text:
Ways of Raising Energy
I've eliminated many addictive fetters which deterred me from practising meditation. However, now I've noticed that getting into a meditative posture leads--perhaps because of the addictions such as social media which gave me dopamine are gone--to a kind of lethargy, a low energy. I have thus a few questions.
1) I've always had trouble with the breath as meditation object. I enter a state of less thoughts when I'm focusing upon it, and seemingly it diminishes my total experience of the body, mind, etc. Which meditation object would really increase my awareness and energy? Is it possible to achieve shamatha with outer objects, or even inner images?
2) Are there alternative ways to raise energy, such as physical exercise or other things like this. Will such activities increase my meditation energy specifically?
3) In terms of interior images, which seemingly arouse my mind slightly when I let myself visualize random things: are these recommended as meditation objects? I'm a very visual person, but I've been afraid of interior images as meditation objects for a few reasons.
First, the images that arise during meditation, in my case, sometimes seem disturbing. Second, I have always had a difficult time separating my inner impressions from reality; although, to be fair, I always am conscious of what's real and what is not, but I am very superstitious and attribute a lot to images or impressions that arise in me.
If any of my questions are answered, I thank you in advance.

I recommend listening to talks on dharmaseed.org while you sit sometimes.  Having someone guide the way is incredibly helpful when starting out.  I have been practicing meditation for several years now and still find great value in attending gatherings and listening to meditation talks/teachings on dharmaseed because not only do you become attentive to what is being said, you get deeper insights thanks to the efforts of others.

Anapana (Breath-In/Breath-Out meditation)

Anapana is suitable for people who frequent train of thoughts. If you are easily distracted person Anapana is well suited technique as meditation. Thoughts are hindrance to meditation. It is also one of Five hindrances prohibit meditator not to achieve keen concentration to clearly see the bubbles of matter and non-matter states. If you are seeing images/thinking about images during meditation, it is some kind of restlessness (uddhacca) and this does not allow your progress in meditation (whatever goal you are trying to achieve).
Please keep in mind that meditation does not help healthy body or energy. The mindfulness/proper attentiveness plus having insightful knowledge of eating habit of your own (when you have to eat, how much do you have to eat and which one you can eat) can only help sound body and energy. Other than walking with normal pace, physical exercises are not recommended as body building is not recommended for those who practice meditation.
2-3 Samatha Recommendations
Based on your hobbies and attitudes, you need to choose which type of Samatha is suitable for you. Usually, this is done when you go retreat to some meditation centers. Generally people nowadays are easily distracted and that is the reason Anapana is ubiquitous choice in many meditation centers. For the people with distraction it is recommended to do meditation in confined space and do meditation walking in open space is not suitable. There are some constraints in choosing type of meditation for particular type of people with specific hobbies but nobody is master in choice, only combination with own personal determination/reasoning on type and experienced teacher from meditation centre can do approximation.
Below are some of the type of Samatha for the person with specific hobbies, attitudes and inclinations but you are warned to seek proper guidance from centers instead of choosing the type of Samatha your own.

Anapana - for most distracted people
Marananusati (intensive mindfulness of dying) - for people of pride
Asuba/32 Human parts - for people with strong sexual/sensory desire
Metta - for people with strong aversion

There are many more; colors, four elements, and 10 anusati including Marananusati. All are for people with different hobbies, attitudes and inclinations. I hope you could find your most suitable techniques of meditation by consulting a good teacher in meditation center and make progress in meditation.

Achievements. Focus on your achievements. Review how difficult it was and how you made it. Review your good qualities. Review how you are free from many problems that people have. Review the progress you are making. Tell yourself a good story. This is first jhana.

This falls into the trap of egocentrism and can actually detract from samadhi. Thus, it can't be the first jhana, because it defies the principle of joy through withdrawal.

It's joy from withdrawal from negativity and craving for things to be different. A joy of suchness brought about by directed thought and pondering. The very essence of the first jhana, my friend.

Increasing Energy
Sustained mental activity increases energy. 1st bring your mind to the object (initial application), then bring the mind to it again continuously regardless of the fact that it is on the object or not (sustained application).
Samatha with Outer Objects
This is also possible. But essentially this is mind made object. E.g. you look at a disk try to recreate this in your mind, and meditate on this mind make object. In this case, arising and passing nature of the mentally created object is not very clear.
Recommended Method
It is best to raise your energy by means of Vipassana practice, which is found in the Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta. As re iterated above this is done through initial application and sustained application, i.e., you bring your attention to the object and refocus your attention on the object. Once you practice this your mind becomes sticky with the objects you choose. This increases both energy and concentration. The Sutta mentions different "flavours" the Jhana. Once you get hang of things you can try them out.

How exactly does one increase energy specifically through the Vipassana method which you mentioned? I looked at the Sutta but it seems elaborate, do you have a summary or perhaps an outline for a technique? Is this sutta different or is energy raised from Vipassana itself?

Added a bit more information. Also you can try the 2 books by Shaila Catherine.

As you have breath as meditation object, and the more you concentrate , there will be a stage of less experience of body and mind. It is one of the progress depending on the individual concerned. At that point , actually no need to increase your energy. Meditation is should not be as what you want. This is the nature you have to observe mindfully. Otherwise you will not see the three basic facts Anacca, Dukkha, Anatta. If you go on meditating breathing mindfully, it will become more and more subtle and fade out, come again and again like that. These are the stages you will be observing in meditation. So try to keep on doing and never try to change it.


text:
Which Vinaya has the least number of rules?
According to Wikipedia, “Extant vinaya texts include those of the Theravada (the only one in Pali), the Kāśyapīya, the Mahāsāṃghika, the Mahīśāsaka, the Dharmaguptaka, the Sarvāstivāda and the Mūlasarvāstivāda.” Does anyone know which of these Vinayas has the least number of rules?
According to Peter Harvey (Introduction to Buddhism, p. 290), the Theravadin Vinaya has 227 rules for male monastics, the Mula-Sarvastivadin has 258, and the Dharmaguptaka has 250, making the Theravadin the one with the least number of rules.
The Wikipedia article on Vinaya substantially agrees with this, but has 253 for the Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya. However, the Wikipedia articles for Mahasamghika and Sthavira (and elsewhere) also state that the Mahasamghika Vinaya has the least number of rules, citing Andrew Skilton, A Concise History of Buddhism, stating that the Mahasamghika Vinaya has 67 rules in the śaikṣa-dharma section, compared to 75 for the Theravadin (apparently referring to the 75 sekhiyavatta), which appears to contradict Harvey’s statement that the Theravadin Vinaya has the least number of rules.
Does anyone (1) have any insights concerning the relative number of rules in the Vinayas that can reconcile this apparent contradiction or (2) know where English translations of the non-Theravadin Vinayas may be found? I am still researching this question online so may end up answering my own question, but would like to hear any relevant information from others.

Of the extant Vinayas, the Mahasanghika has the least rules, if by "rules" you mean "patimokkha rules".
As per your post, the difference is almost entirely in the number of sekhiya rules, which are essentially table manners and the like. Indeed, in the early sources the number "150" rules is mentioned, and I believe this means that patimokkha in the time of the Buddha did not include the sekhiya rules. So if we were to count the rules as per the "original" patimokkha, there would be almost no difference between the Vinayas.
The patimokkha rules, however, are only a small, albeit important, collection of rules. Throughout the Vinaya there are many minor and incidental rules and procedures. Since these often occur by way of permutations of factors for other rules, it is difficult to count them exactly, and I don't believe anyone has done so.
The fact that the Mahasanghika has fewer sekhiya rules has been misinterpreted to imply that the Mahasanghikas were lax in Vinaya, and that their Vinaya text is early. In fact, from this we can't really draw any conclusions about the Vinaya practice of the Mahasanghikas (since the details that differ deal with tiny matters of etiquette), nor about the historical development of the Vinaya texts (since in other aspects the Mahasanghika Vinaya appears later than the Theravada).

Well, just like what you've read inside "A Concise History of Buddhism" The Theravadin Vinaya is based on Sthraviravadin Vinaya without changing or adding any rules to it.
As for Mahasanghika's Vinaya, i can only find some Dharmaguptaka's translation in suttacentral and Mahasanghika's Nuns Vinaya on Buddhanet
I do have translation in other language but unfortunately not in English.
BDK has a project to translate every texts into English tho but it seems like they haven't translated the Vinaya's

Visuddhimagga silaniddesa wrote that bhikkhu's rules in vinaya pitaka appear 91,805,036,000  rules.
If you have ever been monk you will understand that it is not just the similitude counting.
The number in your question are just uddesa that bhikkhu must recite in fortnightly meeting day (uposatha). Those are just little example rules, in 91,805,036,000 rules that appear in vinaya pitaka.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Thoughtlessness
Sometimes, when I am focusing on the body or the breath, I have a feeling that thoughts have ceased. I am unsure whether I am suppressing or not, I don't feel that I am, but that I am merely focusing upon an object.
Should I worry about this lack of thoughts? Should I keep meditating even if very few thoughts arise?
Thanks.

If you have a meditation teacher, you should ask that person. If you do not, or if the teacher cannot give a helpful answer, you should seek a meditation teacher who can.

The development of calm (samatha) & concentration (samadhi) in meditation is based on the mind focusing on the breath without any thoughts. It is important to feel a soothing calm in this process.

