  "killing to defend the
  country or the sasana, therefore, brings few negative karmic repercussions, because
  the intention is to save, rather than to harm"

  "As we determined in Chapter 2 of this study, due to monks’ perceptions of
  themselves as “sons of the soil,” or bhumiputras, the sangha perpetuates and
  reinforces the idea that Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalas who are Buddhist. As
  Professor Aryarasinghe’s political party’s platform makes clear, however,
  bhumiputra ideology is not the monks’ alone; lay Buddhists, too, deem themselves
  to be sons of the soil. As we have also seen, the commitment to the soil might
  allow for justifications of violence, even war, if certain conditions are met. At the
  same time, there are a number of lay people and, in particular, monks, who are
  committed to their other “historic” mission, that is, to being exemplars of the
  Buddha’s message of peace, to being sons of the Buddha, or Buddhaputras."

    "Each of us should contribute to the cooling down
    process. If one individual is peaceful it means one less in the violent
    crowd."

  In my interview with Premaratne in 1998, he steadfastly argued that the civil
  war will not be solved in the battlefield; instead, according to Premaratne, we can
  find a resolution to Sri Lanka’s problems in the paradigm of the Buddha’s life and
  in Buddhist ideas about the self. In Premaratne’s view, Buddhism never justifies
  war, and the fact that the Buddha chose to be a universal teacher (world renouncer)
  rather than a cakkavati (world conqueror) demonstrates that peace is superior to
  war."

Specific, notable Buddhists including the Dalai Lama seem to say that it's sometimes "necessary".

So in summary it seems to be difficult to be completely clear about what "Buddhism says": because it's possible to find "mixed messages" on this subject.

I personally think that:

"Abstain from killing" as a number one precept is pretty clear. It reminds me of this article, published in a satirical newspaper (soon after September 11, 2001): God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule.
Saying that "killing terrorists doesn't count as killing, they deserve it, they brought death upon themselves, they made me do it" seems to me very dubious logic. For example, quoting from the Mahavamsa as written in the "Just-War Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka",

  Dutugemunu asks them
  how he will ever find comfort, considering what he had done, that he had killed
  such a lot of people. The arahants respond with their own just-war thinking:

    Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord
    of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken
    unto himself the five precepts. Unbelievers and men of evil life were the
    rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring
    glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast
    away care from the heart, O ruler of men.

Unfortunately this reminds me of the Nazi arguments/propaganda used to commit genocide in Nazi Germany: that people such as the Jews were "sub-human" and, also, were "a threat" (a threat to God's order; threat to German society; threat to German morality; threatening to enslave hard-working Germans; a deadly threat not only to the survival of the German people but to the survival of the world!)
I also don't see how Christians justify war: "Turning the other cheek" seems to me unambiguous. I know that people who are nominally Christian have tried to justify it with the theory of just war but that doesn't seem to me to be Christian: maybe it's life (and death), maybe it's the world, but it's not Christian, IMO.
Supposedly Buddhist doctrine such as,

  "The Buddha replied, 'He who deserves punishment must be punished. And he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Do not do injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness.' These injunctions are not contradictory because the person who is punished for his crimes will suffer his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but through the evil act itself. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executors of the law inflict. When a magistrate punishes, he must not harbor hatred in his heart. When a murderer is put to death, he should realize that his punishment is the result of his own act. With his understanding, he will no longer lament his fate but can console his mind. And the Blessed One continued, 'The Buddha teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable. But he does not teach that those who are involved in war to maintain peace and order, after having exhausted all means to avoid conflict, are blameworthy."

... seems to me to come from a different tradition (a non-Buddhist Dharma), i.e. it's the central message of the Bhagavad Gita, that man-the-killer is an instrument of God ("Facing the duty to kill his relatives, Arjuna is counselled by Krishna to fulfill his Kshatriya (warrior) duty as a warrior and kill.") ... or in the quote above, a mere instrument of karma.

There's a saying, in the west, that "war is hell".

There is, similarly, quite a famous Zen story on that subject.

As for whether you should "actively participate in a war against evil", or how to participate if you must, my knowledge of non-Buddhist history suggests there have been a (relatively very few) people in the west who, calling themselves "pacifists" and "conscientious objectors", served in non-aggressive, altruistic, personally dangerous roles: for example disposing of unexploded bombs, or acting as medics, and as front-line stretcher-bearers (rescuing the wounded).

For a good Buddhist , is to always avoid any cause that will create
bad effect, as we can see clearly in the 4 noble truths for example.

The above appears to be an inaccurate idea. Buddhist nations are not made up of "good Buddhists" but are generally made of ordinary people called "puthujjana" who superficially follow a superficial version of Buddhism.
For example, Burma & Thailand are two Buddhist nations that made war against each other for hundreds of years: Burmese–Siamese wars.
For example, it appears it was the Tibetans who violently breached the 17 Point Agreement with China. Regardless, the Tibetans were already training with the CIA.

Fight or get killed?

This was already answered. It is not the practising Buddhists that will fight a war.


Is the principle of rebirth falsifiable? When the Buddha searched for truth in the world he used a method of empiricism. Empiricism is the precursor for modern science and although I believe that rebirth can be verified empirically I am not certain that is qualifies as a scientific theory.

The exact theory I am referring to is that rebirth is a mental process which occurs during our life and continues after physical death.

Although I do not think that rebirth is contrary to scientific evidence I do wonder if it is a theory which can be considered scientific. One requirement for theories in modern science is that they are falsifiable which means that if they are wrong then we can show that they are wrong.

Usually theories predict things and we can test if those predictions are false, however, I cannot think of any predictions which can be tested in this life.

This is assuming that one has a very still mind and can observe fundamental processes. I understand that this is related to the twelve nidanas and the stages when clinging leads to becoming which leads to birth. Is it possible for somebody to know what they should be seeing here before they see it?

In order to try and relate how the process of rebirth is falsifiable and therefore try and relate the concept to science, I will have to establish a number of ideas/theories before I can directly try and relate it to science, so I'll have a bunch of definitions or excerpts from sutras and then I'll try and relate it all together, so the beginning of my question may be just listing a bunch of theories which will later be brought together.

The process of "rebirth," as I understand it, doesn't allow for one to remember a past life or past life experiences. It is important to make the distinction between the physical Buddha (Shakyamuni himself) and, what is in essence, the "life force" of the Buddha. Shakyamuni himself wasn't able to see his past lives or remember past experiences from before he was born. What he was able to do, and this is what his fifth transcendental power of being able to see past lives is, is understand his "life force" and perceive the nature of his life, which he had in his previous lives. It is from this concept that karma/karmic chains and other such related ideas come from. To support this affirmation, in the Lotus Sutra, chapter 16 (The Life-span of the Thus-come One), when Shakyamuni Buddha is addressing an assembly of nearly all of his followers, he says:

  "You must listen carefully and hear of the Thus Come One’s secret and his transcendental powers. In all the worlds the heavenly and human beings and asuras all believe that the present Shakyamuni Buddha, after leaving the palace of the Shakyas, seated himself in the place of
  practice not far from the city of Gaya and there attained annuttara-samyak-sambodhi. But good men, it has been immeasurable, boundless hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, millions of nayutas of kalpas since
  I in fact attained Buddhahood.... in truth the time since I attained Buddhahood is extremely long (1)".

