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

Questions about killing insects have appeared a few times here, I suggest reading them:

Is killing vermin and insects justifiable?
What does Buddhism say about intentionally killing dangerous insects and beings?

While some may dispute whether or not the precept apply to insects or whether they are sentient beings, in general, deliberately killing a mosquito is considered akusala (unwholesome) action, rooted in dosa (aversion, ill will, hatred) / moha (ignorance).
As for traditions, I've heard Zen, Theravada and Tibetan monks teaching to regard insects to be living beings and they may consider intentionally killing them to be breaking the precept.
In one answer from the questions linked above, Bhikkhu yuttadhammo writes:

Even if killing a single mosquito would end all cases of malaria in the world for ever, the (Theravada) Buddhist philosophy would be to abstain from killing the mosquito.

For more information from the Theravada point of view, check this text by Bhikkhu Bodhi on the precepts, The first precept: abstinence from taking life.
Now, on your question, killing a mosquito because it may threaten you may be justified if you regard it as a living being. Is killing it the only way to preserve oneself? Sometimes one can simply stay away, isolate oneself from it, os just go somewhere else. That's, I think, the general teaching to avoid breaking the precept to save oneself from harm: try to get away from danger without causing you and others harm, with a mind inclined to non-harm.
As for bacterias, I'm not so sure one is killing them by eating yogurt. Eating yogurt with the intention to kill them, however, would likely be worrisome.
But in general, I think buddhism is silent regarding micro-organisms and most traditions seem to consider an act of killing by the intention to kill (thus, deaths caused accidentally are not considered such acts).

Kill a human,kill a fish,kill a mosquito, eat a yogurt with microbes in it and eat a plant. all are life forms. intentions are taking revenge with intensive hate, as a food for your survival or just for craving of taste of fish, just to escape from diseases, not with intention to kill just intake food, no intention to kill. you are right ,intention is most important. In first precept ; five conditions must be completed to commit a kill.  1. awareness of object is living being 2. intention of killing 3. implement method to kill 4. use the implemented method to kill 4. life is terminated.

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

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

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

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

I think the formula is actually I will restrain from the killing of sentient beeings. Keep in mind that the 5 precepts are not obligations, but rather rules you take up voluntarily. Nobody forces you to keep them, but they are an absolute minimum of Buddhist morality. The mind that has the intention of killing, stealing... is not able to have a clear perception of reality, at all.

I would just like to say, that the desire to kill something, and then the act of killing, if done so in an act of hatred or anger, is something which will cause great issues for the person, even if it has minimal affect on the being being killed.

No, you should not even kill mosquitoes that bite you, according to the First Noble Precept.

From Bhikkhu Bodhi's discussion on the first precept, we find some comments on the varying gravity of the kamma of killing:

The first distinction given is that between killing beings with moral
  qualities (guna) and killing beings without moral qualities. For all
  practical purposes the former are human beings, the latter animals,
  and it is held that to kill a fellow human being is a more serious
  matter ethically than to kill an animal. Then within each category
  further distinctions are drawn. In the case of animals the degree of
  moral gravity is said to be proportional to the animal, to kill a
  larger animal being more blameworthy than to kill a smaller one. Other
  factors relevant to determining moral weight are whether the animal
  has an owner or is ownerless, whether it is domestic or wild, and
  whether it has a gentle or a vicious temperament. The moral gravity
  would be greater in the former three alternatives, less in the latter
  three. In the killing of human beings the degree of moral blame
  depends on the personal qualities of the victim, to kill a person of
  superior spiritual stature or one's personal benefactors being more
  blameworthy than to kill a less developed person or one unrelated to
  oneself. The three cases of killing selected as the most culpable are
  matricide, parricide, and the murder of an arahant, a fully purified
  saint.

The five precepts are training rules and not strong prohibitions.
Furthermore, even for monks, based on the Patimokkha rules, intentionally bringing about the death of a human being is a parajika offense, while taking the life of an animal is a pacittiya offense. A parajika offense is the gravest offense causing immediate expulsion, but a pacittiya offense is milder, requiring only a confession.

Parajika Rule 3. Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human
  being of life, or search for an assassin for him, or praise the
  advantages of death, or incite him to die (saying,): "My good man,
  what use is this evil, miserable life to you? Death would be better
  for you than life," or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in
  mind, should in various ways praise the advantages of death or incite
  him to die, he also is defeated and no longer in affiliation.
Pacittiya Rule 61. Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive an animal
  of life, it is to be confessed.

And also on the motivation for killing (from here):

Another factor determinative of moral weight is the motivation of the
  act. This leads to a distinction between premeditated murder and
  impulsive killing. The former is murder in cold blood, intended and
  planned in advance, driven either by strong greed or strong hatred.
  The latter is killing which is not planned in advance, as when one
  person kills another in a fit of rage or in self-defense. Generally,
  premeditated murder is regarded as a graver transgression than
  impulsive killing, and the motivation of hatred as more blameworthy
  than the motivation of greed. The presence of cruelty and the
  obtaining of sadistic pleasure from the act further increase its moral
  weight.

In my opinion, if rulers, government officials, neighbourhood resident associations and even individuals decide to kill mosquitoes and mosquito larvae due to a proven rising dengue or malaria epidemic, it would be a reasonably justifiable motivation for killing. After all, isn't it wrong to endanger fellow humans knowingly?
From the Lonaphala Sutta:

"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him
  to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped
  in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in
  mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling
  with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual
  takes him to hell.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
  in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
  dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this
  sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most
  part barely appears for a moment.

I take the killing of mosquitoes and mosquito larvae with the motivation of dengue or malaria eradication, to be a trifling evil deed, and if we do it with the correct motivation and the correct state of mind, then it is acceptable although not ideal. The same applies to rats and diseases spread by rats like leptospirosis and hantavirus.
Hitting a mosquito that bit you is also considered impulsive killing, rather than premeditated killing, and according to Bhikkhu Bodhi's description above, impulsive killing is less grave than premeditated killing.
Despite this, it is clear that not killing any sentient being for any reason, would be the higher dhammic decision.

Killing a mosquito should not be the first and initiative step. If you are honest and really struggle to maintain first precept better to make preventive measures. Just adhere to precepts will not create effective results. you have to adhere to precepts with wisdom in your capacity.
As preventive measures
1.you can use mosquito repellent.
2.Use mosquito nets
3.Close windows and doors early in evening before enter mosquitoes to your house
4.close small spaces and ventilation holes with fine nets in your houses
5.remove mosquito breeding places.(keep clean your surrounding)
above will protect your family effectively diseases spread by mosquitoes.Simply kill mosquitoes one by one is not effective and useless way.Above protective measures are more effective than killing them.In other hand you can protect first precept. "The protector of Dhamma will protect by Dhamma. May all being in peace and harmony. Thanks.