You better stick to only one meditation technique of a meditation master. Also it depends on how long you practice each session, to which interval already practiced so that to which level of concentration you achieved, it all depends. Sometimes stages of insight meditation go up and down and sometimes stick to one stage and cannot get through it if not enough concentration.  If you focusing on breathing in and out, focusing point to note mindfully at the tip of the nose , if other phenomenon  arise only if it is remarkable try to note mindfully as "know it, know it" if it disappears, noting breathing again. If you get concentration more and more, all your noting become so subtle that you noticed nothing. Sometimes just like lack of thought.  Then appear again clearer visualizing some phenomenon never seen before. Then all these disappear again slowly disintegrating into smaller ones. This time again sometimes so clear-minded and nondescribable feeling of experience.   Like that much more left. Not every one will have similar experience. Based on your previous experience from the beginning of practice and how closely done each session without hiatus so that how deep your concentration achieved it all depends.

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


text:
Therapeutic Effects of Masturbation
I've read in an article on religious views on masturbation that there were individuals in the Buddha's time that viewed masturbation as therapeutic. The reference given was (Vin. III 109) which I'm guessing stands for a part of the Vinaya, but I cannot really navigate my way and find the source. I'm wondering if anyone knows about these arguments for masturbation, and those which the Buddha gave in disagreement to these views. Ultimately I'd like to know whether masturbation is always a fetter, if one gains many benefits from its non-practice.
Thanks.

Celibacy and Religious Traditions, edited by Carol Olson (https://books.google.ca/books?id=apq1G-o2OzoC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=masturbation+vinaya+pitaka&source=bl&ots=YtJc3M7TAs&sig=DShKDVt6HKWn1yGu2D-tjf9dlSA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBkO3Sy8TQAhUkS2MKHXnYBlwQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=masturbation&f=false) mentions Vinaya III.109 on page 222.
The reference appears to be to Sanghadisesa I, which appears on pages 192-98 of Horner, The Book of the Discipline, Vol. I (PTS ed.), where the venerable Seyyasaka was emaciated with yellowish skin and varicose veins. The ven. Udayin saw this and recommended that he eat, sleep, bathe and engage in the activity asked about "as much as you like," for reasons of health. This cured him, "and in a short time the venerable Seyyasaka was nice-looking with rounded features, of a bright complexion and a clear skin." Since the 5th cent. BCE was the golden age of Ayurveda, one wonders if there might be an Ayurvedic precedent for this? In any case, the Buddha rebukes Seyyasaka for this practice, saying that it is not appropriate for a monastic to engage in such a practice, which leads to passion, bondage, and grasping. The actual rule to which it gave rise is stated on page 195. As an infraction of the second order (disesa), it entails a formal meeting of the order. Also see the example referred to on page 359 (Vin. III 112).
The prohibition reminds me a bit of the Qur'anic prohibition against drinking alcohol, which simultaneously recognizes its health benefits yet prohibits it.

The idea/notion "Masturbation is therapeutic" in Vinaya was highly personal experience. In Vinaya, this particular monk is not pleased to be in life of monk and had thin body and he got normal body weight after having regular masturbation. In this very personal experience the monk had tendency to do sexual intercourse but he cannot. By doing masturbation he was trying to satisfy himself but actually he is encouraging the fetter to overcome him. There was nothing therapeutic effect in any extent.
I will try to answer your question with medical example. While we are trying to test the effect of placebo medicine to sampled/surveyed patients, it show significant positive effect on targeted patients. But not a single FDA from any country will approved that it will have therapeutic effect on the particular type of patient we tested. Scarcely, placebo medicine will be commercially available for this particular disease. Masturbation is lightweight demonstration of sexual intercourse. If you cannot do the latter, you are satisfied with masturbation. It will make you psychologically feel better but is is not therapeutic cure to extinguish strong sexual desire (which is fetter in Buddha's teachings). It is just like placebo medicine and highly personal experience.
There is another example, if someone is highly allergic to nicotine and addicted to cigar, will change from cigar to cigarette be better for his allergy? So as masturbation, it will make your sexual desire to burn more inside (which is definitely fetter in Buddha's teachings). If you think masturbation has therapeutic effect, then you are changing from cigar to cigarette expecting same therapeutic effect of cutting off nicotine intake. And that is why masturbation is prohibited in Sanga society by Buddha.
Buddha said masturbation is not make people bored about Samsara (born, live, die, reborn, live, die cycles). It is not beginning of noble practices to stop/get out of sufferings (Samsara).
Masturbation has only placebo effect on sexual desire to intercourse it will make personal Raga to make stronger. Raga is one of three unwholesome roots and now (at the time of 2016 AD) people thinks masturbation is disgusting and not allowed to do in public (compared to smoking, people does not like it, but there are public smoking places).
People has mindset that sexual desire is normal to animal instinct and one should practice masturbation if he/she cannot find mating partner but clearly it is psychological placebo and not therapeutic solution to cure to make calm to sexual thirst because they do not know what is cause of Raga, what is supporting Raga to grow in mind, what is the nearest cause of Raga and how to get rid of it.


text:
Physical Lethargy
I've read about the existence of mental lethargy, and have experienced it for myself. But, when it comes to physical lethargy, is there any meditative practice that counters it? Also, I'm saying this especially in relationship to willpower (avoiding attachment activities) and effort (practicing aversive activities). Ideally, I'm looking for the best practices to counter these things, and ultimately have more energy, willpower and effort in the day.
While we're at it, can anyone give me their opinions on activities which involve attachment but which aren't necessarily so for everyone, e.g. facebook and junk food. These activities, in me, seem to create a strong attachment and consequently I'm trying to rid myself of them, but keep experiencing a failure of willpower and determination.
Thanks

Physical lethargy is not really a problem as long as your mind stays unaffected. But in reality physical lethargy most of the time comes with mental lethargy. There are already lots of answers regarding the 3. hindrance on this SE.

Ways of Raising Energy
Clarity During Meditation
Sloth-torpor-Restlessness-worry

Also see: The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest
As for "bad habits" IMO the best way to deal with them is to be patient. Using willpower and trying to changes things is often a guarantee for more feelings of guilt, failure and suffering. Instead of trying to get rid of you could develop wholesome habits (meditation, sati, virtue of action, speech and thought ...) alongside the bad ones and then step by step replace old habits with new ones.


text:
Proper Meditation Upon A Physical Object
I've been previously practicing meditation with the breathing, but for various reasons, among which my inability to latch on to the breath and my facility to focus upon outer objects, I want to engage in outer object-focused meditation. I'd like to know if anyone can explain the process by which to engage in these meditations, and explain the elements linked with focusing and analyzing the object.
Thanks

How long have you been working with the breath?

Probably not long enough actually. I've never worked with the breath very long precisely because I felt it didn't work, and so my meditation practice was sporadic and with sessions at various times. You would recommend I stick with the breath for a long while despite my trouble with it?

Absolutely.  It's just like working out.  You can't expect to bench press 300 lbs. if you only go to the gym once a week for five minutes.  Consistency and repetition is the only way anything gets done.  The mind is a muscle the same as anything else.

I cannot answer your original question, however, I second the comments above: stick to the breaths.
I would recommend using Buddhadasa Bhikkhu interpretation of the scriptures for the 1st step of your meditation: learn the long breath by controlling the flow of air coming in and out of your lungs, this will relax your body and help you move to the next steps.
Much more details here:

Mindfulness with breathing: Dhamma Talks
Mindfulness with breathing: full book

Breath watching has tremendous advantages over outer objects. First of all breath is joining point of mind-body and consciousness. No breath no life. More unruly breath is, more disturbed you are. Watching breath slows it down and bring about a balance much faster compared to other techniques. Secondly it is what Buddha taught. Ofcourse one can start with outer objects as is practiced in yoga or other spiritual sects. You can start with sound as is practiced in Nachiren Buddhist sect but I must warn you that it is not what Buddha prescribed. Buddha's techniques and teachings are far superior to any sect teachings or techniques. I recommend changing your lifestyle and even try Vipassna to increase ability to stay focussed.

"You can start with sound... but I must warn you that it is not what Buddha prescribed" this has to be disputed, though I don't know Nachiren Buddhist sect. Buddha didn't just teach "breathing meditation". In Surangama Sutra Buddha taught each of the 6 senses could be the door of enlightenment, and the 4 Great Elements: fire water wind earth, plus there are few more "doors" I have to check the Sutra. Eventually, Manjushri chose the "Auditory Perfection" (related to sound) which Avalokiteshvara practised as the best "door" to enter for beings living in this (our) world.

if buddha taught 6 senses can be the door to enlightenment then it is Tantra which was practised in India. If Buddha taught four elements can be used this is precisely what yogis and Ayurveda prescribes. That means Buddha teaching is essentially same as those practiced by  Hindus. I am not an expert on Buddhism but looks like Tantra and Taoism is being mixed with Buddha's teaching.  One can chant and listening to external sound or one can listen to inner sound. Every external sense organ has an internal representation. Buddha was never in favor of external doors as they tend to be ritualistic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABra%E1%B9%85gama_S%C5%ABtra this link says this sutra is dubious because it has chinese origin. I think you are talking about a certain flavor of Buddhism not Buddha.