Shakyamuni here is saying that there was no start to his "existence" or life force in it of itself. Basically, he is saying that his, and everyone else's life force has existed from "the infinite past" and will continue to exist throughout. What is important to know is that one's life force isn't life in the standard sense, but is intrinsically existing as a function of the universe regardless of whether there is life. Life is more the manifestation of one's life force.

Also in the Lotus Sutra, in chapter 14 (Peaceful Practices), Shakyamuni states,

  "All phenomena are empty, without being, without any constant abiding, without arising or extinction.... phenomena exist, do not exist, are real, are not real, are born, are not born.... Look upon all phenomena as having no existence, like empty space, as without firmness or hardness, not born, not emerging, not moving, not regressing, constantly abiding in a single aspect (1)".

Here, Shakyamuni is saying that the true aspect of all phenomena is that it has no existence. Another way to say this is that causes don't have intrinsic implications; only effects do. It also is to say that, whatever happens, that doesn't mean anything other than that that happened; how one reacts is all that matters. Here one can see how Shakyamuni's statments of the true aspect of all phenomena can be easily applied to our day-to-day lives, so the next logical step is to have a system of, in essence, figuring out which different effects one can create from any phenomena. This leads us into the next philosophical idea.

The 3000 Realms is an philosophical theory developed by T'ien-T'ai, a Chinese buddhist philosopher. It is to say that the, "entire phenomenal world exists within a single moment of life (2)". The realms themselves are used as a way to "categorize" the phenomenal world. Below is a chart explaining how he came up with 3000 realms:

 (2)

The Ten Worlds (or Ten Spiritual Realms) are basically thought to be the full spectrum of one's life condition, which comes from ones life force (i.e. how one feels). I'm not entirely sure where the concept of the ten worlds comes from, although I believe it is a relatively universall concept, at least within Mahayana Buddhism.

In short, however one feels can be represented as one of the "Ten Worlds", or "Spiritual Realms". The part of the chart which lists it as "The Ten Worlds and Their Mutual Possession" is referring to the fact that T'ien-T'ai considers the ten worlds to exist within each other. That is to mean that, even in the realm of hell, one can exist in a realm of buddhahood. An example from history of this concept would be of Martin Luther-King Jr.. He led the civil rights movement in America for some time and did so peacefully and, as far as I know, ethically too. One may say that he often times existed in one of the upper worlds like Buddhahood or Bodhisattva (I don't know the Ten Worlds well enough to be able to say with much confidence which particular world he was in while he was working for Civil Rights). Anyhow, while he was doing that though, he was angry because of the injustice of how he and other people were being treated and that motivated him. However, the important distinction to be made is that, although he was angry, he didn't act violently, he still thought and acted like one who was in one of the higher worlds would act. The inclusive world which he often dwelled in was Anger, even though he was in one of the higher worlds nonetheless.

Another important aspect of the Ten Worlds is that the entirety of them exist intrinsically within us at all times and one can, moment-to-moment, move from one world to the next- either up or down. That is to say that, at all times, for all people without exception, the World of Hell exists within us, but so does Buddhahood.

--

The next part of The 3000 Realms is The Ten Factors. This theory too comes from the Lotus Sutra in the second chapter (Expedient Means) and is expounded by Shakyamuni to Shariputra and goes as follows:

  "Shariputra, to sum it up: The buddhas have fully realized the law that is limitless, boundless, never attained before.... The true aspect of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between buddhas. This reality consists of appearance, nature, entity, power, influence, internal cause, external cause, latent effect, manifest effect, and their consistency from beginning to end (1)".

I personally have a hard time explaining The Ten Factors and so I'll also add a link that describes The Ten Factors (3) more clearly. To the best of my understanding, The Ten Worlds are how we feel emotionally, and the Ten Factors are how we project ourselves upon the world and how these two concepts interact with each other.

--

The final part of The Three Thousand Realms is called, "The Three Realms". I know the least about this part of the Realms, and so my explanation for it probably wouldn't be complete, but there are many websites which I think would be able to better explain them. Everything that I would be able to say about them is addressed in the image I added above, so I'll stop here.

--

What is important to know about The 3000 Realms as a whole is that they describe all of the possible effects within a single moment of life. It also means that everything is subjective - in terms of point-of-view - and that all things are equal.

The reason that I have included the concept of The 3000 realms is because it shows that not just Shakyamuni has a life force, and also that one's enlightenment (world of Buddhahood) intrinsically exists within one's self (as well as every other realm).

All perspectives are equal because anything that we perceive is a perception of a phenomena and all phenomena are "empty", as stated above, thus meaning that everyone's perceptions are equal.

This would mean that, if one can prove that all perspectives are equal, one can prove the principle of rebirth to be falsifiable because: If all perspectives are equal, because all phenomena are empty because there is nothing to perceive, all that is left to exist is our life force. Because our life force isn't constrained by any phenomena (e.g. birth and death), it exists for eternity neither beginning nor ending. One however, can not say that life simply doesn't exist, because as Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." This would leave the only option left being that "rebirth" exists, because our physical selves are bound by physical limitations and phenomena, things will be born and will die. However, since our life force is eternal, and not really "alive" in the sense that living is usually implied with, when we are physically living we embody that life force just as how, when there is matter, there will be gravity. Our life force is eternal, however, we, as living beings, are not, and so we will forever be born and die, but whenever we are born, we embody our life force. This is what reincarnation is.

What is left to do is then prove that all perspectives are equal. For that one must look at Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I don't understand this concept in its entirety, but I do know that it says that, if there is a person who isn't moving, time will be faster for him or her than it is for someone who is moving. This has been scientifically proven to happen. Time wouldn't change for certain people (or anything for that matter), if someone's perspective could be deemed invalid. It is because everyone's perspective is equal, that time itself changes when something moves.

I hope this answers your question. I know that some of my explanation may be a bit murky or unclear, so I would be happy to try and clear up anything.

Works Cited:

1) The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2009. 57-267. Print.

2) "Three Thousand Realms in a Single Moment of Life." Soka Gakkai International Buddhism in Action for Peace. Soka Gakkai International, Apr. 2012. Web. 6 Aug. 2016. http://www.sgi.org/about-us/buddhism-in-daily-life/three-thousand-realms-in-a-single-moment-of-life.html.

3)"Ten Factors." Soka Gakkai International Buddhism in Action for Peace. Soka Gakkai International, Oct. 2000. Web. 6 Aug. 2016. http://www.sgi.org/about-us/buddhism-in-daily-life/ten-factors.html.

@25299… the only way that you will find out about the ‘falsification’ aspect, IMHO, is to first develop trust in the Dhamma. That means that you do not give way to any doubting or questioning. Only then will you put the Dhamma into practice in an orderly manner. If you have no conviction that Dhamma has to be practiced in an orderly manner, you will only carry out any given instruction for a short while only and abandon it. Why is it so?  It is simply because of the doubts that you have. It translates into no confidence, and therefore no results.

Say for example you want to go looking for gemstones. Only if you are aware of the existence of gemstones, and if you are confident about how to proceed in your search, will you in an orderly manner select the appropriate soil leaving out the unwanted, wash it, leaving out the pebbles and select the precious stones. If on the other hand you have no confidence, no knowledge of the technology, you will not have the patience to painstakingly do the needful.

