text:
Awareness of two things
I started to read Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha (the PDF, version 3).
Before page 22, there's some text which says that (I paraphrase) sensations are fleeting and that consciousness-of-sensation is consciousness just of the echo of an already-previous sensation.
Then, on page 22, there's is a description of an exercise, which I quote below.
He introduces it as being "useful for jump-starting and developing insight into impermanence"; later, says that this same exercise promotes concentration and stability; and finally says that it was the only technique he used for five years.
Can you tell me more about this?
Is it some hybrid/mixture of insight and concentration?
Is it at unusual exercise? It seems to take 'two-pointed concentration' as its object, which I haven't ever read about before.
Are you aware of any specific advantages or disadvantages of this technique (or, whether and when it ought to be recommended or not recommended)?
Is there something it does well, too well, not well enough, not at all?

In one of these exercises, I sit quietly in a quiet place, close my eyes,
  put one hand on each knee, and concentrate just on my two index
  fingers. Basic dharma theory tells me that it is definitely not possible to
  perceive both fingers simultaneously, so with this knowledge I try to see
  in each instant which one of the two finger’s physical sensations are
  being perceived. Once the mind has speeded up a bit and yet become
  more stable, I try to perceive the arising and passing of each of these
  sensations. I may do this for half an hour or an hour, just staying with
  the sensations in my two fingers and perceiving when each sensation is
  and isn’t there. This might sound like a lot of work, and it definitely can
  be until the mind settles into it. It really requires the concentration of a
  fast sport like table tennis. This is such an engaging exercise and
  requires such precision that it is easy not to be lost in thought if I am
  really applying myself. I have found this to be a very useful practice for
  developing concentration and debunking the illusion of continuity. You
  can pick any two aspects of your experience for this exercise, be they
  physical or mental. I generally use my fingers only because through
  experimentation I have found that it is easy for me to perceive the
  sensations that make them up.
In another related exercise, I do the same sort of thing, sitting
  quietly in a quiet place with my eyes closed, but instead I concentrate on
  the sensations of the front and back of my head. With the knowledge
  that the illusion of a separate perceiver is partially supported by one
  impermanent sensation incorrectly seeming to perceive another
  impermanent sensation which it follows, such as the sensations in the
  back of the head incorrectly seeming to perceive the sensations of the
  front of the head which they follow, I try to be really clear about these
  sensations and when they are and aren’t there. I try to be clear if the
  sensations in the head are from the front or the back of the head in each
  instant, and then try to experience clearly the beginning and ending of
  each individual sensation.
This practice also requires a table tennis-like precision. Half an hour
  to an hour of this can be quite a workout until the mind speeds up and
  becomes more stable, but this sort of effort pays off. When I am
  engaged with this practice, there is little room to be lost in thought. I
  have also found this a very useful practice for developing concentration
  and debunking the illusion of continuity and the illusion of a separate
  self (more on that later).

The section ends with (one page 25),

For five years of my practice I was basically a One Technique Freak,
  and that technique was noticing how sensations flicker. I would do it as
  often as I could, i.e. basically whenever I didn’t have to be doing
  something that required concentration on the specifics of my life. I
  would be riding an elevator, just trying to see when I could feel each
  foot, or lying down to sleep and noticing how many times I could
  experience the sensations of my breath in each second. I also tried to
  notice this aspect of things for every single sensation that occurred
  during my formal practice. I used lots of objects, usually those that were
  presenting strongly at that time, and would use some variations on the
  above techniques as well as some others that I will mention shortly to
  keep me from getting stuck, but the aspect of my world that I tried to
  notice, things flickering, was always the same. I found that by making
  this sort of commitment to understanding one of the most basic
  assumptions of insight practices I was able to make fast progress and
  gain the ultimate insights I was looking for.

Earlier (e.g. on page 20 and 21) it was talking about becoming aware of some number of sensations per second ("maybe up to forty times per second") which he calls "vibrations", and combines with a breath meditation,

[...] It is also useful to check out exactly what happens at the
  bottom, middle, and top of the breath if you are using the breath as an
  object, and to examine if the frequency stays stable or changes in each
  phase of the breath. Never assume that what you have understood is the
  final answer! Be alert! Explore carefully and precisely with openness and
  acceptance! This is the door to understanding.
One last thing about vibrations: looking into vibrations can be a lot
  like any other sport. It can be thought of the way we might think of
  surfing or playing tennis, and this sort of game-like attitude can actually
  help a lot. We're “out to bust some vibrations!” as a friend of mine
  enthusiastically put it. [...]

I searched this site for the word "vibrations" thinking someone might have written something from this perspective already (if this were a well-known technique or "basic dharma theory"), but no, I don't see this mentioned in any previous topic.

My take on what Daniel is trying to describe here is a deepening appreciation of the granularity of perception. The use of the word 'vibrations' in this context is a bit unorthodox hence your search coming up short. In some of Burmese Vipassana traditions, emphasis is placed on the experiencing of arising and passing of phenomena at very subtle levels. In this context this is a powerful insight practice into impermanence at a fundamental level - arising and (complete) cessation. Ajahn Brahm mentions this in Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond (p. 203):

One now realizes that just as the stream of consciousness is granular, so is that component of the stream that is the citta. As noted earlier, sand on a beach appears continuous. Looking closely, however, one sees that the beach consists of tiny grains of silica. Looking even closer, one can see spaces between each grain, so that they aren’t even touching. The citta has this same granular quality. Instead of appearing as a continuous entity, it is now clearly recognized as made up of series of individual “knowings,” cittas or mind events, packed closely together and related to their neighbors by cause and effect. One can even discern that there is a gap between the mind events, between each knowing, where the citta has completely vanished from existence for a while.

Awareness of the granular nature of reality is not immediately obvious and Daniel's practice of the two-finger technique cleverly serves to concentrate the mind to notice at increasing frequency the arising of the perception one finger and then the other. Mahasi Sayadaw's noting technique has the same effect but is more open ended.

Is it at unusual exercise? It seems to take 'two-pointed concentration' as its object, which I haven't ever read about before.

I think this is an unusual practice. I certainly haven't seen reference to it anywhere else.

Is it some hybrid/mixture of insight and concentration?

This is Kanika Samadhi - moment-to-moment concentration.

Are you aware of any specific advantages or disadvantages of this technique (or, whether and when it ought to be recommended or not recommended)?

Like noting, I find the technique very useful in developing Kanika which in turn is essential for insight practice.
As a side note:- having been on a Goenka retreat myself, the use of the word 'vibrations' in a Goenka context is different. Goenka actively discourages noting as a technique. According to Goenka, noting increases our separation from raw sensate experience. From what I could glean from the Goenka discourses, what we experience at subtler and subtler levels beyond the gross bodily sensations are Kalapas (he actually uses this term and sticks to the Visuddhimagga doctrine that they extremely fast vibrations - billions of time per sec - of subtle reality). Our experience of these sensations at a body level has a vibratory quality to it.

He introduces it as being "useful for jump-starting and developing insight into impermanence"; later, says that this same exercise promotes concentration and stability; and finally says that it was the only technique he used for five years.
Can you tell me more about this?

It promotes concentration since it narrows the focus of the mind during the meditation practice -- it's not a single meditation object but the focus is still narrow. By resting the mind on specific experiences and making it the main interest of the mind it also helps weaken the hindrances, thus it promotes the stability.

Is it some hybrid/mixture of insight and concentration?

Yes. His main practice is insight, but because his focus is sufficiently narrow and on subtle experiences, his concentration also develops.

Is it at unusual exercise? It seems to take 'two-pointed concentration' as its object, which I haven't ever read about before.

I don't think it's unusual (in the sense of "unorthodox"). I think it's a sound experiment and exercise. Maybe having two fingers as his domain of interest is not too open ended (allowing him to develop enough concentration and use some degree of sharp penetration) but also not too narrow as to lose interest easily and sleep, e.g. by having sufficient/enough things going on to observe (and he says he finds this to be an engaging exercise). Maybe it also gives some base for contrasting experiences, helping to perceive the minutia of viññāṇa workings.

This seems to me to just be the Goenka method of Vipassana restricted down even further in terms of where you direct your awareness. So in essence, a partial Satipatthana practice? He states you can do this with any physical or mental aspects, although I'm not sure how you would manage juggling mental objects like this. Perhaps this is just beyond my capacity.

Are you aware of any specific advantages or disadvantages of this technique (or, whether and when it ought to be recommended or not recommended)?

Having started my meditation "career" with a Goenka retreat, in my opinion at least, restricting awareness down like this can be helpful for a beginner, as you aren't bombarded all at once with having to be mindful of EVERYTHING that can arise. But it can also leave you unprepared for having to be mindful of really powerful emotional/mental stuff that WILL eventually make its way to the surface.

Is it some hybrid/mixture of insight and concentration?

It definitely does boost both faculties really well, in my experience.

Thank you for the reply. I don't know "the Goenka method" but your telling me a keyword like that will help me search for more.

I don't know what you mean by a "a partial Satipatthana practice"? When I read the Maha-satipatthana Sutta and The Satipatthana Sutta and Its Commentary, I thought it didn't seem to mention: single-pointed nor multi-pointed awareness; nor sensation having faded before consciousness arises; nor several-times-per-second phenomena; nor even a "hybrid" of impermanence and concentration. So are you using another, different definition of "Satipatthana"?

"partial Satipatthana" in that his practice isn't holistic of all the foundations of mindfulness, he is restricting it to just body and feelings, which is the same that the Goenka tradition does. This makes it more user-friendly for beginners as it's less to wrap your head around all at once.

heres a description of the Goenka method aka "body scanning" : http://www.zendog.ca/index.php?page=vipassana-meditation


text:
Buddhist pursuit of peace questions
I've been researching about Buddhism and their pursuit for peace and i have some questions.

