text:
Ignoring Someone as Wrongful Speech
I am in an odd situation. Someone I know, who was my friend, now seems to have developped feelings towards me. I wish to give her space, but we are in contact electronically and text. She is extremely distraught by this situation. I cannot help but feel angry when she messages me, for various reasons. I feel that sometimes, the best answer for me is to remain silent. But in doing so, she feels ignored, and suffers.
What is the best course of action in a situation like this? Is ignoring someone wrong speech in this case?

As a Buddhist, your boundaries & conduct in relationship should be clearly communicated. Just be honest with her.

There;s a sutta called "Insult" or "Abuse" i.e. SN 7.2.
I read that as the Buddha not being involved and not becoming involved in wrong speech. In the sutta the "wrong speech" was abuse (hostility) -- but I suppose that might be true of desire (attachment) or something too.
I note though that the Buddha was willing to talk to the Brahman -- and so, not exactly giving him what might be colloquially called the silent treatment. Incidentally I read a novel once with what I though was a memorable phrase -- "Silence is a text that's easy to misread" (it's not easy to understand silence and people add their own interpretations).
But not communicating when you're angry might be a good idea -- the same sutta says:

For one free of anger, tamed, living in balance,
  freed by right knowledge,
  at peace, poised:
  where would anger come from?
When you get angry at an angry person
  you just make things worse for yourself.
  When you don’t get angry at an angry person
  you win a battle hard to win.
When you know that the other is angry,
  you act for the good of both
  yourself and the other
  if you’re mindful and stay calm.
People unfamiliar with the teaching
  consider one who heals both
  oneself and the other
  to be a fool.

There's maybe a similar message in the Dhammapada:

One should give up anger, renounce pride, and overcome all fetters. Suffering never befalls him who clings not to mind and body and is detached.
He who checks rising anger as a charioteer checks a rolling chariot, him I call a true charioteer. Others only hold the reins.
Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth.
Speak the truth; yield not to anger; when asked, give even if you only have a little. By these three means can one reach the presence of the gods.
Those sages who are inoffensive and ever restrained in body, go to the Deathless State, where, having gone, they grieve no more.

You say she was a friend, was there any virtue in that relationship? Might it be possible to re-establish, to agree on, a virtuous relationship?
One of the things I noted from this answer was,

Find wise people who cause no fear or worry

Maybe that's something to aspire to, with friends as well as (or instead of) with a marriage partner -- i.e. try to "cause no fear or worry" (and ask that from your friends).
I think that Buddhism has more-or-less four levels of behaviour, from worse to better:

Harming yourself and others
Benefiting others and harming yourself
Benefiting yourself and not benefiting others
Benefiting yourself and others

I'd think that typically silence isn't wrong speech -- and is, presumably, better than wrong speech would be -- I'm not sure whether it benefits "self and others" in this case.

One other thing is that you wrote, "she feels ignored". Relationship counselling is difficult for anyone (including me) especially at such a remote distance as this and with so little information (input) from both people involved. I think you might be right that "she feels ignored", or you not might be -- perhaps you're guessing (inaccurately), or even if she said that herself maybe it's not the most accurate or useful description. Perhaps instead, she feels misunderstood ... or deprived (of a virtuous relationship) ... or insulted somehow, I don't know
Anyway people do or can become entangled in personal relationships and it's probably a good idea to chose your friends wisely. Still if you are or were a friend then perhaps an ideal is to be the same in happiness and sorrow.

Finally I once heard that a relationship counsellor (not Buddhist, and I'm not sure he was even effective either) said, "You're not responsible for the feelings of others". I guess a Buddhist view might be that a person's feelings are their inheriting a fruit of their own karma, which is related to a doctrine of "equanimity" in a social relationship (where "equanimity" is one of the four brahmaviharas which I think are meant to guide or motivate social relationships).
I interpret that i.e, "you're not responsible", as meaning, "don't let anyone guilt-trip you into doing things" (e.g. "if you don't give me everything I ask for then you're hurting me").
There's Buddhist doctrine about "shame" -- i.e. that the ability to feel shame is beneficial, because people avoid doing shameful things (things which they should and ought to feel ashamed of) in order to avoid the feeling of shame.
I'm not sure that's the same as "guilt" though, which I think of as "I accuse you". I don't think that "I accuse you" is a skilful part of a relationship, whether she's doing that to you or whether you're doing that to her.
It reminds me, my mum and my wife were both preschool teachers, in preschools, classes for young children. Anyway I think that they tended to "guide" children's behaviour by telling them what behaviours the teachers expected, reminding them, maybe pointing out children who were behaving well (e.g. if Jane or Michael is being helpful then, "Jane, thank you for doing X" instead of "Henry you shouldn't be doing Y" or "Henry why aren't you doing X"). Apparently children are a bit, I don't know, I'd call it "random" in their  behaviour -- they try different things, don't know what's what, don't even understand themselves very well, but maybe it's inconvenient to have a relationship that's based n "negative" feedback.

I think this may not related to unwholesome speech. Just be careful and be mindful in dealing with things that trigger your anger. In few cases silent is best option. Most cases it's better to tell openly with minimum effect to the other side. But if this is not done wisely, not in proper time and place it might create mental or physical harm. Raga, Lobha, Māna, Dosa and Moha are main root cause of all being suffering. So it's hard to deal these things without Pañña. You don't like her so you clearly don't want her . From her side it's the opposite. She'll try her best to have you because she like you so much. Who knows how many times this had happened to both of you in Samara cycle. Clearly know/understand LIKE and DISLIKE. See the drawbacks and danger in them. You will slowly losing interest in them. After that you go beyond. Then you can break the cycle.

One might ignore this answers message, so be careful here!
Another try in Alice in wonderland, feeling disturbed by Alice, to excuse by asking others to confirm the votes of defilements?
Even your question here might be wrong speech, Humpty Dumpty. A good name by the way. Caught by the tricks of defilements.
If someone sends you advertising, saying "come, make a trade for it", and one knows that it would no trade for long term happiness, would he take the offer?
It's of course wrong speech (giving signs) to simply keep "others warm" thinking: " I might lose an opportunity to gain", fearing "If I show signs not going into this certain deal, he/she might stop offer at all and he/she could posssible offer this or that later on if thinking I am interested in trade."
That is why honesty comes before keeping up relations, Silas are not lower as pleasant dwelling like sheep .
On the other hand, one needs to be careful that defilement do not misuse this understanding as well. Thought of the Uposatha of the wolf. Difficult. And easy if honest to oneself first, but that is the difficult part.
See him falling from his wall?
How may good did you already tried to "kill" by ignoring it (them)? Many "Buddhists" are using abstain from giving signs as signs and as one is able to "kill trolls" one might "kill sages" by same means. Now this is not really breaking the silas (as outwardly rules) but much heavier, kamma by mind and even very deceitful.
Best wishes by an karuna, defilement's Jabberwocky
{Note: not given for trade, exchange, stackes... but only for liberation and bounds toward only this}


text:
Choosing Between Mindfulness and Compassion Meditation
Basically, I have tried for some time mindfulness meditation. I have also tried compassion meditation.
In mindfulness meditation, my mind becomes very still, with few thoughts, but outside of meditation the mind remains so. My thoughts outside of meditation are quite abstract, but I am perhaps stunted emotionally and in terms of visual images. I don't feel my mind wanders too much though.
In compassion meditation, I visualize loving-kindness and compassionate images, and I usually end up crying or feeling positive affect in my body. It is nevertheless quite difficult for me to visualize vividly.
How does one decide which type of meditation to engage in? Would both mindfulness (focused attention) and compassion generate some type of meditative concentration?

Since choice of meditation is individual, this is really a question you should ask of yourself in terms of how it helps you proceed on the N8FP. I.e., which meditation allows you to relinquish attachments and cravings? Often that meditation won't be the easiest!

In so far as your quesstion is about Meditation, I cannot say anything.
But if you were to mean Buddhist meditation, then I can say the following-
The meditation technique which Buddha taught, which is the teaching of the Buddha and the basis for all philosophical schools, is Vipassana. Other techniques serve as efficient and helpful techniques, depending on the individual. So for example, if someone is unable to meditate because they cannot concentrate their mind, they would be suggested some technique (like anapana or samatha {which in fact is considered as a pre-requisite for Vipassana by many schools}) or a skill in daily life (such as reciting a particular mantra or counting the number of beads in a mala) that would develop some concetration, which will allow them to practice vipassana. Or if a person were too obsessed with physical beauty, with lust- so much so that they cannot practice vipassana, they would be advised to meditate near the dead bodies.
Vipassana involves not only the establishing of the four-fold awareness and the insight gained from it, but also leads to one becoming more compassionate and more aware (mind-fullness). What I mean to say is that, the two aspects you have asked about, comapssion and mind-fullness are not seperate- they go hand in hand- one helps in developing the other which helps in developing the first. But it is possible that one may have some problem in developing mind-fullness or practicing compasssion. Therefore, in such cases, as per the understanding of the teacher (spiritual guide, elder monk) certain technique of meditation (like verbalization or visualization) which is not Vipassana, would be suggested in that particular case, so that the meditator can continue making progress.
Only you would know where you are in your progress and only you would know what problem you have with regards to you meditative practice. I suggest you read further literature so that you can understand in your own way of thinking and continue practicing. Do not get involved with questions to the extent that you stop meditating at all. Neither ignore the questions that have occurred to you- and if you cannot answer them, then consult a senior monk, or your guide.