The precepts are training rules for training your mind. The first rule is to learn to control your hatred, and impulsive behavior based on that, like killing or violence.
Sometimes killing is necessary, for example killing of pests to get things to balance, or killing for food. But that is killing in clarity, not in hatred - done with wisdom and understanding. We are all connected here you know, and our lives will feed into others' in many different ways.
When I eat meat, I appreciate life of a sentient being who gave me their flesh for nutrition and promise to make good use of it. When I kill a mosquito I do it in full awareness, as a conscious choice, not an act of hatred. There's no regret in my killing of a mosquito and no guilt. For a moment I pause and think to make sure there is no other way to solve the problem, and if there's none - then with an attitude of "thank you, forgive me, I love you, but I have to do this" I kill it.

I'm not agree with your sentence  "thank you, forgive me, I love you, but I have to do this" I kill it.  With human you wouldn't say this, we forgive them and for animals we should love them and not kill. Now when I don't kill them as I gave up killing mosquitoes early, I regret if kill them mistakenly. But your answer worth so thank you so much.


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

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

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

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

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Having difficulty logically understanding how clinging leads to becoming
I am having difficultly logically understanding how clinging leads to becoming. Can anyone elaborate on this link of dependent orgination?

The Pali suttas define three types of 'becoming', as follows:

And what is becoming? There are three kinds of becoming: sensual becoming, fine-material becoming & immaterial becoming. This is called
  becoming. ~ SN 12.2 ~

In AN 3.76, ‘becoming’ (bhava) is defined  as the mind "established" in a sense object:

“the consciousness of beings (sattānaṃ), hindered by ignorance and bound by craving, that is established (patiṭṭhitaṃ) in the sensuality,
  materiality or immateriality element/sphere”

Therefore, these three types of becoming simply reflect the levels of sustained & continued attachment to: (i) the physical body and its sensations; (ii) attachment to fine-material states of meditative absorption (rupa jhana); and (iii) attachment to the immaterial states of meditative absorption (arupa jhana).
For example, the mind of a man sees (has sense contact with) a certain woman (sense object) and due to pleasant feelings & craving/lust towards the woman, the male mind gets stuck on or "picks up"/"carries" the sense object in his mind & starts thinking about the woman. This beginning to be mentally pre-occupied with the woman is attachment or grasping (upadana). The male mind then becomes fixated or obsessed with the woman, falling in love, thinking about the woman all the time & dreaming about how they will live romantically forever. This continued establishing & transforming of the mind in relation to the sense object is "becoming". Then the man & woman have a marriage ceremony and the man "becomes" the woman's husband and the woman "becomes" the man's wife. The marriage ceremony is "becoming" and the finality of actually being a "husband" or being a "wife" is called "birth" ("jati").
"Jati" ("birth") is defined as the mental creation of the ideas or social conventions of "beings" & the "various orders of beings", such as "man", "woman", "husband", "wife", "lawyer", "doctor", "me", "you" etc.
Therefore, in summary, 'becoming' is just the continuation of 'attachment', however more intensely, to the point that the mind 'transforms' itself into something different to what is was previously.

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


text:
Back from a retreat: what to practice?
I need to give some background before I can ask my question so, my apologies for the long winded post.
I am back from a wonderful 6 days retreat (Bhikkhu Buddhadasa teaching/ Anapanasati). With the last 3 days of those in newly reached blissful state, working on exploring this sate and doing body scans to sharpen the mind further -and bring me back to earth- (as discussed with the instructor since I had previous experience with the Goenka method).
Since the retreat is over, I have spend some time reading about what happened to me (Rapture, Jhana, ...) as the dhamma talks did not covered this topic (it was a beginners retreat).
I can still focus my mind or have a quiet mind for some period of time, but, when I let go, I reach I very weak bliss state, if at all... (which I am OK with: I  have a lot to deal with in my life right now and only opportunity for 1 sitting a day in the early morning in poor conditions).
What should I use my little sitting meditation time doing?
I was thinking spending every second sitting doing metta meditation and the other one simply watching the beautiful breath (as defined by Ajahn Brahm), going back to body scan at later stage, when my life is a bit more in order and I have my own space to practice. Probably leaving my further investigations of Jhana for my next retreat...
Any advice or experience on this topic appreciated. Thank you.

Your idea to practise alternate metta & breath meditation sounds ideal.
You correctly understand that the development of rapture & jhana generally require retreat conditions thus generally cannot be cultivated when there is limited time.

Thank you very much for your endorsement. It will help keep my doubts in check :)

Glad to hear you achieved certain steps in insight meditation during retreat. Your achievement will never go back if you continue mindfulness in every day living noting not detailed but grossly as when you eat , just "eat", when you walk" walk", or "move", when you touch water, "cold" or "hot", like that as simply doing as possible so that your concentration will surely help you at your short sitting meditation. All these concentration will surely lead to higher stage of insight meditation.

Thank you for your encouragements and advises. I will definitely keep doing this.


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

How long have you been working with the breath?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


text:
Sammasam Buddha's Sila, was it the best Sila?
Buddha said Sariputra "My Sila is the best/incomparable". But people at the time of Buddha donated flowers, perfumes and jewelries to Buddha (Need citations in Pali Canon and Pitaka). The monk/num's Sila are 227 and more and monks do not allowed to get/use flowers, perfumes and jewelries, etc. How the Sila of Buddha was superior to monks' Sila whilst the latter seems more restricted than the former? Is there any more facts that I was missing to know about Sammasam Buddha's Sila?

The Sila becomes higher depending on your knowledge of the virtues/benefits of it.
The Sila becomes higher depending on how focused you are when you are keeping them.
In other words, Sila becomes higher depending on your Samadhi & Panna.
That's why the Sila of the Buddha is higher than anyone else's.
The Lord did not use the flowers offered to him.Offering flowers is merely a way of people showing reverence to the Buddha. Perfumes are not offered. Perfumes would have been sprayed by the people when preparing places for the Buddha to stay. It is the same with jewellery.

Buddhas sila is the best sila
Monks were not allowed to use those fancy things because that would distract them from going in the path to nirvana.
When someone achieved nirvana, there is no person anymore , thus there is no rules or regulations. They just exist , with the best sila in the world. Because they have stopped their desires. There's nothing else they have to do . Nothing will change their state of mind . So their sila is incomparable.


text:
Killing a mouse in the house with a third party
I have read the question How not to kill the mouse in my house? and this got me thinking. Would it be wrong to own a cat that would then kill the mouse? I'm not referring to buying a cat strictly to kill a pest, but rather letting a prevously owned pet cat do as it pleases, and turn a blind eye when the mouse is gone.
Directly, you're not the one harming the creature, and a cat killing a mouse is completely natural.
Indirectly, you've caused the death of the mouse, and have reinforced the killing behavoir in the cat.
Would intervening in the cat's hunting practices be good karma? The cat has plenty to eat, and the mouse only provides accomplisment to the cat.