Do you believe that Buddhism has shaped society today. If so how?
How has Buddhism influenced your life?
Where in Buddhism does it say that you have to live your life in peace?
Do you believe that a pursuit of peace is necessary in today's society?
As a Buddhist, how does a pursuit of peace begin? (How do you pursue it, what does a "pursuit" of peace entail and when does your pursuit end?)
Do you believe that all people should follow a life of peace?
As a Buddhist, do you think that Buddhism has the idea of changing the world?
If Buddhism values finding peace within yourself, how is each person finding peace among themselves going to help change the world? Thank you.

I agree that this question reads as "primarily opinion-based". I also already closed this question once as "too broad", but then decided to reverse my close-vote and to try to answer it instead, based on the Moderation policies for Questions: which says that we will try to answer questions instead of closing them. But you can vote to close, if you think this question ought to be closed instead.

Given that this question could get answers which are "primarily opinion-based", if you do want to answer it then I recommend you read Good Subjective, Bad Subjective before you write an answer: and in your answer, either explain experience (and not just opinion), or 'back it up' with a reference.

@ChrisW maybe we could just make these sort of questions wiki?

@yuttadhammo Yes we could make it CW (I made my own answer CW), however 4 well-informed users voted to close it even, after I commented that I had eventually decided not to close it myself. IMO moderators should hesitate to override a community decision (vote to close) such as that (Crab Bucket waited for 3 previous votes before casting his own). You might like to post on meta, to ask people why they closed this question: what kind of edits might it need before reopening it, if it's not unsalvageable? and what's the characteristic of "this sort of question" that we should want to close it?

If you (or someone else) wants to answer it, then maybe post on meta to say "I want the question open because I want to answer along these lines..." and maybe people will say "Yes that's a good idea." Or, edit the question, and then see whether people vote to reopen the edited version.

@ChrisW, we definitely do try to answer everything and our stats show a 99% answer rate which is great. My reason for casting a close vote was because this is less a question and more an "interview" about personal experience and perceptions of Buddhism and accepting this type of interview style of question might lead to more of the same. Perhaps the idea of making these questions a community wiki (as suggested by Ven. Yuttadhammo above) makes sense? I'll open a meta thread to get feedback. :)

Hi Lewis and welcome to Buddhism.SE. Here is a new user guide to help explain how questions are best asked on the site. There's also a new topic on the meta site where we say why we think this question shouldn't be answered. If you want to ask this question again, please edit it to simplify or explain it, or to add some context about why or what you're asking: preferably to re-ask it as a single question. Thank you.

I think the questions are very broad (too broad), so this answer will be correspondingly (too) shallow.
It's 'community wiki' in case you want to edit (add to) it.
Do you believe that Buddhism has shaped society today. If so how?
Yes.
It does so by providing an alternative. If your question is like, "Do you believe 'that door over there' (Buddhism) has shaped 'prison' (society) today?", then Buddhism might be about freedom.
There's an article titled The Taste of Freedom which includes,

"Just as in the great ocean there is but one taste — the taste of salt — so in this Doctrine and Discipline (dhammavinaya) there is but one taste — the taste of freedom": with these words the Buddha vouches for the emancipating quality of His doctrine.

How has Buddhism influenced your life?
I don't think that's on-topic on this site, because that isn't common/shared experience.
Where in Buddhism does it say that you have to live your life in peace?
There's a general concept called non-violence or Ahimsa.
More specifically there are rules of ethics which are called e.g. five precepts: which include "peaceful" rules like "don't kill" and "don't steal" and "don't lie".
Do you believe that a pursuit of peace is necessary in today's society?
I think that people (in society) find stress unpleasant, and that too much stress (or greed) can lead to war and destruction of society. Even if there weren't inter-personal or international problems, there are still personal problems: for example your friends and family (and you) getting sick and old and dying.
So, yes, some alternative to or relief from stress, some peace, is necessary to society.
Various members of society (i.e. people) learn about Buddhism when they feel motivated to.
As a Buddhist, how does a pursuit of peace begin? (How do you pursue it, what does a "pursuit" of peace entail and when does your pursuit end?)
I think it begins with stress. When you experience stress then you pursue peace.
A way to pursue it by following the Buddhist "noble eightfold way" a.k.a. "three-fold training".
The pursuit ends when it's successful.
This is summarized in the Four Noble Truths:

Stress exists
Stress has a cause
There is a  way to end stress
The way to end stress is the "noble eightfold way"

There is more than one school of Buddhism though. In this answer, with the "four noble truths", I'm trying to summarize the earliest school, but see also e.g. the last paragraph of this answer which suggests that the pursuit ends when one is, also, liberated from the stress of (or perhaps peaceful even within the constraints of) Buddhism. This answer suggests there some real difference in the end-stage of different Buddhist schools (but that's probably Too Much Information i.e. more detail than you were looking for).
Do you believe that all people should follow a life of peace?
Yes and no. I don't expect lions to stop hunting. I think people people might be happier and hurt each other less if they were more Buddhist.
As a Buddhist, do you think that Buddhism has the idea of changing the world?
Yes and no. Buddhism is mostly or originally about changing yourself.
Buddhists also have an effect on each other:

Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."[1]
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

Buddhists may also have an effect on society at large (see for example Did the Buddha try to effect social change?) and includes advice for laypeople who continue to live within society.
Furthermore, Mahayana Buddhism includes the concept of not only liberating yourself but also "changing the word" (e.g. liberating "all other sentient beings").
If Buddhism values finding peace within yourself, how is each person finding peace among themselves going to help change the world?
For the better, presumably.
One way is that the purpose of "virtue" is "lack of remorse". In order to find peace, people may find they need to become more effective (e.g. so they can fulfill their social duties).
The Dalai Lama says that happiness comes from making other people happy.

Thank you for taking your time and effort to provide an answer.

It's such a broad question (many possible definitions of "peace" and "society") that I don't think that this a "one true answer"; it's one way to approach one of many possible answers, and it does include some links to references if the OP wants to research that further. It is a bit of an introduction to Buddhism, but it says almost nothing about peace movements or society in the modern world. I suspect that the OP copied those questions from somewhere without explaining the context i.e. why they're being asked, so it's hard to know what they're asking.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Mindfulness and mental habits
When we practice mindfulness we notice our mental habit and mental pattern. What makes us angry, jealous, greedy, etc.. My question is, when you notice them, do you change it to positive mental quality or just watch it?
Someone angry for 'no reason', but actually there is a reason if one keeps the mindfulness. With mindfulness, we realize that the trigger of the anger is for example a certain situation happened yesterday. By realizing this we are no longer angry. Is this also a practice of mindfulness or analyzing? Which one is the correct practice? Thanks all.

Even if there is a "reason" for being upset, we cannot always discern it, so following it back can be a waste of time. As Orion said in another answer: "There is always something greater than anxiety, and that is Mindfulness." I think that attempting to "change it to a positive mental quality" is also likely to be ineffective and/or wasted effort. All things arise and pass away

In mindfulness, we try to stay in the present moment, being aware of what we are doing and experiencing right here and right now. For the most part, the things that upset us are things that happened in the past, even if the past was just 5 minutes ago. Dwelling on the past would be outside of mindfulness.
A great dhamma talk I've read on this subject is from Ajahn Sumedo called In the moment of mindfulness, there is no suffering.

In the moment of mindfulness, there is no suffering. I can’t find any suffering in mindfulness; it’s impossible; there’s absolutely none. But when there’s heedlessness, there is a lot of suffering in my mind. If I give in to grasping things, to wanting things, to following emotions or doubts and worries and being caught up in things like that—then there is suffering. It all begins from my grasping. But when there is mindfulness and right understanding, then I can’t find any suffering at all in this moment, now. This is about this moment here and now.

I encourage you to read the rest of the dhamma talk to be inspired to try to live in this present moment.
Regarding realizing you are upset about something that occurred in the past, the simple technique of noting and observing your feeling, such as noting "angry...angry" or "disappointed...disappointed" without replaying in your mind the incident which made you angry or disappointed can help you see that feelings such as these are fleeting and impermanent. They come and go and we can help ourselves see their impermanent nature by not "feeding" them with overthinking them or dwelling in the past but remaining in the present moment and impartially observing that feelings arise and cease.

Ajahn Sumedo is a great speaker!

@Robin111
"...then there is suffering. It all begins from my grasping". In other words, the grasping is noticed and an effort is made to not grasp, right? We are aware the negative and change/ replace it with positive qualities, so it’s not just witnessing.
One person notices he thinks negatively, if he just watch it, next occasion he will think negatively again and again and again. But if he makes an effort not to think negatively then he will change his mental habit. But is this mindfulness as we are supposed to understand? Thanks again.

@Steve, I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer this particular point. But I'll pass along what I know. With anatta we don't have control over our mind states in the sense of willing ourselves to be positive when we feel negative. But our mind states are fleeting and impermanent. So the negative mind state of this moment can be gone shortly as are all conditioned things. By observing (and noting in some traditions) without judging, we can notice how quickly mind states change. By staying in this present moment (instead of analyzing prior mind state) we stay mindful. Hope this helps. :)

Thanks Robin. But what do you do if, for example, you notice unwholesome quality in mind and you know what causes it to arise. Do you let the cause run its course and you suffer as a result and watch the suffering OR do you do something about it?

For example,
Living mindfully one realizes clinging to an idea causes him/her to    suffer.
Living mindfully one realizes prejudice makes his/her views distorted.
Sleep less makes you feel more agitated and anxious.
So do you do something about it for example get enough sleep, change view to more positive, etc. or you just let they run their course? Sorry if it sounds ridiculous, feeling lost at the moment. Thanks again.

