text:
Getting rid of long discourses from Tipitaka, what could be true intention?
I have heard that people mention long discourses (Diga Nikaya) are not authentic Buddha's discourses (not Buddha's words). The fact that makes me surprised much more is that they say "in Diga Nikaya, Brahmajala Sutta was not discoursed by Buddha".
After I have studied Brahmajala Sutta; such bold words and complete coverage on Indian Brahman and Brahmin religious concepts as well as all modern religious concepts, I thought those kind of very complete specifications of 62 concepts/beliefs could only be named and discoursed origins of them by only Sammasambuddha or someone like Sammasambuddha (who has very complete Panna without any rival can claim or find loophole/falsehood or incompleteness in his discourses).

What could be the motive of such weak claims?
Is it more appropriate to find any incorrectness or loophole of Brahmajala Sutta and other controversially claimable Suttas in Diga Nikaya first before saying authenticity of these Suttas?
Could it be more easier to prove by saying specification and origins of 63 beliefs that was not covered by Brahmajala Sutta?
Is it correct way to say that Suttas from Diga Nikaya (start from Brahmajala Sutta) are ehipassiko?
At the time of Buddhahood of Gautama Buddha, all India regions are overwhelmed by Brahmanism and Brahmins. Buddha has only 60 monks which are from rich men of Yasa young guy and friends. It is not inappropriate to convert some Brahmins who had a sense that Atta of Brahmanism was in vain. It was obvious that Sāriputta and Moggallāna are disciples of Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta and they joined to Sanga society with 250 disciples of same teacher. DN 12 Lohicca Sutta might be counter question to those scholars who questioned authenticity of Diga Nikaya but actually it makes infinite loop about disagreement.
Another possible reason about Bramhajala Sutta is Suppiya did blaming on Buddha, Dhamma and Sanga but the sutta did not mentioned what were details words of Suppiya and to what extent Suppiya did false-fully accusing we do not have chance to know. If a leader of such Sanga society did not properly repeal wrong accusation, what kind of leader Buddha would be.
Sariputta claimed that Buddha's Sila was the best possible Sila a person can keep it clean, unbroken. In Brahmajala sutta, it is where we get a chance to understand/learn Buddha's Sila by grades and it is also role model to future Sanga nonetheless future Sanga has tendency not to keep as many as Buddha prefer to.
Propagation of Anatta views on Brahmanism overwhelmed Indian region is bold move of Gautama Buddha and many adversary effects should had been expected (need citations here). Scholars can logically do reasoning about it. Immediate decision about not to do any discourses to anyone just after enlightenment was nullified by request of Sahampati Bramha, so it is inappropriate or weak claim that Buddha would not do driving less dusty eyes Brahmins to become monks.
Gautama Buddha did offensive (if improper reasoning on his) remarks to Maghandi's daughter in Maghandi Sutta. But the explanation was Buddha had Karuna on Maghandi couples and only the daughter was completely out of picture. For this ages of valuation of women lives, this kind of remark will be viewed as very offensive to community and legal level but this was some kind of example that Gautama Buddha did speak if there was great benefit to save Brahmins from unfruitful believes of Atta view and/or Veda.
It seems like scholars cannot appreciate Buddha converting people who believed Brahmanism but they failed to notice that such big Sanga society cannot be done by overcoming adverse Atta view, worshipping Brahma and caste system.

You can't tell if someone is enlightened by the words they write.

When a sutta is too complex for their limited intellect they may say such. Take Maha Nidana sutta_DN2 for instance. All 12 parts of Paticcasamuppada is explained in 7 parts in it - & is included in these seven parts. On nama-kaya,  rupa-kaya it goes even further in explaining it’s inter-relationship. Now who among you could give a simple explanation into ‘nama-kaye adhivacana samphassaya’ and ‘rupa-kaye patigha,samphassaya.’ In these two phrases found in Maha Nidana sutta_DN2 - it gives the best explanation on Nama-Rupa that is beyond that of any other suttas in the other four nikayas.

To make a blanket statement that the "DN was not spoken by the Buddha" would not be wise. Obviously, there are certain suttas in the DN that reasonably conform with what the Buddha taught in other suttas as verifiable truth.
It must be noted the core principle of the Buddha-Dhamma is that is it 'verifiable', namely: sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi. Any sutta that departs from this core principle is open to question.
It must always be kept in mind that pre-Buddhist Brahmanism was very different to Buddhism however, over time, both Buddhism & Hinduism changed so much that they became largely indistinguishable resulting in Buddhism becoming extinct in India. Many commentators have attributed this to Buddhist efforts to proselytize the religion & the DN has been deemed (for example, by Bhikkhu Sujato; by Bhikkhu Bodhi, page 31 of his SN) to be the major vehicle of proselytization. In other words, it was corrupted Buddhism designed to seduce Brahmans. It is widely acknowledged that:

Recent
  scholarship suggests that a distinguishing trait of the Digha Nikaya
  may be that it was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract
  converts to the new religion."

If the DN was composed for the purpose of propaganda, to attract
converts to the new religion, then it is unlikely the Buddha spoke for this purpose, since the Buddha was only interested in converting those with little dust in their eyes (MN 26) and keeping his doctrine pure (AN 2.23, AN 2.25, MN 22, MN 38, etc).

As for the Brahmajala Sutta itself, it is not the specific sutta best chosen from the DN to make a claim the DN was not spoken by the Buddha because the principles in the Brahmajala Sutta appear sound. It is others suttas best chosen to make such claims, such as the Maha Nidana Sutta, which is obviously a corruption of the Buddha-Dhamma.
This being said, the Brahmajala Sutta might possibly contain words or doctrines that are not found in any other sutta, such as saññīvādā, antānantikā, amarāvikkhepikā, etc. I think only a competent scholar could make a reasonable hypothesis. If so, it is open to question.
Another peculiar feature of the Brahmajala Sutta is it is a response to a debate between the wanderer Suppiya together with his pupil, the youth Brahmadatta. It is possible but it also seems strange the Buddha would give such a lengthy, pedantic & close to paranoid anal discourse due to the discussions between the wanderer Suppiya together with his pupil, the youth Brahmadatta.
The paranoia or defensiveness gets even worse, with the morality sections referring to "Gotama" himself abstaining from attending unsuitable shows, games and recreation, etc, to the point of sounding very childish. At least I would expect the Buddha to refer to his Vinaya abstaining from these worldly behaviours rather than himself personally.
To me, the Brahmajala Sutta sounds like a PhD dissertation rather than the words of a Buddha. That being said, as already posted, the principles in the Brahmajala Sutta are sound. Therefore, there is nothing explicit in the Brahmajala Sutta to deem it not Buddha-Dhamma.
If one wishes to critique the authenticity of the DN, others suttas are best chosen.

To conclude & to answer the question, the reason for dismissing DN suttas such as the Maha Nidana Sutta is because they promote wrong understanding of Dependent origination, which is the core dhamma of Buddhism.

Is there any references to the study? Any web resources about Joy Manne and other scholars? Wikipedia links do not show any claim about the controversial disagreements between in these Suttas.

Here: http://www.palitext.com/JPTS_scans/JPTS_1990_XV.pdf

I would like to modify to the question based on your answer. The reason I like to do this is because I don't want to lose the continuity of question keeping related addenda in one place (here in one question). I hope you wouldn't mind that.

"Monks, be a lamp unto yourselves, be a refuge unto yourselves, with no other refuge. Take the Dhamma as your lamp, take the Dhamma as your refuge, with no other refuge."
  -Supreme Buddha, Digha Nikaya Sutta 26

The Sutta Pitaka contains five collections, or Nikayas. The first of the five -  Digha Nikaya (long discourses) consists of 34 suttas in 3 books. These range in length from 5 to 47 pages. Many suttas are readily accessible to a newcomer and many are quite deep and detailed.
After the council Arahat Ananda Thera and his followers were entrusted with the responsibility for Digha Nikaya. The followers of Arahat Sariputta Thera were entrusted with Majjima Nikaya. Sanyutta Nikaya, was entrusted to Arahat Maha Kassapa Thera and, Arahat Anuruddha Thera and his followers were entrusted with Anguttara Nikaya. All the Theras were made responsible for the Kuddaka Nikaya which was completed at the third council. Vinaya Pitaka was entrusted to Arahat Upali Thera and his followers.
There’s a passage in the very first sutta in the Digha Nikaya, the Brahmajala Sutta, listing all the different kinds of wrong views that people can develop. Of the 62 grounds for wrong views, not every wrong view comes from people simply thinking things out without having practiced meditation. A lot of wrong views come from people who meditate and gain some insights or intuitive knowledge, but the knowledge isn’t as complete as they thought it was. So they jump to the wrong conclusions.
Digha Nikaya, as much as the other four Nikayas, gives us the teaching of the Four Noble Truths which is the core of the Dhamma realized by the Tathagata. The Buddha, in the Maha Parinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, announced that it is because of the ignorance of the Four Noble Truths that we have had to continue so long, wandering on this weary path of Samsara. Sadly, in the present day, in translating from Pali to English, even Professors like Rhys Davids make mistakes. In translating from Pali to English one must be equally proficient in both, and should have attained the path. No one who has not attained the path, can assume to be right about the Dhamma.
Understanding is Panna - it is the third stage, after seeing (Dassana, yatha bhutha nana, seeing things as they actually are), and path entry. The characteristic of the Dhamma is that it is leading onwards (Opanayiko). Thus, full understanding (Parinna) is by the arahat. Unfortunately, that is beyond a householder, or a lay person, in this life.
In Samyutta Nikaya Sutta 38.16, it is said that even after persons renounce and become monks, it is difficult to find one who practises in accordance with the Dhamma. But Digha Nikaya Sutta 16 says that if monks were to live the holy life perfectly according to Dhamma-Vinaya, the world would not lack for Arahants. Now to practise the Dhamma perfectly, one has to be perfectly knowledgeable about the Supreme Buddha's instructions in the Suttas.
The Suttas of the Digha-Nikaya are a valuable source for life in ancient India in general. Several of its Suttas also provide information on the biography of the Buddha that is not found elsewhere in the canon. For example in Digha Nikáya Sutta 14 & DN 32, the Supreme Buddha stated that six Supreme Buddhas appeared over 91 world-cycles.  The seven Buddhas, including "our" Supreme Buddha, mentioned in DN 14 & DN 32: Vipassi, Sikhi, Vessabhu, Kakusandha, Konagamana, Kassapa, and Gotama.
Then in the Sakkapanha Sutta in Digha Nikaya we get to know that Sakra, the Lord of the Deva world of the Thirty Three had reached fruition of the Path. Such information is not found in the other suttas.
In a Digha Nikaya sutta called the Janavasabha [DN. II. 216 f.], Brahma Sanankumara addresses the devas of the Tavatimsa world and tell them of the seven contributory factors as ‘well proclaimed by the Buddha which lead to the establishment of samma-samadhi. They are referred to as satta samadhi-parikkhara. Professor Rhys Davids in his translation has misunderstood the word pahoti. He takes it to mean suffices to. He writes… Right intention suffices to maintain right views for Samma-ditthissa samma-samkappo pahoti. Maurice Walshe gets it correct as "From right view arises right thought".