My limited knowledge about compassion meditation is that it does/can generate some type of meditative concentration. Here is a little explanation of compassion meditation: http://www.oprah.com/spirit/compassion-meditation
Mindfulness gradually grows awareness(which leads to more tranquilty in a person but only after attaining high enlightenment stages it becomes permanent) and during the path it temporarily generates mind states with high awareness too.
For the first question, I think this part of the video(6:40-7:38) can be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDDY4gOexVA&feature=youtu.be&t=400
Mindfulness is the only way to gain insight, purify the mind and achieve enlightenment. If you wish you can mix your mindfulness practise with Samatha, compassion meditation or other types of meditation, but at the end only mindfulness leads a person to complete and permanent freedom from suffering.
But ofcourse it is up to the person to decide which path is more suitable for him/her.

To keep it short and simple (This is worth elaborating on):
Metta bhavana is meant for ameliorating dvesha (avsersion towards different people, or yourself).
Vipassana has multiple purposes, one of them you've already mentioned: to develop concentration. There are other purposes as well.
Not sure if it helps, but a different approach is to find a clear understanding of the problem. What type of dukkha/tanha/upadana are you looking to manage? Are you suffering from moha/raga/dvesha? Et c. Exploring these things might guide you in how to practice your meditation.

Ideally one would contemplate to rouse motivation, make effort in developing good qualities and become glad on that account.
Metta and Compassion just as Appreciation and Rejoycing can be used to rouse gladness and to establish these perspectives due to frequent giving of attention.
Therefore any amount of time dedicated to development of perceptions is great.
If one is dilligent in giving attention to these themes which are fit for reflection, one can be expected to develop good behavior and see lights & visions.
Also pondering the themes reveals the elements as one eventually 'sees the point' that is the element, as a referable factor coming into play that can be shown to be a truth of the world.
However developing concentration that leads to mindfulness & alertness is necessary to be able to maintain skillful perceptions.
So is development of pleasant abidings necessary for contentment.
Ideally one would contemplate to keep focused on developing mindfulness and the pleasant abidings.
Failing to do so one dwells in pain and is one with a painful practice; without a pleasant abiding.
If you want to develop mindfulness more that is ok if you aren't particularly cruel to yourself and others, it's impossible to tell just how cruel one is until it's (compassion) development culminates.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Emotion in Compassion Meditation
I have a very simple question. Sometimes, I visualize in compassion meditation without feeling anything for the whole session. Sometimes, I feel a lot of affect and start even crying.
Should one focus on/have the emotional sensations in compassion meditation for it to be efficient, or is visualizing -- even without emotion -- enough?

In "Awareness Itself", we read the advice given by Ajaan Fuang, as recorded by his student Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

§ A young nurse practiced meditation with Ajaan Fuang several days
  running, and finally asked him one day, "Why wasn't today's session as
  good as yesterday's?"
He answered: "Meditating is like wearing clothes. Today you wear
  white, tomorrow red, yellow, blue, whatever. You have to keep
  changing. You can't wear the same set of clothes all the time. So
  whatever color you're wearing, just be aware of it. Don't get
  depressed or excited about it."
§ A few months later the same nurse was sitting in meditation when a
  sense of peace and clarity in her mind became so intense that she felt
  she would never have a bad mood infiltrate her mind again. But sure
  enough, bad moods eventually came back as before. When she mentioned
  this to Ajaan Fuang, he said, "Looking after the mind is like raising
  a child. There will have to be bad days along with the good. If you
  want only the good, you're in for trouble. So you have to play
  neutral: Don't fall in with the good or the bad."
§ "When the meditation goes well, don't get excited. When it doesn't
  go well, don't get depressed. Simply be observant to see why it's
  good, why it's bad. If you can be observant like this, it won't be
  long before your meditation becomes a skill."
§ A student came to complain to Ajaan Fuang that she had been
  meditating for years, and still hadn't gotten anything out of it. His
  immediate response: "You don't meditate to 'get' anything. You
  meditate to let go."
§ "You should watch visions the same way you watch TV: Just watch it,
  without getting pulled inside the tube."

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


text:
Is Constant Meditation Hindering my Creativity?
I recently became more consistent with focused breathing meditation. I feel that since I practice, I tend to fall into such breath-focused meditation while walking, on public transport, etc. Yet, this type of practice is both much less focused than formal sitting, and it seems to inhibit otherwise free thought which I used for creative purposes.
Is there a drawback to constant focused-meditation?
Clearly, some times are needed to contemplate situations. How does one know how to balance focused-meditation and other types of attention?

Hi Eggman! Why are you meditating? What's the purpose of meditation in Buddhism? What is the purpose of the Noble Eightfold Path? What is the purpose of meditation in the N8P? Making those questions clear to yourself can help you answer the original question. Kind regards!

Yes, the Buddhas way or creativity, of meditation, has only one aim: to stop creativity, e.g all kinds of concentrations for becomings sake. So nothing wrong for one with right view or vision toward liberation.
What ever comes into being is a matter of the act of concentration, now this can be used, by right concentration, to gain independence, as concentration depends always on food.
So the question might more a matter of fear of independence, right, i.e doubt in the Rightly-selfawakened and meditating without having gone for a refuge?
Well it's of cause that one fears if having no refuge as base.
{note: not given for concentration, burning of food and feeds for the world, but to gain liberation by observing the Dhamma with proper attention}

According to Buddhist teaching, you become more creative when your mind is concentrated.
=========
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, & bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to whatever he wishes.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.12.0.than.html
When a mendicant has developed and cultivated mindfulness of the body, they become capable of realizing anything that can be realized by insight to which they extend the mind, in each and every case.
https://suttacentral.net/mn119/en/sujato


text:
Particular Benefit from Writing
I have noticed that when I write spontaneously, a lot of insight occurs. By this, I mean ideas flow in a manner generating many positive emotions as awe, joy, and movement.
In Buddhism, is such creative insight considered what is typically called 'insight' (e.g. insight meditation) or is the Buddhist version of insight something entirely different?

This Quora answer is an interesting story of a lady who was terrified of strange ghostly noises at night sounding like a woman wailing in pain. Later on, she figured out that this was the sound of cats mating. She gained insight into the nature of the noises, and this allayed her fear.
According to Merriam Webster dictionary entry of "insight":

Definition of insight

the power or act of seeing into a situation
the act or result of apprehending the inner nature of things or of seeing intuitively

From the ATI Glossary (below), we find that Buddhist insight (vipassanā in Pali or vipaśyanā in Sanskrit) refers to insight that leads to liberation from suffering. It's not creative insight, but it's insight into the nature of how things work.

vipassanā:
  Clear intuitive insight into physical and mental
  phenomena as they arise and disappear, seeing them for what they
  actually are — in and of themselves — in terms of the three
  characteristics (see ti-lakkhaṇa) and in terms of stress, its origin,
  its disbanding, and the way leading to its disbanding (see ariya-sacca).

From Theragatha 6.6 (quoted below), we find in poetical proses, the story of the monk Sappadasa who, 25 years after going forth and undertaking the training of the holy life, failed to achieve anything. He then was about to take his own life, when in a moment of deep concentration, suddenly had awakening insight into the nature of suffering, and became liberated.

Twenty five years since my going forth,
  and no peace of awareness
  — not a finger-snap's worth — attained.
  Having gained no oneness of mind,
  I was wracked with lust.
  Wailing, with my arms upheld,
  I ran amok from my dwelling —
  "Or... or shall I take the knife?
  What's the use of life to me?
  If I were to renounce the training,
  what sort of death would I have?"
So, taking a razor,
  I sat down on a bed.
  And there was the razor,
  placed ready to cut my own vein,
  when apt attention arose in me,
  the drawbacks appeared,
  disenchantment stood
  at an even keel:
With that, my heart was released.
  See the Dhamma's true rightness!
  The three knowledges have been attained;
  the Awakened One's bidding, done.

In the Bahiya Sutta (quoted below), we find advanced ascetic Bahiya impatiently seeking the Buddha's guidance to help him understand the truth. A short explanation from the Buddha helped him gain insight into the nature of suffering.

A third time, Bāhiya said to the Blessed One, "But it is hard to know
  for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One's life, or what
  dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One!
  Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term
  welfare & bliss."
"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."
Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed
  One, the mind of Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was
  released from effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance. Having
  exhorted Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth with this brief explanation of the
  Dhamma, the Blessed One left.


text:
Despairing About Meditative Regularity
I have set the amount of time I meditate (focused attention/shamatha) at merely 15 minutes per day. Despite this, despite all my best efforts, I seem to still skip a day or two now and then.
Why is this? Would changing the type of meditation help?
I had read positive emotions help develop a habit. When I meditate mindfully on the breath, there are no such emotions; doing compassion meditation, positive affect arises. Would this affective benefit motivate a meditative practice?

There can be several reasons.
If you are only training concentration ie; tranquilizing the breath or observing thoughts, feelings and perceptions arising and ceasing, then it is possible that you would incline to laziness because you are not cultivating perceptions which would lead to aroused effort and willingness.