@Steve, I would say yes, definitely when you see that something is causing you to suffer; it's using your wisdom and discernment to let go of it. This video talks about "wise attention" and it may be helpful to answering your question. Learning from Mistakes.

@Robin, thanks for the reply and video.
But the mind tells me to avoid suffering is an aversion. Why do I need to change to more positive ones, they all are actions and my duty is just to observe them. This is what it tells me.

@Steve, letting go of the things that cause us suffering seems wise. No need to repeatedly stick your hand in the fire so as to be able to observe it. So need to walk on broken glass; it's wise to avoid some things. Not avoiding easily avoidable suffering, could be considered self mortification. "and there is addiction to self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy, and unprofitable." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.piya.html

There is an old joke where a man goes to his Doctor and says: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." And the Doctor says: "Well don't do that!" It is just that easy.

... do you change it to positive mental quality ...

If any of the Nīvaraṇa arises you can apply the antidote to it. Also see: Nīvarana,pahana Vagga and Nīvaraṇa

... or just watch it?

You can do this also. There is always a sensation associated with the hindrances. If you are angry you get a burning sensation. If you have sloth or torpor you feel heavy.

Someone angry for 'no reason', but actually there is a reason if one keeps the mindfulness.

This is some stimuli at the scene door which give an unpleasant sensation.

... By realizing this we are no longer angry.

These mental states are impermanent. When the cause, initial stimuli or / and the subsequent mental proliferation disappears then result (anger) disappears. Also see: Dependent Arising

Is this also a practice of mindfulness or analyzing?

This is a form of analysing the impermanence of feelings arising from this mental state. It can be taken as Dhamma vicaya which is mindfulness. Basically you look at the arising and passing of sensations pertaining to the hindrance.

Which one is the correct practice?

All he following you mentioned are correct:

apply antidote
being mindful of the impermanence or arising and passing of sensations (or phenomena what is felt) pertaining to the hindrance
analyse the impermanence or arising and passing of sensations (or phenomena what is felt) pertaining to the hindrance (same as above)

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


text:
How to maintenance equanimity in the daily life?
I would like to understand in the short and simple how to deal in the daily life.
When I have the emotion and I feel the sensation i.e. cold in my palm, what should I do next?
I aware that this feeling cold will be gone sometime later. But how do I know that I do not react to that sensation blindly?
Looking forward to see your answers.
With a lot of metta,
PP

If, during your formal practice, you are able to purify the mind of the hindrances then you can apply that level of concentration and purity of mind to experiences outside of formal meditation.
Purity of mind means that you are able to attend to a sensation without adding stories to it that are rooted in the hindrances to mindfulness (attachment, aversion, doubt, worry and slackness/laziness/lethargy of body and mind).
For example:
If you have warm hands and you say, "I like warm hands; they are so pleasurable!" That is attachment . . .
If you observe cold hands and you say/think something like, "I hate cold hands." That is the hindrance of aversion . . .
If your hands are cold and you ignore mindfulness because you do not believe it is beneficial then you have doubt about the practice . . .
If you have cold hands and you say something like, "I am scared, what will happen if my hands get too cold, I could get hurt and experience painfulness." That is worry . . .
If the mind becomes sluggish and ignores the sensation because of that sluggishness then you have lethargy of mind.
Instead of saying or thinking any of these things you should simply observe the sensation in the hands. If you can not do this it is a sign that there is still work to be done in regards to purifying your mind. If those thoughts arise notice them, then let them go and try to return to observing the bare sensation.

This isn't a complete answer by any means but I hope it adds something user70's answer.
I find the concept of near enemies useful generally but particularly useful when working with equanimity in daily life. The near enemy of equanimity is indifference and on several occasions I have congratulated myself on being particularly equanimous but in reality I have been emotionally shut down. I've got this when on long difficult journey or dealing with people I find difficult.
So I would say that when working with equanimity be very aware of your own emotional tone. Equanimity isn't the same as been emotionally deadened but it's easily mistaken for such.
Hope that's of some help.


text:
Does an arahant ever reveal that he is an arahant?
An arahant is one who has eradicated all defilements and broken all 10 fetters, namely sensual desire and conceit.
Why would an arahant mention that he is one and does the texts say anything about the purpose of mentioning that one is an arahant?

FYI, please don't post a comment instead of a small answer. Comments are ideally for commenting on the question: e.g. suggesting an improvement to the question or requesting a clarification. If you can help answer the question then it's generally better to post that as answer.

I think the Buddha said he was an Arahant. The Ariyapariyesana Sutta says,

"Then, wandering by stages, I arrived at Varanasi, at the Deer Park in Isipatana, to where the group of five monks were staying. From afar they saw me coming and, on seeing me, made a pact with one another, (saying,) 'Friends, here comes Gotama the contemplative: living luxuriously, straying from his exertion, backsliding into abundance. He doesn't deserve to be bowed down to, to be greeted by standing up, or to have his robe & bowl received. Still, a seat should be set out; if he wants to, he can sit down.' But as I approached, they were unable to keep to their pact. One, standing up to greet me, received my robe & bowl. Another spread out a seat. Another set out water for washing my feet. However, they addressed me by name and as 'friend.'
"So I said to them, 'Don't address the Tathagata  by name and as "friend." The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained. I will instruct you. I will teach you the Dhamma. Practicing as instructed, you will in no long time reach & remain in the supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for yourselves in the here & now.'

The book In the Buddha's Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi translates "is a worthy one" in this sentence as "is an Arahant",

"Thereupon I told them: 'Monks, do not address the Tathagata by name and as "friend." The Tathagata is an Arahant, a Perfectly Enlightened One. Listen, monks, the Deathless has been attained. I shall instruct you, I shall teach you the Dhamma. Practicing as you are instructed, by realizing it for yourselves here and now through direct knowledge you will soon enter and dwell in that supreme goal of the holy life for the sake of which clansmen rightly go forth from the home life into homelessness.'

I suppose the reason was to persuade the five to listen to his teaching, to benefit them.

FYI page 136 of The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained,

This would have led some people to
remain secretly convinced of Ven. Dabba Mallaputta’s guilt and—because he was
an arahant—would have been for their long-term detriment and harm.

... which might imply that someone who is (secretly or not-so-secretly) against an arahant would be so to their detriment. So might that perhaps be another reason for an aharant's "revelation"?

Page 86 through 98 explains the following rule,

Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, claim a superior human state, a truly
noble knowledge and vision, as present in himself, saying, “Thus do I know; thus do I
see,” such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion,
he—being remorseful and desirous of purification—might say, “Friends, not knowing, I
said I know; not seeing, I said I see—vainly, falsely, idly,” unless it was from overestimation,
he also is defeated and no longer in affiliation.

So I suppose the rule is to forbid knowingly lying about it.
There might be another rule for not saying such a thing to a lay person (page 92),

Claiming a superior human state that one mistakenly thinks one
has achieved is no offense under this rule, although if addressed to a lay person
the claim would come under Pc 8.

Note that "superior human state" is not just "being an aharant" but also attainments of jhana, samadhi, fruits of the path, abandoning defilements, being free from hindrances, etc.

Thank you for this answer. It makes sense that if a person is harming himself by having aversion towards an arahant then that arahant could choose to announce it to relieve that persons suffering.


text:
Differences in attainments among Arahants
In the Anguttara Nikaya it is said that by possessing seven qualities one can attain direct knowledge of the Four Analytical Knowledges:

Mastery.

"Bhikkhus, possessing seven qualities, Sāriputta exercises mastery over his mind and is not a servant of his mind. What seven? Here, (1) Sāriputta is skilled in concentration, (2) skilled in the attainment of concentration, (3) skilled in the duration of concentration, (4) skilled in emergence from concentration, (5) skilled in fitness for concentration, (6) skilled in the area of concentration, and (7) skilled in resolution regarding concentra- tion. Possessing these seven qualities, Sāriputta exercises mas- tery over his mind and is not a servant of his mind".
"Bhikkhus, when he possessed seven qualities, Sāriputta realized for himself with direct knowledge the four analytical knowledges".
-- The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha - A Translation of the Anguttara Nikaya by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi: The Book of the Sevens, Sutta 39, p. 1023

What are the Four Analytical Knowledges?

In the Pali Canon Study "Nibbana as Living Experience / The Buddha and The Arahant" by Lily de Silva a well described section on the Four Analytical Knowledges can be found. Here is a quote from the study:

Among arahants too there are differences in attainment. In one place the Buddha states that in a group of 500 monks sixty are arahants with the six higher knowledges (cha.labhi~n~naa), sixty are arahants with the three clear knowledges (tevijjaa), another sixty are arahants liberated from both parts (ubhatobhaagavimutta), while the rest are arahants liberated by wisdom (pa~n~naavimutta).
The highest qualifications among arahants are the six higher knowledges (cha.labhi~n~naa) and the four analytical knowledges (catupa.tisambhidaa) . The former comprise psychic powers, the divine ear, thought reading, retrocognition (the ability to recall one's former births), clairvoyance (the ability to see beings dying and being reborn according to their kamma), and the knowledge of the destruction of defilements. The four analytical knowledges comprise insight into the meaning of words (attha), truth (dhamma), use of language (nirutti), and originality of ideas (pa.tibhaana) . They seem to pivot round the ability to teach the Dhamma through the medium of verbal communication with appealing and meaningful ways of presentation.
Some arahants are endowed with the special accomplishment of the fourfold analytical knowledge (pa.tisambhidaa-~naa.na), which qualifies them even more thoroughly for creative work. These are spelt out as analytical knowledge of the meaning or goal, profound truth, language or the medium of communication, and originality of expression (attha, dhamma, nirutti, pa.tibhaana). These four special qualifications make arahants experts in communicating to their audience the exact meanings and goals of the profound truths they have discovered, through the medium of refined language, using their own original modes of expression such as eloquent similes, metaphors, etc. Several arahants, both male and female, are recorded as eloquent speakers and erudite exponents of the Dhamma. Special mention must be made of the Theragaathaa and Theriigaathaa, which comprise poems of exquisite beauty. They are utterances of monks and nuns embodying their varied experiences. Literary critics rank them among the best lyrics in Indian literature. They remain unrivalled in the literary history of the world as creative writing issuing forth from the undefiled purity of the human heart and the nobility of human wisdom. They are ever-fresh fountains of inspiration to the truth-seeker and lasting monuments to the creative genius of the liberated beings.