text:
Tathā synonymous with Tathātā?
From wiki:
"Tathā means "thus" in Sanskrit and Pali, and Buddhist thought takes this to refer to what is called "reality as-it-is" (yathābhūta). This reality is also referred to as "thusness" or "suchness" (tathātā)"
So, are the two words synonymous?
For example, could one say "tathātāgata" and would it mean the same as "tathāgata"?
And, taking -gata to mean "being", is it like the following?
tathāgata = thus being / real being
tathātāgata = thusness being / reality being
Also, if some kind soul could upload a pronunciation in sanskrit of the two words online, e.g to vocaroo, I'd be impermenantly grateful.

A related topic: Why does the Buddha call himself the Tathāgata?

tathāgata is two words: tathā (thus) + gata (gone; go to; arrived at)
tathatā is two words: tatha (thus) + tā (state of)
Pali is pronounced here at 23:19 http://www.suanmokkh.org/retreat_talks/148

Do you know why there are two words, Tathatā and Tathatta, listed in the PTS dictionary? And is that tā suffix the same as in anattā?

Hi Chris. I cannot answer your question. However, the suffix 'tā' means 'state' thus can be used in 'aniccatā', 'dukkhatā', 'anattatā', 'sunnatā', Idappaccayatā, atammayatā, etc

You were right. TATHATA means thusness, suchness, just-like-that-ness: neither this nor that, the reality of non-duality. Things are just as they are (void and dependently originated) regardless of our perceptions, likes and dislikes.
The three words “tathata”,”avitathata” and “anannatatha” are very important. Also the word “Tathagata”. Tathagata  is a descriptive term used by the Supreme Buddha in referring to himself. As a name for a Buddha, it means the Being Par-excellence, the Great Being. Gautama Buddha frequently in the Suttas speaks of himself as the Tathagata. We can see many contexts where the term Tathagata has been mentioned in the first four Nikayas. Tathagata means the perfect one. Literary the one who has “thus gone” or “thus come”. It is an epithet of the Buddha used by him when speaking of himself. The term has derived from “tatha” or “tatha” in pali, which means “thus” and “truth” or “reality”. So when the term taken with the suffix “gata”(Tatha + gata) provides the meaning “thusgone” and when the term is made by the suffix “agata” (Tatha + agata) provides the meaning “thus come”.
Since the term is related to truth “Tathata” yields the meaning thatness or suchness literary “reality”. Avitathata means that the truth that can not be changed and proved in its nagative aspect. Anannata is that one can not provide alternative of suchness or truth. So the three terms indicate some characteristics of reality. Therefore in term “Tathagata” “tatha” means reality or the truth .That is Nibbana. Accordingly those who have come or gone to the state of reality or Nibbana are “Tathagatas”.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does the Buddhist text Alankarabuddhi still exist?
As I discuss in this question, by far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy today is the Vedanta school, which is based on the philosophical portions of the Vedas.  But in the time when Buddhism was at its peak popularity in India, the most popular school of Hindu philosophy was the Purva Mimamsa school, which was based on the ritualistic portions of the Vedas.
Now one of the most famous Purva Mimasa philosophers was named Kumarila Bhatta, and in this excerpt from his work the Tantra Vartika, he argues that Hindus should not accept Buddhist texts as valid scripture, because Buddha was a violator of the Vedas:

Then again, we find that the Bauddha teachings were given by one who was a born Kshatriya; and as such, he transgressed the duties of his own class, in taking upon himself the work of taking and receiving presents (which are the monopoly of the Brahmanas); and hence how can we believe that true Dharma or Duty would be taught by one who has transgressed his own Dharma? It has been well said: "One who is found to be doing deeds opposed to a prosperous hereafter, should be shunned from a distance; because how can one who deceives himself offer any salutary advice to others?"
Such transgression of Dharma by Buddha is clearly mentioned in the Alankarabuddhi (a Bauddha work), where Buddha is represented as saying - "May all the pain proceeding from the sins due to the Iron Age, rest in me, and leave humanity at large absolutely free!"  And in connection with this his followers eulogise his virtues in the following strains: "For the sake of the well-being of humanity, He transgressed his own duties as a Kshatriya, and having taken up the duties of the Brahmana, he taught, even to the people outside the pale of Vedic religion, such truths relating to Dharma, as were not taught by Brahmanas who were unable to transgress the prohibition (of such teachings being imparted by outsiders); and thus prompted by his mercy to others, he even went to the length of transgressing his own Dharma!" And we actually find His followers behaving in a manner entirely at variance with the teachings of the Veda.

I found the quote in bold interesting, because it seems reminiscent of the Christian notion that "Jesus died for our sins".  So my question is, does the Buddhist text that Kumarila Bhatta is quoting from, the Alankarabuddhi, still exist?
By the way, when the Alankarabiddhi quote says "Iron Age", that's an English translation of the Sanskrit term "Kali Yuga", which refers to the Hindu notion that we are currently living in an age of evil.  Now I think only some sects of Buddhism share this Hindu belief, so that may help in finding this text.

Do you mean "Abhisamayālaṅkāra" 《現觀莊嚴論》? [l] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhisamayalankara [/l] It is the work of Asanga, said to receive from Maitreya dwelling in Tusita. It is a much later work after Buddha entered nirvana, Nagarjuna left. It strongly relates to the Tibetan Buddhism one of the concepts similar to "Jesus died for our sins". By this fragment I would say that written in this treatise is not Buddha's own word neither said directly by the Buddha. One should read these with caution and scrutinize.

@Bhumishu米殊 Well, I don't know whether I mean that or not.  Does the specific quote "May all the pain proceeding from the sins due to the Iron Age, rest in me, and leave humanity at large absolutely free!" occur in that text?

Dont know, never read it. Any more info regarding "Alankarabuddhi", a book? A Buddhist Sutra? Buddhist Treatise? Or an Indian Classic? In google maybe it share "alankara" therefore the Abhisamayalankara listed, which is the later work by an Indian monk who was proficient in Brahmanism later converted, one of the root gurus of Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism has this concept of "suffered (on behalf of) for others" 代受

No, I don't have any information beyond that quote by Kumarila Bhatta.  In any case Kumarila Bhatta lived in the 8th century, so there's a possibility the work he's referring to is lost.

I tried to use Google to find "Alankarabuddhi", and failed to find it, except "Alankara Buddhi" is mentioned on this page, which lists chapter titles of the Vedanta Dindimah -- perhaps you'd find more information there, in the Vedanta Dindimah. "Alankara" translates as "ornament", which is used in the title of many Tibetan works (though Kumarila Bhatta's date, roughly 700 CE, is quite early relative to Tibetan Buddhism).

I don't think you'll find a quote like this in the Pali canon.

Looks like this is modified some so called "  Buddhist text Alankarabuddhi " text, by some one who are not buddhist.

This may be a "lost in translation" issue. The term "alankar" usually refers to an instrument or ornament. It also refers to a ritual of rhythmic clapping in Tala. Since the Sutras are traditionally recited in rhythm, this might just be a reference to this practice of reciting the teachings. A modern-day equivalent would be "rap", referring to both the rhythm and the actual text.

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

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


text:
Recently started mediation,on my own,had a weird sensation
I recently tried meditating.I only did it for about 5 minutes. But had a sense of vibration on the center of my forehead. So is it good or bad? What should i do?

Read this , you will find another link in this answer that will provide an pdf file of 52 pages, its a beginner guide to meditation.

All kinds of weird experiences arise in meditation. If you react with craving or aversion then you are regressing in your meditation. Be progressive by giving it not importance and experiencing the vibrating sensation and the impermanent or arsing and passing nature of the experience.

It sounds like you are concentrating too hard; with too much force.
Proper meditation 'lets go' rather than tries to attain.
Make the mind quiet, gentle & still rather than 'push' with force & ambition.
Always remember the Buddha taught his path is the abandoning/giving up of craving.


text:
Living in the moment without indulging in it
I find it difficult to live in the moment or go with the flow as i am reminded of the sense doors and hence am guarded in the present to not to be totally involved in the moment and I miss the flow or to experience the moment as it is. I am trying to follow the zen and the middle path. How does one practice being in the present ?