@Miso thanks for the edit. I did not see that!

You are not responsible since the mouse came into your home upon its own volition. Also, you are not purposefully trying (wishing?) to create conditions in which a being would get killed.
But since you are aware of the situation, about a mouse and a cat roaming free inside your home. You should try to catch the mouse and then release it elsewhere in nature. In the meantime, you could try to prevent the cat from reaching this mouse.
The Buddha said: I declare that the mere arising of an intention of performing good deeds is productive of great benefits. - MN 8

The Buddha did not actually arise for the purpose of teaching about good & bad kamma. The teaching about good & bad kamma is merely a 'secondary' teaching in Buddhism. These kinds of questions that create worry, flurry & anxiety in the mind about trivial matters are not the purpose of Buddhism. Buddhism exists to set the mind and people free (rather than place people into bondage from making  mountains out of molehills).
As an example, recently Hillary Clinton lost the US presidential election. In her previous terms in government, Hillary Clinton voted for every foreign war resolution & is said to be personally responsible for the destruction of the good nation of Libya. Despite her complicity in the deaths, murders & raping of millions of men, women & children, when Hillary Clinton lost the election, scores of fully ordained Western bhikkhus (monks) & bhikkhunis (nuns) were grieving her loss (such as here).
This example shows how individuals in general, including fully ordained monks & nuns, are indirectly supporting evils infinitely more evil than the killing of a mouse by a cat (which is not actually evil since the laws of kamma only apply to people rather than to animals). If the laws of kamma operated in such a indirect manner, these pro-Clinton monks & nuns would probably all end up in the hotttest & most torturous Avīci Hell for eons & eons.

I think I might have used a slightly less controversial example, but yes, I agree.

This is not an answer,  but i think it adds quite a bit to the question and Buddhism concepts in general.  To any future reader,  please don't vote to delete this.

I think it is an answer in the sense that it refutes the premise of the question; I'd also say it does a pretty good job of it.  It'd be akin to someone asking "Why is the sky orange?" and someone chiming in with "Actually, the sky is blue."

@xxxx well,  this is more  of a yes or no question.    I think it's more akin to a situation where i ask "Should i watch overhead for falling coconuts?" And someone answers "well,  it's actually the wildlife that you should be watching out for."

Fair enough.  It is your question, after all!  :-)

I used to have several pet cats and I remember rescuing many mice & squirrels from the jaws of death. The cat killing animals is not bad Karma for you, but here are some ways you can get bad Karma:

Being happy when you see that the cat has caught the mouse.
Making the cat starve for sometime expecting it to catch pests.
Not making any effort to rescue when you see the cat chasing the mouse. Technically it's possible to practice Uppekkha in this instance, but usually it is our cruelty, wanting for the cat to succeed, disliking towards the pest are the mind states that prevent us from intervening.


text:
What is funeral law of Buddhism?
What is funeral law of Buddhism is there any ? For both layman and monk.

There is some information about funerals at this link.
When I lived in a forest monastery in Thailand, dead monks & residents were cremated on a pile of wood in the forest & we would practise meditation on the burning corpse.


text:
The Middle Way in practical life
Are there any sutras or parables where Buddha applies the middle way, not to the self or to abstract metaphysical principles, but to concrete conflicts in practical life?

There is a large body of texts of discourses of the Buddha touching on lay life issues. Below, I paste a (probably not exhaustive) list of suttas compiled by a user from dhammalwheel forum. There's also an upcoming book from Bhikkhu Bodhi presenting a collection of suttas of discourses of the Buddha dealing with lay life themes: The Buddha's Teachings on Social and Communal Harmony: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon.

DN 31: Sigalovada Sutta — To Sigala/The Layperson's Code of Discipline
https://suttacentral.net/en/dn31
MN 14: Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta — The Lesser Mass of Stress
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.014.than.html
MN 41: Saleyyaka Sutta — The Brahmans of Sala
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn41
MN 52: Atthakanagara Sutta — To the Man from Atthakanagara
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn52
MN 53: Sekha-patipada Sutta — The Practice for One in Training
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html
MN 54: Potaliya Sutta — To Potaliya
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn54
MN 56. Upāli, the Householder
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn56
MN 57: Kukkuravatika Sutta — The Dog-duty Ascetic
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn57
MN 58: Abhaya Sutta — To Prince Abhaya (On Right Speech)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html
MN 59: Bahuvedaniya Sutta — Many Things to be Experienced/The Many Kinds of Feeling
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.nypo.html
MN 60: Apannaka Sutta — A Safe Bet
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn60
MN 97: Dhanañjani Sutta — To Dhanañjani
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.097.than.html
MN 99:  To the Brahmin Subha
http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/099-subha-e1.html
MN 143: Anathapindikovada Sutta — Instructions to Anathapindika
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.143.than.html
SN 3.19: Aputtaka Sutta — Heirless (1)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.019.than.html
SN 3.20: Aputtaka Sutta — Heirless (2)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.020.than.html
SN 22.1: Nakulapita Sutta — To Nakulapita
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.1
SN 22.3: Haliddakani Sutta — To Haliddakani
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.3
SN 22.80: Pindolya Sutta — Almsgoers
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.80
SN 41.3: Isidatta Sutta — About Isidatta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.003.than.html
SN 41.4: Mahaka Sutta — About Mahaka
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.004.than.html
SN 41.6: Kamabhu Sutta — With Kamabhu (On the Cessation of Perception & Feeling)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.006.than.html
SN 41.7: Godatta Sutta — To Godatta (On Awareness-release)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.007.than.html
SN 41.10: Gilana Sutta — Sick (Citta the Householder's Last Hours)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.010.than.html
SN 47.29: Sirivaddha
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn47.29
SN 47.30: Manadinna
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn47.30
SN 55.30: Licchavi Sutta — To the Licchavi
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.030.than.html