For more information on this topic there is a comprehensive and detailed exposition called "The Fourfold Analytical Knowledge in Pali Literature" by Ven. Bhikkhu Kusalaguṇa. Here is a quote from the abstract:

The fourfold analytical knowledge (catu-paṭisambhidā) is an integrated set of knowledge gained by the noble persons (ariya) who had developed necessary conditions eligible for this distinctive attainment. The fourfold analytical knowledge consists of:
(1) The analytical knowledge of result (attha-paṭisambhidā),
(2) The analytical knowledge of cause (dhamma-paṭisambhidā),
(3) The analytical knowledge of language (nirutti-paṭisambhidā), and
(4) The analytical knowledge of knowledge (paṭibhāna-paṭisambhidā).
The noble persons who possess these kinds of knowledge are able to penetratingly understand the four types of ultimate realities (paramattha-dhammā), namely, consciousness (citta), mental concomitants (cetasika), matters (rūpa) and Nibbāna, the unconditioned element, and are capable of elucidating them with lucid language and exposition. The Buddha, Venerable Sāriputta and other great noble disciples were real legends in this field of comprehension and explanatory dexterity, as evidently described in the Pāḷi literature.
Each of the fourfold analytical knowledge possesses different analyticities. The analytical knowledge of result has the power to understand fully the so-called resultant phenomena including all cause-produced things, meanings of the Buddha’s Word classified into nine categories such as sutta (discourses in prose), geyya (discourses in prose and verse) and so on, and the unconditioned element, Nibbāna. Similarly, the analytical knowledge of cause has the ability to know various causative phenomena that comprise all result-generating causes, the Buddha’s Word, and the Noble Path leading to the realization of Nibbāna. The analytical knowledge of language, on the other hand, is endowed with the capability of recognizing the grammatically correct usage and the grammatically incorrect usage of Pāḷi language, and is able to understand a wide range of Pāḷi terminologies connected with the ultimate realities. The analytical knowledge of knowledge is, however, capable of taking the foregoing knowledge as objects, and of comprehending their functional activities.
The attainment of the fourfold analytical knowledge is nothing but the accomplishment of collectively conditioning factors accumulated in both the past and present lives. The eight conditions must be fulfilled in order to give rise to the fourfold analytical knowledge, they are: attainment of the highest mundane insight knowledge (knowledge of equanimity towards formations) in the past lives, great erudition, proficiency of dialects, knowledge of Scriptures, inquiry, attainment of the Noble Path, association with teachers, and acquisition of good friends.


text:
Arahants and suicide
I'm aware of a story in the Pali Canon where a monk commited suicide by slitting his throat and achieved arahantship at the moment of death.
Where in the texts can i find this story?
Thank you for your time.

There is also a story about a Bodhisattva who breaks his vows of not killing, in order to stop a captain of a ship from killing another. He saw that the captain with his current karma would be reborn a human, and if he killed his shipmate would fall to the hells. So he killed the captain knowing he would take the negative karma onto himself. Rather than to let the captain, oblivious of karma, fall into the hells. However these kind of skillful actions require abilities and insight. The bodhisattva could see the future lives of others based on their current karma for example.

Ran out of characters.... also there was not an alternative means to stopping the Captain from his murder, it was a split second judgement call. Suicide is not a common means of enlightenment. It is rarely recommended.

There might be something along those lines in SN 4.23 Godhika Sutta.
Page 85 of The Patimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained says,

Case (b) is apparently derived from SN 4.23, where Ven.
  Godhika takes his life and gains arahantship just moments before death

I am sorry i do not remember the names in this.But here is the complete story.
There was an ambitious monk while Buddha was alive.He wanted to reach nirvana but he had a little problem.He was able to reach "Samadhi" but couldn't hold on to it.he kept loosing and regaining it.He was terrified by the idea of facing his death without a "Samadhi" at least.He kept trying but it was obvious that nothing is going to change.One day he had enough of this game that his fate was having with him and decided to end his life while remaining in "Samadhi".This is not something Lord Buddha would agree with so no one knew this.he took a knife and cut his throat but years of practice was able to be useful at this moment.His mind started to reach higher levels of concentration and he went with that using his samadhi. By the time he was dead he was no longer a normal  monk he was an "Arahant".Lord Buddha heard the news and came to see his body and said this is not a normal one he is an "Arahant",Give the body the respect it deserves.That's how the rest of the people got to know about the real story.

I think that you are referring to Arahant Sappadāsa. You can find the verse of that great Arahant in http://mahamevnawa.ca/images/BookThumb/VoiceofEnlightenedMonksTheragathaSample.pdf

Those Who Walked the Path to Nibbana - Verses of Great Arahants
This stanza was told by Arahant Sappadāsa
It has been 25 years since I received ordination. Yet, I have not achieved a mind fully concentrated, not even for a single moment.
I greatly suffered from sensual desires that arose in my mind. My mind was never tranquil. At the end, I was so discouraged and overcome with sorrow. With a sense of un-accomplishment, I went from one monastery to another.
I was determined to take my own life, even if I had to use a weapon on myself. What purpose is there in this life? How can a person like me, who received ordination because of my unshakable confidence in the Noble Triple Gem, disrobe? How can I leave this noble life and die as a householder?
And so, I took the knife on to my hand, and sat on my bed. So determined to cut off my veins, I placed the knife on my neck
Through that itself, ‘wise consideration’ arose in my mind. The suffering that arises from all defilements became apparent to me. I felt a sense of detachment through the understanding of that reality.
Through that understanding, my mind became free from all impurities. Look at the miracle of this noble Dhamma. I too attained the noble Triple knowledge. I fully accomplished the highest level of achievement one can achieve in the Supreme Buddha’s dispensation.


text:
Did the Buddha say anything about attachment to meditation?
I was unable to meditate today and this left me feeling frustrated, disappointed and anxious about my practice. This type of emotional reaction seems equivalent to what occurs when one is prevented from gratifying one's sensual desires. So, I am concerned about a potential addiction to meditation practice. Did the Buddha have anything to say about this? If not, any advice from others? Thanks.

One of the branch Bodhisattva vows is this :

 Regarding the taste of bliss from gaining mental stability as its main advantage

Normally, we tie up a great deal of our energies in nervousness,
  worry, indecision, thoughts of longing or resentment, and so on, or
  weigh them down with dullness and sleepiness. As we concentrate and
  absorb our minds ever deeper, we release ever greater amounts of this
  energy. We experience this as a feeling of physical and mental bliss.
  The stronger that bliss, the further it draws us into absorption. For
  this reason, in anuttarayoga tantra, we generate and use even more
  intense blissful states of mind than those gained merely from perfect
  concentration, in order to reach subtlest clear light mental activity
  and absorb it in the understanding of voidness. If we become attached
  to the taste of bliss we gain at any stage of developing mental
  stability, whether or not in conjunction with tantra practice, and we
  regard enjoying the pleasure we gain from that bliss as the main goal
  of our practice, we seriously hinder our development of far-reaching
  stability of mind.

While this was not exactly your problem the two are similar.
Another advice I've received from a past teacher is to rotate my meditation types. Do each for about a month, and then rotate to the next one.
Sometimes practice goes well, sometimes it does not.
When it does not, watch your mind even in its reaction to the practice.
Do not cling to any expected result, just accept what is...
Even though it is not a buddhist text I'll quote the Bhagavad Gita here as it is relavent.

It is not those who lack energy or refrain from action, but those who work without expectation of reward who attain the goal of meditation.

I unfortunately do not have any direct quotes from the Buddha in my mind on this subject.

What is the source of the first quote?

@Adamokkha http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/practice_material/vows/bodhisattva/secondary_bodhisattva_pledges.html

@Adamokkha a secondary source on the vows can be found here :http://www.bodhicitta.net/BODHISATTVAVOWS.htm it is the 26th branch vow.

If one is "addicted" to meditation or feels like one's sensual pleasure isn't satisfied, then one's probably been doing it wrong. However, in MN 52, Ven. Ananda mentioned a subtle kind of "delight" during jhana which prevents the meditator from attaining Arahantship. Instead s/he only reaches Non-returning and due to reappear in the Pure Abodes to attain final Nibbana there:

"Here, householder, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. He considers this and understands it thus: ‘This first jhāna is conditioned and volitionally produced. But whatever is conditioned and volitionally produced is impermanent, subject to cessation.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma, then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world."

It is the "wanting" of the meditation session to be like this or like that that produces the dissapointment.
Not getting what we want, we get frustrated.
Since the practice is about letting go, when you see this "wanting", let go of it, things already are the way they are so just be with the breath.
If the conditions are right, the results will appear without wanting.
I think you should read the "Teachings of Ajahn Chah" or other meditation masters, where you will find great advice for meditation.