If the monk intent on heightened mind were to attend solely to the theme of concentration, it is possible that his mind would tend to laziness.
  http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/03/an03-103.html
Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of unpleasantness in impermanence and abiding much in it, a keen perception of fear, for laziness, distraction, negligence and non-reflection gets established, like to a slayer with raised sword.http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/mnl/an/07_sevens/an07.046.upal.mnl.htm

You can try doing 15 minutes but cover more bases.
Perhaps experiment with something like this;

5 minutes - Inconstancy, Unpleasantness, Unattractiveness of Worlds
or Death Contemplation
5 minutes - Uplifted Energy, Appreciation, Sympathetic Joy, Metta, Equanimity or Recollection; of The Buddha, The Dhamma, The Sangha, your own virtue or Devas
5 minutes - Develop Concentration; if restless tranquilize breath
   formation and if sluggish train mindfulness observing feelings,
   thoughts and perceptions as they arise, persist and cease

Having spend a mindful day with dana, a day having begone with refuge, spend with Sila, one is able to rejoice:
Buddhanussati, 2 min remembering the Buddha
Dhammanussati, 2 min remembering the Dhamma
Sanghanusati...
Remember ones Generosity
Remember ones Virtue
Remember/reflect ones virturs equal the Devas
Having given causes, one gains concentration. Not having given causes, trying to concentrate by effort will always be just developing wrong concentration.
Useless to invest in a roof when foundation is not given.
Duties first: this is not a path for lazyness's fruits. Not the path of demanding and claims.

Observe the breath carefully - in/out - rising/falling - long/short breaths
train in the breath this way, until mindfulness is achieved. Practice:
mindfulness of the body (kaya);
mindfulness of feelings or sensations (vedanā);
mindfulness of mind or consciousness (citta); and.
mindfulness of dhammās.
As a result one should develop clarity of mind, alertness, clear thinking as a result. As the saying goes: "Cooler heads prevail" - we should develop a cooler head.
If you can't feel yourself breathing via body, sensations, mind, dhammas, then we come back to the mindfulness, regulating mindfulness to follow the breath in these four bases. Just feeling the in/out breath with body alone should be sufficient to feel the cooling effect. This is not insignificant, stay with it.
Study the suttas - Ānāpānasati - Satipaṭṭhāna
Check your practice against these texts - it should work.
Download Insight Timer for your smart phone
Load the Presets with 15 minute, 20 minute, etc. sessions
Use the unguided meditation method
track your daily, weekly, monthly progress, aiming for stability and getting established.
Or get an actual timer and a meditation bell. It's good to have a zafu. All the props do actually help. Go to sangha meetings. Over time, increase your daily sessions, the more you give, the more you get.

really, it's worth the effort to cultivate the practice enough to overcome the frustration level

Why is this?

The goal of attention meditation is to increase the length of time you can successfully focus on your meditation object (the breath) without breaking that attention. The gauge you should use for success here is not how often you meditate, but how long you hold your attention during those sessions. There is nothing wrong with skipping a day or two, for the goal is not to sit consistently. The goal is to extend the length of time you can concentrate on an object of your focus.

Would changing the type of meditation help?

If you change the type of meditation you are doing, you will be no longer cultivating your skills in concentration. If your goal is to increase your concentration abilities in order to gain insights into the true nature of experience and therefore work towards becoming enlightened, I do not suggest you switch. If your goal is not enlightenment but something else, there is no problem with you switching the type of meditation you do.

Would this affective benefit motivate a meditative practice?

If your goal is to simply sit and meditate, no matter what the type, it would make sense to switch. A type of meditation you enjoy will most likely be one that you come back to more frequently. But if your goal is to become enlightened, the type of meditation you do is very important, and I do not suggest switching. Instead, I would suggest re-examining what the goal of your sessions are, and change how you measure a successful succession of sessions.


text:
Meditating on Public Transport
I saw there was one post about mindfulness on public transport. However, I felt these posts dealt with being mindful on public transport rather than meditation. I wonder:

Is meditation itself possible/recommended on public transport?
Would the quality of such meditation, if lesser, diminish the quality of general meditative practice?

Meditating on Public Transport
Is meditation itself possible/recommended on public transport?

Proper practice revolves around an integration of mindfulness meditation into daily life. Sitting (cushion) meditation practice is meant to develop mindfulness to such a degree that it can be transferred into daily life and ultimately into constant mindfulness until one can ultimately become free from Samsara. Walking meditation is another great way of bridging ones practice into daily life.
Meditation in gradually noisier environments will be challenging but that's the idea. If one only practices at home but can't use the practice outside of ones sitting practice, then it's not beneficial.
It's beneficial to meditate everywhere and all the time.
As an example; when I have patient consultation, I'm mindful of my abdomen rising and falling with each breath, the feeling of my lips moving when talking, the sound of my own voice, the seeing that goes on when seeing a patient, the feeling of pressure from sitting on a chair, the sound of birds chirping outside etc. One object at a time.
Even though it might be difficult to practice in public transport it should be done and with time it will become effortless. Don't worry about the quality it will become refined with practice. It's like learning to shoot a bow. With time and consistent practice one will finetune the movements, reduce energy consumption and eventually be able to do it effortlessly. It's the same with meditation practice in noisy environments.
At some point the mind will begin to incline towards being mindful due to the purity and simplicity of being in the present moment. When that happens there will be a strong momentum driving the mind towards mindfulness and away from unmindfulness. At that point it begins to become effortless. One does not have to apply and direct (vitakka and vichara) the mind anymore.

Would the quality of such meditation, if lesser, diminish the quality of general meditative practice?

No, never. It will build, develop, cultivate and add to "general meditation practice".
A doctor who specializes in a field will be good but a doctor who specializes in several fields will be even better.
A fighter who specializes in one school of martial arts will be good. A fighter who specializes in several schools of martial arts will be even better.

I practice Samatha meditation when I am traveling on the plane.
If shot distance travel it is better to practice Vipassana otherwise you might miss the place to get off from the bus.
Buddhists are expected to practice mindfulness throughout the day.

I felt these posts dealt with being mindful on public transport rather
  than meditation

I don't feel like there is necessarily a distinction between being mindful and meditating. In my experience, the goal of meditation is to get insight, and the way to practice meditation is to be mindful of what happen in the present moment in the frames of reference, which are the body, the mind, feelings and dharmas.
That being said, the context and the environnement surrounding you matters a lot, and you can take advantage of that. There will not be the same kind of activity in your mind if you are on a public transport rather than in your room. There is stuff to be aware of that can happen only when you are on public transport, so don't miss your chance to get insights by being distracted !
The whole purpose of formal meditation in a quiet place is to train yourself to be able to meditate anywhere throughout your day, you have to do it otherwise you will not make any progress. As the musician knows that doing his scales everyday is necessary to make music but is not music itself, we should know that formal meditation is only a mean to an end. So to answer your questions :

Is meditation itself possible/recommended on public transport?

Yes ! Go for it any way you like.

Would the quality of such meditation, if lesser, diminish the quality
  of general meditative practice?

If you feel weird while doing it fearing what people might think of you, or unable to calm down your mind, great ! Finding out ways to relax in the present moment in these difficult conditions will enhance your ability to meditate in any situations.
Meditation is a skill that develops over time. Don't worry about the quality of your meditation. You might not feel like this is going anywhere when you meditate in awful conditions, but keep at it and you will be rewarded !


text:
Can anyone follow Buddhism if the person has had drinks & ate non-veg in the past?
Can anyone follow a Buddhist life-style or philosophy even If the person has been violent or ate non-veg in the past or has drank wine.
If yes then what are the beginner steps?

As long as a person gives up violence and drugs & alcohol, they can be a Buddhist.
The ideal step is to clearly see why violence & drugs/alcohol are harmful and do not bring happiness.
As for vegetarianism, it is not strictly Buddhist, even though it helps nurture compassion.

Yes. You can become a Buddhist, no matter what you were in the past.
In many schools of Buddhism, it is not compulsory to be a vegetarian, as long as the meat that you consume was dead (and usually frozen) long before you encountered it.
The first step is for you to understand the basics of Buddhism. You can learn the basics of Buddhism by reading the booklet "Without And Within" by Ajahn Jayasaro.
The second step is for you to take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma or Dharma (teachings of the Buddha) and the Sangha (the "ideal" monastic order of sincere enlightenment seekers). You don't need a ceremony for this. This is basically you deciding that you will trust the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha to lead you on the path to freedom.
The third step is for you to voluntarily undertake the five precepts, which are basic training rules and not prohibitions. You undertake the five precepts because you believe that they are good for you, not because you're forced to. Refraining from alcohol and drugs is the fifth precept.
If you cannot perfectly fulfill the five precepts, it's okay, but you should try your best to stick to it. If you broke a precept, don't be remorseful - just endeavour to stick to the precepts next time.
The fourth step is for you to learn more deeply about virtues (sila) in Buddhism (including Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood) and also try to follow them.
The fifth step is to deepen your Right View further, by studying the Dhamma (teachings) in detail. Please see this answer on how to proceed.