"Living in the moment" isn't a practice, but a result. It's another word for the mindfulness or wakefulness "muscle" that develops as you do your practice. So if you don't feel it, don't worry about it.
Follow the instructions for your particular practice, and you will feel your "muscle" for living in the present moment gradually strengthening in your daily life. For example, as time goes by, you'll notice that it is easier to be concentrated in everyday situations, or that you are more and more resilient in recovering from strong emotions.
It isn't really "you" living in the present moment, anyways. Your awareness is always living in the moment as it is. You don't need to correct your awareness. If you try to live in the present moment, then you'll merely be constantly trying to do two things at once
When you watch the sense doors, it's your non-present "self" that practices turning itself toward a true present phenomenon, and it does it over and over again. It's the only tool you have, so it's normal if you feel that doing this is not in harmony with the "true" present moment. But it is the right way to develop the skill of returning to your awareness more and more often, so that it becomes more and more automatic.

On seeing a form with the eye,
one investigates the form that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the form that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the form that is the basis of equanimity.
...

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta similarly also Titth’ayatana Sutta.

the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings;

Pahāna Sutta
So to experience the moment what ever sensation from the sense door be equanimous noting the impermanence / arising and passing of the sensation arising due to the sense door. This is the way to be in the present moment.
The middle path in essence is to avoid extremes, which not tied with the goal, and cultivate your mind towards liberation. See: Middle Path, Middle Way and middle-way for more elaborate details on the middle path.

You can find it in Satipattana Sutta.

Please add some more content to your answer, preferable a reference.

How does one practice being in the present ?

Try to identify current moment's(thought) attributes like feeling(good/bad/neutral),  sensation, naming(using previous identification) and how actions formed.
Try to identify how feelings feels without permanent soul.

You can try to first practise the mindfulness meditation taught by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, including the sitting meditation and the walking meditation. There is the text for this here and the YouTube video playlist here.
After that, you can slowly incorporate it into daily life.
In Chapter Six, he says:

Further, one can apply the same technique to any small movement of the
  body – for instance when bending or stretching the limbs, one can note
  “bending” or “stretching”. When moving the limbs, “moving”. When
  turning, “turning”, and so on. Every activity can become a meditation
  practice in this way; when brushing one’s teeth, “brushing”; when
  chewing or swallowing food, “chewing, chewing”, “swallowing,
  swallowing” and so on.
When cooking, cleaning, exercising, showering, changing clothes, even
  on the toilet, one can be mindful of the movements of the body
  involved, creating clear awareness of reality at all times. This is
  the first method by which one can and should incorporate the
  meditation practice directly into ordinary life.

Another teacher who has produced good material on this subject is Thich Nhat Hanh.

By not getting caught up in thoughts. If you notice that you're involved in thinking, unless it's necessary to the task at hand, let go of it. Come back to the here and now.
Keep repeating this practice every time time you notice you're lost in thought, ten, a hundred, a thousand times a day. Keep coming back to the here and now.


text:
The four requisites for trade
In the Vanijja Sutta Buddha talks about the four requisites for trade. I couldn't find the four anywhere, does anybody know what he refers to?

Strange sutta to me, also.

The requisites for trade are not requirements for trading, they are four objects which are traded.
They are four items which are required for monastic living, namely clothing, food, medicine and shelter.


text:
Hatred arising after a friend tried to make my fiancé cheat on me
Yesterday one of my fiancé's friends had a heart attack at 25 due to alcoholism. She stayed with him all night. When he was discharged she was sleeping at his house because she was too tired to drive home and he made a very aggressive move on her. She ran away crying.
It really hurt her, because he was a close friend and now things have gotten complicated. But for me I can't shake feelings of anger and hatred at this guy. Two days  ago he was a funny, nice-enough guy who probably had a crush on my fiancé but I wasn't worried because I trust her. Now he's the guy who hit on her very forcefully.
My fiancé partly wants to stay his friend. But I don't know how I can even look at this guy. I try to have compassion, remember he could've died and was in a scary place, but I think about what he did I'm filled with disgust. I don't know if he knows I know what happened. Should I talk to him? Or ask my fiancé to tell him and see if he apologises?
Sometimes they work together, late at night and by themselves. I don't know how I could stand that.
Please, I'll appreciate any advice you can give. I was once fairly rid of feelings of violence and anger. Now I'm not so sure.

If you are looking for a Buddhist answer you will have to accept that the Buddhist approach largely involves changing how you view the situation rather than changing what the situation is.
You haven't mentioned any techniques you tried for dealing with the situation so here are three

Use metta meditation to develop compassion for your friend, your fiance, and yourself. Let go of anger to everybody (including yourself) by realising that all their actions are done due to their ignorance which is an unavoidable part of human existence
Maintain mindfulness through the day. When thoughts of anger arise there are many ways you can pause to see the anger, for example, observe without judgement [equanimity], observe them come and go [impermanence], ask who is experiencing these thoughts [not-self]. Pick an approach and stick with it.
In your formal meditation practice you are most calm so you are in a good state of mind for experiencing and dealing with anger. You could take any of the approaches mentioned in the previous point but use one which matches your regular style of meditation. Presumably you have been developing a style of meditation for a few months or years, this is the time when you are strongest against greed, anger and delusion.

The issue is mostly between you & your fiancé (rather than the guy) since it is your fiancé that must establish appropriate boundaries with the guy. If he is to remain your friend, naturally he should apologise to both of you. If he remains your friend, you must communicate your personal concerns directly to him (rather than hold them within you).
However, Buddhism does not state you must remain his friend because Buddhism warns against 'false friends' & 'bad companionship', particularly those who are womanizers & alcoholics.

12. "These are the six dangers inherent in bad companionship: any rogue, drunkard, addict, cheat, swindler, or thug becomes a friend and
  colleague.
15. "Young man, be aware of these four enemies disguised as friends: the taker, the talker, the flatterer, and the reckless companion.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html

very Good answer

There are 3 parties:

you
fiancé
3rd party

What you have is worry, hate and anger. This is normal for a worldling but this creates bad Karma and lower future for you.
Your fiancé is compassionate but should strengthen her resolve not to overstep the boundaries.
The 3rd party has a problem with alcohol. Has weak moral resolve.
The Buddhist path 1st cultivate morality. In order to increase your moral resolve you have to practice mastery over the mind. To cement morality it you have to develop wisdom. This is the way out of the satisfactoriness that prevails.
If you apply this to the situation, your are suffering to to your friend and the situation fiancé is in. Your friend is suffering due to perhaps his crush, poor health, drinking. Your fiancé is suffering as due to conflict with loyalty to you and friendship.
The way out is the practice the Dhamma. The morality, if practiced, your friend will not make advances and drink. When working late your fiancé will not fall into the advances of your friend. Mastery over the mind will make the resolve stronger and wisdom will cement it. Also everything not permanent even relationships and feeling. You also have to come out of your suffering.
The best way to practice the above is to take up and organised Vipassana course. You can try:

https://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html

or look for one in: World Buddhist Directory.
Taking a course alone will not make a magical transformation. The transformation will be gradual and slow and only if you put in the effort to improve your self. Since your fiancé want to maintain the friendship perhaps this might be something 3 of you can work on and push and nudge the other if they fall back in putting the efforts.
You might also want to check out some of the experiences and testimonials of the practice.

awesome as always, VP for you

Hatred is pointless as well as anger.  Addiction is the problem.  Addicts hurt their friends and loved ones. I suggest reading a Beautiful Boy by David Sheff for context.  The addict can only help himself.  You can counsel but they will still fall prey to the disease.  It is not a moral issue.  You should protect yourselves by retreating to a safe distance and tell addict to stay sway until sober and commited through AA program.  Relapse must not be tolerated.


text:
Sutta in which Buddha says that he/anyone don't have to take another person words?
As in Title,
I'm searching for a sutta in which I recall that probably some person started to offend a Buddha, and he responded by giving some analogy, probably to offered food, that one doesn't have to take another persons words, offenses.

It was in the Akkosa Sutta SN 7.2
This incident took place when the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels’ Sanctuary. The angry young man was a brahman called Akkosaka Bharadvaja. He has heard that a brahman of the Bharadvaja clan had gone forth from the home life into homelessness in the presence of the Blessed One. That is why angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.
When this was said, the Blessed One said to him: “What do you think, brahman: Do friends & colleagues, relatives & kinsmen come to you as guests?”
“Yes, Master Gotama, sometimes friends & colleagues, relatives & kinsmen come to me as guests.”
“And what do you think: Do you serve them with staple & non-staple foods & delicacies?”
“Yes, sometimes I serve them with staple & non-staple foods & delicacies.”
“And if they don’t accept them, to whom do those foods belong?”
“If they don’t accept them, Master Gotama, those foods are all mine.”
“In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted me, who is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating: that I don’t accept from you. It’s all yours, brahman. It’s all yours.
“Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman. It’s all yours. It’s all yours.”


text:
Am I Bearing the pain or observing it, When my leg hurts during Vipassana?
Yesterday I was practicing Vipassana, In starting I observed everything as neutral, then everything was positive, then after 30 minutes, my left leg started hurting badly, i observed it as just negative for 5-7 minutes, then i was thinking am i observing this pain, or am i bearing it ?, whats the difference ?
then i gave up.

I could not move my left toe every single time, after Vipassana, i sit in Sukhasan.

Kindly help and suggest me for betterment.