Just to throw a monkey wretch in to that - the Buddha did teach the kasinas of which the elemental forms of fire, air, water, and earth all play a part.  The senses also crop up in the Satipatthana Sutta.

[i]@Shashank: "this sutra is dubious because it has chinese origin."[i] I knew that the Surangama Sutra was being tipped by some "untrust/ fake sutra" because of many reasons one is the Chinese origin. There are many Buddhist sutras which only the Chinese versions were available since the teaching was gradually disappeared in India but flourishing in China, are these, because of the Chinese origin, all "fakes"? I chose not to go into the mess of debating archaeology/ forensic proof of authenticity of sutras, it's up to those who like to pick whatever they feel fit.

{i}@Shashank: "if buddha taught 6 senses can be the door to enlightenment then it is Tantra which was practised in India..."{i} this is again another reasoning pitfall. If the Buddha's teaching has overlapped/intersected/correlated to any other previous teachings then this is NOT the Buddha's teaching? This is erroneous reasoning as discrediting an apple because it shared some genomes with the apple tree's leaves, barks, or roots. This cannot discredit the apple as an apple, the difference is an apple with the seed will grow into another tree but can't by planting the leaf.

(i)@Shashank: "...Every external sense organ has an internal representation. Buddha was never in favor of external doors as they tend to be ritualistic."(i) I'm not sure if I understood you correctly and definitely I don't have the idea abt external/ internal etc. I don't understand how "external door... tend to be ritualistic" though Buddha definitely against ritualistic. And what is "inner sound"? How did Avalokiteshvara reach enlightenment? It is universally accepted that in Buddha's teaching all started as the "basic beings", Buddha was just a man, same are those Great Bodhisattvas.

I am Indian so my understanding of Buddha and Tantra is slightly more. Also I practice Tantra and have practiced Zen form of Buddhist meditation therefore understand where the divergence lie. Buddhism vanished from India despite the fact that it had royal patronage and few lakhs followers thousands of years back. Buddha was unidimensional i.e. he devised his own way which did not conform to the methods prevalent of his own time. Wise men are inclusive so Buddha must have said a few things about methods of his days. But his methods and teachings got diluted as monks moved north i.e.China,Tibet.

Latching onto the breath is not exactly easy, even if the mind has non-distraction, i.e., is free from hindrances. This is because watching the breath with an ordinary mind causes the breath to calm so, very soon after, the breath is often too calm for the ordinary mind to discern or "latch onto".
Establishing the mind on an external object, such as the posture & parts of the body (arms, legs, hands, head, etc), can assist here because it can keep the mind both clear and, in particular, open.
In fact, in the Anapanasati Sutta, the instruction literally begins with the words: "the meditator sits with spine erect establishing/maintaining mindfulness in front of one's face".
In my experience, I have found that maintaining a clear & open mind ('externally') has resulted in infinitely better breath meditation (better than deliberately attempting to 'inwardly' watch the breath). The more I deliberately attempt to not watch the breath, the more clear the breath is in the mind. I play a game of 'reverse psychology' or 'play hard to get' with the breath.
Please remember, the ultimate training in Buddhism is abandoning craving therefore the less craving the better.

Initially you will need vitakka and vicāra to sustain your attention. 1st bring your mind to the object, periodically assess if it is with the object and re establish your attention regardless you mind has wandered away or not.
Once you have established mindfulness of the object you can further analyse it. 1st a gross level and then at subtler levels. Initially you will feel just the contact and sensations. At a gross level you will see it starts and ends. Closer examination you will see it is made of smaller tingling sensations. This answer give the totality of the ways to analyse the object.


text:
Ethics regarding the sharing of paid Dhamma material
I recently bought this Ayya Khema Ebook Bundle.
I bought the bundle for my own interest in the first place but after reading in them I would now like to share them with my friend, who is just starting out on the Buddhist Path.
Can I share the books I bought with my friend or should I buy the Ebook bundle again in order to share it?
Thank you for your time.

As you know this is a controversial topic which has been discussed before, e.g. here: Does illegal downloading or viewing of copyright material violate the second precept?
One answer (the accepted answer) to that topic says that "copyright is an artificial right" and isn't theft.
I think a safe or safer answer would be that if you keep to the terms (copyright agreement) under which you acquired your copy, then you're OK.
It's not clear what the copyright terms are for Wisdom Publication's Digital Editions. Perhaps it's in some fine print of the copy you received? There may be a copyright notice?
One tennet that's usually accepted for physical books is the First-sale doctrine. IMO someone selling books implicitly agrees to the First-sale doctrine. I'm not a lawyer but I think the First-sale doctrine says that you can't copy the book, but you can sell or lend your copy of the book to someone else.
If that's a valid analogy (and I think it has been used for copyrighted software), then the answer would be that you can give or lend your copy to someone else. And/or you can lend them the hardware on which your copy is stored. But you can't make a new copy. So yes you can give your friend your copy, if you delete your own copy. Or if you want two copies (one for your friend and another for you to keep) then you should buy a second copy from the copyright holder.
I suggest this answer regardless of what type of copyrighted material it is (i.e. regardless of the fact that you're asking about paid Dhamma material).

I wonder why my comments were being deleted? The censor police patrolling? Likely this one will be deleted too LOL

The purpose of comments is to request clarification or perhaps suggest some improvement to an answer. I read your comment about the GPL and didn't see how that might affect my answer (I didn't see it as a question about my answer, nor see it as a suggestion for improving my answer), so I deleted it as irrelevant/off-topic (it was "Secondary discussion or debating a controversial point"). Normally I might suggest you post your comment as a separate answer of your own, except that this comment didn't even address the OP's question.

I doubt sharing things is a transgression of the 2nd precept; otherwise how could we practise generosity?
I would be more concerned about the kamma of selling the Dhamma for money since the Pali suttas state the Dhamma should be taught with "benevolence" & given (freely) as a "gift".

And what, monks, is the power of benevolence? There are four ways of benevolence; by gifts, by friendly speech, by helpful acts and by
bestowal of equity. This is the best of gifts: the gift of Dhamma.
AN 9.5

If you can afford to, by all means support the author and Wisdom Publications by buying the bundle a second time.
As westerners we tend to look at money issues from the perspective of buying, but if you look at it from the perspective of 'offering' or 'donation' the topic changes considerably:
All through Buddhist history people have offered dharma-teachers donations - shelter, food etc. In our time money makes more sense. It's an unfortunate truth that life costs money - even if you're Sangha. So it makes sense that the donation is 'scripted' to a specific amount.
Since you would have asked the question in a different way if you could not afford to pay, I would say: by all means pay. It is a practice of generosity - both to the author / compiler / publisher AND to your friend.

That is not practicing generosity but simply rightous trade under worldlings, if it would not be Dhamma they sell and buy, Katinka. Its of no merits to appreciate greed on both side and its of no merits to steal from the Tripple Gems for a livelihood and destroying the path for many.

You don't know that there is greed. That is your judgement - it is not possible to judge motive by action. That is basic Buddhism.
We don't think a therapist is motivated by greed when they get paid for their services, why would someone who is asking money for a book automatically be motivated by money? By those standards NO modern Buddhist author can be any good. Neither the Dalai Lama, Pema Chodron, Thich Nhat Hanh, nor Sharon Salzberg .

Yes a therapist is moved by greed, otherwise he would not charge money. Thats it. And yes, there is NO, not a single person having right view on the market, trading with Dhamma. That was introduced by jewel deales, nver have been before. Not a single person buying Dhamma will ever get the first step done, gratitude and goodness, and no way to grasp Dhamma. All you mentioned are thieves of the Tripple Gems and you might participate, because it fits to your greed and what you like. Thats how marked goes and growd.

LOL - so you expect people to live off air, do you? That is VERY judgmental.

Dhamma is very judgemental, no space for gray. There is skilful and unskilful. You live without "air", but go on.

Dhamma is wisdom. Wisdom is kind, not judgmental. The only people who, in our world, in our time, can afford to not worry about money is those who have a lot of it. A teacher who worries about money at the end of the month is not greedy. She's realistic.

Nowhere in the Buddhist texts does it say: you have to judge people for what they do and figure out their motives. It says: be generous, that is good karma. If my motive in giving money is to help the author keep a roof over her head and the publisher capable of keeping their website up, that is good karma.

That is right, nobody tells one to be so generous and give them Dhamma even if not asked and without wanting anything back. Think about it. And what is good kamma, wise and praised from the wise, Katinka. Atma thinks its now time to leave, and let you alone here with your trades. May you find the right way to real peace for your self with ease. This generouse people that even like to pay for being fullfiled in their greed...

The reason for this controversy, I think, is that Theravada monks are expected to live via gifts of 'requisites' (food, maybe a monastery to live in, cloth[ing] and medicine, but not money) from the laity, and they give Dhamma (e.g. dhamma talks) to the laity, but emphatically not as a quid pro quo (i.e. selling Dhamma, and/or monks selling Dhamma, is forbidden). And "generosity" (a.k.a. dana) is understood to mean giving, rather than selling.