Discourse to a Householder
https://suttacentral.net/en/sa107

AN 3.65: Kalama Sutta — To the Kalamas/The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry
https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.65
AN 3.66: Salha Sutta — To Salha
https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.66
AN 3.70: Muluposatha Sutta — The Roots of the Uposatha
https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.70
AN 3.92: Urgent
https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.92
AN 4.32: Sangaha Sutta — The Bonds of Fellowship
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.32
AN 4.55: Samajivina Sutta — Living in Tune
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.55
AN 4.60: The Layperson’s Proper Practice
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.60
AN 4.62: Anana Sutta — Debtless
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.62
AN 4.258: Kula Sutta — On Families
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.258
AN 5.38: Saddha Sutta — Conviction
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.38
AN 5.41: Adiya Sutta — Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.41
AN 5.43: Wished for
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.43
AN 5.57: Upajjhatthana Sutta — Subjects for Contemplation
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.57
AN 5.175: Candala Sutta — The Outcaste
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.175
AN 5.176: Piti Sutta — Rapture
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.176
AN 5.177: Vanijja Sutta — Business (Wrong Livelihood)
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.177
AN 5.179: Gihi Sutta — The Householder
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.179
AN 5.180: Gavesin Sutta — About Gavesin
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.180
AN 6.16: Nakula’s Parents
https://suttacentral.net/en/an6.16
AN 8.25: Mahanama Sutta — Being a Lay Buddhist
https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.25
AN 8.26: Jivaka Sutta — To Jivaka (On Being a Lay Follower)
https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.26
AN 8.43: Visakhuposatha Sutta — The Discourse to Visakha on the Uposatha with the Eight Practices
https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.43
AN 8.54: Vyagghapajja (Dighajanu) Sutta — Conditions of Welfare/ To Dighajanu
https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.54
AN 10.92: Vera Sutta — Animosity
https://suttacentral.net/en/an10.92
AN 10.93: Ditthi Sutta — Views
https://suttacentral.net/en/an10.93
AN 10.94: Vajjiya Sutta — About Vajjiya
https://suttacentral.net/en/an10.94
AN 11.11: Mahanama Sutta — To Mahanama (1)
https://suttacentral.net/en/an11.11
AN 11.12: Mahanama Sutta — To Mahanama (2)
https://suttacentral.net/en/an11.12
Dhammapada — The Path of Dhamma
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/index.html
Ud 8.8: Visakha Sutta — To Visakha
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.08.than.html
Ud 2.5: Upasaka Sutta — The Lay Follower
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.2.05.than.html
Ud 2.6: Gabbhini Sutta — The Pregnant Woman
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.2.06.than.html
Ud 2.7: Ekaputta Sutta — The Only Son
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.2.07.than.html
Ud 2.9: Visakha Sutta — To Visakha
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.2.09.than.html
Ud 5.6: Sona Sutta — About Sona
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.06.than.html
Sn 1.2: Dhaniya Sutta — Dhaniya the Cattleman
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.02.than.html
Sn 2.1: Ratana Sutta — Treasures
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.piya.html
Sn 2.4: Maha-mangala Sutta — Protection
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.04.nara.html
Sn 2.14: Dhammika Sutta — Dhammika
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.14.irel.html

Wow. Maybe somewhat fewer references would be more in keeping with the spirit of the question? :)

This web book called Constitution for Living summarises the Buddha's teachings for laypeople.
My selection for the list in the other post is:

AN 3.65: Kalama Sutta — To the Kalamas/The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry
https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.65
Sn 2.4: Maha-mangala Sutta — Protection
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.04.piya.html
SN 55.7 Veludvareyya Sutta - Discourse to the People of Bamboo Gate
AN 4.55: Samajivina Sutta — Living in Tune
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.55
AN 4.62: Anana Sutta — Debtless
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.62
AN 5.177: Vanijja Sutta — Business (Wrong Livelihood)
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.177
AN 4.258: Kula Sutta — On Families
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.258
DN 31: Sigalovada Sutta — To Sigala/The Layperson's Code of Discipline
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html
AN 5.57: Upajjhatthana Sutta — Subjects for Contemplation
https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.57
AN 8.25: Mahanama Sutta — Being a Lay Buddhist
https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.25

Thank you for taking a more moderate approach to answering!

The Middle Way is applied in the Buddha's early life story (told especially in Majjhima Nikaya 26 & 36) in a way that is directly demonstrated rather than abstracted from its context as doctrine. The Buddha leaves the Palace because the environment there is one that assumes the ultimate value of its relative social and political values (also associated with hedonism), and the 'Three Considerations' of Old Age, Sickness and Death make him aware of the inadequacy of those values. He then seeks out two teachers in the forest - Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta - both of whom claim to have final answers in the meditative states they have reached - but he is not satisfied by either of these, nor by the asceticism he then engages in. He discovers the Middle Way as a result of recalling the earlier more embodied awareness of a jhana experience under a rose-apple tree in his childhood, showing that the Middle Way is rooted in acceptance of the body. The Palace and the Forest each represent absolute but opposing beliefs, each of which the Buddha learns the limitations of. He learns from both contexts, but also maintains a critical sense of their limitations. The key features of this story are also central to the practice of the Middle Way: expecting to find meaningful information from every new view but also maintaining a critical perspective on it, trying to limit our dualistic oscillations, and gradually developing a more adequate, mature, and integrated response to experience.

The eightfold path. It is the path that describes the middle way ie not taking extremes. Taking baby steps to enlightenment.


text:
Feeling intense sensations in my forehead and also my head and body is shaking a lot during meditation
While doing meditation, I am feeling intense sensations on my forehead and after sometime my whole will start shaking and my hands become rigid. Why are these things happening?Whether i am doing the meditation in the wrong way?

See related questions: Vibrating Sensation in Middle of forehead during meditation? and That “Electric Feel” body sensation during meditation.

It maybe several things.But here's something to investigate.You may or may not have this problem.If your doing anapanasati meditation with the aim of developing tranquillity your body should be relaxed.Having intense emotions on the forehead,body shaking,and rigidity could indicate excessive effort,you may be paying too much attention on the breath in a stressful way.Notice if your breathing heavily as well.Try not control the breath.Loosen the grip.If possible repeat "calm,calm,or relax,relax,let go,let go" while breathing in and out.

@Viswa I agree fully with this advice.

Which meditation method you are doing? Whenever you do insight meditation, the most important thing, strong belief in your meditation master and meditation technique. Once one undergo some kind of strong experience either tolerable or not, then he/she must know these are the consequences of before-life experience or the experience in this very life before this practice. So please don't disappoint at what occurring. Please stick to the practice. Nothing is permanent. Strong belief and effort will lead you to another step.

Sounds like you're doing fine.  What you are experiencing are just the first signs of samadhi.  As your mind begins to collect and your body relaxes, there is a tendency to shake a bit in chronically tight muscle groups.  You've probably always been tight in your hands; you just never noticed before!  ;-)  The feeling on your forehead is no big deal.  It might even travel to different places.  You might even feel like your head is getting inflated like a balloon, that your body is twisting, that your head is vanishing, etc. etc. etc.  All of these kinds of things are very common.  The first signs of samadhi manifest differently from person to person.  You'll get used to it.

Whether i am doing the meditation in the wrong way?