Seeing ones fault of the past (note that just eating meet is actually not harmful as long not active (by mind, speech, deeds) involved in killing, but of cause wishing or agree that beings are killed on ones desire after it, would have been), hearing the Dhamma of the Buddha, rejoicing on virtue, taking precepts, no matter how much wrong has been done in the past, wise people take refuge into the Tripple Gems (The Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha (the monastic Disciples)), and by doing so one is right on the change into another Ancestor-ship that leads upward and beyond. Just by this, if coming form pure heat, one has already grown to "be" one of the less saints in this world.
muditā
To take refuge by heart, based on joy in virtue and metta, is not at all a "beginner" step, but connected with much scarifies in the past to ever come so far and advanced Upanissaya (Paramis).
It's beloved to share the famous story of Angulimala, the serial killer in this relation.
Since not easy finding proper access for many, here also an opportunity for those in far outer-lands: Refuge and requesting Silas online.
[Note, not given for trade, exchange, stacks and other bonds in the world but for liberation]

Buddha taught "skillful means" or upaya-kaushalya, and the precept is about not killing animals for food. He said that if a monk was offered meat - that's okay. But to sacrifice an animal for the monk, he was refuse it. The general accepted practice is to never kill animals, buy meat, fish, poultry, or to prepare food with it. Not harming the animals and not supporting the harm of animals. Not all Buddhists do this, however. It is one of the precepts, but many lay followers only follow precepts for special occasions. Being a devotee, a servant to Buddha, is different and the precepts are followed. Like a monk (bhikku) or lay follower (upasaka). Or attending a retreat, pilgrimage, or similar situations. Alcohol is pretty much the same, but there's some distinction between consuming alcohol (5th precept) and being intoxicated/drunk. A drunk loses conscious control over their behavior, and is more severe that simply drinking a bit. Either way its against the precept. It is good to train ourselves in "skillful means" which reaps many benefits.

There are many types of Buddhists, with a wide range of faith and skill in the practice of the Buddha's teachings.
Many Buddhist consume alcohol and eat meat. Buddhist are not expected to consume alcohol even though many Buddhist followers consume alcohol.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=18611&p=261588&hilit=

I believe the fact that the Buddha spent his efforts teaching the path to enlightenment to the world tells us that beginning on the path is possible for anyone who honestly wishes to do so. If it was not possible, he would not have bothered to teach us the way. The only requirement seems to be the desire to start on the path and do the work. To my knowledge, he never said that anyone who was honestly seeking enlightenment was blocked from achieving it by their past. Harder for some, perhaps, but no one blocked.
By your question, you seem to show that desire. So in a manner, you seem to have already taken the first steps on that path.
As for the best way to continue, I'd suggest it might depend on the type of person you are.
If you are a 'book person' who learns by reading and studying texts, reading the suttas published in many ways (including free on the internet) might be a good way to start. (Searching this exchange for 'best texts to learn from' might also be a good way to find effective sources.)
If you are not, seek out a local monk or teacher who has a reputation as an honest and effective individual others have learned from. Due to the widespread nature of Buddhism throughout the world, you probably can find one if you look hard enough.
Personally, (and this might be controversial to some), I would not worry, at this time in your search, about the type of Buddhist teacher (Mahayana vs. Theravada vs. ?) to seek out. Unless you already have some ideas as to which you are more attracted to, that nuance you can figure out later in your learning. In my humble opinion, it is more important that you begin your general learning of the Buddha's teachings; and, not let your concern about your past stop you.
Best wishes on your journey.


text:
Addictive Withdrawal and Buddhism
It's well documented in psychology that the cessation of any type of addictive behaviour causes a period of withdrawal. During this period, less pleasure is experienced overall as well as mental difficulties.
Does Buddhist have any advice about such periods and way to help the recovery process?

What are the circumstances of the withdrawal, especially, is it voluntary ("I choose to withdraw") or involuntary (e.g. a person is imprisoned, or their opportunity for addictive behaviour is cut off, even if only temporarily)? Are you looking for advice for the patient (the addict or former addict), or their care-givers, or both?

I guess I mean more specifically not the action of withdrawing but the symptoms of a withdrawal, voluntary or not: lack of pleasure, lower mood, cravings, etc. But for the current question I would say a voluntary withdrawal.

I gave an answer about addiction and the change process. It's of course just a tiny fraction because addiction are often not easy to undo. Setting realistic goals (SMART goals) & being commited is fundamental for change.

It seems to the practice is all about overcoming addictive behaviour, including mental behaviour. The technique would be to stand apart from mind-body and simply watch with dispassion. Sages speak of sinking the body into the mind, thus reducing it to a mental phenomenon and dealing with it as such. Buddhism is surely the right tool for the job of overcoming addiction, but putting the techniques into practice would require some existing skills or a teacher. .   .  ,   .

If withdrawal (especially "voluntary") is unsuccessful, then it's better to view that as a temporary failure (not permanent), and try again: resume the effort, and avoid repeating the same mistake. With practice, more experience, you become more skilled at withdrawing (and eventually succeed).
I think experience matches conventional advice, and matches what can be inferred from the suttas.
Successful withdrawal tends to happen for one or more reasons (possibly several reasons):

You "consider the disadvantages" of addiction (or the advantages of non-addiction) -- and so decide that you prefer withdrawal or abstinence. This "preference" (even if it's only a moral or intellectual preference) might be a sufficient substitute for "pleasure" -- it's a new form of "I want" (e.g. "I want freedom and harmlessness") which replaces the old "I want" ("I want the so-called pleasure associated with the addictive behaviour, which I now see the several disadvantages of").
We're social and maybe highly-motivated to conform to social behaviour. So spending time (possibly all your time) with people who don't exhibit that behaviour can help you quit -- they're good role-models, they're not bad role-models, if you successfully imitate their (not "addictive") behaviour then you too will  be behaving that way -- and maybe we're really good at imitating who we're with, we've been learning how to imitate people since we were infants.
There are reasons for the behaviour, and/or conditions in which the behaviour occurs. If the reason disappears, and/or if the conditions change (e.g. you move to a different place or visit different people), then the old conditions no longer exist (and so the behaviour can be different too)
Substitute or replace the behaviour: maybe you can't just stop, and instead you need to do something else -- that something else (new behaviour) might be meditation or it might be sweeping the yard. Non-stressful activities might be best, at least initially (partly because you may be distracted by cravings); maybe some "mindful" activity though (to learn the new situation and behaviour), not an "escapist" activity.
Anything you do is learned behaviour, a skill which takes practice, maybe you weren't good at it to start with. If you practice (make the effort) it gets better, easier, more skilful -- maybe the hardest part is the beginning (e.g. the first day, the first few days), and the longer you do it the easier it gets.
You might find that being generous is rewarding (as a substitute behaviour), so consider that -- that might take your mind off your own (temporary) cravings and thus make "withdrawal" easier. Maybe beware though that addictive behaviour might be addictive because it's rewarding or because you're reward-seeking (e.g. pleasure-seeking); so maybe that (generosity) is behaviour to attempt when you're a little more stable (and maybe can enjoy it for its own sake and not just for immediate reward).

Also:

Cravings come and go. The craving is just a thought, "Suppose I were to now repeat that action to which I'm addicted?" It's distracting and you might need to stop (activity) and do nothing (temporarily), except breathing of course and e.g. standing still, until the craving goes away. Perhaps that's what you mean by "mental difficulties" in the OP. I think craving does go away (and come back again, and go away again).
If you don't reinforce the craving by repeating the habit then the craving returns less and less often and with less intensity. Eventually it doesn't even bother you, you stop thinking about it, and if you do ever think about it then you're glad it doesn't even bother you anymore
The addictive behaviour might be part of a thicket of views, e.g. "if I don't do this then I'll get angry, and I can't (afford to) get angry so I must do this (behaviour instead)." That's a typical "false dichotomy".
You might think, "I'm doing well, I can just do it (that addictive behaviour) once now." But maybe if you persuade yourself it's OK to do once, then by the same logic it's OK to do once more after that, and so on -- so once might lead to twice, and falling back -- if you do try that and that leads to failure then try again, and maybe decide that "never" is safer and more sustainable.

As for "lack of pleasure" I'd hope that you'll begin to benefit -- e.g. from freedom and non-intoxication -- to whatever extent you become unaddicted. You might want to re-evaluate what's pleasurable, what pleasure is -- or to re-evaluate your preferences (e.g. to prefer what "praised by the wise", "skilful", "blameless", and so on e.g. as detailed in the Kalama sutta or other suttas).

Maybe this too (which has parallels in the vinaya, as well as being conventional addiction-recovery advice):

Define a rule (about the behaviour) for yourself to follow, a rule which limits or restricts the behaviour to when it's necessary and harmless, or a rule which cuts out the behaviour completely. Make following that rule a priority, the top priority, your only priority at least initially (until it becomes a second nature).
Maybe choose a specific date on which to start to follow the rule: "Yesterday I didn't follow that rule, but today I will follow that rule, today I am, today I did."
Keep track of the success: an hour, two hours ... a whole day ... another morning ... a week, two months, the first whole year, etc.
Maybe confess to someone else (not only to yourself), a friend or teacher or support-group, someone who knows what you're trying to do and wants to help: confess if or when you break the rule (maybe promise the confess and then even if you break the rule take care not to lie about it as well), and discuss the problem. Maybe it's easy to confess (when there is any behaviour to confess) if you schedule a regular meeting for the purpose of confession, and to talk about problems and successes.

This last section -- e.g. rules and confession -- can be quite effective.
It's so effective that there is a view (i.e. many people say) that it may be the only way to succeed -- and that whether you succeed depends on whether you're willing to agree to participate in this method: to accept that the behaviour is a problem, to commit to following the rules and to confessing, to attend (and continue to attend) the meetings.