Ayya Khema was a dealer of Dhamma. Althought she stole Dhamma, was not shy to found printhouses and commercial retreat centers, was one of the main misleader and introduced Business of monastic in Europe, following other Sri Lanka originated Monks ans BPS, its not good to do the same, and take and use what is not given. Some had found how ever into Dhamma in line with Dhamma and you might find here, Ayya Khema.
It's neither legal not any wholesome or neuter deed to take or make, what is not given. And if associating with bad friend, who lead you and advice you to have no shame, you suffer a long time. (How can one not even stick to basics teach such as Vipassana...)
You people are not aware of how less goodnessis left and of how less dhammadana accures in this world, used to steal and buy Dhamma. That's really foolish and crazy and great poorness is really already right. You can walk the way of demanding nd claiming this or that and do you "social", "communist" revolution of those out of any merits. But there you are and from there it goes more and more down, having upanissaya and maintaining it to bad friend.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other wordily gain.]


text:
Sutta Reference
In the book "Be An Island" by Ayya Khema, the following section can be found in a chapter discussing the benefits of solitude:

"... Once the Buddha went to a village where nobody had any faith in
  him. Nobody in the village paid any attention to him, and he received no
  alms food at all. He went to the outskirts and sat down on a bit of straw
  and meditated. Another ascetic, who saw that the Buddha had not received
  any food, commiserated with him: “You must be feeling very bad, not
  having anything to eat. I’m very sorry. You don’t even have a nice place to
  sleep, just straw.”
The Buddha replied, “Feeders on joy we are. Inner joy
  can feed us for many days ...”.

Unfortunately there are not any references to the story in the book.
Would anyone happen to know the sutta reference?
Thank you for your time.

SN 4.18 strikes me as similar to that story:

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling among the Magadhans at the brahmin village of Pañcasala. Now on that occasion the gift-festival of the young people was being held at the brahmin village of Pañcasala. Then, in the morning, the Blessed One dressed and, taking bowl and robe, entered Pañcasala for alms. Now on that occasion Mara the Evil One had taken possession of the brahmin householders of Pañcasala, inciting in them the thought, “Don’t let the ascetic Gotama get alms.”
Then the Blessed One left Pañcasala with his bowl just as cleanly washed as it was when he entered it for alms. Then Mara the Evil One approached the Blessed One and said to him: “Maybe you got alms, ascetic?”
“Was it you, Evil One, who saw to it that I didn’t get alms?”
“Then, venerable sir, let the Blessed One enter Pañcasala a second time for alms. I will see to it that the Blessed One gets alms.”
The Blessed One:
“You have produced demerit, Mara,
  Having assailed the Tathagata.
  Do you really think, O Evil One,
  ‘My evil does not ripen’?
“Happily indeed we live,
  We who own nothing at all.
  We shall dwell feeding on rapture
  Like the devas of Streaming Radiance.”
Then Mara the Evil One … disappeared right there.


text:
Attitude Towards Speculation and Fantasy
I'm experiencing a lot of speculative thoughts and fantasizing about the future when I'm going about my day. I'm wondering whether I should attempt to deny these thoughts, or merely let them arise without judgment. I'm also wondering whether engaging in concentrative breathing meditation will reduce this thoughts in the rest of the day, and whether the arising of these elements or other negative elements such as anger, lust, hatred, pride and narcissism can impede spiritual progress.
I think the main question is: should one allow such thoughts non-judgmentally, even if they are delusional, or should one reduce them e.g. via the breath. The speculative and fantasy related thoughts seem to take my time, and so I wonder how one can let these thoughts arise in non-judgment without detrimental effects.

There are two methods to reduce thoughts:
(1) Wisdom method, which is replacing unwise thoughts with wise thoughts. This will reduce the thoughts & build the wisdom that stops the re-arising of such thoughts in the future. Examples of wise thoughts are exactly what you have posted, which is thinking to yourself: "These fantasies are delusional & are a waste of time".
(2) Concentration method, which is to use the breath to feel calmness. When the mind feels calmness, it will not be inclined to think unnecessary thoughts.
Before the Buddha attained enlightenment, he generally used the wisdom method to reduce his unbeneficial thoughts (refer to MN 19). This is called 'yoniso manasikara' or 'wise reflection'.
The mind is difficult to know clearly & manage therefore this is a task we each much learn. The Dhammapada states:

33. Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft, even so the discerning man straightens his mind — so fickle and unsteady, so
  difficult to guard.
36. Let the discerning man guard the mind, so difficult to detect and extremely subtle, seizing whatever it desires. A guarded mind brings
  happiness.

In your situation, the wisdom method is probably the best method since you ask lots of questions here about meditation, which shows you probably need to know your mind more.
As for 'non-judging', the Pali suttas do not really teach the practise of 'non-judging' towards unbeneficial thoughts. In addition, fantasies themselves are 'judgmments'. Therefore, if the mind was really abiding in 'non-judgment', it would not be fantasizing about the future.

{The speculative and fantasy related thoughts seem to take my time}
The reason why they do take your time is because you indulge in them.
You get carried away by these thoughts, you create more out of them.
That's what happens when we are not aware.
As soon as unbeneficial, unskillful thoughts arise, do observe them as they are. They will simply remain at the preconceptual level, they will then disappear. All of this takes place very quickly.. hence the importance of continuous mindfulness.
In reality they are merely thoughts, not you, not yours, they do not belong to anyone. They arise depending on causes and conditions.
You don't have to cling to them.
It is simply about not performing any action, not producing, not constructing.
---- The Buddha instructed thus:
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized.
Then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." - Ud 1.10 ----
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
If you wish to take the samatha path, first, so that in time you will be able to use it for insight, you will need to train very diligently until the developement of the Jhanas.
It can take many years, sooner or later you will have to practice samatha in a retreat setting as well. It is a very good way, alas quite difficult unless you renounce the lay life and meditate, day and night.
Until then, you should put emphasis on being mindful, aware, alert, here and now. "When something appears to consciousness, whatever it is, do observe and know it as it is"

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche called this "idiot democracy". Being impartial/nonjudgemental towards bullshit is not kusala (conducive to good results). You should definitely make effort to overcome speculation, fantasy, inner monologue, negativity, and other non-productive states of mind.


text:
Noises in Meditation
How detrimental are noises in meditation? I don't live alone and the people I live with often watch TV or make noise in other ways. Should I seek somewhere peaceful to meditate or is there a way to deal with the noise otherwise?

Noise is not necessarily a bad thing; some people choose to meditate with their eyes open, it allows them to enter a meditative state without relying on reduced vision. People also do walking meditation where there is a lot more touch involved and this can be a help in bringing meditation into daily living.
Of course there are still a lot of people who seek out quiet places where they can sit still with their eyes closed. You have to find what's right for you.
The trick to dealing with distractions is to not see the distraction as a problem, don't become averse to the distraction because the only real problem is your reaction to the distraction.

It's best to find a quiet place where you can meditate and get as comfortable as possible, it's easier to find peace when there are fewer external factors involved but that's not always possible. The whole idea of meditation is to let go, the noise will always be there and you should just let it be. If it does annoy or disturb you in any way, try to welcome this feeling and ask yourself why are you feeling this way. For someone who is new to meditation, noise can be pretty hard to ignore and you should not struggle to ignore it, over time it will lose its power.
You can also play some environmental music on your headphones such as nature sounds or binaural beats while you are meditating. What's important is that you stick to your meditation routine and not use the noise as an excuse not to meditate.
I often find noise quite helpful, because noise makes you fell a certain way and then you have another feeling that you can simply feel.

In Kantaka Sutta, Buddha used "thorn" instead of detrimental.

"...To one in the first jhana, sounds are a thorn. To one in the second jhana, thinking and examining are a thorn. ..."

if noise perception (sanna in noise) or recognizing that noise has occurred, best to let go of it as fast as you can and go back to perception of breathing. Don't latch on to it.
Kantaka Sutta

I tried to accept the noise as it is. But in my case it often goes beyond 50 dB which is typically what a normal human physiology can tolerate. I do not struggle with my mind which keeps remembering that the nois is indeed beyond normal physiological tolerance levels. I go elsewhere.

Get soundproof headphones. Unless you are a very experienced meditator, I find too much noise will just end up frustrating you.


text:
Why did the buddha teach the mahayana?
I know that the standard Mahayana claim about the Theravada canon is that he needed to teach it for those who were not ready to accept the Mahayana. But do all Buddhas have to teach the four noble truths, etc., as they appear in Theravada? Or will / have some Buddhas taught only (their own) enlightenment?

I'm asking because I'm confused: whether or not it's logical to be! How can there be a Buddha without Arhants?
If some or all Buddhas teach an enlightenment without Arhants, who in turn teach an enlightenment without Arhants, how this is any different to Arhantship, just under a different name?

i suppose that the question in the title is a bit off given that there's only one vehicle, but something there is confusing me

Not all scholars accept that there is only one final vehicle. Anyway, by "enlightenment" (you yourself placed quotes), do you mean path?

@TenzinDorje hey thanks for the comment. 'path' or 'realisation of path', i guess either works?

The title ("Why did the buddha teach the mahayana?") doesn't seem to match the question ("Do all Buddhas have to teach the four noble truths?"), therefore I'm not sure what the question is. I find it clear if the title is a summary of the question, or repeats the question.

@ChrisW any better?

The Noble Truths do not belong in one teaching and not in another. The subtlety for Mahayana compared to Theravada may be that the first Truth would be conventional only. The path to the cessation of suffering would be the process of discovering that for an ultimate view there is no suffering or anyone to suffer. But afaik all traditions accept the Noble Truths. I feel @santa100 sums up the situation in his or her answer.