This is right nor wrong these experiences come and go.

Why are these things happening?

When you meditate you stop creating new fabrications. Many of these experiences are your past fabrications manifesting themselves. More details see: That "Electric Feel" body sensation during meditation
What you have to do is continue equanimously without giving importance or thinking and pondering about the experience.


text:
Is there any historical evidence or sayings that Buddha went to America and Africa continent for some discourses or teachings
Is there any historical evidence or sayings that Buddha went to America and Africa continent for some discourses or teachings? In their writings, local languages or any painting, drawing?

Possible duplicate of Did Buddha ever go outside India to teach?

No. There is no indication the Buddha ever left north-eastern India (now Uttar Pradesh, Magadha, and Nepal.)

There are various kinds of assemblies, O Ananda; assemblies of nobles, of Brahmans, of householders, of bhikkhus and of other beings. When I used to enter an assembly, I always became, before I seated myself, in color like unto the color of my audience and in voice like unto their voice. I spoke unto them in their language and then with religious discourse, I instructed, quickened, and gladdened them. But when I spoke, they knew me not and would say, Who may this be who thus speaks, a man or a god? Then having instructed, quickened, and gladdened them with religious discourse, I would vanish away. But they knew me not, even when I vanished away
"Ananda had asked the Blessed One how far his voice would reach in the universe. The Lord had answered that the Enlightened Ones were immeasurable and could reach further than a thousandfold world system (with a thousand suns, a thousand heavens, and a thousand brahma worlds), even further than a three-thousandfold world system. They could penetrate all those worlds with their shining splendor and reach all beings living there with their voice.
Ananda was delighted with this description, so all-encompassing and transcending all horizons, and he exclaimed: "How fortunate I am, that I have such an almighty, powerful master!" (AN 3.8)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

SN 4.18 strikes me as similar to that story:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


text:
Why is it that Buddhist monks are strongly associated with beggars?
It seems to be a strong affinity in media for monks to be beggars. There doesn't seem to be anything in Buddhism that effectively correlates to being poor, or even using begging for livelihood.  The Noble Eightfold Path even has occupations in one of the folds, and doesn't recommend too much of a constrain to the point of driving people poor.
Specifically, I would put the book Buddha Boy by Kathe Koja on display, where a Buddhist boy moving into a rather bad neighborhood is picked on at school for his actions, one of which is begging for food during his lunch period.
In this example, "Buddha Boy" begs for food, however, that doesn't seem like anything I've seen in Buddhist culture. Is this a common misconception, or am I misinformed?

I tried to answer something about "media" from the first sentence; but I didn't understand what you were saying/asking later, about livelihood and the eightfold path.

Part of what I don't understand in the question is, "and doesn't recommend too much of a constrain to the point of driving people poor". Would you like to quote/reference something which says that? I think that Buddhist monks and nuns, in particular, were traditionally expected to live without money at all, supported by (their necessities provided by) the laity.

I'm a beggar, not a Buddhist monk. I like being rewarded.

You ask about "strong affinity in media". You don't say what country/language you're asking about, but might it be viewed though a western/christian perspective?
I think of monks as doing "alms rounds" (because that's the English I've read; as proof, the first page of results for this Google search is all Buddhist monks (or at least it does when I use that search)).
The word "Alms" is described in Wikipedia as follows:

Buddhism
Main article: Dāna
  In Buddhism, alms or almsgiving is the respect given by a lay Buddhist to a Buddhist monk, etc.

Christianity
  The giving of alms is an act of charity toward those less fortunate. In the Apostolic age, Christians were taught that giving alms was an expression of love etc.

So the confusion might come from language, e.g. from using a word like "alms", without necessarily always carefully explaining that the word being used doesn't mean what you think it means.

I'll be sure to put an example in my question tomorrow.

Alright. I've added an example.

@tuskiomi I haven't read that book, I have no insight into why its author might have written that.

The monks are trained to be humble to lessen the stranglehold of ego and the defilments. When the Buddha addresses the monks in the suttas he calls them "Bhikkus" in Pali that means "Beggars" in English. This Isn't derogatory, it's a teaching.

This is tradition of past Buddhas how to live on laypeople donation, the future Buddhas will follow this pure path, less effort on living. Because it is not appropriate Buddha will plough his own farm, it is not appropriate Buddha will do trade to get money to buy meals and snacks, it is not appropriate Buddha to deceit people and earn money, it is not appropriate Buddha will do any profession/occupation to earn money.
In Noble Eightfold Path, Right Livelihood is
1) begging for meals from laypeople either by walking along the street, stopping in front of each houses sequentially for alms (not money, just something to eat) or going to particular laypeople house where the donor specifically ask the monk to come and have lunch at their premises,
2) just wearing robe only either donated by laypeople or picking up cloth from death bodies in cemetery/graveyard (in ancient India death bodies are buried in ground and before undertaker to do so, the death bodies are wrapped with new or low quality cloth and people do not like to wear that cloth at all; in Sutta Gautama Buddha wore this kind of cloth after it was washed and tanned properly [need citation here]),
3) only live under shelter/accommodation donated by laypeople or live under the tree if none available,
4) ask laypeople for medicine to donate only if the monk suffers illness.
This makes Buddhist monks simple, less effort and care for living because monk should dedicate only learning Pitaka and meditation. Beggar is not inappropriate word for monks and Buddha but it contains a sense of detesting which Buddhist laypeople usually do not use to call.
"Buddhism driving people poor" is badly associated view of the above Noble Onefold Path to Buddhist laypeople. It is wrong conclusion drawn by western people who cannot differentiate Buddhist laypeople lives and monk lives. It is unrelated collective assumption on livelihood by westerners who do not understand the correlation between monks and Buddhist laypeople. In Buddhist countries, the monks and laypeople relation is like a pond with bank(high ground around the water to conserve it). Monks are like the pond and laypeople are bank. To keep monk life to survive laypeople needs to donate/offer, otherwise there is no monk at all. So Buddhism laypeople earn money for living theirselves as well as donation/offering to monks. So In Buddhism communities laypeople has to try more for earning. In Pitaka sutras, Buddha encouraged laypeople to earn money (discourses about earning more by mindfulness/awareness) and make rich as long as laypeople do not do Wrong Livelihood for earning.
Wrong Livelihood

Trade of arm and weapons
Trade of poison
Human trafficking
Trade of alcohol, wine and other narcotic drugs or drug that make harm to people consciousness

So it is false assertion that Buddhism correlates to being poor. Buddha's teachings make monks to live simple and effortless live at the same time laypeople to earn righteous money by Right Livelihood and support monks. It is much more humane than "earn and consume self" idea. It required less self-centered and broad-minded. Even Buddhism Economics cannot agree the idea of "Being poor and being Buddhist".