When you start thinking you should note that, if you have doubt about the practise you should note doubt, if curious to what correct practise is you should not that aswell as "curious"

then i was thinking am i observing this pain,

Thinking as such is creates verbal fabrications. The objective is reduce fabrications. You should look as the sensations arising and passing without creating any craving and aversion. There can be no verbalisation, intellectualisation (thinking and pondering), visualisation, etc.

or am i bearing it

You should just passively observe and not suppress it by diverting your attention to more pleasant thoughts. If this is what you mean by bearing it then, yes, you are bearing it.
If you want you can try breathing meditation if the pain is unbearable in your body. This is fine. You should always limit are diverted to either Ānāpānasati or Satipaṭṭhāna and between them. You should always be calm.
Also use the pain as a tool to reduce latent tendency (see: Anusaya by Piya Tan) of aversion by not rejecting or being averse for the painful feeling.

the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings

Pahāna Sutta
This also does not mean you should stay with the painful sensations only as you will miss the more subtle sensation but they need to be also felt.

I could not move my left toe every single time

This happens but perhaps as a beginner you could try using a small chair or cushion if this might help.

whats fabrication ?
I was trying to look at sensation, but it is pain, Does it pratically means you are asking me to overlook pain, or if i can focus on breath and remove my focus from leg ?

I added a link. It is called Saṅkhāra

Okay i get it, just one Query.
Focus should be to remain calm in response to pain, or should i move mind to breath or something else, till the negative moment goes away

Added more information on removing focus also.

Some modern schools of meditation observe physical pain however I have not read about this kind of practise in the Pali scriptures. The Pali scriptures recommend the practise of Anapanasati & jhana (pleasant abiding), where vipassana occurs as a natural result.
Impermanence & not-self happens with everything, including the in & out breathing. The more calm & clear the mind is, the more it can observe impermanence & not-self, which is vipassana  ('clear seeing of reality').
I advise sitting posture should always be comfortable, with a naturally erect spine. If a person cannot sit crossed-legged on a floor with comfort then kneel or sit on a stool.


text:
Ordaining vs normal life
Lord Buddha left the normal life due to frustration he got seeing those four instances of human life.
In today when people get the same frustration they call it as depression, and motivate further to enjoy the normal life with lots of bonds and relationships. I'm confused in this scenario, what is the relationship between ordaining and depression ?

I would not say that it is due to frustration that Supreme Buddha left for we call the ‘Great Renunciation’ when he left all the worldly comforts and riches to find the end of suffering. You are partly right @Irasha... taken on its own, samvega can be a very depressing realization. Which is why it has to be paired with pasada, or confidence: confidence that there is a way out.  For won't not for a better word, in Sinhala it is called    “අවබෝධයෙන් කලකිරීම”. A positive thing.
In the famous story about young Prince Siddhartha seeing the old person, the sick person, and the dead person, he also saw a forest mendicant. That was his fourth vision. His realization after seeing the forest mendicant was, “This must be the way out. If there’s any way out, this is it.” And so he pursued that conviction with a strong sense of clarity and confidence.
Depression is different. In depression the mind harms itself. It keeps sapping its own strength, thinking in ways that get it depressed, thinking in ways that gets it fearful, that just drain its strength away. There are all kinds of wrong thinking that can do the mind a lot of harm. You may focus on thoughts that lead to anger, on thoughts that lead to depression, on thoughts that are self-destructive. That’s the most typical way most people focus their minds. Only way out is when you learn to give up those habits, you find resources of strength inside that you wouldn’t have anticipated. You can hold onto them.
All states of mind have mind as their forerunner. mind is their' chief, and they are mind made. Everything occurs with the prominence of mind . Thus says the pali text: "Manō pubbangamā dhamā - manō setthā manō mayā".  One’s unpleasant feelings that depress the mind are clung as suffering.
The more naturally prone to depression, anxiety, etc. the more likely and easily one could be adversely affected.
When one feels a sense of depression, a sense of sadness, there’s a physical side to it and there’s the mental side. The mental side is made up of lots of little thoughts that are all glommed together. So the Buddha recommends that you take it apart in terms of the khandhas, in terms of the aggregates. Look for the feeling, and then look for the perception. An important perception is saying, “This is my suffering, this is happening to me,” which may be true but you don’t have to think it. It’s an optional thought. You could simply say, “This is suffering,” and leave it at that. That would adequately describe the situation and would also be more helpful. The thing is, you have to catch the mind in the act of applying that particular perception. It will do it repeatedly again and again and again. That’s what clinging is. It’s holding onto a particular thought and just repeating it over and over again.
When you can see that happening, you realize that you’ve got the choice to drop it. You don’t have to keep hitting yourself over the head. As the Buddha said, there are things that may be true but if they’re not useful, if this is not the right time for them, we don’t say them. Take that principle and apply it to the mind, to your inner conversation. There may be perceptions that in one way or other are true enough, but they’re not useful and this is not the right time for them. They’re actually causing you suffering, so why bring them in?
To see things clearly is called discernment, seeing distinctions, being able to tease things out. Learn to be equanimous, patient, accepting of everything. Suffering comes, and you tell yourself that that’s just the nature of experience, that’s the way it is. Craving comes, well, just accept the craving, that’s the way it is. It is the ability to admit what’s going on. Then there is also a duty or a task to do with each of these truths. It is being mindful – it is a kind of meditation (sati sampajanna).
Meditation may be helpful with managing depression. Learn the right way to meditate, as there are a lot of nonsense out there and many blind alleys. Listen to “Budu Suwanda” on Youtube by Ven Kochchikade Seewali Thero or Ambanpola Gnanawijaya Thero. Start with a sense of pasada, that this is your way out. Stick with the practice with that sense of conviction, confidence, desire. If you approach the meditation in a desultory way, you’re going to get desultory results. You really have to be devoted to what you’re doing here.

Thank you sir, Yes I have the motivation for meditation but always fails to continuously do it due to academics overload and etc. Yes I must start and I will do this time, reading your replies is great always.

Depression is a form of Dukkha but Dukkha is not necessary depression.
If you take up robes due to frustration this does not generally last as you would end up more frustrated in robes due to austerities as a monk. When you are depressed you do not see things clearly, i.e., 3 characteristics.
The Buddha to be left householder's life partly out of wisdom, though not the ultimate form, to search for liberation. If your renunciation is prompted by wisdom and realisation than depression or running away from hardship, then your life as a monk maybe successful.

yes I understand your point, what I meant here by frustration is not being fed up of hardships, I'm referring to the understanding of the circularity of things: the reality.

I think Upanisa sutta answers your question.  Buddha didn't use words such as "frustration" or "depression" as you posted in your question but  he used "suffering".  For someone to ordain, one has to have faith fist and one of the supporting conditions for faith is suffering

"Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.

birth -> suffering
Suffering -> faith
faith -> joy
joy -> rapture
rapture -> tranquility
tranquility -> happiness
happiness -> concentration
concentration -> knowledge and vision of things as they really are
knowledge and vision of things as they really are -> disenchantment
disenchantment -> Dispassion
Dispassion -> emancipation
emancipation -> The knowledge of destruction cankers

yes exactly!! that's what I'm referring here by 'frustration' as I have mentioned in the previous reply's comments too : the understanding of the circularity of things: the reality

and per your comment from your question "..nd motivate further to enjoy the normal life with lots of bonds and relationships.." , i dont remember from which sutta but it goes like; most beings when touched by pain and suffering not knowing the four noble truths, they would go and seek out 5 sensual pleasures (to mask the pain) without knowing that exact action is causing more (another) pain.

yes totally agreeing! And they end up even more suffering finally by wasting lot of time!

I think the relationship is that when ordaining one looks for an answer to these problems of death, sickness, old age and death. But when depressed one doesnt belive there is any solution and eventually considers suicide.

The Bodhisatta wasn't really depressed, he had a sense of shock, anxiety and spiritual urgency to escape the suffering of samsara AKA samvega.
Part of the question is, "today when people get the same frustration they call it as depression, and motivate further to enjoy the normal life with lots of bonds and relationships"
This is the  "normal" worldly path to happiness that  is most likely what is causing the depression. This normal path causes us much suffering and we get habituated into it so it will then take years to undo it with Dhamma practice.
One usually ordains to transcend suffering in some way. One can also ordain due to great intrest in Buddhism or truth.
If one is seriously depressed then one would probably not be accepted as a monk, not that it would necessarily be bad for one's depression to ordain.
The claim is that some mild depression and phobias can be cured by using a good method of mindfulness practice. Moment by moment, one puts more focus towards the depression or rather, the precise feeling of the depression that manifests as bodily or mental sensations. If one is practicing properly, one will eventually gain understanding, wisdom or insight(these three words mean pretty much the same thing) about the depression.


text:
The first rule of 8 Garudhammas
So according to the 8 Garudhammas of Bhikkunis this is the first one.

1) A nun who has been ordained even for a hundred years must greet respectfully, rise up from her seat, salute with joined palms, do proper homage to a monk ordained but that day.

For me this sort of pushes the males to superiority. What is the reason for this? Is it accurate? Where can I find a reference to it in the Vinaya Pitakaya?

This should be garudhamma and not gurudhamma?