Likewise if there is confidence we practise Dhamma and practice meditation in an orderly manner.  You do things carefully and in an orderly manner with confidence. Only then would you get results in this very life. The understanding in such a person will one day turn out to be a realization. For that you will have to develop the meditation on repulsiveness (Asubha Saññā’) - perceiving the impurity of the body; ‘Ahare Patikkula Saññā’ -perceiving the impurity of material food; ‘Sabba Loke Anabhirata Saññā’ - not taking delight in worlds; ‘Sabba Sankharesu Anicca Saññā’ -impermanence of all aggregates, and of ‘Marana Sati’ -to be mindful of death. (read Asavakkhaya Sutta where the Supreme Buddha explains these five). I could not find the Access-to-insight link, but you can read it in Bhikku Bodhi’s Book.

If these five meditation activities were to be carried out, dispassionateness will arise in you. When you become dispassionate with understanding, then you will begin to lose the desire and craving for materialistic things and sensual pleasures .  Your mind will become calmer and calmer. Only with such a calmed mind will it be possible to develop the special wisdoms.  Your Sakkaya Ditthi (the idea of self) will leave you. You will see results in this very life.


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

The precepts are training rules for training your mind. The first rule is to learn to control your hatred, and impulsive behavior based on that, like killing or violence.

Sometimes killing is necessary, for example killing of pests to get things to balance, or killing for food. But that is killing in clarity, not in hatred - done with wisdom and understanding. We are all connected here you know, and our lives will feed into others' in many different ways.

When I eat meat, I appreciate life of a sentient being who gave me their flesh for nutrition and promise to make good use of it. When I kill a mosquito I do it in full awareness, as a conscious choice, not an act of hatred. There's no regret in my killing of a mosquito and no guilt. For a moment I pause and think to make sure there is no other way to solve the problem, and if there's none - then with an attitude of "thank you, forgive me, I love you, but I have to do this" I kill it.


Why should one not address a venerable as friend? Here is a quote from MN 26:

One, standing up to greet me, received my robe & bowl. Another spread out a seat. Another set out water for washing my feet. However, they addressed me by name and as 'friend.'
So I said to them,

'Don't address the Tathagata by name and as "friend." The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained. I will instruct you. I will teach you the Dhamma.

I can understand why the Tathagata might not be addressed by name; but why not as "friend"?
Perhaps similarly, from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta:

And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as 'friend (āvuso)', let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus, Ananda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name, or as 'friend'; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones as 'venerable sir (āyasmā)' or 'your reverence (bhante)'.

What's the need for, what's the benefit of, the "reverent" form of address? Or what's the harm, if any, in the "friendly" mode of address?
If you can, I'd appreciate answers:

From canonical sources (e.g. suttas or commentary)
From post-canonical sources (e.g. later, or modern, articles or dhamma talks)
From personal experience
and/or which apply to lay people (when addressing monks, or teachers or other venerables)

Edit:
I think that ruben202's answer is ample evidence that it is so, in the culture and in the suttas and other scriptures.
I'm not sure I understand why, though. For example:

A venerable is a friend -- or are they not?
Is the behaviour (or mode of address) mere ritual?
Is there said to be a benefit, some purpose, some effect: for society, for the individual's state of mind or karma, or even for the venerable?

I imagine one benefit may be orderliness in the classroom: giving the venerable an opportunity to speak; another benefit is that it might be somehow associated with "faith" (i.e. being willing to listen without yet knowing); is another obedience for some good reason?
The whole question seems to me a bit associated with some identity-view and so thicket-of-views.
The only  answer I can think of is a reference to the sutta (reference required) where the Buddha said that people need some teacher or leader, and he (having none) would take the Dhamma as his -- but that's speculation, whereas I'm asking for answers based on references or experience.

Junior monks have to greet senior monks as "venerable sir" and lay people have to greet monks as "venerable sir" (and not as "friend" or by name) because this is part of the culture of respect and reverence in Buddhism, and South Asian culture in general, both in ancient and modern times.

It is part of the whole package of reverence to parents, teachers and elders. Of course, in the modern day, this is changing due to exposure to culture of other parts of the world.

Below are some examples from suttas and vinaya:

In AN10.16:

  “Bhikkhus, these ten persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of
  hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, an
  unsurpassed field of merit for the world. What ten? The Tathāgata, the
  Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One; a paccekabuddha; the one
  liberated in both respects; the one liberated by wisdom; the body
  witness; the one attained to view; the one liberated by faith; the
  Dhamma follower; the faith follower; and the clan member. These ten
  persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of
  offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, an unsurpassed field of
  merit for the world.”

From AN8.59:

  Monks, there are these eight individuals who are worthy of gifts,
  worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential
  salutation, the unsurpassed field of merit for the world. Which eight?

  The one who has entered the stream, the one who has entered upon the
  course for the realization of the fruit of stream-entry, the
  once-returner, the one who has entered upon the course for the
  realization of the fruit of once-returning, the non-returner, the one
  who has entered upon the course for the realization of the fruit of
  non-returning, the arahant, the one who has entered upon the course
  for arahantship

In AN5.199, the Buddha taught:

  "On the occasion when a virtuous person who has gone forth approaches
  a family, the people rise up to greet him, bow down, give him/her a
  seat. On that occasion the family is practicing the practice leading
  to birth in a high family.

In Mangala Sutta:

  "Not to associate with the foolish, but to associate with the wise;
  and to honor those who are worthy of honor — this is the greatest
  blessing.

In AN 4.32:

  "There are these four grounds for the bonds of fellowship. Which four?
  Generosity, kind words, beneficial help, consistency. These are the
  four grounds for the bonds of fellowship."

  Generosity, kind words, beneficial help, & consistency in the face of
  events, in line with what's appropriate in each case, each case. These
  bonds of fellowship [function] in the world like the linchpin in a
  moving cart.

  Now, if these bonds of fellowship were lacking, a mother would not
  receive the honor & respect owed by her child, nor would a father
  receive what his child owes him. But because the wise show regard for
  these bonds of fellowship, they achieve greatness and are praised.

In AN5.58:

  Now on that occasion a number of Licchavi youths had taken their
  strung bows and were walking and wandering in the Great Wood,
  accompanied by a pack of dogs, when they saw the Blessed One seated at
  the foot of a tree to dwell for the day. When they saw him, they put
  down their strung bows, sent the dogs off to one side, and approached
  him. They paid homage to the Blessed One and silently stood in
  attendance upon him with their hands joined in reverential salutation.

In MN86:

  "Great king, suppose you were to see Angulimala with his hair & beard
  shaved off, wearing the ochre robe, having gone forth from the home
  life into homelessness, refraining from killing living beings,
  refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from telling
  lies, living the holy life on one meal a day, virtuous & of fine
  character: what would you do to him?"

  "We would bow down to him, lord, or rise up to greet him, or offer him
  a seat, or offer him robes, almsfood, lodgings, or medicinal
  requisites for curing illness; or we would arrange a lawful guard,
  protection, & defense.

There are numerous examples of prostration before the Buddha, where the translations say that somebody bowed down then sat to one side.

In MN 90, we see prostrations with head placed at the feet.