In Classic Chinese Sutras, the translated word relating to the "offering to the Buddhist monk" is this: 供養, the monk is said to receive 供養 from the "adoring believers": 善信. 供 has the intrinsic value of offering from the lower to the higher, 養 is nurturing, cultivating. It is said that 供養 a Buddhist monk is an act of "cultivating the blessing/blissful/fortune field": 種福田. It hasn't any depriving meaning in it, although the monk purely received without making any "effort to earn". In the practice of old, the food offered to the monk must be the fresh and best, i.e., the offeror has not even eaten himself; the monk will stand at the door or make a sound with his bowl, max. 3 sounds from the bowl if the offeror doesn't response, he will pass.
I don't understand how it has been translated into "begging".
Also, the monk is regarded as one renounced the world, thus he is not supposed to put any more effort in creating the worldly values these incl. fortune, he renounced thus not having personal belonging this renderred him "light" and spent all his life in practicing for liberation. And the offering to nourish the monk from the believer is an act of sharing the merit because with this effort and connection, the monk once reached enlightenment he would 1st help to liberate the offeror.
On the other hand, Buddha when he was on his way to the Great Retreat he passed a country the king enchanted by his charm for Siddhartha was handsome and princely build, he offered half of his kingdom asking Siddhartha to stay with him. We can also understand the emotion we have when seeing a lovely child we would instinctly offer candies, or anything nice just to make the child smile. Thus a true Buddhist monk should receive the offers from the believer in the same way.
However, it may not be so in worldly practice; esp. today.

Shakyamuni Buddha was a beggar and so were his disciples. Most sutras will talk about going to the village, to beg for food.
What they did is translated as "begging", because that's what they did. The original term they used for it doesn't matter - they would go from door to door, asking for food. In English this is called "begging".
Countless Buddhist texts recommend poverty and praise poverty. Sure, many Buddhist sects and representatives became rich and enjoyed opulence, but it is not different from Christianity. Bishops with emerald rings and golden clothes to represent the way of Jesus is a ridiculous assumption. Of course they are phonies and don't relate to Christ at all. In Buddhism, it is not different. A lay person can be a Buddhist, work for money and enjoy material comfort, but if a Buddhist MONK is doing it, it's most likely just an emerald-ring phony.
Buddhist monks do work sometimes - like the Zen monks. Why?
It should be understood that, as Buddhism became popular and favored by the powers of the time, "not working" went from "being a humble beggar who lives in simplicity" to "being a freeloader who enjoys material comfort on somebody else's back, like an aristocrat". So the Zen sect revolted against that and the monks would grow their own food, work the soil, help other with manual labor and so on.
Note the difference between "not running away from strenuous work" and "seeking fame and fortune with some rewarded activity".
I hope I was helpful.

At Sāvatthī. Then a begging brahmin went up to the Buddha, and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha:
“Master Gotama, both you and I are beggars. What, then, is the difference between us?”
“You don’t become a beggar
just by begging from others.
Someone who has accepted domestic responsibilities
has not yet become a mendicant.
But one living a spiritual life
who has shunned both good and bad,
having considered, they live in this world:
that’s who’s called a mendicant.”
When he had spoken, the begging brahmin said to the Buddha:
“Excellent, Master Gotama! Excellent! … From this day forth, may Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn7.20/en/sujato

"Bhikkhu" (Pali) or "Bhikshu" (Sanskrit) literally means a mendicant, or one who lives off alms. But this doesn't mean they literally beg for food. However, they live off alms given to them.
From The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople by Bhikkhu Ariyesako:

ALMS FOOD
◊ As has been mentioned above, the Buddha said that there were four
  necessities of life: clothing, food, shelter and medicine.
The Buddha suggested (fn73) that the basic source of food for bhikkhus
  was that received on the morning alms round (pi.n.dapaata). This daily
  dependence on alms food reminds both the bhikkhus and the lay devotees
  of their interdependence and prevents the bhikkhu from becoming too
  isolated from the lay community. He 'meets' them every day and eats
  the food that they share with him. Several important rules are
  concerned with this as well as a major section of the Sekhiya Training
  rules. (See below; see also story about Ven. Assaji.)
An alms round is not considered begging, for the bhikkhu does not
  solicit anything but is ready mindfully to receive any alms that lay
  people may wish to give. Although alms food may sometimes be meager,
  the bhikkhu is always expected to be grateful for whatever he is
  given.(fn74) It is surprising how particular we can be about what food
  we like to eat; and what complications that can cause. This is
  reflected in the way rules concerning 'edibles' are arranged, which
  may seem very complex especially when the bhikkhu's life is supposed
  to be so simple. It should be borne in mind that the rules often deal
  with extraordinary circumstances and try to prevent them from becoming
  the norm.
Begging for Food
When the 'group-of-six' monks in the Buddha's time solicited 'special
  foods' and ate them themselves, the lay people criticized this saying,
  "Who isn't fond of good food and sweets?" The Buddha therefore laid
  down this rule:
"There are these finer staple foods, i.e., ghee, fresh butter, oil,
  honey, sugar/molasses, fish, meat, fresh milk, and curds. Should any
  bhikkhu who is not ill, having asked for finer staple foods such as
  these for his own sake, then eat them, it is [an offence of
  Confession.]" (Paac. 39; BMC p.367)
"There are sumptuous foods, namely foods mixed with ghee, butter, oil,
  honey, molasses, fish, meat, milk and curd; and a monk who, though not
  sick, asks for such sumptuous foods for himself and eats them commits
  [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 39; BBC p.127)
The ancient commentators suggest that these 'finer foods' are actually
  made when one mixes rice, for example, with butter or fish, etc.
An exception is made for a monk who is ill, and a bhikkhu can ask for
  special food for the sake of a fellow monk who is sick. (He is always
  allowed to ask a relative or someone who has offered a Pavaara.naa
  Invitation.
Receiving and Eating Food
A whole section (fn75) of the seventy-five Sekhiya Training guidelines is
  concerned with how a bhikkhu receives and eats his alms food. Although
  'table manners' may differ from country to country, and from age to
  age, these Sekhiya rules still largely conform to what is considered
  good manners:
"I will receive alms food appreciatively." (fn76) (Sekhiya 27)
"When receiving alms food, I will focus my attention on the bowl."
  (Sekhiya 28)
◊ This explains why the bhikkhu may not look at the donor when
  accepting food — he is concentrating on properly receiving it. "I will
  receive/eat (bean-)curries in the right proportion to the rice."
  (Sekhiya 29/34)
It is suggested that this was laid down so that bhikkhus on alms round
  would not pass by people offering plain rice in favor of better
  quality food. (See EV,I,p.211) "I will receive alms food only until it
  reaches the rim of the bowl." (Sekhiya 30)
◊ However, on festival or special occasions the bhikkhu's bowl may be
  emptied so that everyone who wants to join in offering has the
  opportunity. (fn77) "I will eat alms food attentively." (Sekhiya 31)"When
  eating alms food, I will look only into the bowl." (Sekhiya 32)
◊ This is also why the bhikkhu should not be expected to talk while he
  is eating, for this will distract his attention. "I will not cover up
  curries or other food with rice out of a desire to get more." (Sekhiya
  36)
If donors think that the monk has only plain rice in his bowl, they
  may give him some 'better' food. "When I am not sick, I will not ask
  for curries or rice for my own benefit." (Sekhiya 37)
Other Sekhiya rules seem aimed at bhikkhus eating from their bowl
  using their fingers in the traditional way of India: (fn78)
"I will not make up an overlarge mouthful of food; nor open my mouth
  until the portion of food has been brought to it; nor put my fingers
  into my mouth; nor speak with my mouth full.
"I will not eat: stuffing out my cheeks; shaking my hand about;
  scattering grains of rice about; putting out my tongue; making a
  champing sound; (or drink) making a sucking sound; licking my hands;
  scraping the bowl; licking my lips. I will not take hold of a vessel
  of water with my hand soiled with food." (Sekhiya Section; see End
  Note 75.)