The reasons are many:

Males are superior. Males left their homes, lived in forests, attained enlightenment, started the religion, wandered & spread the religion, often at great danger to their lives. The women did not do this but came along later, demanding to join the men. If the women were equal, they would have started their own religion but they did not do this because women do not have the spiritual, moral &/or social authority to start their own religion that is respected by the world at large. The women joined the male Sangha and the men had to make many sacrifices in order for the women to be protected and live safely, so the Sangha would not fall into disrepute if women were harmed. In summary, the male monastic community is based on men that left the family life and women are always 'guests' or 'visitors' to this community.
The Buddha (AN 6.52) taught the ideal of women is to dominate & want to be mothers. If women are given the freedom they want in the Sangha, they would want to act like mothers, lecture the monks, particularly the young monks, fault-find and the other behaviours women have the natural tendency to do because of their natural instincts to be mothers, nest-builders & housewives. This is contrary to the Dhamma, since the Dhamma is not the household life but a life of independence. Even today, we can witness new Buddhist nuns complaining & making demands like Western feminists rather than devoting their time to meditation practise (example, here).
In summary, men do not need to push their superiority. Instead, they must uphold the monastic community so it does not degenerate from its essence. Even today, most nuns are teaching metta (love) & feminism (attachment) rather than emptiness (sunnata). The Vinaya states:

As the story makes clear, gender is not an issue in determining a person’s ability to practice the Dhamma and attain release. But from
  the Buddha’s point of view it was an issue in his design of the Sangha
  as an institution....His concerns were pragmatic and strategic, aimed at the long-term survival of two
  things: the true Dhamma and the holy life.
The analogy of the clan predominantly female shows that, in the Buddha’s eyes, the survival of the holy life through wars, invasions,
  and the fall of civilizations required a Community predominantly male.
  Experience in Sri Lanka, India, and Burma has borne this point out:
  Bhikkhunı Communities were wiped out when these countries were
  invaded, whereas bhikkhus—if they could not survive in place—were able
  to flee and regroup elsewhere...Thus the Buddha formulated the eight rules of respect to help prolong the survival
  of the holy life by favoring the gender more likely to survive
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc2.pdf page 367

In this article (http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=8_Garudhammas) it says that later the Buddha made an exception on it. Any sources on that?

Start at Page 367 of the PDF: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc2.pdf

There's interesting information provided in this website, which provides some (presumably) anecdotal justification for the rule.
The first story from the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Suttavibhaṅga is as follows:
(Thullananda is a Bhikkhuni)

The lay woman went to Thullanandā and said: ‘Are you aware that was
  the Elder Mahākassapa, the Buddha’s great disciple, who is greatly
  revered by the deities as a virtuous field of merit? If you were to
  rise and greet him, what harm would come of that?’
Thullanandā said: ‘Mahākassapa was originally practicing another
  religion, [i.e.] Brahmanism. You greatly reverence that, but I do not
  respect it.’
The lay woman was annoyed and scolded: ‘These bhikkhunis say, “If you
  do what is good you will get merit”, but when they see bhikkhus coming
  they do not rise, as if they were women from another religion.’
When the bhikkhunis of few wishes, contented, keepers of ascetic
  practices heard about this they were not pleased. They went to the
  Buddha and told him everything. For that reason the Buddha summoned
  the two-fold Sangha together.
Knowing, he asked: ‘Is it true that you did that thing, or not?’
She answered: ‘It is true, Blessed One.’
The Buddha for this reason in many ways scolded: ‘How can this
  bhikkhuni see a monk coming and not rise?’ Having in many ways scolded
  for that reason, he said to the bhikkhus: ‘For the sake of ten
  benefits, I lay down this precept for bhikkhunis. From today onwards
  that precept should be taught:
‘Should a bhikkhuni, seeing a bhikkhu coming, not rise, this is an
  offense of pācittiya.’

The second story from the Vinaya of the Mahīśāsakas:

Now at that time bhikkhunis did not bow to monks, did not greet them,
  did not receive them, did not invite them to a seat. The bhikkhus were
  annoyed, and did not return to teach. Then the bhikkhunis were
  foolish, without knowledge, and not able to train in the precepts. The
  senior bhikkhunis saw this, looked down on it, and scolded in many
  ways. The matter was therefore told to the Buddha. For that reason the
  Buddha summoned together the two-fold Sangha.
He asked the bhikkhunis: ‘Is this true or not?’
They replied: ‘It is true, Blessed One.’
The Buddha in many ways scolded them: ‘Did I not already teach the
  eight garudhammas as suitable etiquette regarding bhikkhus? From today
  onwards, that precept should be thus recited:
‘Should a bhikkhuni, seeing a bhikkhu, not rise up, bow down, and
  invite him to a seat, this is an offense of pācittiya.’
For trainees and novices, it is an offense of wrong-doing. If sick, if
  previously there is anger and suspicion, with no shared speech
  [recitation?], there is no offense.’

And Pācittiya means:

‘Pācittiya’ means: burn, boil, smear, obstruct. If not confessed, it
  will obstruct the path. This is the offense: if a bhikkhuni sees a
  bhikkhu and does not rise, this is a pācittiya; straightaway seeing
  and not rising, straightaway at that point there is pācittiya.

In this other question (which was closed as a duplicate of this one), the OP wrote,

One day during a Dhamma deshana I heard a thero chanting that these rules were added later into Buddhism, by Brahmins, to show that Lord Buddha didn't give equal right to women, which was a practice in their community. Can someone please clarify this to me?

I note that Wikipedia references papers which claim to show that the rules were added later:

However, Bhikkunī Kusuma in her article "Inaccuracies in Buddhist Women's History" has pointed out a number of inaccuracies in the ways the Eight Garudhammas have been recorded in the Pali Canon and its commentaries.[3] And others point out the plethora of textual problems with the position for garudhammas.[15] Tathaaloka Bhikkhuni published evidence that the Eight Garundhammas are non-historical.[5]

So, I don't know but these references suggest that the Thero isn't the only person with this belief.
See also this answer, which gives details of some modern-day scholars' attempts to demonstrate this kind of thing (i.e. to demonstrate that it's a later addition) on a different but similar subject.

How important this rule is, is best shown by the first Bhikkhuni herself, as she asked the Buddha to repeal the rule, because it's hard, and thereby was not only rejected but also rebuked for her respectlessness.
Bhikkhunīs

Just as a clan in which there are many women and few men is easily plundered by robbers and thieves, in the same way, in whatever doctrine and discipline women get to go forth, the holy life does not last long... Just as a man might make an embankment in advance around a great reservoir to keep the waters from overflowing, in the same way I have set forth in advance the eight rules of respect for bhikkhunīs that they are not to transgress as long as they live." — Cv.X.1

[...] The analogy of the clan predominantly female shows that, in the Buddha's eyes, the survival of the holy life required a Community predominantly male. That was why he delayed granting Acceptance to his aunt, so that she would be willing to accept the eight rules of respect; that was why the requirements for Acceptance in the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha were more difficult and complicated than the requirements for Acceptance in the Bhikkhu Saṅgha; and that was why many of the rules governing relationships between the two Communities favored the bhikkhus over the bhikkhunīs.
The bhikkhunīs did not accept this situation docilely. Soon after vowing to adhere to the eight rules of respect for the rest of her life, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī requested that the bhikkhunīs be relieved of the most onerous one — the first. The fact that she was asking to renege on her word to the Buddha doomed the request to failure.

My person will not explain in detail, because "political correctness" and doing a favour for personal gain are today much more dominant, and people neither tend to faith and truth, nor to what is required for long term benefit, they generally have actually no respect in regard of the Jewels and put their own developed values above it: do not go for refuge = putting one self under an authority.
For one who wishes to seriously understand, it will not easy, but will, but one find the answer briefly given to an extent that will satisfy one's last doubts.
Others may even see in this very lifetime the reason, but then, if the Savaka Sangha is finally extinguished, it will be just a shock: "oh..." that would left behind.
(Note: you may try to sell this gift of Dhamma or even use it for your personal wordily gain! This will show you the truth of it's content.)

Sadhu for correcting spellin and grammer, Nyom @ChrisW . In regard of adding a quote, my person did not do so, because even the whole story of the link does not proper display the whole picture and if reading that, one could think that the Buddha had not much compassion with woman (althought at least he sacrified the properbly longer time, got right and let them go forth under HIM), aside that it is not direct related to the question. 1. garudhamma. Which he never directly explained, why, like most of the rules, aside of "for best welfare for all, here the Bhikkunis, for long and aim"


text:
What are the karmic consequences of writing horror / fantasy fiction?
Once I heard that Edgar Allan Poe is still being "haunted" by his creation, his Raven, because countless readers all over the world keep feeding energy to it, like a tulpa that never dies.
Many terrible things might happen from works of art/fiction, and they're quite unpredictable.
I believe that the bad karma comes from how you react to the work of fiction, just like how one reacts to videogames, but still, I'd like to know if there's some obscure karmic concept concerning expressing the "evil parts of our soul / mindstream" through art.
For example, Dario Argento created some pretty horrible movies, but might be a nice person. Similarly, Chih-Hung Kuei directed a pretty horrible movie about Wu / chinese "Black Magick", but had some touching / beautiful buddhist principles on it.
Is it ok to write / create horror fiction if it has a "good ending"? Does it generate bad karma for having no "good ending" whatsoever? Is it terrible only when the creator feels "haunted" by it? (This last one seems quite obvious, but anyway). Does the fact of giving life for a terrible concept / idea / tulpa by itself generates bad karma upon the creator and/or the viewers/readers? Does a sad song generates bad karma on the composer if the listener commits suicide listening to it? etc etc etc.
What are your views concerning art creation and bad karma resulting from it? (Not considering profit out of the work of fiction, necessarily).