Why did the Buddha teach the mahayana? No, He did not teach Mahayana. Nor did He teach Theravada, Sarvastivada, Pudgalavada, etc. and the 18 or so schools that splitted from His original Teaching/Dhamma after His passing away. Fortunately for us, all the different schools still share the same "core" regarding the Discourses and Discipline: 3 characteristics, 4NT, 5 Precepts, 8NP, 12DO, etc. Of course there're certain doctrinal disagreements among the schools which is expected and unavoidable but if one sticks to those pillars of teaching, one'd find out that they have a lot more in common than difference.

Theravada teaches the path to individual enlightenment. Mahayana teaches the path to save all sentient beings, as follows:

"Not until the hells are emptied will I become a Buddha; not until
  all beings are saved will I certify to Bodhi."
"Beings are numberless, I vow to save them. Desires are inexhaustible,
  I vow to end them. Dharma gates are boundless, I vow to enter them.
  Buddha's way is unsurpassable, I vow to become it."
Bodhisattva Vows

No person has ever saved all sentient beings or emptied the hells, including any Buddhas. It would be expected a Buddha would teach what is possible & achievable. A person that has not completed their Path cannot be a Buddha.

i downvoted cos you make the same unsubstantiated argument whenever i mention the mahayana, which isn't helpful. if you want to make the point, do it in a q&a format on your own question. no offence meant

Thanks but my argument is not "unsubstantiated". Instead, my point of view is 100% substantiated because for the last 2,600 years, since the start of the existence of Buddhism, there has never ever been a time when all beings have been saved/liberated.I would suggest you think deeply about the truth of what you think & write, particularly about other people. What I wrote is the 100% truth. It is best to not accuse others of not speaking the truth or speaking factually when they do so. Kind regards

you are mistaken if you think that you have disproven the mahayana tradition so easily. think about what you say, how you are just another insignficant person who probably hasn't even studied the mahayana much. you are not breaking new ground, and you have no secret proof that the mahayana is bunk. and if you're not saying that the mahayana is impossible then why do you keep repeating your formula

I know that the standard Mahayana claim about the Theravada canon
I'm not sure that it's "about the Theravada canon".
I don't know what you're referring to but if you look at The Jewel Ornament Of Liberation, for example, the introduction (Part 1) identifies five "families":

Disconnected -- no concern for
  what others think, no modesty, no compassion, and so forth
Indefinite -- might join the Hearer or Solitary Realizer or a Mahayana, depending on what kind of master they meet or what texts they study
Hearer -- The family of Hearers consists of those who fear samsara and yearn to achieve nirvana, but who have little
  compassion. It has been said:
One who is afraid upon seeing the suffering of samsara
  And yearns to achieve nirvana
  But has little interest in benefitting sentient beings—
  These three are the marks of the Hearer family
Solitary Realizer -- similar to hearer except also,
Little compassion, arrogance,
  Secretive about their teachers, and enjoying solitude—
  A wise one should understand that these are the marks of the Solitary Realizer family
Mahayana family

I think it's worth noting that the Mahayana is not being contrasted here with Theravada.
One tradition associated with Bodhisattva vows teaches that disparaging others is a downfall.

It is very risky for Mahayana practitioners to think that the Mahayana teachings are the highest, the most complete or advanced teachings and that the other teachings such as those of the Theravadin are lower or incomplete. Having such a feeling is really a very heavy negativity.
  When the Buddha taught these different liberation vehicles he did not teach that the Individual Liberation vehicle is the starting point, the Mahayana vehicle is in the middle and Vajrayana is the completion. He taught according to people’s different mental dispositions and we must understand it in that context. No one system is ‘better’, ‘higher’ or ‘more advanced’ than the others.
  Of course, in order to understand teachings such as the Vajrayana, an understanding of the Bodhisattva teachings on emptiness and bodhicitta is needed because there is a strong link between them and the entire Vajrayana practice is designed to make the Bodhisattva path quicker. It is very important not to have a notion that some teachings are lower or inferior to others.

Perhaps it's less to do with what the canons are, and more to do with how you relate with other people.
But do all Buddhas have to teach the four noble truths, etc., as they appear in Theravada?
The only thing I've read on that subject (i.e. about the teaching of "all Buddhas") are these verses of the Dhammapada:

On one occasion, Thera Ananda asked the Buddha whether the Fundamental Instructions to bhikkhus given by the preceding Buddhas were the same as those of the Buddha himself. To him the Buddha replied that the instructions given by all the Buddhas are as given in the following verses:
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 183: Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.
Verse 184: The best moral practice is patience and forbearance; "Nibbana is Supreme", said the Buddhas. A bhikkhu does not harm others; one who harms others is not a bhikkhu.
Verse 185: Not to revile, not to do any harm, to practise restraint according to the Fundamental Instructions for the bhikkhus, to be moderate in taking food, to dwell in a secluded place, to devote oneself to higher concentration - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.

I personally see the four noble truths as central; but I think this question showed that they're not a doctrine that make sense to everyone, and the answers to that question show that there are different aspects of Buddhism that different people consider central.
This set of lists suggests that even only within the Theravada canon, the doctrine is more than the four noble truths (or it's sometimes summarized as doctrine simpler than the four noble truths).

in no way am i disparaging anyone, i find that a strange almost disparaging thing to imply. and nowhere did i say that theravada only teachs the 4 noble truths, so why do you seem to want to correct me on that

@ChrisW I found this answer is very comprehensive, don't know why it's downvoted. I can only +1 to cancel out the -1 but it should be more. In fact the questioner seems confused in his own questions...

"I know that the standard Mahayana claim about the Theravada canon is that he needed to teach it for those who were not ready to accept the Mahayana. "
This is a skillful means explanation to a very long issues spanning centuries.
First of all you need to be aware of the Abhidhamma:

The Abhidhamma Pitaka is a detailed scholastic reworking of material
  appearing in the Suttas, according to schematic classifications.

The narrative:

Tradition[4] holds that the Buddha thought out the Abhidhamma
  immediately after his enlightenment then taught it to the gods some
  years later.

The facts

Scholars, however, generally date the Abhidhamma works to originating
  some time around the third century BCE, 100 to 200 years after the
  death of the Buddha. Therefore, the seven Abhidhamma works are
  generally claimed by scholars not to represent the words of the Buddha
  himself, but those of disciples and scholars

The debate

As the last major division of the canon, the Abhidhamma Pitaka has had
  a checkered history. It was not accepted as canonical by the
  Mahasanghika school[dubious – discuss][2][10] and several other
  schools[dubious – discuss].[11] Another school included most of the
  Khuddaka Nikaya within the Abhidhamma Pitaka.[2] Also, the Pali
  version of the Abhidhamma is a strictly Theravada collection, and has
  little in common with the Abhidhamma works recognized by other
  Buddhist schools.[12] The various Abhidhamma philosophies of the
  various early schools have no agreement on doctrine

The Early Mahayana sutras

Several scholars have suggested that the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, which
  are among the earliest Mahāyāna sūtras,[17][18] developed among the
  Mahāsāṃghika along the Kṛṣṇa River in the Āndhra region of southern
  India.[19]
The earliest Mahāyāna sūtras to include the very first versions of the
  Prajñāpāramitā genre, along with texts concerning Akṣobhya Buddha,
  which were probably written down in the 1st century BCE in the south
  of India.[20][21] Guang Xing states, "Several scholars have suggested
  that the Prajñāpāramitā probably developed among the Mahāsāṃghikas in
  southern India, in the Āndhra country, on the Kṛṣṇa River."[19] A.K.
  Warder believes that "the Mahāyāna originated in the south of India
  and almost certainly in the Āndhra country."[22]

Prajñāpāramitā

Prajñāpāramitā is a central concept in Mahāyāna Buddhism and is
  generally associated with the doctrine of emptiness (Shunyata) or
  'lack of Svabhava' (essence) and the works of Nagarjuna. Its practice
  and understanding are taken to be indispensable elements of the
  Bodhisattva path.

So why is all this important to the question?
It is because the Mahayana started out to counter the ontological claims presented in the Abhidhamma of various early Buddhist schools. You first need to understand the fundamental of the teachings before you can point out the issues within the teachings.
Many people including scholars and practitioners find Prajñāpāramitā sutras to be incomprehensible, even labeling it crazy wisdom.
However it is ultimately the application of dependent origination even to the attainments themselves. This verse by Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhyamaka Karika is the key to unlocking this understanding.

All dharmas that arise from causes and conditions,
I call them emptiness.
They are also provisional names,
And also the Middle Way.

The Chinese text

眾因緣生法，我説即是空；
亦為是假名，亦是中道義。

What Nagarjuna is saying, is that because all dependent originated phenomenon are due to causes and conditions, by their very conditionality they are impermanent and without self. As stated by the Buddha.

Pratītyasamutpāda
"When this is, that is;
This arising, that arises;
When this is not, that is not;
This ceasing, that ceases."