One should not think that people are different in perceiving by birth!
To approach the uphold of a wrong idea, displayed in Nyom Chris's answer.
Dana is Dana, alms are alms. It's not so that people of equal social standard and equal informed in west or east think different.
In SEAsia only less are informed or have even the notion that a monk, a Bhikkhu, is actually a Beggar. It's just in the West in more informed spheres, that the meaning and way of live is right understood.
A gift is a gift, and it's just in that far different as the recipient is someone (at least by perception of devoted) who is worthy (beyond proper) to be given.
The different between a ordinary beggar and a "holly beggar" is that the first does not beg only to maintain his body and to be able to gain liberation, but aside of mostly using the given energy also for harmful deeds on others, still seeks for gain and often strong sense-pleasure.
Under normal devoted in Asia it's not beloved to face their "Gods", monks as beggars (which has of course also to do with livelihood that is far off of the best and householder-like, "King-like"). Only informed or observant devoted, meeting proper conducting Monks would, aside of literary information, trace monks as "special beggars", one who does not ask but give wise a chance to make merits.

"Na ve yācanti sappaññā
  dhīro veditumarahati
  udissa ariyā tiṭṭhanti
  esā ariyāna-yācanā."

And a real Bhikkhu, beggar, at it's ideal:

"Sattānnaŋ, bhikkhave, dhammānaŋ bhinnattā bhikkhu hoti. Katamesaŋ sattānnaŋ?
  Sakkāyadiṭṭhi bhinnā hoti. Vicikicchā ... , Sīlabbataparamāso ... , Rāgo ... , Doso ... , Moho ... , Māno ..., bhinno hoti."

Hard to meet an alms-goer under the Buddhas heritage, even harder a complete, even if near, a blind could not see.
(not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment that keeps in this wheel but as a tiny door to escape)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


text:
When you don't do akusla you do kusala?
When you don't do akusla actions you do kusala actions?
And I'm aware of the middle way  -  harming yourself is not.
And another question (you can answer whatever you like or both)
When you don't do stuff for fun  do you do good things? ....   of course with 2 important exceptions:   you have right view and you don't avoid fun stuff (meaning not to do on purpose stuff cause they are fun but you can do stuff that are fun if it serves you)
And my main question is:  if I avoid doing bad stuff (akusala)  will I do only good stuff (kusala) or neutral ones?
Because I'm pondering a way to advance in the path after trying many many ways as to just focus on avoiding doing bad  and cause I have right view more or less  I will be pushed to do good.
Also many things for fun are akusala (bad)  so it seems avoiding them I am pushed to do good.
(And yes I know there are "levels" and you can look at actions in general or moment by moment - and I ask this on each level - also in the big picture of actions and also moment by moment)
Sorry if it's a mess of a question - but I hope the smart people here can give their opinion on this line of thought nonetheless  - you don't have to answer the question directly.

I think generally speaking you are on the right track. Your question seems very clear to me and your logic is valid.
Don't do akusala, on all levels from coarse - to very subtle, exactly this was my path, this can be your path. You don't need to worry about kusala, as long as you put serious effort in not doing akusala, you will advance.
Now, "serious effort" is very serious. There is akusala hiding inside kusala, and there is kusala hiding inside akusala. So you should be very bold and very brave. I see you are making progress since you joined.

I asked about keeping the precepts for example  - 8 of them  in dhammawheel and theres never an agreement its a beneficial thing  - if i remember mainly cause it my cause you to give up
so whenever i kept the precept i felt its benicifial a bit  (wasnt sure)  and felt i can keep keeping them than i read some threads of pepople saying its not needed and it made me give up on keeping them  - usually most commentators where against keeping precepts  and this was said by member's who  usually give good advice and know what they are talking about
maybe this is different ?

"You don't need to worry about kusala, as long as you put serious effort in not doing akusala, you will advance."  ....... this is a very nice sentence  thats what i would like to belive and think its true

You need to think for yourself: "is this akusala?" - and act to the best of your ability. First you can make mistakes, but that's not the point, the point is to put effort consistently over a long time - then your discernment ability will keep improving and you will advance. So don't read too many commentators, think for yourself about your motives, and consequences, and always do your best.

There is the saying of buddha : "do good , avoid bad,  purify the mind"
if you follow kusala akusala to the deeper levels  -  can you ignore purify the mind ?  does it happen automatically ?    ---  why  purify the mind was added ?

yes, you are correct

Gautama Buddha gave imperative teachings to Sanga (monks) on every 15 days (twice a month).

Do not do any bad deed.
Do all good deed in complete way (make them complete).
Cleanse the mind from impurities.

From this teachings, you can depict not doing any bad deed (Akusala/Parpa) is not necessarily you are doing good deed (Kusala).
For example, when we are talking about five precepts,

Not killing any living being perceiving while doing; it is not doing Akusala (killing).
But Kusala on this first precept is spreading Metta and Karuna to all living beings. You are practicing Kusala by having positive kindness, wishing all living being to survive in peace and enjoy their lives. In this practice, spreading Metta and Karuna to all living beings is something to be done and not automatic by being law-abiding first precept.
No stealing
If you don't do stealing (Akusala), you are not practicing offering/donation. Donation/offer is abandoning your possessions and it is also separate deed other than avoiding stealing.
Not having affairs with other people's spouse.
Even though you make up your mind not to mess up other people relations and partnership, you may have some burning or subtle inner desire to want to mess up. If you don't cleanse your mind from this impurities, you are not breaking third precept but you don't practice third of Buddha's teaching. If you can cleanse your mind from inappropriate sensual desire, you will have fruitful Kusala about this precept.
not telling Lie to deceive people.
It is apparent that telling no lie is not telling the truth, you still have right to remain silent. Buddha had practiced Sacca parami completely so refrain from telling lie is not enough to practice Kusala.
Refrain from drinking intoxicating liquor/wine/fermented drink.
You need to have proper meal with comfortable to your metabolism/ability to digest. Awareness/mindfulness is you need to practice so that you won't hurt yourself by eating junks or inappropriate foods while you don't even drink any alcohol.