You reap what you sow. If your motivations was to frighten people Karmic consequence might be to be the author gets frightened also. If your motive is profit as expence of reader getting deluded, start craving, being lustful, being averse or frightened (aid the arising of the unwholesome roots) the expected karmic consequences may not be so good.
If your motivation is to send a constructive message then it might not be bad Karma after all. It might not be the ending that matters buy what motivates you to do it.
Perhaps a book to teach Karmic consequence in the lower realms may not be a bad idea after all if you are thinking about writing. Khuddaka Nikāya's Petavatthu (and even perhaps Vimānavatthu) section may be a motivator for such stories.
Also the working of Karma is complex so it is not possible to give a definitive answer.


text:
In today's perspective is it possible to practice mindful meditation except bhikkhus?
Mindfulness: the Vipassana Meditation is a great methodology to reduce suffering, avoid attachments and gain pure happiness. But in present education, competition, living needs, relationships, responsibilities, duties etc too much are mandatorily attached to a single person. So is it really practical to practice this except bhikkhus?

just as I advised you in the earlier answer, listen to “Budu Suwanda” on Youtube by Ven Kochchikade Seewali Thero or Ambanpola Gnanawijaya Thero. Do exactly as instructed. I will answer to this OP for the benefit of others sometime later. With metta..

"mandatorily attached to a single person"? What does that mean? I am married and I can tell you from experience that    being married teaches me a lot.

@uuu The way I read it he is saying that the many duties of life are attached to us, it's not about relationships.

yes @Uuu that's what meant

@SapthaVisuddhi curious what your answer would look like

Thirty years ago when I was at your age I practiced Transcendental Meditation by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It is a mantra meditation. In it you are given a ‘bija’ – a seed mantra - a kind of Kasina that helps to settle the mind of the meditation practitioner within a very short time. One can create an oasis of calm amidst the hustle and bustle of the outside world in this Transcendental Meditation. It is over 25 years since I stopped doing TM. Any ordinary "run-of-the-mill"  lay person can do TM, but it is not so with Buddhist Vipassana Meditation. It calls for a whole lot more from you and will take a much longer time. It requires a whole lot of commitment and preparatory work, much like that of the Noble Eightfold Path. The first seven contributory factors (Samma-ditthi, Samma-samkappo etc.) lead to the establishment of Samma-Samadhi. They are referred to as satta samadhi-parikkhara. In TM what you get is ‘Micca Samadhi’, but following the Saddhamma you get to Samma-Samadhi.
To come to Samma-Samadhi, one must first and foremost become a true disciple of the Supreme Buddha. It is to have Saddha - the confidence towards the understanding of Supreme Buddha (Saddhahati Tathagatassa Bodhin). One cannot go the distance in this Dhamma Path without Saddha. One who has come to Saddha is one of Samma Ditthi (right understanding of the four noble truths). A worthy person. This is not an easy thing. Only a fortunate few would arrive at this. If we gradually but firmly establish Saddha in us and develop it, our Sakkaya Ditthi (the idea of self) leaves us. This will not happen if we are the type that questions the first five Nikayas. These Sutta & Vinaya are our teacher, and we do not question our ‘Asama-Sama’ Teacher. There are many avenues that can lead us astray. But for Nibbana there is only one road. Only one guide - That single road is thinking that “Supreme Buddha knows. I do not know” (Keetagiri Sutta).  The only safeguard for us, in keeping us safe from harm is our association with a Kalyana-Mitta (Noble Friend in Dhamma). That is why I gave you the names of Ven Kochchikade Seewali Thero and Ven. Ambanpola Gnanawijaya Thero.
If you want to be in command – to be alone - amidst the hustle and bustle of the outside world, first work towards this afore mentioned goal – to be a Sotapanna, a Stream Entrant. Then you do not even have to become a Bhikku, or do Vipassana, and within only seven lifetimes at the most, you will achieve the sublime Nibbhana. You will inevitably get to be born in one of the seven havens of sensual pleasure.
I am not asking you not to do Vipassana, as then you can go to even higher planes of existence. There are various planes of existence of beings that are present even though we cannot see most of them. The Supreme Buddha taught that there are nine such different planes of existence. These are known as ‘Sattāvāsa’. Those who do Vipassana and come to at least the first stage of dyana will get to be reborn in these higher planes. Some of these worlds belong to the type called ‘Ēkatta Kāyā’ ‘Ēkatta Sagnyā’, ‘Ēkatta Kāyā’‘Nānātta Sagnyā’ etc. etc.. The ‘Ēkatta’ denotes a meaning of ‘single’. This means, all the beings in this type of worlds are like each other with respect to their bodies / minds. On the other hand, the human world and the seven heavens of sensual pleasure are different. They belong to the type known as ‘Nānātta Kāyā’ ‘Nānātta Sagnyā’, which means different bodies and minds.
Getting into the subject of Vipassana, to do this properly you must first work towards purifying your sila (Sila Visuddhi), you must work towards safeguarding your six sense faculties (citta-visuddhi) and you must practise the Buddhist way of consumption of food – be it vegetarian or non-vegetarian food.
Mind is the sixth sense that which encompasses the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. A quiet mind is possible if you could restrain these sense faculties by reining in kama-cchanda. The Pali word kama means anything pertaining to the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Chanda means to delight in or agree with. Together the compound kama-cchanda means “delight, interest, involvement with the world of the five senses.” The wise who practice Dhamma in daily life very silently, are aware of their thoughts and spend a very simple but noble life in the world of hustle and bustle, amidst all outside distractions.
Only those who are wise enough to see things realistically in society would strive to lead a righteous life within our short duration of time. Even fewer are those with the ability to separate true Dhamma from contaminations through history and have the courage and wit to swim upstream. To do Vipassana, first one has to have a good understanding of the true dhamma – the Saddhamma – and be one who strives to practice the truth.

I don't think it is all that different than in past times. The distractions and duties might have been different, but there were surely many obstacles on the way.
The texts always mention householders and lay people for a reason.
The degree to which you practice or are able to practice may vary on your circumstances; many of those might not be that fixed as one may think, though. Too many possessions to look after? Too many duties that need your attention? If you need more time to practice, change the elements of your life. Downsize.
Most things that we think are necessary or "needs" are really useless if you think about them. With every excess you remove, life get's a whole lot easier.
Also, mindfulness can be practiced in many contexts. You could say: the harder the environment, the better the training.

Do you want to understand yourself where you are or not?
The truth is the truth but I am not so sure about what your saying. Is it that today's society makes it impossible for meditators to see the truth? No, it is always us as individuals who stop ourselves from seeing the truth, not them, not modern complexity.
Each one of us is a living,  breathing monestary. A bad modern society can teach us a lot,  it can lead us to act with courage we didn't know we had.
We don't need monasteries. We need teachers.

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven." Milton
Yes, the environment you face can affect how easy your path to enlightenment is.. After all, otherwise the Buddhists hells and heavens would not, at all, be differentiated from the human realm.
But whether you skip the buddhist world views or not, the path remains individual - whatever external (or internal) obstacles you choose to define for your paths, those are your external and internal obstacles. If you wish not to face them, recognise them as such and overcome them!

Great question.
The Dhamma is both timeless and of great benefit for all beings, no matter what position they are in or what life they lead.
The Dhamma teaches purification of Mind and permanent freedom from suffering.
In this life one might have many obligations. If one inclines greatly towards the Dhamma in this life, the next life might be different, i.e. more suitable for practicing the Dhamma.
I think its important to view your question (and answer) in the light of not a single life but many lives.

When that is said, there is always something one can do in this very life. Practicing even 5 minutes of meditation with correct technique is extremely valuable. When sharing the merits one just gained with all beings one is also practicing the 1st parami of generosity (dana). Having these intentions of good-will also conforms with the Right Intention (Samma Sankappa) from the wisdom group of the Noble Eightfold Path.
Do you have a pet? Did you feed it today? Did you lend an ear to a family member, sibling or friend? Giving your time and attention to somebody else, while having the right intention(s), is also to practice the Dhamma.
Following the 5 precepts, working on balancing the 5 spiritual faculties, studying the Dhamma or explaining the Dhamma to other people are also great ways to get closer and more familiar with the Buddhas teaching, eventually culminating in one reaching the other shore.
In Buddhism intention is important. The Buddha said that intention is what he calls Kamma. The first verse in the Dhammapada states mind comes first, intention comes first. If one has wholesome intentions, i.e. intentions of good-will, harmless and renunciation, happiness will follow and suffering will decrease.
Trying to follow the path by cultivating these 3 wholesome intentions which will completely change our outlook on the external conventional reality is something that can be practiced in this very life.
It can be practiced right now.

Yes, it is eminently practical. There are simply too many accounts of modern, everyday, busy people becoming (allegedly) highly attained on the Vipassana path (and others) to make the idea that it is practical only for bhikkhus credible.
A few examples, just off the top of my head, include: Daniel Ingram, Kenneth Folk, Shinzen Young, and a reasonable subset of the people interviewed at BatGap (if you're willing to broaden out beyond pure Vipassana and Buddhism and into Advaita Vedanta, for example, then look on BatGap specifically for Gary Weber). I think Young spent some quasi-monastic time, but I don't think he was ever a full-blown monk.
And of course for the par excellence example of a very busy householder of Olympic-grade Vipassana capability, you can't do much better than Dipa Ma

The main objective of Vipassana Meditation is to acquire.. Universal Consciousness ,Transcending Body Consciousness. Too much Psychological Stress or Physical suffering ,create STRONG BODY CONSCIOUSNESS . Too much pleasure creates ATTACHMENT TO THE BODY . The Buddha , therefore suggested the MIDDLE PATH ,for OPTIMAL PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT. However , in modern day situation ,working under HIGH STRESS and PHYSICAL PAIN , is quite COMMON. I believe , the spread of Christian Philosophy , is partly responsible for this. Christianity was taught to people living in Extreme Poverty .Live One Day at a time and leave the Future in the Hands of God , is the central teaching of Christianity .  Buddhism , on the other hand , was taught mainly to The Rich and Princely classes (NOBILITY), who did not have to worry about their day to day Existence. Buddhist teaching , therefore, is centered around Future Planning. ..Christianity rejects or ignores Future Planning.  Christianity believes in a Human, Father like God , who takes care of your Future.... Buddhism , on the other hand believes in a set of Universal and Eternal Laws , that governs the Material and Psychological Universe --on the basis of which , you can make future planning. Modern day Scientists , have succeeded in combining , these two concepts and succeeded in Cosmological Studies.  A simple way to start with , will be , to study popular books on Cosmology....  This will help you ,to acquire Universal Consciousness, in-spite-of the stresses and pains , you  are living with.