Seclusion can help too. Maybe the addictive behaviour requires something (a addictive substance like alcohol, an addictive thing like access to the internet, and/or another person). If that something is within easy reach -- and especially if you wilfully keep that thing within easy reach -- then "back-sliding" is easier.
So part of success might be to deliberately (in whatever moments of sanity you may have) do something to make your access to that thing more difficult: e.g. remove the substance or the thing from your home (or e.g. leave home to go on a retreat). Then when the craving happens it would require a longer and more deliberate effort to re-acquire that thing.
Addictive behaviour might be something you can do easily and without thinking about it much, it might be successful to replace that with a situation which requires some intentional effort, for example, "Craving: suppose I were to have that thing as usual?", answered by, "No the situation is different now, I'm following a different rule. And the thing isn't here, it isn't available to me. I could make the effort to get up and walk out and go and get it -- but I don't want to do that and I don't have to, I will not do that, I am not going to do that, that would be a wrong effort, instead I'll simply do nothing and stay relaxed until another, different (wholesome, acceptable) thought occurs to me instead of this (temporary) craving."
That may change the equation, the balance:

Instead of being a behaviour that happens automatically, without thinking (or even instead of thinking), almost by accident (except that it happens again and again and again), and which only takes a (thoughtless) moment, it becomes a behaviour which you'd have to think about, to do deliberately, something which requires some sustained effort (over several minutes at a minimum), something that you'd have to be conscious of doing (and which you can therefore decide not to do, not to "enable")
Your new situation makes it easier to follow the rule than to continue the addictive behaviour. The situation is seclusion or isolation from whatever "thing" the behaviour involves -- also seclusion from any other "trigger" that might be associated (e.g. if addiction to X is to escape from Y which makes you angry, then the seclusion from X is also a way to escape from Y).

There are maybe specifically-Buddhist techniques as well -- e.g. non-identification, guarding the senses, mindfulness (remembering), calm (peacefulness), even virtues -- and maybe you know something about those already. But I think all the above (including friendship and mentoring) are Buddhist and also overlap with non-Buddhist addiction-recovery advice and methods.

Sure, the way to have clarity of perception is with sati sampajana and the way to have pleasure is to go beyond sati sampajana, ie, with samadhi. nobody can have ''withdrawal'' without being ''happy''. happiness stems form withdrawal and clarity of perception.
So it is  minduflness and turning minduflness into samadhi, as usual, like so

Whomsoever it may be, Ananda, bhikkhu or bhikkhunī, living, having got
  by heart the four settings-up of memory — of such a progressively more
  excellently refined self-awareness is to be expected."
Of what do these four consist?
Here Ananda, a beggar living in body oversees body ardent, self-aware,
  recollected, disciplining worldly covetousness and depression.
In such a one, living in body overseeing body, promted by body or
  arising from body, passions[3] of the heart or sluggish externals
  destract the heart.
Then, Ananda, that beggar should set his heart on the track of some
  happy state.
In the heart set on the track of some happy state joy is born.
With enjoyment entheusiasm is born.
Entheusiastic in mind the body becomes impassive.
Impassive in body happiness is experienced.
Happy at heart one is serene.
He then determines:
'Such as was the attainment of heart to which I aspired, such
  attaiment has been produced in me.
In that case, it is now time to withdraw!'
And thus he withdraws and does not think and does not ponder.
Understanding:
'Without thinking, without pondering, internally recollected, I am
  happy.'

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/sn/05_mv/sn05.47.010.olds.bd.htm#p1

Another repeating of the same question and here the altenative to paint a green point on the forhead:
Re-ligion, being a disciple, means to agree voluntary to an imprisoning to get ride of a harmful habit.
The only outwardly help in this period, and that is the same in psychology, is to associated with the teacher (more advanced), and get "isolated" from lower, using equal "just" for dayly needs: i.e. concentration&working camp (monastery), or if such is not found "walking alone", but not recommended if possible to find.
As the Buddha told, it is impossible to get support from one not beyond a matter that one tries to solve.
Again here: admirable friend and withdraw from equal and lower till insight and path is reached.
Since for this kind of training a social network is required, the re-ligion, the Sangha of monks has been established, especially for those not having reached the stream but confidence, since it would be hardly possible living an common life.
The practice ot Thudongas is highly supportive, not at least by shrinking ways of wrong association and activities.
Mindfulness is of course the key, but the defilments would have and ease if the governing principles are weak, i.e. no outwardly support and guidance and to less preasure, to much space for cheat you self.
(not given for trade, exchange, stakes and to use for bounds in the world, but to bind toward liberation)

What is "Thudongas"? The only other place on the internet where that word is found (according to Google) is here. Perhaps it's a mis-spelling, or an unusual word?

Also, please add a reference to this statement: "As the Buddha told, it is impossible to get support from one not beyond a matter that one tries to solve.".

google what ever you search for, and may it solve your problem. Sure, for those without refuge, killing, deleting and pysical force seems to be fine and without effects for at least short release.

I've never heard that there is a Buddhist schedule for withdrawal from substance abuse. For serious addiction a 3 stage process is recommended, first (1) hospitalization (to control dangerous side-effects of withdrawal), then outpatient (2) rehabilitation for a certain number of weeks, until the patient is healthy enough for a residential (3) recovery program of several weeks.
Hospitalization is suggested for some alcoholics because withdrawal can trigger heart attacks. All these services are usually done by specialists. In a case of mild alcoholism or drug addiction 90 days should see them physically stable, but they need ongoing support groups and might not ever be able to return to their former way of life. The vast majority of alcoholics and drug addicts never survive their disease, but it might take a long time before they die or become institutionalized safely.
"40 to 60 percent of drug addicts will relapse from their plan of treatment"  National Institute on Drug Abuse
"In the midst of a serious addiction crisis, in which 72,000 people died from overdoses in 2017, it can be easy to forget that recovery is not only possible but is the reality for nearly 10 percent of U.S. adults."
https://www.statnews.com/2018/08/30/measure-addiction-recovery-rates/

It's not enough to set goals, it's equally important to elicit commitment to change.
Conduct a Cost-Benefit-Analysis, where you oppose two options, i.e., Giving into alcohol vs Being free from it, and write down every short & long term advantage & disadvantage you can come up with for YOURSELF & FOR OTHERS. These points have to be believable to you!
Here it's important to distinguish between real & perceived costs & benefits, which is why I suggest to seek help from a professional or someone you trust to question perceived benefits of your addiction because people with addictions have strong biases.
If necessary,  question also the perceived disadvantages for changing.
Focus on the disadvantage of the addiction and not just merely parrot them, but also be honest with yourself and realize that you got something from your addiction, otherwise you wouldn't have engaged in it.
Acknowledge that you won't get certain benefits anymore, but you can look forward to other - more short term based - benefits.
This cost-benefit-analysis is also not a do once exercise. Throughout the changing process you might gain more insights & add more advantages & disadvantages to each side.


text:
Qualitative Benefit of Longer Sits
I have recently tried meditating for 15 min at a time, at least once per day. I'm wondering, however, if long sits have a qualitative benefit. In other words, I'm wondering whether longer sits have a benefit other than  more of those of shorter sits, perhaps uniquely different benefit/s? (Here, longer sits would mean about 1h-1h30).

See also maximum-productive-time-for-a-meditation-sit  and what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-time-needed-for-a-productive-meditation-sit

Let's phrase this a different way.  If you just worked out for 15 minutes, would it be as effective as if you worked out for an hour?  The answer should be obvious.  The more time you dedicate to anything, the better you'll be at it and the more benefit you'll receive.  The mind is a muscle; same as your biceps.  If you only train it halfheartedly, you'll only get halfhearted results.
But it goes deeper than this.  Sitting is like baking a cake.  You can throw in all of the ingredients - the breath, the cushion, the concentration - but if you take the cake out of the oven before it's done baking, you don't pull out a cake, you pull out a hot mess.  The mind requires time to settle.  It has to remain secluded for an extended period of time before those ingredients can undergo the alchemy of practice and begin to phase change into true samadhi.
And it goes still deeper.  There are states that are only available when one sits for extended periods of time.  No matter how long you have been practicing, you probably will never reach access concentration until you've sat for at least an hour.  The day to day mind is just too scattered to reach it much sooner.  You will only begin to touch the outskirts of jhana after you've sat for an hour and a half.  Full jhana is only available to those who sit for hours a day and even then usually only on retreats of multiple days.
There are no shortcuts.  You get out what you put in.

Ideally, Buddhist Meditation practices quiets the effects of living in Samsara, and transforms the mind with the power of sunyata, Emptiness. This gives us a lightness of being, and diminishes those experiences where life becomes unmanagable. The length of time spent on the cushion is based on this, for beginners around 20-45 minutes. This is once or twice a day.


text:
Validity of Meditation Experience
I have tried meditating on public transport. There, I find I meditate as sharply as when sitting formally. Yet, I find this suspect.
Is it possible to believe one is concentrated and meditating efficiently, but actually not? In other words, should I trust my experience that meditating on public transport is equally efficient as formal sitting?
Thank you.