When meditation isn't proceeding properly one must always investigate if there are conditions that prevent meditation - such as a sila transgression, or a non-ideal meditation environment (very hard to meditate on an ant hill) or a full stomach or something else. If so, then these must be attended to, for trying to meditate when it isn't possible will lead to frustration in most people.
However, if everything is correct and still meditation does not come, then just accept it as necessary.
I think Ajahn Brahm likes to say that for weekly labor the wage day is Saturday, but one has to work all week to collect the wages. Like that, in meditation one can have several unsatisfactory meditations and then a perfect session follows. The unsatisfactory was a prerequisite for the satisfactory.
I'm unable to dig up exact quotes, maybe I'll add them later when I find them - but here's some more of what I remember.

The Buddha considers attachment to the jhanas a kind of wholesome attachment since one can do no wrong while in a jhana, and frequent immersion in the jhanas makes one seek out this state of perfection when not in jhana. However when one has attained the ariya states one will know to let go of this attachment too in order to proceed to the higher states.
Frustration at not being able to meditate is wholesome initially when one is still perfecting one's technique and is good for building up one's viriya or resolve and energy to meditate. However, as one's progress continues and one is no longer a beginner this frustration becomes a serious impediment and must be let go.
Make your aversion to non-meditation an object of meditation. Often times the aversion and loathing at being unable to perform as expected is the strongest emotion in the body at that time - so it is a perfect object for Vipassana.
In Samatha practice pretty good determination is necessary, so when the mind wanders it is good to correct the straying - a different approach from Vipassana where momentary concentration or khanika samadhi is enough. Like a horse rider who uses the spurs to good effect but not so much as to hurt the horse.

Sounds like you had an expectation and when that expectation were not met it resulted in suffering.
In a way it's actually a good thing that you experienced this. You have now experienced the pain and suffering attachment will bring us.
Reality is in a constant flux. It is ever changing and impermanent. That is why an expectation might not be met. We wish we could meditate for 1 hour today. Then something happens that changes our plans and prevents us from being able to meditate.
That is reality hitting us. That is the impermanent and ungovernable nature of reality right there. If we have attachment and wanting we will suffer. If we wish for reality to be different from what it is we will suffer.
Then what do to?
When these things happen to us and when feelings of anxiety, frustration, disappointment etc. arise they should be made into objects of observation. This way one will take away their fuel. By having aversion towards them they will only grow bigger and stronger. By instead turning them into objects of observation you can cultivate insight from them. Use them as stepping stones for progressing in your practice.
In "SN 46: Bojjhanga-samyutta" the Buddha talks about how one can nourish the hindrances, here the hindrance of Ill-will and how one can denourish the hindrance of Ill-will:

The nutriments for the hindrances
"And what, bhikkhus, is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen ill will and for the increase and expansion of arisen in will? There is, bhikkhus, the sign of the repulsive: frequently giving careless attention to it is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen ill will and for the increase and expansion of arisen ill will".
The denourishment of the hindrances
"And what, bhikkhus, is the denourishment that prevents unarisen ill will from arising and arisen ill will from increasing and expanding? There is, bhikkhus, the liberation of mind through lovingkindness: frequently giving careful attention to it is the denourishment that prevents unarisen ill will from arising and arisen ill will from increasing and expanding".
-- The Connected Discourses of the Buddha - A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, SN 46, p. 1597-1600.

Hope this helps. If you have any questions to what i wrote let me know.


text:
What if there was no one to offer food to monastics?
This is a questions that often comes up when I visit study groups, particularly when the subject of everyone practicing like a monk/nun comes up. Wouldn't monastics be allowed to farm-just enough for sustenance?  It seems extreme that they would just starve because no one fed them. My understanding was that the food offering was mostly established for the lay people to have an opportunity  to give and gain merit, but I may be wrong. Is there a canonical reference saying monastics can only eat if given food? What did they do before the order was fully established? What about forest monastics who go of for extended periods alone?

0
Haha. Entertaining.
I imagine that the vow to only eat almsfood exists so that one could justify eating food that one is forbidden to eat!

There are several monastic orders that currently allow monks to cook their own food, but usually there is a lay community that donates the cash or food.
I don't know of anyone who starved merely because there was no one to offer food. The Vinaya is real but so is reality. I think most will find an empty stomach is more real than the Vinaya.
In any case the making an honest living, if absolutely necessary isn't a parajika offense - a monastic may prove to his/her peers that it was essential to earn money, and if the peers agree, there is no penalty. Even if it is found to be an honest mistake, it won't be treated as harshly as if one had broken a parajika vow.

The four transgressions which incur a Parajika, the penalty of
  automatic disrobal, are as follows:

Engaging in sexual intercourse with another being of either sex.
Stealing something of value (which includes smuggling, cheating or deliberately avoiding payment of a tax).
Purposely killing a human being or encouraging him or her to commit suicide (this includes inciting another to murder somebody and it also
  includes convincing a woman to have an abortion.
Boasting that one has realised a high spiritual attainment, knowing that one is lying. For example, claiming to be enlightened, to be
  Maitreya Buddha, to have entered Jhana (deep meditation-ecstasy) or
  that one can read minds when one knows that one hasn't reached any of
  these states.

source: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut019.htm

What if there was no one to offer food to monastics?

If such a scenario occured their might be held a world wide Buddhist Counsil in order to establish some new rules for monastics, e.g. that they could now grow their own food in the right amount and with all precautions taken so that they would do the smallest amount of harm possible to living beings and to Nature.
The other option is that nothing would be done. It would just be seen for what it is, i.e. an absence of food. The dying process is not much different than the living process. It's still a combination of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking.

Is there a canonical reference saying monastics can only eat if given food?

There is this rule in the "Food Chapter" in the Bhikkhu Pāṭimokkha - The Bhikkhus' Code of Discipline:

"40. Should any bhikkhu take into his mouth an edible that has not been given — except for water and tooth-cleaning sticks — it is to be confessed".

The rule says that it is an offence to eat food that is not given.
There might be other rules and canonical references too. I just do not have knowledge about them.

What about forest monastics who go of four extended periods alone?

I once listened to a dhamma talk by Ajahn Brahmali. He told that when Ajahn Brahmavamso went to into a 6 month solitude retreat the other monks brought Ajahn Brahm his food. They would place it outside his hut and then when they were gone he would come out and take it.

Yes the dying process is apart of living,  but just as one has to actively seek the Dhamma, doesn't one have to actively eat?  I certainly can't dispute that reference from the Patimokkha, but it seems not compatible with my understanding of the middle way. If one were starving and an apple fell from a tree, couldn't they pick it up and eat it?

I guess that disrobing temporarily would be another option.

@m2015. I'm afraid i do not have sufficient knowledge of the Vinaya Pitaka to answer that.

@ChrisW. Good answer i didn't think about that.

A monk is supposed to go on alms round (begging) for his meal unless he is (1) invited to a meal, (2) the meal is brought to the monastery, or (3) the meal is cooked in the monastery. He is not allowed to cook food, store food overnight, or engage in agriculture to support himself. Thus mendicancy is one of the cornerstones of a Buddhist monk’s lifestyle. This can be seen in a Buddhist country (e.g. Thailand) where a monk has the freedom and support to practise totally in conformity with the Buddha’s teachings. There we see not only forest monks going on alms round but also town and city monks begging for food every day. Since a beggar must not be a chooser, as the saying goes, vegetarianism is incompatible with the Buddhist monk’s lifestyle.
 –which was probably another reason why the Buddha rejected Devadatta’s request. However the Buddha also said that if a monk does not get sufficient or nutritious food, he should depart from that place.

Although this question is labeled Theravada, historically this did occur with Chinese Mahayana Buddhism. Because historically the Confucian Chinese government frown upon the practice of begging, Chinese monks were by imperial decree not allowed to go out for alms. Hence, they must either lived off donations of food, or grow their own in the monastery. Hence in Chan Buddhism, monks grow their own food, and the process of farming, cooking, serving food, and eating are taken as practices of mindfulness.
This is also the reason why Chinese Buddhism is strictly vegetarian, because growing their own food means that it would not be acceptable to raise animals as food because that would violate the no killing precept. And because they perform hard labor throughout the day, often in very cold weather condition, the vinaya rules of no eating afternoon is removed. Dinner is instead considered to be 'medicine' for keeping themselves healthy.

Even when the Dhamma was at its peak (the time of Gautama Buddha ~ 2500 years ago), not everyone became monks and nuns. What would be the odds of all humans practicing like monks and nuns in this day and age?

I agree @santa100, but the argument these individuals make is that if we all took up austere practice, there would be no one to care for us.

You have to travel with your begging bowl until you find someone offer foods. or source of food.(eg. fruit tree not belong to anyone).

I provided an answer before, but reflecting on this question further it occurred to me that it is not a problem even if there is no food. In Buddha's time there was a time when the monks could not get their supply of food from the residents. King Agnidatta forbade his subjects from giving alms to the monks. But a group of horse dealers was passing through that place carrying barley for horses. The monks survived for four months eating this food given to the horses.
Once when Mara closed peoples' hearts against giving food to him, Lord Buddha spoke the following famous verse from the Dhammapada showing his power to obtain spiritual food from meditation:
Happy, indeed, we live, We who possess nothing, Feeders on joy shall we be,
Even as gods of the radiant realm. — Dhp 200
Remember well the Supreme Buddha’s words… “Dear Bhikkhus, ones who would not realize this Dhamma is like this earth (in amount). Ones who realize the Nibbāna is like this small amount of soil on my finger nail.” For true disciples who truly follow the Noble Eight Fold Path, food is of no issue as even the Devas / angels conspire to help them.  Also read the article http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel073.html if time permits. It is very informative in this regard. May all beings, wheresoever they be, taste of this truth.


text:
Is the mind different from the other 'six senses'?
In Buddhism as I have been taught it, the mind is included as part of the six senses. So in contrast with the 'normal' five senses we have those five plus mind giving us six. However mind still feels different in some way to the other senses. Is there anywhere in the Buddhist texts where it is acknowledged that mind is in some way special or separate from the other senses. Or is that just an illusion and closer reflection would reveal that actually it is no more different to the others than hearing or vision.