Therefore because things are impermanent and without a true lasting self. He call them 'empty'.
However the term 'emptiness' is also just a convenient label, because it does not fully explain the complexity of the phenomenon and all the causes that made up something. To say something is 'empty' is that it ultimately lacks an underlying 'essence', but does not mean that it does not exist but that it does not truly exist.
This is therefore the Middle Way between Eternalism and Annihilationism. To be annihilationist is to say nothing exists and that there are no causes for anything to occur. This isn't the definition of emptiness as used by Nagarjuna. It is because there are causes, there are outcomes, but because they are made up of causes, there are also impermanent, hence is not Eternal.
So whenever you come across a text like the following:

Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is form.
Heart Sutra

Your should consider the meaning of emptiness.
Form is dependently generated, Dependent origination is form.
Form is impermanent, Impermanence is form.
Form is without self, Without self is form.
So the question would be, why did Mahayana Buddhist Nagarjuna rephrase what is already a known Buddhist concept into 'emptiness'.
It because of what they perceived as the reification of Buddhist teachings in the Abhidhamma by schools, recall that even in modern Theravada teaches that Nibbanna is unconditioned, a deathless dimension, and that the Arahants are perfect etc.
Nagarjuna denies such permanence and eternalism.
This is why it is stated:

There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever.

Because wisdom is itself conditioned (by the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path), and therefore wisdom too is impermanent. Hence the fruit of Four Stages of Attainment (Stream Entry, Once Returner, One Returner, Arahantship are too impermanent).
It is not saying that there wisdom does not exist or the fruits of the contemplative life does not exist. They do exist, but like everything else are impermanent and not self.
Nagarjuna is breaking our attachments to the attainments within the very Dharma itself! Even Nirvana itself is impermanent! The end of suffering as is suffering is caused and conditioned and is impermanent! This is the meaning of non-duality in Mahayana Buddhism. It is not that wisdom and ignorance is the same. It is because they are both ultimately impermanent and cannot be permanently separated.
As you can see you first need to know what is there, such as the attainment of wisdom, the ending of suffering before you can come back and let go of even the attachments to those things. A person with no experience in Buddhism hearing 'emptiness' will either recoil with horror or become dangerously nihilistic increasing his own delusion. Even in the early Buddhist canon stated that the Buddha taught the results and rewards of good actions to lay people, encouraging them to be generous, and assuring them that they will reap the fruits of their actions. To more advance practitioners he cultivates their concentration and wisdom, finally pointing out that things are impermanent and not self. You need to know the basic goal of becoming enlightened before you realize there is never an end to the practice.

No person has ever saved all sentient beings or emptied the hells,
  including any Buddhas. It would be expected a Buddha would teach what
  is possible & achievable. A person that has not completed their Path
  cannot be a Buddha.

As pointed out, no person can ever be 'perfectly' enlightened either. The Mahayana Buddhists know their goal is not truly possible just as even the goals of the Theravada - extinction of rebirth is not truly possible.

If some or all Buddhas teach an enlightenment without Arhants, who in
  turn teach an enlightenment without Arhants, how this is any different
  to Arhantship, just under a different name?

In truth the names Bodhisattvas, Arhats, Buddhas are merely labels. But the distinction is the connotations that each term refers to. Arahant implies an end state to the practice. Bodhisattvas indicates that there are actually no end state, hence you can have an unenlightened bodhisattva as most beings are, or a Great Bodhisattva with immense practice. A 'Buddha' implies 'perfection' even as there is no real perfection.

[b]"As pointed out, no person can ever be 'perfectly' enlightened either. The Mahayana Buddhists know their goal is not truly possible just as even the goals of the Theravada - extinction of rebirth is not truly possible."[/b] If your above sentence is correct, then Buddha must be lying to us... again, same here [b]"A 'Buddha' implies 'perfection' even as there is no real perfection"[/b]

Don't go around saying Buddha is lying to us. It's bad karma and you are only increasing your own delusion.

Hello honourable Yinxu, you think that you are correct?! Therefore, the buddha must be wrong?!! You can't even read the meaning of my comment.

You don't understand my post either. Honestly your sentence isn't well structured so it's hard to tell that you were being sarcastic. And sarcasm isn't Right Speech. The Buddha is correct, as the Diamond sutra would say: There is no perfection, that is why it's called perfection.

"The Buddha is correct, as the Diamond sutra would say: There is no perfection, that is why it's called perfection." (terrible english translation). So Honourable Yinxu, you think your speech = the Diamond Sutra, therefore you can write "A 'Buddha' implies 'perfection' even as there is no real perfection"??! You can't even read the Diamond Sutra. It's horrible for someone to go around saying you 'make' "bad karma"... worst some even said 'you will go to Narakas' when they are disagreed... OK. This is my last comment on yours. I choose to avoid entanglement. Thank you for your response.

@Bhumishu Enlightenment is very possible. You have no faith for the great vow?

Why did the buddha teach the mahayana?

Because Buddha knows that there are ready students for the Mahayana; same as there are ready students for the Theravada; same for Hinayana. As A BUDDHA, HE is able to teach any truth/doctrine. The Four Noble Truths is one of the fundamental teachings in Mahayana, it's not exclusive for Theravada only. If you read the Lotus Sutra (translated by Kumarajiva into Chinese), a chapter told that this Lotus Sutra was taught in the previous-previous sermon by the previous-previous Buddha. Buddha Prabhutaratna (many-treasures), the Buddha who had entered Nirvana eons of kalpas ago, appeared, and sat together with Buddha Shakyamuni inside the Prabhutaratna Stupa for this sermon of the Lotus Sutra...
Another chapter used a metaphor, to "lure" the sons leaving the burning house, the rich father said there were vehicles adorned with treasures drawn by cows, deers and etc waiting at the entrance. In fact, the father would like to give all the sons the great vehicles with most of the treasures because he was very very rich and loving.
Since all beings are the buddha-to-be; and was in essence a buddha, thus maybe you would give teaching in the time-to-be, it would be the same truth but told in the way that dictated by your audiences ;)

I completely what if answer. What if the 'mind stream' only truly makes sense when someone says that svabhava exists. And the mahayana is to realign that into 'buddha nature', awareness etc..
So the Buddha had to teach non mahayana doctrine so that sentient beings could recognize what is later revealed as lacking substance.

Buddha did not teach either Mahayana nor Theravada. There is no Theravada Canon, it is the Pali Canon, and it is canonical for all Buddhists. However, the difference is that Mahayana treats later Sutras as canon, Theravada treats commentary and Abhidhamma as canonical, differently than in other schools. The difference between the two is which apocryphal literature is accepted.
There is a significant difference between a Buddha and an Arahant. Arahant can still carry wrong views from their past due to ignorance. This can happen with the equivalent Bodhisattvas-to-be on the Mahayana path as well. A Buddha has comprehensive knowledge and right view.
So I encourage you to explore basic doctrine and see which makes the most sense to you, and follow that. A teacher and Sangha might help too.

Hi! I think it is not possible to say that both Mahayana and Theravada accept the whole Pāli Canon. One of the suttas in the PC states that the Buddha left nothing important about dukkha and its cessation as a mystery, while the Mahayana sutras state that part of the Buddha's teaching was only taught to his more advanced disciples. I think both proposition contradict each other.

i believe that most mahayana buddhists use a slight variant on the pali canon, the sutras of a different early school

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


text:
Have any notable Buddhists commented on Krishnamurti's teachings?
Have any important Buddhists made any claim/s about Krishnamurti's teachings? Especially (caveat I know nothing about this) his claim that

"Tell them there is nothing to understand"

Bold emphasis is mine.
or

He claimed that the demand for enlightenment was the only thing
  standing in the way of enlightenment itself, if enlightenment existed
  at all.

Why don't you list some of his specific teachings with your question. Thanks

hey @Dhammadhatu i don't know enough to list them. it would defeat the object of my question to do so anyway, which is about his teachings as a monolithic thing

fwiw, i personally, probably, believe that there likely will be something to understand. but that's just my two cents, i don't practice buddhism etc.

I have edited the question with some teachings and videos.

I deleted the list of teaching and videos. I think that his teachings don't claim to be Buddhist, so they're not on-topic on this site. If a Buddhist teacher has compared them with Buddhist teaching, that might be on-topic (i.e. they might tell you about Buddhism).

Apparently there is nothing to say because Krishnamurti was teaching Advaita and not Buddhism? Two different ways to get to the same goal?

@nocomprende I'm tempted to close this as off-topic (because the subject isn't Buddhism), except however that I think there are parallels between Krishnamurti's doctrine and some forms of Buddhism. OTOH the form of Buddhism that it's closest to may be Zen (see also your flower/sermon) and apparently one can't count on Zennists to say a whole lot.

@ChrisW i would say don't close it as we do have some answers which are ok at least. apologies if the question is worded strangely btw!

@ChrisW I was not saying off-topic, only that Buddhists might not have ever commented on something that they don't teach, so there is nothing to report? Do Buddhists say much about running, or art therapy? But then Krishnamurti himself said there is nothing to say, so why should anyone say anything? It would be wrong to say anything in that case.

There are two Krishnamurtis and this question is ambiguous as to which one it's asking about (except the link that leads to UG who is the more controversial of the two). This resulted in people answering about either one they assumed it was about. Closing the question as I don't think it can be fixed at this point.

I have read a remark by Ajahn Sumedho on Krishnamurti. I don't recall much of the details. But I can tell you that Krishnamurti 's teachings are different from Buddhism, although he has practiced Vipassana himself.
Edit: My answer relates to Jiddu Krishnamurthi, not U. G. Krishnamurthi. I am unfamiliar with U.G.