It is highly recommended that even though you are not doing any Akusala (keeping five precepts above), at least you should review yourself on daily/weekly basic that you should cherish your Sila is clean, not broken. It will make you have peace in mind and acquire concentration. Mindfulness/awareness is plus to your Kusala and it is not automatic.

When the desire to steal, lie, misbehave, drink or hatred to kill come up, subduing such thoughts is Kusala. You need Samma Vayama to keep to the Sila. Samma Vayama is Kusala

Is there some place that says something along the lines of : preventing bad (akusala)  is more important than doing good (kusala)  ?
like focusing on not doing bad  and also doing good but first making sure you dont do bad ?  putting the avoiding in doing bad on a higher priority ?

A good reference is MN 114 (only source I've found on the web)

Bhikkhus, I say bodily conduct is twofold, consisting of that should be practiced and should not be practiced, that too quite different from each other. Verbal conduct is twofold, consisting of that should be practiced and should not be practiced, that too quite different from each other. Mental conduct is twofold, consisting of that should be practiced and should not be practiced, that too quite different from each other. Arousing of thoughts is twofold, consisting of that should be practiced and should not be practiced, that too quite different from each other. The gain of perceptons is twofold, consisting of that should be practiced and should not be practiced, that too quite different from each other. The gain of view is twofold, consisting of that should be practiced and should not be practiced, that too quite different from each other. The gain of a self is twofold, consisting of that should be practiced and should not be practiced, that too quite different from each other.”
   ...
On account of what was it said by the Blessed One? When practicing certain bodily conducts [Verbal conducts, Mental conduct ...], if unwholesome states increases and wholesome states decrease such bodily conduct [Verbal conducts, Mental conduct ...] should not be practiced. When practicing certain bodily conducts [Verbal conducts, Mental conduct ...], if unwholesome states decrease and wholesome states increase such bodily conduct [Verbal conducts, Mental conduct ...] should be practiced.

Notes:

In the translation I have as a book (not english), it says instead of "is twofold, consisting of" "is twofold and either of the one or the other", which is more clear in my opinion
I've replaced the words merit and demerit in the translation with wholesome/unwholesome states, which is a better translation of the Pali kusalā/akusalā dhammā

Is there some place that says something along the lines of : preventing bad (akusala)  is more important than doing good (kusala)  ?
like focusing on not doing bad  and also doing good but first making sure you dont do bad ?  putting the avoiding in doing bad on a higher priority ?

Preventing bad is doing good. Whether you prevent unwholesomeness or cultivate wholesomeness, both is wholesome and often I think both are the same. There are the 4 types of effort of preventing, overcoming, cultivating and sustaining, but I don't know for sure if there is a text where it says one is better than the other. It wouldn't make much sense imo.

For Arahants, all actions are neither Kusala nor Akusala.
For normal beings, all intentional actions are Karma. Which means it is either Kusala(wholesome) or Akusala(unwholesome) Karma.
There is no "neutral Karma". But there are actions which are Karmically neutral.
They are called Avyaakata.

Avoiding akusala karma is not a kusala karma.
If kusala and akusala karma are two ends of a pencil with an eraser attached, if you did not use the eraser side does not mean you used the other side . In a same way , if you did not do akusala karma, does not mean you did kusala karma.
What you should do
Basically there are 10 kusala karma and 10 akusala karma (I assume that you know them). Avoid akusala karma and do kusala karma.
Note
Doing just kusala karma will not help you achieve nirvana. You must develop your mind to achieve nirvana. But , every kusala karma you do will have consequences, those will be good. In a same way , akusala karma will have bad consequences.

In Sila you abstain from unwholesome physical and vocal actions. This way you avoid more heavier of the bad Karma. When you abstain from all unwholesome vocal and physical action what remain is wholesome vocal and physical action. This is at a very high level of Sila perhaps that of a monk or nun.
When you start you start with Sila as a rule or practice. As you progress you can look at it as the good of oneself and other. [Sedaka Sutta] At a much later stage this at the level of sensation, where by you recognise which sensation make you react in unwholesome ways and abstain from following through with the actions. [Kīta,giri Sutta] This is based on Insight and Wisdom.
The metal unwholesome action are unavoidable if you are not doing meditation. By meditating you can displace unwholesome mental actions with wholesome mental actions.
For more detail explanation from the Suttas see this answer.

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


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

It is in  SN 16.11.

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

However, the English translation doesn't mention that the Buddha wore a cloth wrapped to a dead body instead it just mentions worn-out hempen rag-robes. In the pali version it says the robe was paṃsukūlāni (rags discarded on the ground).
The Buddha has obtained it from the dead body of a servant named Punna lying in the cemetery (this part is in the commentary). He wore this robe until he exchanged it with Maha Kassapa.


text:
Sinhala translation of commentaries and subcommentaries
Is there a way to read Sinhala translation of commentaries and subcommentaries online..?
I found the pali one, but not in Sinhalese.
Hope for a help. Triple Gem Bless you all!!

There are many sites with Sinhala:

Suttacentral - https://suttacentral.net/si/dn1 (A P de Soyza)
Buddha Jayanthi can be found in many sites - http://www.sjp.ac.lk/news/download-theravada-tripitaka/ in PDF, http://www.thripitakaya.org/, http://www.aathaapi.org/Thripitaka.html
Pitaka - http://pitaka.lk/ (A P de Soyza)
Tipitaka - http://www.tipitaka.org/

http://www.aathaapi.org/Thripitaka.html and http://www.tipitaka.org/ Atthakatha in Pali but Singhala fonts. There are for sale translation of some of them at Buddhist Cultural Centre.

I find no commentaries or subcommentaries in these sites.. Those links contain only Sinhala Tripitaka..

See: පාළි අට්ඨකථා, පාළි ටීකා in http://www.aathaapi.org/Thripitaka.html and අට්‌ඨකථා, ටීකා & අන්‍ය in http://www.tipitaka.org/sinh/. These a Pali in Sinhala script but not translation. Some translations are available at BCC but the quality of translations maybe poor.