According to Theravada Buddhism anyway, mind is different; it acts as both the receiver of the other five senses, as well as being a sense in and of itself. Meaning the mind can receive objects from any of the physical senses, but it can also receive mental objects. The reception of mental objects is different from receiving physical objects:

The six types of cognitive processes are conveniently divided into
  two groups—the five-door process (pañcadvāravīthi), which includes the
  five processes occurring at  each of the physical sense  doors; and the
  mind-door process (manodvāravīthi), which comprises all processes that
  occur solely at the mind door. Since the bhavanga is also the channel
  from which the five-door processes  emerge,  the  latter  are sometimes
  called mixed door processes (missaka-dvāravīthi) as they involve both
  the mind door and a physical sense door. The processes that occur solely
  at the mind door are then called bare mind-door processes (suddha-mano-
  dvāravīthi) since they emerge from the bhavanga alone without the instrumentality of a  physical sense door.  As will be seen, the first five
  processes all follow a uniform pattern despite the difference in the sense
  faculty, while the sixth comprises a variety of processes which are alike
  only in that they occur independently of the external sense doors.
-- A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi

Since, in regards to the sixth sense, the mind is both the object and the receiver, it my often appear as though the mind is outside of the senses; in a sense it is, since it covers all senses, and acts as receiver for each. The standard understanding is that just as there are six senses, there are also six types of consciousness.
There are other ways of looking at reality that may shed light on the subject in a different way, e.g. the five aggregates, the elements, the faculties, etc.

This "mind" is equivalent to the 6th consciousness in the consciousness aggregate which is more or less equivalent to the 3rd aggregate, the discrimination aggregate... right?


text:
Which traditions have gurus?
On the site I often read posts referencing gurus. My Buddhist group (Triratna) doesn't really have a concept of gurus - certainly no-one uses the term. Which traditions have gurus? I most associate it with Tibetan Buddhism but I could be wrong in that. Also is there an difference between a Buddhist teacher and a guru or are they really just the same thing?

Not only in Tibetan Buddhism, they also have gurus in Zen Buddhism but there they are addressed as masters (sifu, sensei, sabunim etc). What counts is not a name but the personal relationship of mentorship.
I suppose "mentor" would be a better term than "teacher". Other options I like include "preceptor" and "benefactor". As was explained to me by one of my spiritual guides, a Chinese practitioner of Vajrayana, the word "teacher" emphasizes transfer of information, while "guru" stresses the upbringing / personal transformation aspect.
In Tibetan schools, esp. in Vajrayana they go as far as to say that the faith in one's guru is single most important factor of Enlightenment, and make guru-yoga, practice of deliberate worship of one's guru, the foundation of all other practices.
The official term preferred by Tibetan texts is "kalyanamitra", spiritual friend. This is supposed to make it sound a little more democratic than the overly patriarchal "guru", although in practice the relationship is rarely as personal as a real friendship.
There is a nice Wikipedia article on Kalyāṇa-mittatā, which mentions an early occurrence of this special interpretation of spiritual friendship in Visuddhimagga.
Here is also a Pali Canon quote that defines spiritual counseling (DN 31):

The mentor (atthakkhayi, "the shower of the goal") is known by four things to be a goodhearted friend (suhada mitta):

he restrains you from wrongdoing,
he guides you towards doing good,
he lets you know what you did not know before,
he points out the path to heaven.

So I suppose personal mentorship is not just a Mahayana thing if it can be traced back to Pali Canon.

Asanga also wrote about the qualities to look for in a spiritual guru/teacher
his list is summarized on page four here : http://www.acidharma.org/aci/online/_media/text/course1/C01Notes.pdf


text:
Source of quotation from Buddhaghosa about Buddha being trackless
Radhakrishnan's edition of The Dhammapada provides the following quotation from Buddhaghosa as a commentary on Verse 179 (Chapt, 14, 1 Buddhavagga) where the Buddha is described as apadam trackless/signless:

"The man who is possessed of even a single one of such conditions as
  raga, attachment, &c., him ye can lead forward; but the Buddha has not even one condition or basis of renewed existence, and therefore by
  what track will you lead this unconditioned Buddha?"

Could anyone tell me the source of this quotation and also provide me with the Pali?

Hi Adrian Hale and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

Does this answer, and the comments underneath it, answer this question?

No, I'm afraid that doesn't help. I'm really looking for the source of the Buddhaghosa quote. Also I think apadam here means signless rather than trackless

Radhakrishnan is not a wholly reliable guide to the Dhammapada. One must read him with care. The Pāḷi is

Kena padenāti yassa hi rāgapadādīsu ekapadampi atthi, taṃ tumhe tena
  padena nessatha. Buddhassa pana ekapadampi natthi, taṃ apadaṃ buddhaṃ tumhe kena padena nessatha. Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā, 3.196.

It's from Buddhaghosa's commentary on the Dhammapada (Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā). This section comments on the words "by what pada" (kena padena). My rough translation is:

If he has even one from amongst the padas such as desire (rāga), then he can be led by that pada. But the Buddha has not even one of them, the Buddha is without a pada, there is no pada by which you can lead him.

The question then is what pada means here. If we read this along with Dhp 180 then it becomes clear that pada means desire etc (rāgapadādi). And it seems to me that "track" is a poor translation of pada here. It does not convey that in this context pada is referring to desire etc. I suggest that "sign" is somewhat better, but that even this is less than entirely satisfactory. Only the context can help us in this case.
In what sense craving is a "path" or a "track" or even a "sign" is moot. But then these verses are rather esoteric and a simple answer might be misleading anyway.


text:
What is the origin of the Five Enobling Virtues?

"The practice of precepts helps one to cultivate five ennobling virtues which correspond to each of the precepts. The first is the cultivation of compassion; the second, generosity and non-attachment; the third, contentment; the fourth truthfulness; and the fifth, mindfulness and clarity of the mind."

I found this quote with a reference to The Five Precepts and the Five Ennoblers (pañcasīla-pañcadhamma) by Prince Vajirañāṇavarorasa --
but I can't locate the text anywhere or find anything about it. Can any one shed some light on this?

I also can't find the source of the quote.

I found it here for free download:

The Five Precepts :
The Buddhist Golden Rule
By His Royal Highness the late Supreme
Patriarch Prince Vajirananavarorasa

I found it linked from this page: 'The 5 Precepts' at dharmaflower.net.
The quote you're looking for is on page 2:

Contrasted with the negative virtues of precepts, there is also a set of five
  positive practices, which correspond to them, thus forming a complete practice
  of virtue. They are:

Loving-kindness and compassion.
Patience in the right means of livelihood.
Contentment in married life.
Truthfulness.
Watchfulness.

The precepts are described further on pages 4 through 34. Starting on page 34 it begins to describe the corresponding virtues; for example it starts with,

The Five Ennobling Virtues
The qualities of a virtuous person are mentioned in the scriptures, referring to
  precepts (síla) and ennobling virtues (kalyana dhamma). One who has fully
  observed the precepts is not necessarily one who is equipped with virtue. For
  example, when such a person happens to see a drowning man while he is
  passing by in a boat, he is morally bound to stop the boat and to save that
  man.
If he cannot be bothered to do so, in spite of his ability, and he leaves the man
  to drown. However, one can say that he has not broken any precepts, but he
  has certainly lost something higher than precepts and will surely be severely
  censured for his positive lack of virtue.

The rest of the article (through page 49) describes the virtues.

I've just started reading it, an interesting text and author. Wikipedia says ...

He helped to institutionalize Thai Buddhism.

... and I think this was probably a primary function of this text based on how it reconciles Buddhism with the needs of a state. A striking example:

From the point of view of both Buddhism and the state, killing is held to be a capital crime. In the case of Buddhism, a Bhikkhu (monk) who is guilty of such an offense is called a defeated one (parajika) and is to be expelled from the Order of Monks (Sangha).
In the case of the state, unless the accused can prove himself to be deserving of leniency due to some reasonable excuse, the law of the country generally metes out some form of capital punishment or mitigates this to life imprisonment."

Hi Alan and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

Hi Alan, welcome to the site and thank you for the answer. There's a help page here for how to add formatting (a hyperlink and a block quote for example), or there's a formatting toolbar above the editing textarea. Thanks again for your answer! You can post a comment below this one if you have any questions about the site, or you can post a question on the meta-site.


text:
How effective are guided meditation sessions in achieving the benefits of meditation?
I find it difficult to meditate without guidance. I wish to use guided meditations for my practice.
How effective are guided meditation sessions in achieving the benefits of meditation?
What is the best way to use guided meditations to maximise their benefits?

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

It depends on the topic but guided meditations are great!  I love guided meditations and contemplative talks where I can listen in a relaxed but attentive state and really absorb what's being said.  For instance, if you are trying to understand impermanence, it is far better to meditate on that word and what it means and what it applies to than to hear someone talk at length and tune out.  If it is used for fostering of the brahma-viharas or to learn a technique or idea, it's really a tremendous tool.  Meditation is, however, about freshness, so keep that in mind in your applied dimensions.