Both practices are valid. To be precise: you subjectively feel that meditation on the public transport to be sharp, more concentrated, and efficient, but you suspect that this subjective reaction is questionable.
Let's draw a comparison another way. Suppose you compare 2 sits on the public transport to one another. Or, two sits at an Advanced Meditators retreat to one another. We'll say we compare 2 sits which are in identical settings, of equal duration; sit(1) you diligently follow the instructions but the experience is uncomfortable, bland, and you don't see any benefits that day. Sit(2) has pleasure which is spiritual in nature, or clears out the mind, or has only positive effects all day long. Yet both were identical practices?
It is possible that the bland meditation without noticeable benefit may be just as, or more valuable, to your practice, then the pleasurable one. That's because it's a process within a system, and you can't see all the benefits. Of course we WANT the later experience, but it does not mean it is actually more productive.
It could be that your sitting at home in quiet and seclusion is dealing more deeply in some areas you might prefer not to go in? Or could it be the public transport is easier because you are more distracted?
In my own experience, I really treasure the less pleasurable sits because they are turbulent due to the things bothering me, and I feel that stuff needs to be front and center. It might be that your sits at home are of more actual benefit, but it doesn't look that way now.

Absolutely.  We are excellent at deluding ourselves.  As your practice deepens and when you've spent time on retreat, it will become blazingly apparent that your sits on public transit are only dim imitations of the radiance of deep, formal sitting.


text:
Potential of Five Minutes of Meditation
Once, when I went to a Buddhist meditation center, an experienced meditator said: "Sometimes, for meditation, all it takes is five minutes [in a session]." I'm wondering what is the meaning of such a statement.
Does this refer to relaxation? Insight? Or something else? What is the most plausible meaning?

According to Abhidhamma Jhana is one thought moment. One thought moment is so small there could be billions of thought moments in a splash of the light. So the five minutes of Jhana is quite an achievement for a beginner.

"If one were to develop even for just a finger-snap the perception of inconstancy, that would be more fruitful than the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and [in addition to that] if one were to feed one person... 100 people consummate in view, and were to feed one once-returner... 100 once-returners, and were to feed one non-returner... 100 non-returners, and were to feed one arahant... 100 arahants, and were to feed one Private Buddha... 100 Private Buddhas, and were to feed a Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — and were to feed a community of monks headed by the Buddha, and were to have a dwelling built and dedicated to the Community of the four directions, and with a confident mind were to go to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha for refuge, and with a confident mind were to undertake the training rules — refraining from taking life, refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from illicit sex, refraining from lying, refraining from distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness — and were to develop even just one whiff of a heart of good will."
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.020.than.html

Ah, well you'd have to ask them. In 1999, when i began the Buddhist practices of meditation, I started with 5 minutes per day and it was enough to keep me anchored and get results, and expand the time and depth of practice. I still only average 45 minutes per day but i augment that with "spacing out" practice where i just stop everything and return to meditation.
Or it could mean that in only 5 minutes time a meditator can reach the deep end of the pool. But for me the longer i sit, the deeper the pool is.
Five minutes is great goal for the "spacing out pratice" - to stop and remember the practice. Maybe thats what they meant.

The Buddhist Bhavna is something you do every second of the day, when eating, taking a shower etc. The 5 min thing makes it sound like the following.
-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCq8-XvqU1Q
Does the meditation look and feel like this?
If that is so, you are doing a Vedic form of meditation. Even Buddha played with the breath before enlightenment. It will give Jhana but they are not Ariya Jhana.
How the correct Buddha meditation got corrupted is explained here.
-> https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31576/15007
The correct meditation espoused by the Buddha is here
-> https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31543/15007


text:
Implementing Emptiness Practically
What is the manner in which those meditating on emptiness actually bring their contemplations into a practical, experienced form? In other words, how does insight (on emptiness) become effective in every day life?

yes, i like this question too! i would suppose most would link "meditating on emptiness" with compassion, though the mechanics of why, how, that works would probably involve a long, and far from everyday, exposition of the buddhist path!

Your question is a good one. If I understand it correctly you are referring to the process of "bridging" your experiences in seated meditation into the time between such meditation sessions. You recognize that there is such thing as focusing one's meditation in a certain way (on emptiness) and it's not clear how to bring that focus to one's daily activities. If that isn't your question I apologize. If that is what you are asking then it's important to understand some of the practical aspects of focusing on emptiness. Focusing on emptiness is not necessarily the same as meditating on emptiness nor is it the same as realizing emptiness.
Focusing on emptiness is using the idea of emptiness as taught by the Buddha to change the way you see your self and your life.
Focusing on emptiness can be described as keeping impermanence always in mind. In other words, whatever you see/hear/taste/smell/feel/think ALONG WITH the organs you use in order to see/hear/taste/smell/feel/think are going to die (or end) REAL SOON! That type of reflection has the PRACTICAL effect of doing two things. First, it causes an increase in awareness of the precious little time we have in this body. And second, it creates an ambivalence towards things that waste that time.
In other words, when you come into awareness of death you start to realize the futility of grabbing onto things you experience with the senses and you also realize the limitations of those organs you are using to perceive objects. This creates dispassion and eventually revulsion for these habits of grabbing onto such ephemeral, unrewarding objects. The nature of all objects of the senses is to burn unto death (as taught in the Fire Sermon [SN 35] among many other sutras). When you meditate on emptiness you are focusing on that truth within all objects of your life and all aspects of what you call your "self" (those organs of perception).
You don't actually need to "sit" for meditation to "meditate" on emptiness in the way I am describing. "Sitting" actually makes it easier to see into this component of fire/death within all objects and without sitting, perceiving objects of everyday life in this way takes even more courage, determination, persistence and most of all, faith in the dharma (+the Buddha & the Sangha). But even if you sit and experience the jnana states sequentially the meditation on emptiness must continue in the same way at each new state. Even the jnana of "nothingness" (one of the highest states experienced by the body) must be seen with using this meditation on emptiness; that is, 'this state is temporary, it too shall pass, it too is on fire.' That is why Sariputta would describe his experience of the jnanas as (forgive my paraphrasing): 'And then the first jnana assailed me, and then the second jnana assailed me . . .' etc! [I will look for the reference to this sutra and add it later, it's in the SN]. The mind as an organ of perception is on fire/subject to death/empty and so, the appropriate practical response to the experiences it delivers is the same: dispassion, revulsion & eventually release.

Kolitasutta (SN 21.1) is translated "beset" (which is like "assailed"), though that's Moggallāna rather than Sāriputta.

this is a good, everyday, answer, i thought.

In your original question you said you had an insight, that even meditative states are "empty". This is a very important insight. From Pali Canon we know that Buddha came to the same realization - that any state is just that, a state. Once you really see this, once you see Emptiness, it becomes clear that nothing in life is more important than anything else. Everything is relative, has relative importance - but in the absolute sense these distinctions don't have inherent meaning. Relative is relative. This does not mean it is not real, it very much is, but it is only real within its certain context.
In Mahayana this realization is considered the first real "entry" into Mahayana proper. If you follow this realization through to all its various implications, you will see it has very far-reaching effects.
For one, you suddenly lose interest in partaking of the worldly drama. Why sweat and worry about stuff if none of this has inherent significance?
Secondarily, you may suddenly feel spontaneous compassion to "sentient beings" (people) that still take this so seriously as to try and attain some "better" states, only to keep going in circles of endless frustration.
Finally, since you are no longer attached to any particular state, you are good with pretty much any position of mind, feelings, and body. Their positions no longer bother you. You can even be frustrated or irritated, so what? Of course, the law of cause and effect is still as operational as ever, so allowing the mind to be in unwholesome states and allowing the actions to lead to unwholesome states is still fully effective at creating bad karma. But in some very deep sense, bad karma, the karma of creating suffering - is part of life. In this sense, it is okay, too. Everything's okay.
So you can feel a relief. You can also feel a little depressed, because nothing really makes sense, all games are over, nothing further to be done. Even the quest for Nirvana that animated us for quite a long time, suddenly loses its shimmer. "Samsara and Nirvana are just two poles for tying the donkeys".
Then you realize that this mindstate - either of relief or of depression, is also empty, since it depends on your perspective or position, on your interpretation.
If you really follow Emptiness through to all its implications, it hits hard. There are countless stories of people feeling like they lost all ground, all will to live on, feeling as if they have died and so on and so forth. Sometimes this is followed by regressing back to a comfortable state. Sometimes this ends with psychiatric issues. And sometimes this matures into what Mahayanists call "union of wisdom and compassion" or "union of freedom and skillful means". Meaning, the deep understanding of Emptiness gives one wisdom (of not getting stuck in one-sided perspectives) and freedom (personal subjective sense of relief, no pressure, no judgement) - but also a sense of empathy and responsibility for the fellow sentient beings.
The above is partially anecdotal and partially a generalization of my own experience. What's important to understand, realization of Emptiness does not make you a superman, nothing like that. If anything, it makes you see very clearly, that in the grand scheme of things, you don't matter at all. And that must be the most sobering spiritual realization of them all.
Welcome to Mahayana!