Sometimes you hear monks or nuns or lay people here saying, 'Don't attach to anything.' So we attach to the view that we shouldn't be attached! 'I'm not going to attach to Ajahn Sumedho; I can learn from anybody. I'm going to leave, just to prove I'm not attached to Venerable Sumedho.' Then you're attaching to the idea that you shouldn't be attached to me, or that you've got to go away to prove that you're not attached – which isn't it at all. That's not being wise, is it? You're just attaching to something else. You may go to Brockwood Park and hear Krishnamurti' and then you think – 'I'm not going to attach to those religious conventions, all that bowing, Buddha images, monks and all that stuff. Krishnamurti says it is all poppycock: "Don't have anything to do with it, all that is useless." ' So you attach to the view that religious conventions are all useless, and you shouldn't have anything to do with them. But that's also an attachment, isn't it? – attachment to views and opinions – and if you attach to what Krishnamurti says, or you attach to what I say, it's still an attachment.
Ajahn Sumedho
You can be attached to the idea of not being attached. Krishnamurti, for example, would always emphasise not to be attached to anything. He would say, 'Monks, this is all wrong. Religion, monks, all this is wrong. It's not the way.' Then people listening to that would attach to his view, and they weren't aware of the attachment they had to Krishnamurti's view. So the problem is not the view, but the attachment. A view is a view. You can see if you're attached to a view, for or against it. Then the actual practice is to not being attached to any view, and you are very much investigating what's going on.
Ajahn Sumedho

Edit: I added a separate answer on U. G. Krishnamurthi.

Nonattachment is good. Wait...

Wait, is this UG Krishnamurti you are talking about or Jiddu Krishnamurti?

The question asked about UG Krishnamurti. The Krishnamurti associated with Brockwood Park is Jiddu Krishnamurti. So this answer cannot be right.

Oh yes, I thought the question was about Jiddu Krinamurthi.

@sandeepani thanks for the edit suggestion :). i've not done my own reading on 'Theosophical Society helped "uprising" (I think you meant reviving) Buddhism in countries such as Sri Lanka in Colonial British era thus i will refer to your saying. Also your answer reminded me I have to state my answer is on Jiddu, not U. G.

@ Bhumishu 米殊, you are welcome :).

I have not found anything about "Buddhists" saying anything about UG Krishnamurti. UG Krishnamurti was too low key anyway to take a "religion" seriously and for any "eminent Buddhists" to think about him. Perhaps the "Buddhists" here can offer some opinion(of course that would just make the site go on).
There's one thing I'd like to add here. UG Krishnamurti will not come off as a gentle man when he speaks and he speaks very controversially about other religions and religious leaders. People may not like it but he didn't care about it either.

I only just read the title, and try to answer.

Have any notable Buddhists commented on Krishnamurti's teachings?

I think Jiddu Krishnamurti (not U. G.) is not particularly being concerned by any Buddhist. If you don't ask this question, this is not really a dish that's waiting to be served. This dish may even not exist.
From past material I read, he was "chosen" by the Theosophical Society and groomed to be a spiritual leader, later he rebelled. Theosophical Society one of the founders was Helena Blavatsky who had learnt something from the Tibetan Lama, thus formulated her theory about the 5/7(?) races, the Atlanteans, Lemurians... and the Aryans are the supreme race... her theory later was adopted by Hitler... then we will have to go on analyzing the hands playing in the dark under the table, the world history and wars how these happened... OK. Pause.
According to @sandeepani:
The Theosophical Society has helped the reviving of Buddhism greatly during the British Colonial Era in Sri Lanka and elsewhere. But their teachings were somewhat different still (a lot of mythical interest and combining religions), which caused many Buddhist members to leave it in later years.
If you are seeking to nourish your spirit, your inner life, my advice is to seek pure, pristine teachings from great teachers.

After investigating the Wikipedia page and other sources on U. G. Krishnamurthi, it was possible to came up with some ideas about him. He seems to have had Uchchedavadi like ideas. For e.g. there is no enlightenment, there is no mind, no need for medicine etc. He also expresses the idea that there is no self, which sounds like a Buddhist view, but we must recall that in Brahmajala Sutta, the Buddha has mentioned that, the belief in the existence of a being and non-existence of a being are both extremes.

Are there beings spontaneously reborn?
Are there no beings spontaneously reborn?
Is it that there both are and are not beings spontaneously reborn?
Is it that there neither are nor are not beings spontaneously reborn?

What is really found is a result of causes that appear and disappear in the form of Pancaskandha (Five aggregates). These aggregates do not belong to a mine, thus they are Anatta.

I am not sure if the transformation UG was claiming was sophist propaganda or new age enlightenment or what....I find his style to be quite unorthodox and he has too many homemade videos. However I like his general apocalyptic sensibility. He even called Buddha an a**hole once..I am sure he was against philosophical dualism, and he was always...but I am too under the impression he was working for Mara to think it’s all good
EDIT: was also saying the question is born from the answer...quite often true
EDIT:  he also spoke of something coming from the background, but i can't recall the context now.  it resembles the past, no?  the here and now that escaped into the past, but he calls it background perhaps?

i was meh today...buddha-nature is not not meh...


text:
In what ways have Buddhists responded to the apparent impossibility of saving all sentient beings?
In what ways have Buddhists responded to the apparent impossibility of saving all sentient beings?
Do they claim that it isn't impossible, or only need be partially achieved, or that not all Buddha's took this vow, or what?

No Buddha takes such a vow according to Theravada Buddhism. Are you expecting an answer from Mahayana?

@SankhaKulathantille would be great to answer with that. i don't mind

in my answer i would guess that as bodhi is a function of bodhicitta the understanding of te vow changes with enlightenment. but i can't find any sourses that say this explicitly, so...

From the Mahayana viewpoint, the mind of enlightenment is the wish to achieve buddhahood in order to benefit all sentient beings. It is true we also often say "to set them in enlightenment" as well.
The omniscient mind of a buddha gives birth to the teachings of the buddha in that it causes him to teach us the Dharma. We say that the teachings of the buddha emanate from his omniscient mind (the wisdom truth body part of the dharmakaya). In a way, he teaches all of us but some do not have the ears to listen to him. This is merely an analogy. The meaning is that not all sentient beings have the karma to listen to the Buddha dharma but his enlightened deeds (in particular his teachings) pervade all sentient beings, just like the rays of the sun illuminate indiscriminately. However, the deeds of a buddha do not engage with all sentient beings, they are capable of doing so.
In his Commentary to Maitreya/Asanga's Great Vehicle Treatise on the Sublime Continuum (mahayanottaratantra-ratnagotravibhanga) Gyaltsab Je says:

These three can be illustrated: meditating on the path of utilizing
  the basic element results in the attainment of the dharmakaya of a
  perfect buddha whose enlightened deeds emanate and pervade to all
  sentient beings. These enlightened deeds of the dharmakaya are capable
  of engaging with sentient beings and exist exclusively for the mind
  streams of sentient beings. Because of this it is said that all
  sentient beings possess tathagata essence. This is similar in meaning
  to the Abhisamayalamkara when it says, "Because enlightened deeds are
  vast, it said that the buddha is all pervasive."

And

Illustrating the teachings of conventional and ultimate truth with
  similes gives further explanation of the term "emanate" in the line,
  "The perfect buddha body emanates. " This is because "dharmakaya
  emanates" means "dharmakaya pervades," which in turn refers to being
  pervaded by enlightened deeds, and enlightened deeds engage with all
  sentient beings by way of the speech of the tathagatas teaching the
  dharma to various disciples. The capability of the enlightened deeds
  to engage with sentient beings is always present and this is the
  meaning of "pervaded by the dharmakaya.

Additionally, according to Mahayana tenets, the continuum of a buddha is not severed. His enlightened deeds will not stop as long as one being remains in samsara.

From the beginning of-the Agama-sutra is supposed to be the oldest sutra-Buddhist sutra, but even in Agama-sutra this kind of thought is there. [It] says, Shujo muhen-"Sentient beings are numberless. I vow to save them." Wikipedia: "In Mahayana Buddhism, the bodhisattva vows to work for the relief and liberation (nirvana) of all sentient beings as long as samsara persists."

If the goal is merely to  "attain complete enlightenment for the sake/benefit of all sentient beings", this goal is no different to Hinayana Buddhism because the silent sage does not kill, steal, hurt, etc, therefore the silent sage has attained the state of benefiting all sentiment beings merely due to their impossibility of harming others.

@Dhammadhatu Except merely not harming others is not the meaning of "benefiting sentient beings" according to Mahayana. As I explained above, the meaning of "benefiting all sentient beings" according to Mahayana is "being capable of engaging with sentient beings by way of emanating enlightened deeds out of the omniscient mind [part of the dharmakaya]." One must therefore achieve the omniscient mind.

This is Hui Neng's (the Sixth Zen Patriarch) interpretation of the first of the Bodhisatta's Four Vows:

Learned Audience, all of us have now declared that we vow to deliver an infinite number of sentient beings; but what does that mean? It does not mean that I, Hui Neng, am going to deliver them.  And who are these sentient beings within our mind? They are the delusive mind, the deceitful mind, the evil mind, and such like minds-all these are sentient beings.