For the purposes of relaxation, they are very effective.  If your goal is simply to de-stress, then by all means use what works.  Even the Buddha taught a gradual path and tailored his teaching to the station and goals of his audience.  Guided meditation is one shade on a spectrum ranging all the way to enlightenment.
However.  While guided meditation is an excellent way of slowing down mental chatter and decompressing, that's about as far as it will take you.  If you are really interested in Buddhism and wish to meditate for the purposes of developing insight and penetrating into the four noble truths, you have to go past the relaxed state of mind engendered by guided meditation.  You need to develop concentration.
Concentration can only be developed by you.  It is a choice that you make every moment - a choice to return to the breath when your mind starts to wander.  It's no different than physical exercise.  The more often you make the choice to maintain your concentration, the stronger your meditation becomes.  It also gets much easier with time.  Concentration is also subtle.  While you can use props like a candle or another person's voice, objects like the breath, kasinas, the body, etc. require much more focus and delicate handling.  Too much effort and they dissolve.  If you don't apply enough, they slip away.
I hope this doesn't come across as me saying that there is anything necessarily wrong with meditating simply to calm your mind.  Destressing certainly has value.  Just be sure to ask yourself what your goals are.  Your answer will determine how to make the most of your time on the cushion.

If it helps you center your mind then it is a good start.
Eventually though after you have become familiar with this state of peace, it can help you to to reach actual states of jhana (not just a general calming of mind) but you must have a meditation object that you can choose to enter and leave at your own decision--not at the will of the guide.
I do binaural beats and I find it very helpful prior to meditation, although some of the beats influence my brainwaves too much. Which is another topic entirely but goes with the principle that I mentioned in the previous paragraph: concentration states are traditionally advised to be achieved with kasinas and breathing.
Also, Right Meditation leading to Right Concentration (the last stage) is cultivated in a quiet isolated environment not one with some guided meditation.

liked "familiar with that state of peace"...

"Someone asked why sitting along with a guided meditation got much better results than sitting there meditating on your own — even in a group, in the presence of the teacher. My answer was basically that the person giving the guided meditation is doing a lot of your work for you. In other words, the instructions are doing what your mindfulness should be doing. That’s why although it may be useful to have a couple of guided meditations every now and then, there comes a point where you have to do the work yourself. Nobody else can make you mindful. No one can make you awakened."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Inner Refuge Through Inner Strength" (Meditations8) https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Meditations8/Section0033.html

A guide is useful in the sense you don’t want to argue with the guru. But if you are of that disposition of authority then you will find condition to fight. Thus be wary, and remember you yourself, your own discerning thought as a guide (for better or worse) just use the common idea, what is best is best, the Buddha is a background to the operation of enlightenment

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


text:
Can bhavanga-consciousness be compared to the non-dual mind-state rigpa?
While reading Pa Auk Sayadaw I came across the following:

The bhavanga-consciousness is bright and luminous, and looks like a mirror in the heart: that is the mind-door.

This seems to have qualities similar to:

In Dzogchen the fundamental, inherent nature of everything is called the "Ground Luminosity" or the "Mother Luminosity."

Are these two qualities of mind related?

Perhaps the Nonduality Tag would be useful, rather than creating 3 brand-new Tags?

I agree that nonduality was an omission on my part ... and I see @Crab Bucket has made the necessary edits.

Generally speaking it is difficult to compare assertions made about the mind from different cultures many centuries apart.
For example the Theravādins invented the bhavaṇgacitta for a specific purpose. There is a fundamental problem in Buddhist philosophy. Pratītyasamutpāda tells us that conditions must be present for effects to manifest (imassmim sati idam hoti) and that when the condition ceases the effect also ceases (imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati). However the idea of karma requires that effects (vipāka) manifest long after the condition (kamma) has ceased. The two do not work together. I call this the problem of Action at a Temporal Distance.
In order to get around this early Buddhists invented several different new ideas. The Theravādins opted for the the idea that each dhamma is very short-lived and acts as the condition for a similar dhamma to arise immediately afterwards. This creates an unbroken chain of short-lived mental events that accounts for karmic effects long after the action that set them in motion.
But it has a number of downstream problems.
One is that we go to sleep everyday and consciousness stops in deep sleep. The bhavaṅgacitta is like a neutral gear for the mind, it keeps ticking over while the mind is inactive when we are asleep or at other times such as deep meditation when sense experience stops, or even when we stare vacantly at the view and there are no thoughts in our minds.
Another problem the bhavaṅgacitta solves is that a wholesome mental event (kusala citta) cannot give rise to an unwholesome mental event (akusala citta). And because our minds alternate between kusala and akusala cittas there needs to be some way to get from one to the other. So the Theravādins say that when this happens a moment of bhavaṅgacitta has to be interposed.
The fact is that while this was satisfactory to medieval Buddhists the scheme doesn't really work, even on it's own terms. See The Logic of Karma.
I'm much less familiar with the Dzogchen idea of "Ground Luminosity", but it looks to be influenced by another solution to the problem of Action at a Temporal Distance, the Yogācāra. In this view a metaphor from early Buddhism was taken up by Vasubandhu and reified by his followers. They liken an action to a seed and invoke the analogy of how the seed is planted in the ground and watered and eventually grows into a tree. Early Buddhists often used analogies from nature to try to explain their theories. The metaphor is that kamma is a seed. And of course the analogy requires a metaphorical "ground" for the seed to be planted in. And so the ālayavijñāna was invented as the metaphorical ground for the metaphorical seed to complete the analogy. Unfortunately Buddhists often lose sight of metaphors and reify them. The metaphor of ālayavijñāna as ground for karma seeds, became a real thing - an aspect of our minds that underlies all consciousness. Never mind that this becomes more or less identical to Brahmanical ideas of ātman/brahman and is thus eternalist. Not only does the underlying basis of consciousness become a real thing, but some meditative experiences are interpreted as contact with this luminous substrate - just as Brahmins had earlier mistaken such experiences for direct contact with Brahman centuries earlier.
So no, the two ideas can't really be compared. Although at root they seem to stem from the problem of Action at a Temporal Distance and they both amount to reified metaphors. They may even amount to two different traditions interpreting similar meditative experiences according to their ideologies. But the interpretations themselves are not the same.

Thank you for explaining the "problem" of temporal distance - very helpful. Also the the way that metaphors tend to become reified. This is an issue whenever people operating on a more abstract cognitive level (Formal Operations or higher) are heard by people on a more Concrete level. Which is to say, almost always!

I would add that this may also have something to do with mediating the conditioned and the unconditioned, or the formed and the unformed, or samsara and nirvana. Following Nagarjuna's reasoning, the unconditioned cannot interact with the conditioned, because this can only happen conditionaly! I suspect this "Nagarjuna's paradox" is the equivalent of Zeno's paradox, but in spirituality.

No, they are not the same.
Bhavanga is the most basic type of consciousness there is. It only has the factors that are common to all forms of consciousness, so it is totally blank. Mostly the Bhavanga is the state of mind that the mind defaults to in the tiny increments between the other mindstates, and also during what we would call complete unconsciousness.
The reason why it is said to be bright and luminous is that because it is so basic, there isn't any defilement in it.
In Dzogchen, ground luminosity isn't a state that sometimes you are in and sometimes you aren't, it's just the nature of all things, and Rigpa is the knowledge of ground.
Since rigpa is a kind of knowledge and Bhavanga is a pretty much unconscious state, it's fairly clear they are different.


text:
If a buddhist should not kill a mouse living in their home, what justification do they have to rid themselves of a parasite such tapeworms
An extension of this question posted earlier:
How not to kill the mouse in my house?
Where does one draw the line for which forms of life are ok to destroy, and which ones are not? Is it just a calculation of causing the least suffering? A human has a more complex nervous system than a worm, so to reduce his suffering is paramount?
I can think of many ways to spin the issue so that the human must allow himself to die, and ways to spin it so that killing living creatures is acceptable. Are there some general guidelines?

I wanted to ask the same question.:) I think that it comes down to ''a buddhist must apply metta towards himself as well''.

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that since the immune system kills said tapeworm regardless the individual's will, that it's something out of your control? No justification should be necessary for something that just happens.

you can see https://unmixedtheravada.blogspot.com/2018/01/profit-managementbodhisattaselfsatta.html

The Mahayana perspective on social and ecological ethics is based on the high ideals of symbiosis, harmony, and cooperation.
In the old times there were wandering monks who did not work and lived on alms - in return they shared the nectar of Dharma. They were no parasites. And if some of them were, Buddha encouraged the householders to be selective in choosing which monks to support.
Symbiosis is defined as a relationship beneficial to both sides. If the other side starts abusing its privileges to the extent that the relationship starts endangering your health and well-being, you have the right to withdraw your support. Meaning, you can stop feeding the beneficiary and let it find another sponsor. In the case of mice and other pests, this should be as simple as keeping your house clean and locking out access to food resources. In the case of the parasite, you can go on a 21-day fast; if worse comes to worst you have the right to expel.
As Trungpa Rinpoche explained, the samsaric approach involves solving the problems brute-force. The problem is solved at a very superficial level, the level of symptoms - but the root cause remains. No matter how much poison you waste on cockroaches, if your kitchen is dirty they'll keep coming back. In contrast with that, the Enlightened approach is to look in depth and solve the underlying problem. Prevent the problem altogether.
Violence is a low-skill approach. Instead, all arranged situations have supporting conditions they depend on. To the extent that you can identify and manage the supporting conditions you can control the situation.

"Violence is a low-skill approach" <- this.

If the other side starts abusing its privileges to the extent that the relationship starts endangering your health and well-being, you have the right to withdraw your support
I feel like this is the simplest and most correct way to think about the problem. There is value in other answers here but I will select this one. However, I won't advocate 21 day fasting as a means of treating parasites, and recommend proper medical attention instead.

No matter how much poison you waste on cockroaches, if your kitchen is dirty they'll keep coming back.
My kitchen is clean but ants just keep coming back. They're very good at finding things stored in drawers. Also they have huge paths all over the house despite I patched all the holes I could find. So, here goes the poison. Sorry, ants.