It's not manditory but if we plan on living in a world with mandatory attatchments we certainly need to know how to practice in the world so we can learn how to let go of those mandatory attatchments. Attatchment certainly isn't mandatory but maybe I'm not getting what you mean.
Silence isn't needed with vipassana(ok, ok, I mean with the kind of vipassana I practice). Silence is only very necessary for concentration practices. In The Mahasi Vipassana Method I was taught, we are not trying to get to any special state of mind but only whatever comes up in awareness. It's so simple I thought there had to be more to it but there wasn't and I wasted a lot of time trying to complicate the teaching.
So, I had a problem, did I need to go to a monestary? No. I had to find a good teacher.
If we plan on living in a monestary we certainly need to know how to practice in a monestary. Monestaries are great because everyone is on the same page and there are usually good teachers but the same could be said about a meditation center down in the middle of the city, were there are probably some good lay teachers and good monastic teachers.

Thank you @Uuu but I think it's possible to start without a teacher too right ? by referring materials etc ?

Yes. It is important to humble yourself with why you would even try. If there is no birth, decay and death there would be no Buddha. Reflection upon these three and your imminent fate should give you proper focus. If you lack this, try to obtain it by looking at the suffering around you and within you.
Once you have a clear fear of your imminent fate, you will then get intrinsic motivation to practice the solution.
Even experienced monks therefore practice marananussathi (contemplating imminent death) to avoid being late at meditation.

Yes - the answer is yes  with no doubt  -   you can practice vipassana meditation  and gain great success with it in this day and age in the lay life  - even with a demanding life
Is it better to be in a monastery ? yes also    -  its more easy to practice at a monastery


text:
Sutta/Sutra guideline for choosing actions in ethical dilemmas
I am searching for a sutta which gives a general guideline which helps in making ethical decisions. There are many suttas which give a skillful action for a specific scenario but I am looking for a guideline which shows us how to choose one action instead of another.
Often in ethical decisions it is possible to see how any decision hurts others indirectly. For example: Should I read printed news or online news? Printed news involves cutting down trees and destroying habitats, online news requires burning fossil fuels and polluting which harms people. We can endlessly intellectualise about the results of actions but this is paralysing rather than empowering. I would hope that a sutta doesn't suggest to analyse all possible results of an action.
I'm not sure what form the guideline will be in but I suspect that it will involve looking at one's own mind to see the motivations for an action or to see if any green/anger/delusion arises when taking the action.
The differences between an ethical action, skillful action, and meritous action are quite slim so the sutta could refer to any of these.

Don't paralyze yourself with ethical intellectualism.  You're just going to drive yourself batty.  Eventually you do have to act.
I'm going to give you two answers.  They're related to each other.  The first comes from the Majjhima Nikaya.  The Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta (MN 61) (one of my personal favorites!) rightly places morality as an aid to enlightenment rather than making it an end in and of itself.  It also recounts just how destructive certain actions are to the contemplative life and, rather being prescriptive about morality, it instead places the locus of agency firmly within the volition of the practitioner.  Providing guidelines rather than dogmatic law, emphasizing reflection rather than strict obedience, and handing off moral decisions to each of us is uniquely Buddhist.  It's also why this sutta gets my vote.
To answer what I take to be the larger part of your questions - namely paralysis by analysis when it comes to morality - let's look at a Zen koan from the Mumonkan -

Case 38 A Buffalo Passes the Window
Goso said, "A buffalo passes by the window. His head, horns, and four legs
  all go past. But why can't the tail pass too?"
Mumon's Comment
If you make a complete about-face, open your eye, and give a turning word
  on this point, you will be able to repay the four kinds of love that
  have favored you and help the sentient beings in the three realms who
  follow you.
If you are still unable to do this, return to this tail and reflect
  upon it, and then for the first time you will realize something.
Mumon's Verse
         Passing by, it falls into a ditch;
         Coming back, all the worse, it is lost.
         This tiny little tail,
         What a strange thing it is!

Instead of thinking about buffaloes and windows, let's instead think about suitcases and clothes.  You've seen plenty of cartoons, I'm sure, where Daffy Duck is packing for a trip.  He crams everything into a suitcase except the sleeve of his shirt is hanging out the side.  All that effort in packing, everything in there all delicately placed, neat, and even the latches close snugly.  But still that damn piece of sleeve.
So what do you do?  Do you leave it hanging out?  Well that's annoying!  But what are your alternatives?  You could cut it off, I suppose, but that would just damage your shirt.  Obviously, the thing to do is to just leave it.  I mean, how important is it really that everything fits into the suitcase perfectly?
Morality is really the same thing.  We can devise all of these perfect systems, take special care in reflecting on our actions, but the more we pack into the suitcase - e.g. the further we expand our reflection - the more likely it's going to be that something doesn't fit perfectly.  There are always going to be loose ends.  We can't worry about it.  Unless we stop fretting, pick up our suitcase, and walk out of the door, we are going to miss our train.

I like that this sutta suggests reflecting on an action before, during and after an action so we have multiple opportunities to see if the action was wholesome. Even if we did an unwholesome action we can know it for next time. Your source was more clear about this than Suminda's source so I'm accepting this as the answer.

The paragraph at the beginning about agency is well-said. Whenever I put my suitcase out on the bed to pack it, the cat climbs in! His tail cannot pass by.

LMAO!  Well, there is a particularly famous koan about what to do with a troublesome cat, but I don't think yours would be a fan of it.  ;-)  And yes, Hugh, I completely agree.  I've always been a fan of this sutta!

Having traversed all the quarters with the mind,
one surely finds none anywhere dearer than oneself.
Thus for each of us love the self the most—
therefore, one who loves the self should not harm another.

(Piyā) Mallikā Sutta

Guarding oneself, bhikshus, one guards others; guarding others, one guards oneself.

Sedaka Sutta

This action I want to do with the ___ — will it harm me, or harm others, or harm both?
Is it an unwholesome
  ___ action with painful outcome, painful result?

Amba,latthika Rahul’ovada Sutta
So whenever you have a dilema think would I like to be in a similar situation if you were the subject of the action.

THREEFOLD PURITY OF ____. Having reflected thus,
he himself abstains from ____,
he exhorts others to abstain from ____, and
he speaks in praise of abstaining from ____.

Velu,dvāreyya Sutta
If it is a dilemma about the precepts, abstain and encourage others as well, and praise abstinence.

Bhante, as regards such ____ conduct, when resorted to, unwholesome states increase and wholesome states decrease, such ____ conduct should not be resorted to.
But, bhante, as regards such ____ conduct, when resorted to, unwholesome states decrease and wholesome states increase, such ____ conduct should be resorted to

Sevitabbâsevitabba Sutta
When in a dilemma look inwardly to see increase or decrease in wholesome and unwholesome states.
Also look if the action is very proximate to the consequence. Growing a plant in a pot on a balcony can kill, if it falls on a by standard at the wrong moment. You are not motivated to kill hence there is nothing wrong with this. If something like this is a trap then it is unwholesome. Using paper is not an issue as long as you do not have a dilemma as the case is too remote. Killing and trading in meats and rearing animals to kill in Buddhism is discouraged but not eating meat. Former aims at curtailing the supply and distribution, but consumption is not forbidden as this is somewhat remote in the chain of events, but you should not see, hear or think the animal was killed specifically for me. If you have the dilemma the animal was killed for me or due to me being a non vegetarian then it is wise not to eat. After all it is mind and volition which decides the consequences, and undesirable consequences are unwholesome, may it be a worrisome mind or the karmic consequences. The dilemma may create the Karma itself. There is a story of a low birth due to dilema of breaking a leaf by a very pious and good monk. I cannot locate the story but hopefully it will apear here: A Monk Reborn in a Lower Realm for Breaking a Leaf. It is an example where even being overly worried about little things can snowball into a large Karmic result.
To reiterate, sakes of cookery may lead to deaths if someone uses the knives to kill and rob. Also there can be gas accidents which might kill someone. But the sale of arms and weapons are used to kill. Developing a dilemma on selling items for cooking has a remote chance of killing while selling weapons increase a chance to kill and aids the process how it is done. So selling weapons may also give a dilemma if some weapons used to do a mass shooting. Selling weapons is more close to the event. In case of killing for meat you have 3 phases. The supply side which is butchers killing to produce meat. This is unwholesome. Then comes distribution. This should be avoided. Then comes the consumers. They do not have volition to kill if they are buying already dead carceses. Also the butcher is not killing say I am killing for a so and so or Mr. X or Mrs. Y. In such cases the killing is remote enough so you do not get a dilemma.
To look inwardly look at sensation.

On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,
one explores a mind-object that gives rise to pleasure,
one explores a mind-object that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
one explores a mind-object that gives rise to equanimity

Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta
Your dilemma will give rise to sensation which are pleasant, unpleasant and neutral.