  King Pasenadi Kosala said to one of his men, "Come, my good man. Go to
  the Blessed One and, on arrival, showing reverence with your head to
  his feet in my name, ask whether he is free from illness & affliction,
  is carefree, strong, & living in comfort, saying: 'King Pasenadi
  Kosala, lord, shows reverence with his head to your feet and asks
  whether you are free from illness & affliction, are carefree, strong,
  & living in comfort.' And then say: 'Lord, today King Pasenadi Kosala
  will come to see the Blessed One after his morning meal.'"

And also in SN22.87:

  “Well then, friends, pay homage to the Blessed One in my name with
  your head at his feet and say: ‘Venerable sir, the bhikkhu Vakkali is
  sick, afflicted, gravely ill; he pays homage to the Blessed One with
  his head at his feet.’

Part of the Sekhiya rules of the vinaya on a bhikkhu teaching the dhamma:

  When his listener is not ill, a bhikkhu should not teach Dhamma if the
  listener:

  has an umbrella, staff, knife, weapon in his/her hand.
  is wearing shoes, boots or sandals.
  is sitting in a vehicle when the bhikkhu is in a lower vehicle or not in a vehicle at all.
  is lying down when the bhikkhu is sitting or standing.
  is sitting holding his/her knees.
  is wearing a hat or a turban, or has covered his/her head with a scarf or shawl.
  is sitting on a seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on the ground.
  is sitting on a high seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on a lower seat.
  is sitting while the bhikkhu is standing.
  is walking ahead of the bhikkhu.
  is walking on a path while the bhikkhu is walking beside the path. (Sk 57-72)

This theme is also found in Tibetan Buddhism, in the "A Brief Teaching on The Bodhisattva’s Garland of Jewels" with translation and commentary by Khenpo Sodargye Rinpoche. This text might apply to other Mahayana and Vajrayana schools too.

From this section:

  Refrain from meaningless chatter,
  And speak only true words at any time.
  Whenever you see your guru or khenpo,
  Offer to serve with devotion and respect.

  Commentary:
  In every moment, refrain from any talk that does not refer to the
  Buddha-dharma or spiritual practice. Never say anything that may cause
  others to slander the guru or the Three Jewels. Some people pay close
  attention to their own speech, and will carefully consider if what
  they are about to say is meaningful or meaningless, and if they find
  that it is meaningless, they will refrain from speaking at all. Others
  however, very much like talking and gossiping about other people’s
  faults. They do not even notice that they are doing it! This can bring
  a great deal of trouble both to themselves and to others. It would be
  better for this type of person to remain silent and avoid committing
  so many negative actions. Our speech should always be true speech,
  meaning that it is in accordance with the truth, is meaningful and
  brings no harm to ourselves or to others. Whenever we meet our root
  guru or khenpo, we must give rise to reverence and respect from the
  depths of our heart, and offer to serve them with respectful devotion.
  Some people might occasionally become caught up in anger or resentment
  towards their guru. This creates very severe negative karma and should
  be remedied with their utmost efforts at sincere confession and
  clarification. Some people do not know how to act when they see their
  guru or khenpo, and so will try to hide or run away. This is not
  right. What is appropriate is to just remain calm when seeing your
  guru, and, from the heart, offer to serve them with devotion and
  respect.

We also see this in the Manusmrti or Manu's Laws, a Hindu legal text, on respect to elders:

  2.119. One must not sit down on a couch or seat which a superior occupies; and he who occupies a couch or seat shall rise to meet a
  (superior), and (afterwards) salute him.

  2.120. For the vital airs of a young man mount upwards to leave his body when an elder approaches; but by rising to meet him and saluting
  he recovers them.

  2.121. He who habitually salutes and constantly pays reverence to the aged obtains an increase of four (things), (viz.) length of life,
  knowledge, fame, (and) strength.

And this from the Manusmrti on reverence to the teacher / guru:

  2.146. Of him who gives natural birth and him who gives (the knowledge of) the Veda, the giver of the Veda is the more venerable father; for
  the birth for the sake of the Veda (ensures) eternal (rewards) both in
  this (life) and after death.

  2.147. Let him consider that (he received) a (mere animal) existence, when his parents begat him through mutual affection, and when he was
  born from the womb (of his mother).

  2.148. But that birth which a teacher acquainted with the whole Veda, in accordance with the law, procures for him through the Savitri, is
  real, exempt from age and death.

  OP: I'm not sure I understand "why", though. For example, a venerable is a friend -- or are they not? Is the behaviour (or mode of
  address) mere ritual? Is there said to be a benefit, some purpose,
  some effect: for society, for the individual's state of mind, or even
  for the venerable? I imagine one benefit may be orderliness in the
  classroom: giving the venerable an opportunity to speak; another might
  be somehow associated with "faith" (i.e. being willing to listen
  without yet knowing)

Argument 1: Korean Air Crashes

A theory on this is explored by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers, as summarized here:

  As a closing point to consider the value of the wide use of formal
  speech in Korean, let me add a story regarding Korean Air discussed
  among others by Malcolm Gladwell in his book ``Outliers." Korean Air
  had in the 1990s become one of the world's most dangerous airlines,
  with so many crashes that it was eventually excluded from its airline
  alliance.

  The management of Korean Air at that time brought in an American team
  of consultants to analyze the problem and recommend a solution. While
  the Korean management had suggested more mandatory hours of flight
  simulator training for all pilots, the Americans advised them to
  introduce English as the official on-board language and ban the use of
  any Korean communication from the cockpit. Korean Air went ahead with
  this solution and as a result the crashes ceased, the airline's
  reputation was restored and it became an alliance member again. The
  consultants had discovered that the reason for the numerous accidents
  was that co-pilots could not inform captains about mistakes or
  potentially dangerous situations, because they had to use the most
  formal style of speech when addressing the captain and this created a
  barrier, which made criticism almost impossible. Once they used
  English, this "artificial wall" was torn down and teamwork and
  cross-checks became easy.

According to this theory by Malcolm Gladwell, Korean co-pilots spoke in Korean with each other that had a formal style of speech when addressing the captain, and this created an artificial barrier of respect that prevented first officers from directly criticizing their captains.

They were politely making suggestions with hints to the captain, when they should be communicating directly, clearly and bluntly in the case of a flight scenario where timeliness is critical.

On the other hand, in English, they would address each other simply as "you" or "I" instead of using honorifics. This apparently broke down the artificial barrier of respect and contributed to a reduction in crashes.

I would argue the reverse.

The use of honorifics like "bhante" and "ayasma" would create the right context and climate of respect that makes it conducive for teaching and learning the Dhamma.

Argument 2: Courtroom Decorum

Another way to argue this is to use courtroom etiquette or courtroom decorum as explained by these guidelines:

  Be Respectful in Your Public Requests, Comments, and Dealings with the Court. Adopt a formal approach that reflects courtesy and respect
  for the authority of the court. Common phrases that are used when
  communicating with the judge include the following: "May it please the
  Court," used as the greeting at the outset of your opening statement
  and your opening argument; "With Your Honor's leave (or permission), I
  would like to, " used when seeking permission to do something; "As the
  court pleases," "Very well, Your Honor," and "So be it, Your Honor" -
  used when you are acceding (consenting) to an unobjectionable oral
  direction or order of the court. "As the Court well knows," used when
  you are getting ready to educate the judge about something s/he
  probably doesn't know. Don't interrupt the judge. Listen to what the
  judge says. The judge has considerable discretionary power that can be
  used to help you or hurt you, even in jury trials where s/he serves
  only as the referee. Something as nebulous as the judge's tone of
  voice in ruling on objections can influence the juror's perceptions of
  your credibility. In jury trials, treat the judge as though s/he was
  the foreperson of the jury. Every judge has quirks. In some locales,
  there are published Judge's Bench Books that describe the
  peculiarities, predilections, and requirements of each local judge.
  These may be useful reading if you are not personally familiar with
  the way a certain judge runs his or her court.