What does Buddhism say about eating chicken? Isn't a large part of the world's 360M-somthing Mahayana buddhists acting like parasites in this respect?

Where does one draw the line for which forms of life are ok to destroy, and which ones are not?

That (i.e. "which forms of life?") might be not the right question.
If you're describing the situation based on a premise of violence versus non-violence, then another way to look at it might be aggression versus non-aggression, and/or aggression versus self-defence.
For example Buddhists are typically forbidden to tell lies, but there's the following Q&A from "Good Question Good Answer" by Bhante Dhammika. In the chapter about the five precepts, one of the question is whether you should lie to a killer to prevent them from killing. His answer was that,

"If you were sitting in a park and a terrified man ran past you and then a few minutes later another man carrying a knife ran up to you and asked you if you had seen which way the first man had gone, would you tell him the truth or would you lie to him?"
"If I had good reason to suspect that the second man was going to do serious harm to the first I would, as an intelligent caring Buddhist, have no hesitation in lying. We said before that one of the factors determining whether a deed is good or bad is intention. The intention to save a life is many times more positive than telling a lie is negative in circumstances such as these. If lying, drinking, or even stealing meant that I saved a life I should do it. I can always make amends for breaking these, but I can never bring a life back once it is gone. However, as I said before, please do not take this as a license to break the Precepts whenever it is convenient. The Precepts should be practiced with great care and only infringed in extreme cases."

I could try to argue that the difference between the killing-the-mouse and killing-the-tapeworm scenarios isn't the "form of life" but rather the difference between aggression (against the mouse) and self-defence (against the tape-worm).
Killing the mouse is a form of aggression ("I hate you, I kill you").
Killing the tape-worm (or, more specifically, medicating your own body for its malady) is arguably a form of self-defence rather than aggression -- maybe it's that which makes the difference.
You might argue that mouse-in-house is self-defence too, however IMO that (attacking-within-house) is straying ever further from defence-of-self: perhaps you ought to be thinking, of your house, "This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self." and therefore not trying to defend it as if it were yourself.
The fact that the mouse is in a "house" implies you're a house-holder or layperson and therefore have many social responsibilities. What if it wasn't a tapeworm in you but in your parent, child, friend, etc.?
I don't want to say that it's clever to kill even tape-worms but maybe non-aggression (don't kill mice) versus self-defence (take medicine) is a way to distinguish the two scenarios.
Another consideration is, if you kill a mouse today then what will you do tomorrow? Instead you might prefer to make your house mouse-proof, or perhaps store your food and clothing in mouse-proof containers.
Similarly, if you eliminate a tapeworm today then what will you do tomorrow? I looked in the introduction to the Vinaya to see whether I could see there any instructions about parasites: and didn't find them. A "purge" is a permitted type of medicine for what that's worth. There are however several instructions in the Vinaya: about keeping yourself clean, and about eating cooked food.

And cooking food is also mostly a way to kill microbes, bacteria and micro-parasites in the food to make it digestible. If cooking is recommended the principle of keeping harm out of you body seems to be supported

Theravada Buddhist Answer.
Whichever way you spin it, killing(intentionally) is bad Karma which you will have to pay for at some point in Samsara unless it becomes defunct. You can draw the line anywhere you like, but Karma is Karma. If the tapeworm can be removed without killing, you won't break the precept. Otherwise, you can use it to becomes dispassionate about the body and develop Vipassana. Meditate on your strong desire to live. Killing it will not solve your problem. You can have worse bodily conditions if you were born as an animal.
Once there was a farmer who, after having taken his precepts from a respected monk, went to look for his buffalo that had strayed into the forest. Along the way, he was caught by a python. His first thought was to use his axe to kill the snake coiled around him. Then he remembered that he had taken his precepts from a respected monk. The thought came to him for a second time and again he refrained from killing. The third time he was prompted to kill, he threw away his axe. The snake uncoiled itself and freed him!

Could you mention that your answer is based in Theravada Buddhism? Thank you.

The snake fable is nice, but unfortunately not practically applicable with a reasonable expectation of success in everyday life.

I find this to be a very interesting answer to the given question, because they exist in two different planes. The question seems to be asking for real world, practical advice; while this answer seems to be giving rhetoric in the form of fable. I'm not one to say that fable rhetoric isn't useful, but in this case it's clearly not realistic; no python would ever let you go because you decided not to defend yourself, and allowing a parasite to steal your nutrition isn't wise. The real question is: which evil is the lesser, and does its status as lesser make it OK?

@NathanCox I wonder whether the snake in the story might be a metaphor for (i.e. representation of) anger.

@DanDascalescu, Nathan Cox,  In Buddhism, living by any means is not considered as success in everyday life. Purifying the mind is given higher importance. Whether the python will let you go or not is not what the farmer focused on. He was concerned about breaking the precepts and defiling his mind.

@Lanka all my answers are :)

@Sankha. I know:) Just the OP might not know and Andrei wrote in beginning of his post that it was from the Mahayana perspective. So to make it easier for new users we could write what perspective we are based in. Just my opinion.

@Lanka Theravada Buddhists don't really recognize other schools. Mostly historians do that. So it's just Buddhism for us.

And we do recognize other schools, it's all Buddhism for us :)

@ChrisW It's definitely a metaphor, but that was kind of my point. It's an interesting answer because the original question seems to be asking for practicality, and the answer came in the form of metaphor. It's still a good answer, but it makes me as an outsider wonder if this is the common practice and practical answers are hard found in Buddhism.

@NathanCox You didn't phrase that as a question but I recommend you might post it as a separate question, along the lines of "Is it hard to find practical answers in Buddhism? I noticed that this answer came in the form of a metaphor." You could also ask whether the Buddha's teaching was practical or metaphorical! I'm pretty sure that people might answer if that was a question. As you might guess, though, it's difficult to give a full answer in the space of a comment (and SE discourages the use of comments for conversation on an evolving topic).

@SankhaKulathantille So why does the fable mention that the python let go?

@Taemyr Because it's not a fable and that is what happened. :)

The original poster asks:  "Where to draw the line..."
Therein is the key to the answer:  there is noplace you can draw the line, thin and bright, therefore you cannot draw it.
There is, however, an answer.  The mouse and the tapeworm situations have similarities and also disparities.  The mouse will infiltrate and foul your food, and carry disease and vermin (fleas, etc) which can harm you, but practicing adequate cleanliness and good practices will mitigate that.  The mouse may find advantage not in your pantry, but simply in the safe, warm shelter.  The tapeworm is itself a disease, which will in time kill the host, and by doing so, itself perish.
Therein lies the difference.
If by your action a creature dies, and also by your inaction that creature also dies, then your action is not ultimately of significance to the death.  In that case, the course which prevents your own death also, is to be preferred.

Some thoughts based on my beginner's level knowledge of Buddhism and biology:
The prohibition on killing is based on the premise that we should not cause suffering. For something to suffer, it needs the capacity to suffer. In modern biological terms, that means an organism needs to have a nervous system and brain.
Currently it seems biologists don't agree about whether tapeworms have something that could be considered a brain (although they do have a nervous system). Thus, if you think they don't have brains, you might decide they do not suffer.
Another way of looking at this is that if tapeworms don't have brains they are not sentient, and non-sentient organisms do not suffer.

I think that this answer is flawed. A tapeworm, though it does not have strictly have a brain, does have a nervous system, including a cerebral ganglion. Basically, it does have an area in its head (not that the location really matters) where a large portion of its neurological activity takes place. It also has a sense of touch. So it seems like it could quite possibly feel pain to me.

@lorentzfactor: For a tapeworm you have a point. However, at what point do you draw the line? A single round of antibiotics will kill thousands or maybe even millions of single cell organisms; is it wrong to use them to cure an illness or treat an infection?

The way I decide these things is thus:
We are all One being. We are all One God, sharing the same Buddahood.
There is no real individuality. Let us leave behind the world with as much good as possible.
Sometimes, the way a Bodhisattva works in the world is a mystery, especially because those of us without jhana and prajna powers cannot penetrate into the ultimate causes and conditions. They frequently do not stick to rules and conventions.
But always, a Bodhisattva acts doing what is best for everyone.
Similarly, even though we do not have the omniscience of a Bodhisattva, we can act intuitively within our own understanding that a tapeworm is a lower being and you can do much more good for the universe than a tapeworm. Think of the cyclic reincarnation and realize that there is not much good that it is doing in the world anyway..
In this way, a being's worth is measured by its ultimate service in helping Us achieve the Goal: for all to realize Complete Buddahood, complete Trikaya.
Go ahead and kill the tapeworm, but do not raise any seeds or poisons while doing so. Do it with love and generosity for the highest good of all.
Of course, a measure of moderation is needed and when one experiences doubt one should not do such a "bad action." (Doubt is one of the 6 root afflictions and a good indicator of a wrong pathway, just like the other afflictions, when they arise are also a useful indicator.)

Nothing to fear more as those with "love and generosity for the highest good"... good that such isn't found under good people...

Killing a mouse is for such petty reasons. Still at a meditation center I have observed mouse traps outside in the forest. Mice trapped and died slowly for being outside in the forest. The management blamed the short term servers for not checking the traps. Non posoinous snakes get their holes covered, perhaps with babies in there.  A parasite however, perhaps if focusing on making yourself healthy rather than harming the beings. I observed the mercy killing of an injured ant to be a great atrocity for a meditator. This action is 100% better left undone. Aversion associates one with the unwanted situation. In the long run, I question weather or not killing beings will solve the so called problem, more likely will be worse.

There are many guidelines and conventions and rules and fornalities. But what is the cost of violating said conventions?! And to whom is there a cost?