TWO KINDS OF ____ FEELINGS.
Here, when one feels a certain kind of ____ feeling, unwholesome
  states grow in him and wholesome states lessen;
...
Abandon such a kind of ____ feeling
but when one feels another kind of ____
  feeling, unwholesome states lessen in him and wholesome states grow.
...
Attain and dwell in such a kind of ____ feeling

Adopted from Kīta,giri Sutta
Look at pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensation giving arise to wholesome and unwholesome states. Adopt if it give arise to wholesome states and abandoned it if it gives arise to unwholesome states.
Or look at sensation which arise with the dilemma with equanimity and knowing it is arising and passing / impermanent. Equanimity displaces the root of craving and aversion and knowing it is impermanent and dependently arisen displaces the root of ignorance. [Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2] Perhaps you could also identify the 121 mind states and 52 mental factors by sensation. [Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi]
Skillful action are the actions executed with no bad roots but meritorious may have bad roots. E.g. You are giving expecting fame, which is meritorious but not skillful.
It is only wise to have a dilemma is you have volition to act in an unwholesome way and your action orchestrates it.
NB: In a repetitive quote where just one word changes I have left the word as ____ than quote the multiple instances.
Also be careful of no harm as this can be harmful if you get attached to it. Even on a non harmful decision see if this is by attachment to an ideal or not, if so it is harmful

Sorry for my late reply. Thank you for putting together a collection of suttas giving advice for taking actions. There is a lot about non-harm so I think I must accept that as a method of decision making.
The Sevitabbâsevitabba Sutta is the kind of advice that I was looking for, where we look inwards to decide if an action is skillful or not. I am going to leave this question open with a bounty to try to find more guidelines like that.

Be careful of non harm as this can be harmful if you get attached to it. Even on a non harmful decision see if this is by attachment to an ideal or not, if so it is harmful.

Very well said Suminda - especially re: non-harm.

The distinction of 'proximate' and 'remote' is new to me, and very clarifying. I appreciate this information, and it is well-written.

@nocomprende Added bit more information

I still see SN 56.11 as the 'single' sutta: i.e. if you ask me to pick only single  sutta, it would be that one.
Consider your problem for example,

Should I read printed news or online news?

I think that sutta warns that in wanting to read news there might be craving, thirst (taṇhā).
The sutta might be an answer your question, in that it does involve "looking at one's own mind to see the motivations for an action". And its recommending the "noble eightfold path", too, might be taken as a reference to "ethical action, skillful action, and meritous action" which you were also asking after.
Also I'm suspicious of "ethical dilemmas": if the question is, "should I do this bad thing, or should I do that other bad thing?", then I'm inclined to look for a different answer or a way to reframe the question. This sutta (SN 56.11) also introduces the "middle way", which, is one of the ways to avoid or answer a false dilemma.

Sorry this is not really the type of answer I was looking for. There is a place for actions that are not indulging in pleasure or pain but that is for somebody endowed with great wisdom who can do such non-attached actions. There is also a place for plainly making a decision and trying to do that in an ethical way.

I'm aware that I created a false dilemma but the example was to show the problems with intellectualizing. I left out other options to keep my question short, I wasn't trying to insist that there are only 2 actions, I use the word 'dilemma' in the informal sense so it doesn't refer to a choice with 2 options.

I like Milarepa's 'commandment' to his disciples at the end of his life: "Act so that you have no cause to be ashamed of yourselves." (It is from Tibet's Great Yogi Milarepa by W. Y. Evans-Wentz, which I read about 10 years ago.)
I think that covers all cases, and does involve a reflection on one's own mind, as you say.


text:
What, if anything, do the texts say about habits versus mindulfness?
SUMMARY
(Note: I searched the group before posting and although there are several questions about habits, none are asking about this specific point. This is close, but it's not the same (and it's framed so as to allow personal opinions which I'm expressly not (here) interested in. So this is not, as far as I can see, a duplicate.)
Do the Buddhist texts say anything that could resolve the apparent tension between on the one hand the mindfulness involved in the paying attention to every passing moment that is part and parcel of a lot of meditation practice, especially Vipassana, and the useful mindlessness of even a good habit, whereby we train ourselves to do certain things without having to consciously pay attention?
DETAILS
There is a growing amount of modern writing on habits and habituation, covering both the scientific and theoretical aspects of the underlying brain correlates, and also the practical life-affecting aspects relevant to the challenge of how to form useful habits and break problematic ones (e.g. Duhigg, Babauta). And that's not just recent material. Here's a condensed section from William James, written in 1890, dealing with that practical side.
The general opinion of such writers is that (good) habits are a Good Thing, specifically because they lower the load on our limited brains by making certain decisions--Shall I floss my teeth? Shall I go out for a run? Shall I sit down to meditate? and so on--more or less automatic, and as a result let us focus our limited non-automatic "will power" where it is most needed.
But the whole basis of habits seems to be the development of a kind of mind-less-ness, and that sounds fundamentally opposed to the mind-ful-ness needed for much of meditation. One possible way of resolving the apparent conflict would be to see habits as useful for establishing the boundaries that exist between the various activities throughout our day, but not for use within the activity itself. In other words, we make the act of sitting down to meditate as mindless/automatic as possible, but we then meditate mindfully.
But then that too could be at odds with the view that over time what began as an occasional mindful state should eventually become just our constant state of being, so that we were effectively meditating all the time. Presumably at that advanced level there no longer are any habituated boundaries, and everything is under awareness.
Perhaps the answer is that habits are to be seen merely as a learner's "prop"; training wheels we use until such times as we have no need of them because by then the elephant has become docile, the monkey and rabbit have departed, and we have finally reached our goal.
So what, if anything, do the established writings say about this?
To stress: although I've no doubt there are lots of good opinions out there (and for sure there are indeed lots of opinions!), I'm looking for answers with some backup from a source--old or current, either is fine--with at least a modicum of reliability. So the suttas and commentaries, obviously, but anything else of reasonable authorship including the modern.
Thanks!

Some modern references:

Conscious, preconscious, unconscious, subconscious by Piya Tan
Viññāṇa (Consciousness) by Piya Tan
Unconscious Views by Piya Tan
The Unconscious by Piya Tan
Anusaya by Piya Tan

Suttas:

Cetanā Sutta 1-3

There many more Tipitaka references bibliography of the essays.

The Noble Eightfold Path speaks about both of these.
Habits = Right Effort

Stop bad habits
Continuing to stop bad habits
Creating good habits
Continuing to cultivate good

Whereas Right Mindfulness involves more momentary concentration, momentary mindfulness to check up and make sure that the Right Efforts are happening.
They are not mutually exclusive although theoretically speaking, either of these things cultivated to an extreme could obviate the need to do the other.

Mindfulness is remembering rather than momentary concentration. To quote: ""One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view" MN 117

Ahh yes, I meant that Right Mindfulness is even more momentary than the four Right Efforts.

Effort & mindfulness work together. Mindfulness is not (momentary) consciousness. Mindfulness is remembering. Mindfulness remembers to do something & effort does that something.

The question here epitomizes the corruptions found in contemporary Buddhism created by a misunderstanding of the noble path & using meditation for self-administered psychotherapy.
The Pali suttas do not refer to mindfulness as "the paying attention to every passing moment", regardless of the contents of those moments. 'Mindfulness' ('sati') is not the act of 'observing' ('anupassi') or 'paying attention' ('manasikara'). Instead, the Pali suttas refer to 'mindfulness' ('sati') as the act of 'remembering'; of keeping/ maintaining (wholesome) path factors in the mind & excluding unwholesome things from the mind.
Also, 'vipassana' is not the observing of impermanence in a way that has no calming effect on the mind. When genuine 'vipassana' ('insight') occurs, the habitual mental effluents are destroyed via 'disenchantment' ('nibbidā') & 'dispassion' ('virāga'), making the mind completely pacified ('nirodha').
Once the mind reaches the 2nd jhana, mindfulness becomes automatic, i.e., the mind trains itself to do certain things without having to consciously (volitionally) pay attention, i.e. act.
Mindfulness is only a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Its purpose is the development of a kind of "mind-less-ness"; just the purpose of saving money via working is retirement. That being so, there is no apparent conflict that needs to be resolved.

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. MN 117
The monk... remains focused on the body in & of itself... mindfully putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. MN 118

Downvotes with zero comments. SMH

That's OK. Most Buddhist don't know what mindfulness is, including famous teachers. They think mindfulness is awareness or consciousness; not discerning how their mind actually works. Anyone that thinks like this does not know the Noble (Ariya "vossagga") meditation technique described in SN 48.10 and at the very end of MN 118. I scored 35 points in the Biblical forum today. I might go there & hang out with Jesus. Regards.


text:
A Monk Reborn in a Lower Realm for Breaking a Leaf
Where does the story appear about a monk who was born in a lower realm for breaking a leaf of a tree?
Also there are some related stories (use generally alongside the above) where small transgressions leading to disproportionately large karmic results. What are they and where can I find references?

Sankha told that story in this answer but without a reference.

This is a popular story in many Dhamma talks. I am trying to trace the source either in the Tipitaka or Commentaries.

It's in the commentary to verse 182 of the Dhammapada:

On seeing the Buddha, Erakapatta related to the Buddha how he had been a bhikkhu during the time of Kassapa Buddha, how he had accidentally caused a grass blade to be broken off while travelling in a boat, and how he had worried over that little offence for having failed to do the act of exoneration as prescribed, and finally how he was reborn as a naga.

What does it mean by "Having failed to do the act of exoneration as prescribed"?

Monks have (many) monastic rules: page 272 of this document says, "The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed". So if a monk damages a living plant, they should "confess" that, i.e. tell another monk or tell the whole community of monks that they did that, described on page 161: "This confession is what clears him of the offense". So this act of the confession is what's meant by the "prescribed act of exoneration".

ah I see now. Thanks for taking the time to explain this.