Similarly, we should adopt a formal approach that reflects courtesy and respect for the authority of the teacher.

What would happen if courtroom communication was informal and casual? The authority of the court and the judge would not be respected, and justice would not be served.

Similarly, we need to be formal in front of the Dhamma teacher to respect his authority.

This establishes the atmosphere conducive to learning and teaching the Dhamma.

Argument 3: Your child is not your friend

From a parenting website:

  There are parents out there who are concerned about being their
  child’s friend. What is challenging is that if you are, first, a
  friend, then when the child is a preteen or teenager, the child will
  not need you as a friend. By then, he or she will have friends their
  own age to listen to. As teens, they need you as a parent, but they
  are not going to tell you that. When you become their friend first,
  parenting becomes difficult to establish. The child may not see you as
  an authority figure, and when you try to establish authority, the
  child will most likely question you even more. That’s not what you
  want.

  When you are a friend first, it sends a message that you want your
  child to like you, to share with you, and to help you feel connected.
  If that’s the case, that puts a lot more pressure on the child. It is
  not your child’s job to help you feel good about yourself. If that is
  why you are your child’s friend, rather than being his/her parent,
  then you may need to get some counseling for yourself. You and your
  spouse (if married) will need to focus on a healthy relationship so
  the lines of parenting and friendship, even with your child, can be
  reassessed and altered, if need be.

If parents become friends first with their child, their child would not respect the authority of the parent.

It is the same with the Dhamma teacher.

Hence formal communication is needed to establish authority.

Why should one not address a venerable as friend?

Because he/she is an enemy (at least as such perceived), or because one prevers giving what is proper and can be given, maybe...? It would not be of benefit to give without confidence and joy, that what is good for all and praised by the wise.

For long time benefit and aimed even beyound, some inspirations:

If somebody desiring sharing merits by a more extended answer here and seeking sources to be able, Opening the Door to the Dhamma, also Mv I 15: Upajjhāyavattakathā — The Discussion of Duties Toward a Preceptor/teacher and a collection "Respect and Veneration", might be good "starter".

  ...Paying Respect or Veneration (also regard, obeisance, high esteem, honour, admiration) (pi apacāyana, apa + cāy root pūja = abound, scarify; verb apaciti; gārava) , is the fourth of the traditional listed ten skilful/meritorious deeds  (pi puññakiriya-vatthus), a practice which would be maintained beginning in childhood within families and societies in Buddhist environments. Within the three major kinds meritorious deeds (dāna, sīla, bhāvana) it counts to the virtue group as an aspect of sila. More known accesses, which will be maybe not suddenly regarded as aspects of respect, is the Refuge into the Three Jewels, honour and respect as the access point into the Dhamma and one of the Four Sublime Attributes (brahma vihara), Mudita, often translated as sympathy joy or appreciation. Mudita means joy and appreciation, and with it respect, in regard of one own goodness that one has developed and that of others...more in Detail

If having further an detail question or seeking for an intensive discussion to work thinks good out, one might feel always given to do so here (careholders here don't like such to happen here, sometimes but not always).

Always happy, since people at large often give statistics more value then discerning observations, inwardly and outwardly, this topic here "Lessons from Sardinia: respect towards elders leads to a significantly longer life", in a usuall opposing proper discerment enviroment, might give some source of thoughts in regard of "one gets what one gives" and why "conservative" (good tradition preserving) societies are more garants for harmonious and long live while usually pseudo liberalism, postmodern and commonist tendencies are merely the enviroments of short live and joyless vegetating.

  Abhivādanasīlissa,
  niccaṃ vuḍḍhāpacāyino;
  Cattāro dhammā vaḍḍhanti,
  āyu vaṇṇo sukhaṃ balaṃ.

  For one of respectful and virtuous nature who continuously honours those who are older and more virtuous, four benefits, viz., longevity, beauty, happiness and strength, will increase.

  dhp 109 incl. Comm. Story

...and of course vizi-versa, one becomes weak, ugly, thin and founds one self lost in a hot wide desert.

  "There is the case where a woman or man is obstinate & arrogant. He/she does not pay homage to those who deserve homage, rise up for those for whom one should rise up, give a seat to those to whom one should give a seat, make way for those for whom one should make way, worship those who should be worshipped, respect those who should be respected, revere those who should be revered, or honor those who should be honored. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is low-born wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a low birth: to be obstinate & arrogant, not to pay homage to those who deserve homage, nor rise up for... nor give a seat to... nor make way for... nor worship... nor respect... nor revere... nor honor those who should be honored.

  The Shorter Analysis of Action

So really good to think much about the starter for a good walk-about: "What is worthy to go after and fall for it?", and how to not forget and fall into self-centeredness., get stuck.

May all beings have always proper and never to less Respect, Confidence and Patient, and even it may sound contradict, starting with goodwill to be able, with one self, since someone not estimating ones own merits, does not know the cause of pleasure, how could he/she ever find any real refuge and follow it?

Addition because it could work to make the way of approach for a fruitful relay-tion-ship reasonable more understandable.

What kind of guided person in a relation do you like to be? (Drawn from nun Uppalavanas translation of AN 7.13, seven kinds of wives)

  Sujatha these are the seven wives to a man. Of them what are you, or like to be?

  Venerable sir, from today remember me as a slave wife to my husband.

While Sujatha, and others, even if worse, could trace practice and good ways within her sociaty and being reminded, it's probably total impossible for a modern, western person, having grown up in a communist, socialisitic, postmodern society to ever get a needed enviroment given that they seek for advices in even more "brotherly" Kolkhoz (resource another), under other slaves with no liberality or usuals to walk after liberation.

So if really wishing to get it understood and become capable to adopt and practice good conduct, like always, starts with association with wise and avoiding the fools like poision, or to best train to possible gain existence in a area where basic right view is still something practiced amoung many, become blessed.

For even, as my person heard, recommended and as good estimated branches of monks even wish their lay people not to use proper addressing - "don't do so, we are all equal here in search" - and prefer that what they are used to, by birth, not having chanced, the lighter bearable "homie-hood" to ensure their gain, growth and existence.

Let my person share a simile for encouragement to put all effort into seek for real refuge, inwardly and outwardly and to learn to become a devotional person not to Mara, not to Death, as usual in the world, amoung "friends", in a dusty on-house-holding (e.g. senses) life:

  The King of Death

  We live like a chicken who doesn't know what's going on. In the morning it takes its baby chicks out to scratch for food. In the evening, it goes back to sleep in the coop. The next morning it goes out to look for food again. Its owner scatters rice for it to eat every day, but it doesn't know why its owner is feeding it. The chicken and its owner are thinking in very different ways.

  The owner is thinking, "How much does the chicken weigh?" The chicken, though, is engrossed in the food. When the owner picks it up to heft its weight, it thinks the owner is showing affection.

  We too don't know what's going on: where we come from, how many more years we'll live, where we'll go, who will take us there. We don't know this at all.