Insight on emptiness make you aware of the illusory nature of the self. Which means it makes you aware that all forms are empty of a self and clinging to self(ego) is meaningless and only cause you suffering. Having glimpses of emptiness can bring you temporary calm, peace and joy. But it is temporary. After experiencing Nibbana many times-which is the absolute perfect, indescribeble state which brings you perfect peace and happiness during you experience it- you will also experience different types of amazing states of mind. At one point you experience a state of emptiness-which is an amazing state too-where you don't feel a body anymore(the body dissapears) and everything turns to black. All of the boundaries dissapear and every-thing dissapears and transforms to boundless formlessness/no-thingness. You become "no-thing" and everything. But it doesn't mean "nothing" but it means you don't have a form anymore. This is also an amazing and deeply calm state but it is not equal to the perfect peace and happiness of Nibbana. After experiencing this emptiness state few days later a person would start to disidentify from the core of subconscious mind which would eventually make a person free from the identification with the self completely and would make it possible for a person to have very deep peace of mind continously.
The last realization of the emptiness that I described above is a signpost for a person that the ego is about to enter to a death process in just few days later.  But only after the realization of Nibbana these things can be possible. Experiencing Nibbana many times makes it possible to enter to this "jhana"(I don't know the "number" of this jhana LOL but it is undoubtedly a jhana) that starts the process of the death of the core of the self or you can say the core of the subconscious mind.
But If you're a beginner meditator you don't need to think about all of this and you can have this understanding that having glimpses of emptiness is always possible and it brings you temporary calm and temporary understanding of the illusory nature of the self.


text:
Buddha's Comment on Compassion Meditation
I think I recall reading about the Buddha saying that compassion meditation was far superior to compassionate action, hundreds (or some great number) times more. Is this accurate? What is the source for this?
I am also interesting in knowing if this is true in people's experience on here.

All Brahmaviharas are good if based on right view and moral virtue. If not, all are merely destructive for long time happiness and beyond.

So compassionate action is the base, founded on right resolve. It's not an instead but a refinery.

Buddha taught that one should develop compassion or karuna both with actions and meditation. This can be seen in Mettanisamsa Sutta:
"Monks, for one whose awareness-release through good will is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, eleven benefits can be expected"
Although good-will or metta is not the same with compassion, both of them are considered two of the four sublime attitudes, brahmavihara. In this sutta, Buddha mentioned that good-will has to be perfected both in mind and actions for the benefits to be experienced. Thus, the same approach applies to compassion as well.
Besides, in my experience, practicing only metta meditation without performing skillful actions related to loving-kindness still makes me feel like I am a "selfish" person. it is only with the practice of both meditation and skillful actions does one able to perfect the sublime attitudes; meditation depends on skillful actions and skillful actions depend on meditation.
References:
"Metta (Mettanisamsa) Sutta: Good Will" (AN 11.16), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 23 July 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.016.than.html


text:
Is there any benefit to, as far as is humanly possible, total dedication to the precepts, in zen?
Is there any benefit to, as far as is humanly possible, total dedication to the precepts, in zen?
So total celibacy, vegetarianism and non violence to any life form, complete abstinence form alcohol, etc..
For the laity without a zen master.

"Perfect" virtue (when based on right view, which could be problematic with certain "Zen-views") is the condition for no remorse, no remorse... happiness, concentration, ... insight... liberation.
When focusing on the foundations, one works smart and straight forward till perfection. One hearing then the good teachings it might plopp.
Good associations/relations so that it might work.
(Note: not given to keep or give to keep in the wheel of trade, exchange, stacks... binding to worlds but for using as escape)

i just feel jaded with reality. sure i'm clinging to that on some "metaphysical" sense, but in reality i can't see a better way to be rn

What does Nyom try to express (hint to ask) or just rhetorical. Asking (proper and at good place) is the way to get known.

ah ok... i don't want fame, i am merely struggling with social reality in various ways

i don't think it's ressentiment, either. perhaps a lack of human trust.

if not too chatty, i mean, there's no-one else i'd rather, yet i would not her either. the argument is sound...

It's always open for everyone, yet leaving ones home, even temporary, is not easy.

thanks. it's not my "wife", merely a random (beautiful) woman. though you're right, i can't leave my home rn

Yes. There is definitely much benefit.
I studied Zen for many years. And yet my practice was indeed strengthened when I started reading the Pali EBTs and observing more precepts. For example, I gave up dinner, cook for my wife and have the leftovers for lunch. And I regularly study the suttas. The suttas actually bring the Zen canon to life in a completely novel way.

Yes, of course.
However, in Zen, as in Vajrayana - and Mahayana in general - there is a strong idea of priorities. It exists in the Pali Canon and Theravada too, but there it is not so strongly emphasized, although they recognize it, too, without a doubt.
In the simplest example, if lying is required to save a life, one or the other concern may have to take precedence, depending on a situation.
In more interesting "Zen" situations, if overcoming your phobia or attachment requires breaking a minor precept, guess what wins.
The way I was trained, whenever you feel too holy and saintly, you should go get drunk or yell at someone etc. Basically, break the pattern. It requires increasingly fine discernment to perfect this skill, with different counter-acts and counter-counter-acts applicable in different situations, but you get the basic idea.
(Reminds me of stories... was it Milarepa? ... who burned the Dharma texts his student was obsessing about. Or that story about Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche forcing a student to watch him throwing rocks at a cat. This last thing of course is extremely cruel, and I'm sure Rinpoche felt the cat's fear and pain deep in his heart. And yet, sometimes these are the kinds of things you have to do in order to help your students overcome some of their stronger attachments, especially attachments to high ethics and spirituality.)
So the above considerations put some limit on how closely you can uphold the precepts, but within those limits, yes absolutely, you should definitely keep them as pure as humanly possible.


text:
If something is relatively and ultimately correct can it still be false in the center?
If something is both relatively and ultimately correct can it still be false in the center? I'm looking for a "yes" from any extant or historical tradition.

I think I recognise "relative truth" and "ultimate" as Buddhist terms. What about "in the centre", though -- what does that mean, how or where is that used?

the doctrine of "two truths" @ChrisW

Yes I guess the "two truths" are "relative truth" and "ultimate truth" -- I don't think I know what "in the centre" means though, haven't read that phrase before so not sure what it's referring to.

I'm unable to understand the question. What do you mean by 'center'. I would also question whether a statement that is relatively true can also be ultimately true. My first thought is that this is impossible.  .

the middle way if often used to equate the two truths @PeterJ

@user3293056 - Okay. So 'center' here refers to the middle way. But the middle way is not between the conventional and the ultimate, as is suggested in the question.  .

it depends on what you mean by "between"... it's just a fact that the middle way was often used to equate the two truths, or deny the two, or say one is better or worse, etc.. there's a lot of east asian literature on this @PeterJ how two truths became three truths, and as such one truth

@user3293056 - Yes. Quite so,.

it is said to normally be between the two truths in the teaching of the one truth of the middle that is also the conventional and absolute. so the question does surely make sense, even if it is not very deep? perhaps that's the issue @PeterJ

You're right in a way and so am I in another. To say 'we exist and exist-not' would be an example of the two truths in practice but here both atomic statements are conventional. Ultimate truth would be indicated by the two statements taken together. So ultimate truth is not stated but pointed to by two conventional truths. The middle way in this case would be seen as between 'exist' and 'not-exist', but neither would be an ultimate truth, Hence the aphorism 'True words seem paradoxical', since to express the middle way requires two opposing conventional statements. . .

that makes sense, though i didn't read it closely, so apologies if i missed anything! @PeterJ

Is the Middle Way the "center" between the Two Truths in said doctrine? If so, please add a refeference to the texts.

the center is another word for the middle @Lanka

If the term 'center' in the question refers to the Middle Way then I'd say the answer is no.
Relative truths are never ultimate truths so immediately there's a problem with the question. Ultimate truths seem paradoxical, as Lao Tsu notes, while relative truths are not truths in a metaphysical sense.
Take the famous comment by Heraclitus 'We exist and exist-not'. This would be a rigorous statement according to Nagarjuna but not 'true'. There would be no such thing as a true ultimate statement since Reality is beyond the reach of linguistic/conceptual fabrications. Dialectical logic cannot decide the truth-values of paradoxical statements.
The reason remarks like this one of Heraclitus are not true is that for an ultimate view there is no Middle Way. A 'Middle Way' assumes two extreme views between which is the Way, but in the very final analysis Nagarjuna rejects the extremes therefore also the idea there is a 'middle way' between them. Thus Heraclitus can combine two relative statements, each of which is true in a sense, for an ultimate statement that is rigorous. He makes no mention of a middle way, however, but juxtaposes two half-truths to show the inadequacy of both.
This is the via negativa, the avoidance of making positive statements about the world, necessary for the Middle Way view because all positive or extreme metaphysical theories would be wrong.
Briefly - Relative truths are never ultimately true. Ultimate truths cannot be stated but may be indicated in rigorous language. No statement is both relatively and ultimately true. All relative truths are not ultimate truths. Truth outruns language (because of its subject/predicate structure)  and conceptualisation (because it requires the categories of thought, which are not fundamental).
Thus all relative truths would be untrue for an ultimate analysis and all ultimate truths would be unsayable, but may be 'pointed at' by the use of a language of contradiction that combines opposing relative truths.
The need to combine two relative truths for a rigorous ultimate statement means that a relative truth is never an absolute truth. Statements that are in the 'center' may be rigorous but are never simply true or false. The notion of 'true' and 'false' belong to the realm of relative statements. An ultimate statement will seem paradoxical, not simply true or false.
So all in all the question is formulated in a way that does not allow a simple answer. This one is hasty and may not be at all clear but perhaps it indicates the various relevant issues that need to be considered.

I'm not sure if it's relevant to say this, but I think that "Middle" Way is classically used to deny (or to be in contrast to, different than) the two extremes:

SN 56.11
Mendicants, these two extremes should not be cultivated by one who has gone forth. What two? Indulgence in sensual pleasures, which is low, crude, ordinary, ignoble, and pointless. And indulgence in self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, and pointless. Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One woke up by understanding the middle way, which gives vision and knowledge, and leads to peace, direct knowledge, awakening, and extinguishment.