From 'The Platform Sutra': http://zen.thetao.info/read/platform.htm

The short answer?
You actually save all the beings in your heart. The hell within. Your demons within of anger, craving, delusion. When they are saved you are left with enlightenment.


text:
should i consider this as a hindrance in my practice
advice solicitated:i went to a wedding to perfect my mantra recitation and help around in the vedic work say,setting the "havan-kunda" etc.at night on the last day while i was sleeping in the outhouse,my sister was sleeping beside me, well aware of this fact,was in deep sleep,in my sleep i saw an arousing dream and then in a semi awake sate put my arms around her first in a brotherly way,but then lust gripped me,but i immediately retracted my hand and then went to bed..crying...my questions are...will god forgive me for my sin....moreover i did not spill my virya(semen)but i did commit a break in Brahmachari(out of the 8 breaks)so have i lost my rank of a Brahmachari ?????please help me.....(though this queation pertains to hinduism,i feel my Buddhist brothers and sisters can help)

Buddhists might like to help, but maybe cannot answer the questions which you actually asked, which were "will god forgive me for my sin?" and "have i lost my rank of a Brahmachari?" This site is meant to be for helping to answer whatever question was asked, not for advice (Answers vs Advice).

In my opinion, you have not lost your brahmacharya because your action was not intentional because your mind was in partial sleep. In Buddhism, for sin or transgression to occur, it seems there must be conscious intention.
If you want to train in discipline like a Buddhist, you should never sleep with your sister, let alone with any other female, even your mother, let alone in public, because, for a brahmacharya, nocturnal emission can happen anytime.
Buddhists do not believe in God. Sexual arousal is caused by chemicals, electrons & hormones and only enlightened beings do not have sexual arousal. Sexual arousal is 'not-self' ('anatta').
The error you made was to sleep with your sister. As a brahmacharya, you must not do this because a brahmacharya should no longer behave like an ordinary householder.

Give up Hinduism & any views of a God. Take refuge in the Triple Gem.
Yes, you break the third of the eight precepts the moment you touch someone with lustful intent. But you can retake the Eight precepts after taking refuge in the Tripe Gem.
If you wish to keep the eight precepts, avoid getting in a bed with any woman.
Avoid sleeping in the same bed with your sister in any case!
For meditation, try Patikulamanasikara or Satipattana.

(1) Nigrodha, you may think,
    ‘The recluse Gotama says this to win disciples.’ This is not so.
        Let whoever is your teacher remain as your teacher.
(2) You may think,
    ‘The recluse Gotama says this to make us fall from our rules.’ This is not so.
        Let your rules remain as your rules.
(3) You may think,
    ‘The recluse Gotama says this to make us fall from our livelihood.’ This is not so.
       Let your livelihood remain as your livelihood.
(4) You may think,
    ‘The recluse Gotama says this to make us do unwholesome things and follow unwholesome teachings.’ This is not so.
       Let what you consider unwholesome continue to be so considered.
(5) You may think,
    The recluse Gotama says this to separate us from wholesome things and wholesome teachings.’ This is not so.
        Let what you consider wholesome continue to be so considered.
—I do not speak for any of these reasons.

Udumbarika Sihanada Sutta
According to the above statement you do not have to change any of your practices and faiths. In addition to whatever practices you are doing now practice:

Morality - whatever faith system you subscribe to cannot have anything to do against morality
Mastery over the mind - no faith system would advocate being compulsive slave your of mind
Wisdom - no faith system can have anything against wisdom to know things as they are than being deluded

The above system is also systemised as the Noble Eightfold Path. As you progress in this path your faith in Buddhism will increase based on your experience of reality. The experienced reality does not change by what ever label you apply to your self. Call yourself a Hindu if you may but the Dhamma will still work. But to start with you should have some basic level of faith also otherwise you will not practice in earnest or may mix and match the techniques which might lead to undesired results.
In this instance it is difficult to  say if there was a moral transgression as it is difficult to establish if there was intention. There is ongoing a debate about this type of activity. You might want to read:

The Unconscious by Piya Tan
Conscious, preconscious, unconscious, subconscious by Piya Tan


text:
love and caring is suffering
In my point of view everything we love finally ends up with sufferings. love is a root to suffering. But in the society there are plenty of people who lead very happy and non-suffering lives with love. But the people with full of honesty mostly get cheated and suffer their lives. So why is this world seems to be unfair ? does it completely depends on our PREVIOUS BIRTH sins and merits ?

Great question, but I disagree with the "others being happy". We have a few examples where so called happy couples were having unhappy relationships. Why think of others? Is comparison not the illusion here? Should we not take care of "ourselves" first? We do. ♂

@Iresha Rubasinghe, the answer to your question lies in the story of Arahant bikkhuni Isidasi’s life before monkhood. It is best explained in one or two of the Sinhala sermons that I’ve come across. It is mentioned in the Malunkyaputta Sutta (Reject Sensuality) SAMYUTTA NIKĀYA 35:95. The story of Arahant bikkhuni Isidasi in the scriptures, is a good example of karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts. She became aware of the secret of the cause of her suffering only after she attained Arahantship. In a nutshell :

” She realized seven births prior to her current birth she had being born a male. During that life he had molested young girls. After his death he was born in hell. He suffered in hell for a considerable period of time. Next he was born a monkey. Attacked by an older monkey he was wounded. The wound festered. The festered wound did not heal for a long time and finally died after much suffering. His ‘kamma’ was not over. He was born a goat, next a cow and suffered similar fates. Thereafter he was born a human being. He was born a female. Her mother was a low caste poor servant. One day debtors took the young girl away from the mother. Her life ended thus. Finally she was fortunate to be born during the time of the Buddha and was liberated from the sufferings of ‘samsara’. Thus we all should realize that we should reform our inner selves by conforming to the Dhamma if we are to attain liberation.”

This story will help you in getting your mind in a state where it’s willing to learn, where it’s able to observe cause and effect, so you will be less judgmental, and less despondent.  Then you will love others, and you will care for others without any expectations in return. Your mind will begin to settle down. You will no longer want things to be this way or that.

That's really meaningful @Saptha. So I have another question, isn't it a good idea to become a monk/ bhikkhuni in the intention of minimising further sufferings ?

Two people that can advice you on this stay in the Mahamevnawa Monasteries for Buddhist Nuns. First  check their FB Page.
There meet two Anagaarikaas (We do not call them Bhikkunies). They were originally from Toronto- the two girls were both students of University of Toronto, their fathers were engineers. Today one goes as Anagarikaa Dhammabhashini (‘Dahama Pawasanni’ – one who explains the Dhamma). Other is Anagarika Dhamma-Dhaarini (one who Retains the Teachings).

Nice to read. Mudita! And Sadhu!

It is true that worldly love finally ends up with sufferings; that worldly forms of love is a root to suffering. The only people without suffering are enlightened people. It may appear in the society there are plenty of people who lead very happy and non-suffering lives with love but this appearance is not true.
If the people with full of honesty mostly get cheated and suffer their lives, how can such sinlessness (honesty) be the result of previous sins & merits? Such an idea is illogical.
People with full of honesty get cheated because of acts of evil people.
If I am a good person & an evil person wants to murder me, how can I stop this? I cannot.

so what can we do to deal with such hurtful situations ? how to make our mind ?

I am answering this question without having previously read other answers herein and would like to express without citing textbook references.
If I may.
Love (cause):

"I love cows, because my family had a cow, which farmed for us; it
  brought us income and thus food on the table."

Care (as a result):

"Therefore, I love to wash my cows on the field very frequently; I
  love it when passer-by come touch my cows and pet them. I think these
  beings are magnificent, which deserves love. I hate those who are
  so afraid to approach magnificent animals such as cows. What are they
  afraid of? Stupid people, oh well, oh well."

On the opposite of love (dislike/hate):

"We had a cow; my mom would milk it daily. With the milk, we'd make
  cheese, which we would sell to the locals. But one day, this cow took
  a swing with its hind legs as my mother milked it that injured my
  mother. Stupid cow, which I thought we took very well care of. Now,
  when I see on T.V. what they do to cows and bulls on Spanish T.V., I
  don't feel bad for them, given for the cow we had did to my mother."

As a result (on the opposite side of care):

"Yes, we have cows that farm for us; but who cares, these things
  would just freak out one day and hurt you, who knows? It's winter, but
  I don't care if they are let out and freeze."

Love (out of compassion):
There is none (minimized). But compassion exists, regardless of the amount of love (and/or hate/dislike) within you.
Care:
Without love or hate, one suddenly sees a clearer picture. There is no fuel (love or hate) that forces/drives you to care or abuse.
And then, you care out of compassion. Care, in my opinion, is often mistaken as a result of love.
Your caring of one thing/being, suddenly, becomes unbiased, it stems from compassion that benefits those, whom you need not to love or hate (cause) previously.
Without those attributes, your care/tending to those in need suddenly become unbiased and is thus truly beneficial/helpful.
Only then can care benefit those in need.
As for previous life (debt or gain).
We don't know it, and we wouldn't care. Compassion doesn't care.

So what's the the difference between liking a lot and love?

The moment is a good place to go birdwatching some truth , moment by moment, without anyone's assumptions about reality or truth being you or his or mine or unfair or Abercrombie...
When we approach reality this way then the world isn't unfair, it just is.
When we approach reality this way then it is easier to understand that love isn't at the root of suffering, the attachment mixed in with the love leads to suffering. Pure love sets the loved free, it doesn't strangle the loved one with a what's in it for me? attitude.