  The King of Death is like the owner of the chicken. "We" don't know when he'll catch up with us, for "we're" engrossed — engrossed in sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas. "We" have no sense that "we're" growing older. "We" have no sense of enough.

And possible end up in not having found real refuge again but just a more "comfortable" better more tricky chicken raising farm, with all good for health and grow and good managed, where "non" even able to harm the other.

"Under friends"

Vandāmi is a usual, even often just a ritual, practice under devoted lay followers, a homage, asking for pardon and asking for the share of the juwels merits (e.g. father, teacher, Sangha, Dhamma, Buddha) and as it is pointed out in the Vinaya, to confess faults amoung those of equal, is of no use, would not help and support a better, neither for the individual nor for the paticular community (which can possible not helped).

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other low trades and just exchange for the world.]


What is the meaning in the Buddha walking seven steps? When Buddha was born, he walked seven steps and then stopped without stepping the eighth step, and at every step there was a shower of rain. I ask: what does the seven steps symbolize?

According to Mahāpadānasutta, when he was born he stood firm on both feet, then with his face to the north took seven strides while a white canopy was held over him. There is no mention of a shower at every step though.

According to Mahāpadānasutta commentary, standing firm on both feet is a portend for achieving the four iddhipada (Intention, Effort, Consciousness, Investigation). Facing north is a sign that he'll rise above others, the seven steps he walked is a portend that he'll achieve the seven factors of enlightenment (satta bojjhaṅgā) and finally the white canopy held over his head is a symbol that he'll achieve nirvana.

simple meanings of buddha's seven steps:

unhappy and painful realm/ hell/narka ko samsara
hungry and thirsty realm /small mouth if foods and water available /pret ko samsara
animal's realm /fearful life/dar ra trass ko samsara
angry and quarreling realm/ ris ra jhagada ko samsara
normal human realm/nuetral/sadharan manab ko samsara
exit to the heaven realm/heaven/sworga ko bato samsara
bodhisattwa's realm/ heaven/ buddha ko samsara


What would a sotapanna do? There are many arguments whether a sotapanna has a perfect morality/sila or not. But let's base this topic on this Sutta:

  With what four factors of a stream enterer is he endowed?

  ...Is endowed with virtues that are not broken, not defective, not
  spotted, consistent, not blemished, not enslaved, praised by the wise
  as conducive to concentration and desired by the noble ones He is
  endowed with these four factors of a stream enterer....Anguttara Nikaya 9.27

Now, for example, a deadly worm is in the stomach of a sotapanna's child. The only thing to help his child is to kill the worm otherwise his child will die. With his perfect morality, what would a sotapanna do, will a sotapanna (naturally) let his child die?

My guess is that a Sotapan would look into alternative removal of the worm but eventually probably get rid of it one way or another.

Without hesitation, kill the worm.

The sotapanna has overcome attachment to moral precepts and rules (sīlabbata-parāmāsa) and is therefore guided by the conscience developed in the heart.

  Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind
  [i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there],
  developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with
  the immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual
  is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

  Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal


Suffering caused by uncertainty of whether actions will cause more or less physical pain to dying family member? What is the Buddhist approach to dealing with the suffering caused by the uncertainty of whether your actions and efforts will cause more or less physical pain to a dying family member?
My dad is dying from stage 4 pancreatic cancer.  Life expectancy will be less than 1 years (more likely a couple of months).  He is in a lot of physical pain because the pain medications are losing their effects.  It is not clear to us what options are left to manage his physical pains (if any even exist at this point?).  No one in our family caring for dad are trained in the profession of health care.  My mom, brother, sister-in-law and I are working around the clock to coordinate and consolidate the disjointed/broken communication between several medical teams responsible for my dad's care (family physician, palliative care, occupational therapist, emergency team etc...).
My dad has a strong desire to live, but not at the expense of prolonged agonizing physical pain.  Our whole family echoes this sentiment.
During these times, the family members caring for dad is suffering from uncertainty of whether we are:

doing enough to ease dad's pain - how far do we go to address dad's situation?  How do we know if we're doing enough?  How do we know if we're wasting time?  If we knew with certainty there's nothing more we can do, then we will relax and execute the final steps of closure.  If we knew with certainty there are still possibilities to explore, then we will do as much as we can and use the feeling of "hope" to mitigate our feelings of anxiety, uncertainty, fatigue and other forms of suffering.  As of today, we assume there are still possibilities to explore, but we really don't know for sure, which causes suffering.  We have found solutions to alleviate dad's suffering when doctors have said there are none, which tells us that even the professionals may not know what they are doing (or they've lost interest in our health case), which also means sometimes we need to try things ourselves. But we are uncertain on whether we are able to keep up with the new problems that arise each day.  How much runway do we have left to alleviate the agonizing physical pain my dad is in?  How do Buddhist's manage the suffering caused by uncertainty on whether you are doing enough to alleviate the pain of people you care about?

doing the right thing to ease dad's suffering - eg. if palliative care team does not respond in time to an urgent request, we will exercise our own actions without sufficient medical guidance which sometimes makes things better, and other times makes things worse (we have not documented all actions and their results, and hence we are uncertain if we have produced a net positive or net negative outcome during this saga).  How do we manage the suffering caused by not knowing in advance if you are improving or hurting your family member?

At the end of the day, if we were certain of our actions, we wouldn't be suffering. But our uncertainty causes not only our own suffering (eg. are we over-exerting ourselves researching futile efforts?), but tremendous physical pain to someone we care about.  What is the Buddhist philosophy to addressing this scenario?

ADDITIONAL NOTES
Approaches I've considered:
A1. Detach from my family and not care about them at all.  Now I feel no emotional connection to their pain.  My family will probably never speak to me again and call me an ingrate, but at least I don't have to take part in their suffering.
A2. Do a half-ass job in caring for my dad.  I just need convince /brainwash myself to think that I'm doing enough, and keep myself oblivious to the reality of whether I really am or not. I've now relieved myself of suffering from the uncertainty of actions caring for my dad.  I will also coincidentally not feel any guilt of whether my other family members have taken on responsibilities that were formerly mine, because I'm blissfully ignorant..
Is A1 / A2 the Buddhist way?

I think part of the Buddhist doctrine is that you should try to do what's ethical -- decide what's ethical, the "right" thing to do, and do that.
And then even if the outcome is sad, at least you don't regret (or feel remorse about) your action -- because your intention was correct, you did the best you could or knew at the time.
What's considered "ethical" is spelled out in some detail for monks. I believe it includes looking after each other in times of sickness ...

Monks, you have no mother, you have no father, who might tend to you. If you don't tend to one another, who then will tend to you? Whoever would tend to me, should tend to the sick.

Buddhism is less detailed on the subject of lay ethics, but I believe it does include supporting one's parents as may be possible (SN 2.4 and DN 31).
It may be that the right thing to do -- or the best you can do in the circumstances -- varies from person to person, time to time, place to place.
I'm sorry to hear you feel responsible for managing physical pain, even though you're not a doctor.

When I've been in a situation like yours I understand it's my responsibility to ask the patient, "Would you like me to take you to see a doctor?", and make another appointment or perhaps go to a hospital's Emergency department with them.
I feel it's also my responsibility to understand the doctors' diagnosis, prognosis, prescription, and care plan -- especially to whatever extent the patient can't -- to help the communication between the patient and the doctors and nurses.
I also want to not cause the patient unnecessary worry or grief, when I'm with them and able to talk with them.