Similarly it's neither eternalism nor annihilationism.
Or neither lust, nor hatred.
The PTS dictionary says,

Applied almost exclusively in contrast pairs with terms of more or less, in triplets like "small -- medium -- big," or "first -- middle -- last"

I suppose that "middle" in this sense doesn't mean "half-way in between" -- it means "neither one nor the other".

it's definitely a relevant answer, and it's the standard / common sense understanding of the middle way. but then in the chinese doctrinal classification e.g. there was a lot of work on systematizing different teachings, e.g. about the meaning of the "middle way". so your answer is good and on topic, but it may not speak for the whole of buddhism

Given the vagueness of the question, an answer from the extant and historical tradition of mathematics may serve:
Relative to 41, 42 is ultimately the next number. But this is false for the real numbers.

Yes, always. Ultimate has only ultimate as relative. While relative has only relative as relative. Understand? There is no more relation to relative once ultimate has reached, Nyom.
See also Change-of-lineage for more.
The tradition is called "tradition of the Noble Ones (ariya puggala)".
(Note that this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade end entertain relations but for escape from bounds toward world.)

i'm not sure that is always true, but your answer seems coherent

The Buddhist Roots of Zhu Xi's Philosophical Thought
I'm not sure, but would guess that yes in the exclusive middle, but not in the non-exclusive middle.
Often, different interpretations of the 'middle' demarcate the different teachings. So perhaps something relatively and ultimately true can be false in the center, just not for its perfect expression.

That sounds like -- or maybe related to or derived from -- four-valued Catuṣkoṭi logic (e.g. "this, or that, or both, or neither").

i'm almost certain that the main tiantai thinker uses the catuskoti, but am not certain, and it may just be a form of presentation, not sure at all @ChrisW

Catuskoti logic is just Aristotelian logic applied on two orthogonal axes. It is not some idiosyncratic abandonment of the way we usually think. Nagarjuna's argument depends utterly on the principle that where an idea gives rise to a contradiction it should be rejected. I don't know why there is such confusion on this issue since it is not rocket-science.

not sure who you think you're proving wrong, who is confused @PeterJ ? it's obvious that something can be presented in the catuskoti either trivially or meaningfully -- i.e. that the four alternatives are actually all there can logically be. obviously, lots of what is stated in the Catuskoti is an abandonment of how we usually think. and no-one is suggesting meditating on there being four alternatives rather than two

i'm just not sure what you think @ChrisW has got wrong. or is he not wrong? i derived that comment question from two valued logic, but i'm not confused about it

The catuskoti is not an abandonment of how we usually think but a particular way of doing it. Aristotle would have had no problem with it. if we abandon the way we usually think, especially the LEM, then we won't be able to understand  our own thoughts. I guess you're a fan of Graham Priest and his idea that Buddhist doctrine is logically incoherent.

no not really @PeterJ i just think there's room for him too

@user3293056 - You'll have to excuse my passion but I believe Priest is dong great harm to Buddhism.and needs to be stopped, and I will oppose him at every turn. I believe he talks utter nonsense and can't understand why he does not see this. If you look for an essay entitled 'Aristotle, Nagarjuna and the Law of Contradiction in Buddhist Philosophy' you might find my formal response.  .

ah that's interesting... clever guy though, and it surely has some appeal outside buddhist studies? @PeterJ

@user3293056 - Yeah, that's the problem. He is clever and prominent and able to confuse lots of people with his ideas. He believes that Nagarjuna did not understand metaphysics.and proves that nobody can, not even the Buddha. It is an astonishingly creative misunderstanding.

yeah, true, the truth will win surely win out and it's not like we can't enjoy the events that lead to that @PeterJ however baffled

We can enjoy the process of learning etc, as you say. But professional philosophers have a professional responsibility to do their homework and deserve the flack they get if they don't. . .


text:
Source of Benefit of Formal Sitting
I've noticed (and have been told) that formal sitting meditation is required and beneficial, as opposed to merely being mindful or compassionate in daily life. What aspect of formal sitting causes this?
Is it the relaxation? The recurrent location or time? The stillness? The consistency?
Thank you

Formal sitting will set up the process of mindful and compassionate daily life much better. It's not a either/or situation. Consistency has some value as well, since the goal (if you want to call it that, but it's a problematic term) is equanimity.

Formal sitting practice is the most direct and simple way to gain real insights into the nature of reality and become enlightened.
There are two main types of meditation that are benifitial in this regard.
The first is training in concentration. You sit attempting to focus your attention on a single meditation object for as long as you can. Over time, your ability to focus will increase, and that will assist you in your second type of meditation.
The second is training in insight/wisdom. For this practice, you use your ability to concentrate to sit and observe a specific aspect of your experience in an attempt to see it for what it truly is.
Through gaining insights into the nature of reality and who you really are, you will gain benefits such as compassion, mindfulness, peace, happiness, disillusionment, and true knowledge. These ultimate understandings, once known clearly in your own experience, brings about the meaningful benefits of Buddhist teachings.
Enlightenment is possible for everyone this lifetime. I wish you nothing but love and hope you find what you are looking for.

Stillness. Whereas the other elements are also beneficial, sitting is about reaching the pinnacle of stillness. The methodology is very simple, because it's mostly one of letting go. Caveat: it always seems dubious until it proves it's efficacy, and then doubt is removed.

A short and sweet answer. We may soon discover the benefits of sitting by trying it, but may not get far by just asking about it. It is a medicine, after all, and we don't learn much by just reading the label on the botle.


text:
Buddhism and Novelty of Persons
I realized that, when I meet new people and especially people I have a romantic interest in, to value and idealize them disproportionately. This seems very ingrained in my personality. Here, cemetery contemplation seem less pertinent as its novelty rather than lust.
What does Buddhism have to say about such novelty? What are the potential ways to reduce it or alter one's perspective about it?

From AN4.163 we have:

It’s when a mendicant meditates observing the ugliness of the body, perceives the repulsiveness of food, perceives dissatisfaction with the whole world, observes the impermanence of all conditions

Paradoxically, observing ugliness is a great antidote for the seduction of attractive. The perception of ugliness develops equanimity. To see this yourself, simply look at any pair of people. Invariable, one will attract your eye and one will not. Now rapidly look at each one in turn, switching to the other when any feeling (good or bad) arises. As you do this, also acknowledge that, "This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self."
What happens as you do this is that your mind gets exhausted trying to make coherent sense of it all and collapses eventually into equanimity. Be careful when doing this with real people because nobody likes being stared at. However, you can practice this with any movie or video that you can stop mid-play. Simply scan back and forth repeatedly until equanimity returns. When you do this, the scene will always be equanimous to you in the future. Eventually you will be able to do this in real time without bothering others.
The nice thing about dealing with others in equanimity is that you will earn trust and friendship. Out of those friendships, deeper connections will naturally evolve. And those connections will always enrich your life.

Firstly, if you have romantic interest in a person, then most likely sexual lust is in it too. So, the contemplation on unattractiveness could work here. Too much of it may result in depression. The antidote for this kind of depression is given in Vesali Sutta.
Secondly, you have to remember that nothing is permanent. The same person who was a baby, and then a child, then a teenager, is now an attractive adult in front of you, with what seems to be an attractive personality. The same person can change and become aged or ugly or diseased, or change to have an irritating personality the closer you get to them.
All things in the world are not as they appear to be. Some people romanticize the monastic life, but you can find that it is not as it appears to be, in the book "The Broken Buddha" by S. Dhammika.
The following excerpt from Therigatha 14.1 about a nun who was pursued by a man, is interesting for this context:

"What wrong have I done you
  that you stand in my way?
  It's not proper, my friend,
  that a man should touch
  a woman gone forth.
  I respect the Master's message,
  the training pointed out by the one well-gone.
  I am pure, without blemish:
  Why do you stand in my way?
.....
"You are young & not bad-looking,
  what need do you have for going forth?
  Throw off your ochre robe —
  Come, let's delight in the flowering forest.
.....
"What do you assume of any essence,
  here in this cemetery grower, filled with corpses,
  this body destined to break up?
  What do you see when you look at me,
  you who are out of your mind?"
"Your eyes are like those of a fawn,
  like those of a nymph in the mountains.
  Seeing your eyes,
  my sensual delight grows all the more.
  Like tips they are, of blue lotuses,
  in your golden face — spotless:
  Seeing your eyes,
  my sensual delight grows all the more.
.....
Like a mural you've seen,
  painted on a wall,
  smeared with yellow orpiment,
  there your vision has been distorted,
  meaningless your perception of a human being.
  Like an evaporated mirage,
  like a tree of gold in a dream,
  like a magic show in the midst of a crowd —
  you run blind after what is unreal.
  Resembling a ball of sealing wax,
  set in a hollow,
  with a bubble in the middle & bathed with tears,
  eye secretions are born there too:
  The parts of the eye are rolled all
  together in various ways."
Plucking out her lovely eye,
  with mind unattached
  she felt no regret.
"Here, take this eye. It's yours."
Straightaway she gave it to him.
  Straightaway his passion faded right there,
  and he begged her forgiveness.

Your question suggests an attachment to the notion of persons, significantly the notion of your own ego-self.
While there are various flavours of Buddhism, at least most of them proclaim the illusory nature of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality.
Source:  The Diamond Sutra