I don't want to tell you what a doctor should, but my understanding is that one should expect pain to increase as cancer progresses, and doctors should expect to adjust the prescription as time goes by. I'd generally expect from my experience that a doctor will change the prescription only when they see the patient (i.e. not without seeing the patient), so when you think it's time for a new prescription then it's time to arrange another doctor's visit. I also expect that nurses (or sometimes other care-givers like family, if they're told how) might administer a prescription -- count pills, keep an eye on the time of day -- but only a doctor decides what the prescription is.
You might find this helpful too -- What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care and dying.
I think I read somewhere that on average fewer opiates are used/prescribed in palliative care in Buddhist countries. I can't tell you whether that's good or bad, I suppose it's a topic for doctors and patients (and families) to negotiate in specific circumstances. There's a little mention about the trade-off in that article for nurses -- see the paragraph which begins "Taking into consideration overall well-being" ...

However, if severe uncontrolled pain develops, cognitive impairment (e.g. delirium) may result that may require the use of strong opiods for effective relief to achieve the best cognitive function possible that would support meditative spiritual practices. In concordance with good practice and recognizing that the individual needs of each patient will differ,nurses should continue to monitor the need for pain relief, and should clearly document the preferences of such patients with regard to pain relief, particularly during initial patient assessment regardless of the setting (patient’s own home, hospice, hospital).

... though I imagine that's an "FYI" for nurses and the actual decision is to be made and agreed between the doctor and the patient (or the family who acts as the patient's "guardian" or "parent" if the patient isn't conscious enough to decide).
Also I'd add that so far as I know, doctors are quite careful not to kill their patients -- not to give an overdose, too much too soon. Part of what happens is that the patient's tolerance for the medicine might increase -- which is sometimes part of the reason why the doctor can (safely) and/or must (for it to be effective) increase the dose -- but it's the doctor's job to know how, what, when, and how much to prescribe, so that it continues to be effective (beneficial) without being unduly harmful.
Lastly it may be worth mentioning or remembering the brahmaviharas. According to this author

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

I think that the four include, "I don't want to harm you", "I admire your goodness" (as well as, "equanimity").

I think it's up to your dad to endure the pain and using the knife would be blamed (because is not an Arahant). This is based on this text;

Venerable sir, the Venerable Channa has used the knife. [..]
Sāriputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy. https://suttacentral.net/sn35.87/en/bodhi

I think that you should assist him as long as life lasts.

"Monks, you have no mother, you have no father, who might tend to you. If you don't tend to one another, who then will tend to you? Whoever would tend to me, should tend to the sick. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/mv/mv.08.26.01-08.than.html

Qualities that make a good nurse;

"A nurse endowed with five qualities is fit to tend to the sick: He is competent at mixing medicine; he knows what is amenable or unamenable to the patient's cure, taking away things that are unamenable and bringing things that are amenable; he is motivated by thoughts of good will, not by material gain; he does not get disgusted at cleaning up excrement, urine, saliva, or vomit; and he is competent at instructing, urging, rousing, & encouraging the sick person at the proper occasions with a talk on Dhamma. A nurse endowed with these five qualities is fit to tend to the sick."

I would encourage him to endure even deadly pain and with a mind as clear as possible train thus;

[Anathapindika:] "I am not getting better, venerable sir. I am not comfortable. My severe pains are increasing, not lessening. There are signs of their increasing, and not of their lessening. Extreme forces slice through my head, just as if a strong man were slicing my head open with a sharp sword... Extreme pains have arisen in my head, just as if a strong man were tightening a turban on my head with a tough leather strap... Extreme forces carve up my stomach cavity, just as if an expert butcher or his apprentice were to carve up the stomach cavity of an ox with a sharp butcher's knife... There is an extreme burning in my body, just as if two strong men, seizing a weaker man with their arms, were to roast and broil him over a pit of hot embers. I am not getting better, venerable sir. I am not comfortable. My severe pains are increasing, not lessening. There are signs of their increasing, and not of their lessening."
[Ven. Sariputta:] "Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't cling to the eye; my consciousness will not be dependent on the eye.' That's how you should train yourself. 'I won't cling to the ear... nose... tongue... body; my consciousness will not be dependent on the body.' ... 'I won't cling to the intellect; my consciousness will not be dependent on the intellect.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't cling to forms... sounds... smells... tastes... tactile sensations; my consciousness will not be dependent on tactile sensations.' ... 'I won't cling to ideas; my consciousness will not be dependent on ideas.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't cling to eye-consciousness... ear-consciousness... nose-consciousness... tongue-consciousness... body-consciousness; my consciousness will not be dependent on body-consciousness.' ... 'I won't cling to intellect-consciousness; my consciousness will not be dependent on intellect-consciousness.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't cling to contact at the eye... contact at the ear... contact at the nose... contact at the tongue... contact at the body; my consciousness will not be dependent on contact at the body.' ... 'I won't cling to contact at the intellect; my consciousness will not be dependent on contact at the intellect.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't cling to feeling born of contact at the eye... feeling born of contact at the ear... feeling born of contact at the nose... feeling born of contact at the tongue... feeling born of contact at the body; my consciousness will not be dependent on feeling born of contact at the body.' ... 'I won't cling to feeling born of contact at the intellect; my consciousness will not be dependent on feeling born of contact at the intellect.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't cling to the earth property... liquid property... fire property... wind property... space property; my consciousness will not be dependent on the space property.' ... 'I won't cling to the consciousness property; my consciousness will not be dependent on the consciousness property.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't cling to form... feeling... perception... thought-fabrications; my consciousness will not be dependent on thought-fabrications.' ... 'I won't cling to consciousness; my consciousness will not be dependent on consciousness.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't cling to the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness; my consciousness will not be dependent on the dimension of nothingness.' ... 'I won't cling to the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception; my consciousness will not be dependent on the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't cling to this world; my consciousness will not be dependent on this world... I won't cling to the world beyond; my consciousness will not be dependent on the world beyond.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't cling to what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect; my consciousness will not be dependent on that.' That's how you should train yourself."

I would also explain how he can help one nurse him;

"A sick person endowed with five qualities is easy to tend to: he does what is amenable to his cure; he knows the proper amount in things amenable to his cure; he takes his medicine; he tells his symptoms, as they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and he is the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A sick person endowed with these five qualities is easy to tend to.


Does the Buddha suggest a change in practice after the unfolding of Sotapanna? For two years there has been daily meditation. For 10 months there has been the addition of satipathanna practice and present moment awareness. 4 months ago the self was seen as a creation of imagination. There followed two hours of laughter and joy. Later that day there were demon images in the mind. Inwardly smiling they disappeared then the body became electrified and there was a sense of being in the precise moment. One week later occured a formless jhana in the shopping centre. It appears three awakenings or major shifts happened in the space of one week.

It seems like an unknown force is guiding things now. Troublesome thoughts can be dismissed very easily. Suffering has reduced by about 60 percent. There has been strong desire for women and feeling bad towards family members. This is where the sense of self seems strongest.

After the unfolding of Sotapanna which is massively transformational, does the Buddha suggest a change in practice?

No, the practitioner no need changing the practice.

The practitioner has to comprehends 3 characteristics of 5 aggregates, which cycling as the dependent origination, from being ordinary until arahatta-magga. But the teaching literature may be difference. See the description after the below quote.

So, in Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sīlavantasutta taught the same meditation for all people, ordinary and all noble one:

  On one occasion Ven. Sariputta & Ven. Maha Kotthita were staying near
  Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. Then Ven. Maha Kotthita,
  emerging from seclusion in the late afternoon, went to Ven. Sariputta
  and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an
  exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he
  was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "Sariputta my friend,
  which things should a virtuous monk attend to in an appropriate way?"

  "A virtuous monk, Kotthita my friend, should attend in an appropriate
  way to the five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a
  disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a
  dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Which five? Form as a
  clinging-aggregate, feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. A virtuous monk should attend
  in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant,
  stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction,
  alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that
  a virtuous monk, attending in an appropriate way to these five
  clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would realize the fruit
  of stream-entry."

  "Then which things should a monk who has attained stream-entry attend
  to in an appropriate way?"

  "A monk who has attained stream-entry should attend in an appropriate
  way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a
  disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a
  dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that a monk
  who has attained stream-entry, attending in an appropriate way to
  these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would
  realize the fruit of once-returning."

  "Then which things should a monk who has attained once-returning
  attend to in an appropriate way?"

  "A monk who has attained once-returning should attend in an
  appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant,
  stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction,
  alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that
  a monk who has attained once-returning, attending in an appropriate
  way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would
  realize the fruit of non-returning."

  "Then which things should a monk who has attained non-returning attend
  to in an appropriate way?"

  "A monk who has attained non-returning should attend in an appropriate
  way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a
  disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a
  dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that a monk
  who has attained non-returning, attending in an appropriate way to
  these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would
  realize the fruit of arahantship."

  "Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?"

  "An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five
  clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an
  arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness,
  not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do,
  and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when
  developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the
  here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."

But the teaching literature may be difference. Each enlightenment depend on each personal understanding-ability because each person has difference own understandable dhamma, i.e. Pañcavaggī were professional of aggregates before he meet buddha, but Dīghanakha were  professional of six sense fields  before he meet buddha, etc.

Dīghanakha enlightened nibbāna as sotāpanna by comprehending 3
characteristics  of the dependent origination (nāma-rūpa) in Sutta.
Ma. Ma. Dīghanakhasutta.
A thousand jaṭila  enlightened nibbāna as arahanta  by comprehending
3 characteristics of the dependent origination (six sense fields, six
contacts, six feeling) in Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. Ādittapariyāyasutta.
Koñḍañña-pañcavaggī enlightened nibbāna as sotapanna  by comprehending
3 characteristics of the fourth noble truth in Sutta. Saṃ. Ma.
Dhammacakkappavattanasutta.

All pañcavaggī enlightened nibbāna as arahanta  by comprehending 3
characteristics of five aggregates, which is continuous from the five
clinging-aggregates suffering noble truth of
Dhammacakkappavattanasutta above, in Sutta. Saṃ. Kha.
Anattalakkhaṇasutta.

THe path is the same for everybody at whatever stage. The stage of Sotapanna deals with views more than lusts, with the views being Sakkaya Ditthi and the usual obsessions of puthujjanas with rituals and symbolism that puthujjanas create generations after generations.
THe remaining task after getting  rid of Sakkaya Ditthi is to see the dependent origination, and for that you still need to make the citta serene (pasīdati), to get the citta into samadhi and then to find out the sources of each aggregate.

When it comes to the citta, the only thing to do before liberating it, cittaVimutti, is to make it into samadhi.
THere is a famous sutta where 4 samadhis are listed. The most famous samadhi is the jahnas.
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html

Of course, the most important samadhi is the one where mano is used as yoniso manasikara, instead of mano being used as vitakka+vicara+papanca, ie for daydreaming, creating views and intellectualizing like so many puthujjanas love to do and claim there are virtuous for doing so.
This Yoniso manasikāra is what stops a puthujjana becoming further a puthujjana. So as usual, it is to see each 5 aggregate as it is but, and this is the most important point of all the dhamma,  you must see for yourself what is the condition of each aggregate and the cessation of each aggregate.
Indeed, so far, a phuttjana only knows the condition of an aggregate by memory of some sutta, but this does not get anybody to become an ariya, just like reading and memorizing a user manual for a lawnmower does not mow your lawn....

THe samadhi right before that is the most important one since it is the usual one to prevent the development of lusts. https://suttacentral.net/sn36.3/en/bodhi
 This samadhi is the the famous  satisampajanna. This  satisampajanna is the pinnacle of what a few puthujjanas call stupidly ''doing vipassana''. THis practice is about watching the ''thoughts'' as they come and go and watching 2 aggregates, sanna and vedena, but not finding out their condition and their cessation (therefore the practice does not lead to the vipassanas).

satisampajanna has nothing to do with finding out the nature of sankharam of the 5 aggregates. But  satisampajanna is the best basis to do Yoniso manasikāra. With satisampajanna you know easily the arising of a thought, the establishing of a thought and the fall of a thought, before a new thought pops up and replaces it and it starts all over again. Same thing for pleasant vedenas, following a non-pleasnt non-displeasnt vedena which follows another vedena and so on. http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/08/an08-009.html

With good sati, go further and you remember to try to see all the conditions that the buddha talks about.
Once you see for yourself the conditioned nature of the aggregates, you see that they are anicca, which makes you see them as dukkha, which makes you see them as anatta, which makes you dispassionate (nibidda) towards them, which makes the citta liberated. All those insights called  Aniccānupassī,  dukkhānupassī, anattānupassī, Virāgānupassī,  Nirodhānupassī,  Paṭinissaggānupassī follow from ''seeing for yourself'' the dependent origination. Like the buddha said, ''seeing the dependent origination is seeing the dhamma'' and the usual first step to do that is to calm down and get the citta in samadhi.
Theway to kill desire, lust, greed is to train to see and to see the 5 aggregates as anicca dukkha anatta
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.55/en/sujato
The source of this desire is ignorance.the way to kill the desire is to kill the ignorance.
For instance, to cultivate the perception of impermanence
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.102/en/sujato
 /sn22.59/en/sujato

More explicitly for a sotapanna, the recommendation is to live ''heedfully'', which just means again getting the citta into samadhi which creates a good basis for Yoniso manasikāra:

  "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified
  confidence in the Dhamma... verified confidence in the Sangha...
  virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken,
  unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished,
  leading to concentration. Not content with those virtues pleasing to
  the noble ones, he exerts himself further in solitude by day or
  seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedfully, joy arises. In one
  who has joy, rapture arises. In one who has rapture, the body becomes
  serene. When the body is serene, one feels pleasure. Feeling pleasure,
  the mind becomes centered. When the mind is centered, phenomena become
  manifest. When phenomena are manifest, he is reckoned as one who
  dwells heedfully.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.040.than.html
here is a little sutta with more details for stapipathana
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn47-040.html

If you fail to get the citta into samadhi, then you can fall back on giving to contemplative, with he proper ''state of mind'', because a sotapanna knows that calming the citta is crucial and that giving to contemplatives who strive for sense restrains is a good thing: the citta is serene (pasīdati) when giving is done https://suttacentral.net/an7.52/en/thanissaro