text:
Is it right, according to the Vinaya, to charge for Dhamma classes? (I'm not talking about donations, but a fixed amount per class one has to pay)
There is a Buddhist Centre close to me that charges circa USD8.00 for Dhamma talks, in one hand I don't like the idea of any religion charging people because poor people will not be able to participate, but on the other hand things are expensive here and they need to pay the bills, my country is not Buddhist at all so running a centre here only on donations must be very hard.
So, from a Vianaya and Buddhist ethics standpoint, is that allowed?

a lay retreat can rightfully ask for monetary reimbursement...

I fully agree with you, paying for bed and food is ok, but I'm not so sure about paying for classes only (not a retreat)

i personally wouldnt pay to practice, and it doesnt sound like a wise choice for teacher selection.

Vinaya only applied to Monks. If it is lay teachers charges may be a possibility but as per my opinion highly not recommended. As for monks I don't think they should do this at all. The trustees (Dayaka Sabawa) may do it but again highly unadvisable as per my opinion.
But having said this, I do not like the idea of any charge. Buddhism was taught free of charge and has maintained this tradition through out most of history.
Also Buddha put much effort to become a Buddha and tough if for free. It is morally wrong to charge for teaching something the Buddha put so much efforts into when we are just teaching what he prescribed.
If you look at https://www.dhamma.org/ you will see a lot of centers all run solely by donation through out the world. So the donation model does work.

I'm aware Vinaya is for monks, this is why I mentioned it, I think monks should be the ones taking this decision (charging or not charging), I guess :)

Just considering the general point about charging or not charging for classes. In my centre there is a general principle that all payment is donation or dana. So we are often invited to put something in the dana bowl if we want to. This seems very fair as bills have to be paid if the Buddhist centre is to continue.
Alongside this is the notion of a suggested donation so for a class a donation might be £6/£3 for waged/unwaged but this is only a suggestion. This works very well for me. Firstly it's a genuine offer - it is dana so if you can't pay (or won't) then that is fine. No-one will question that or think any less of the person. But also a lot of people (myself included) want to know what a fair donation is and pay that. I want to be told what to donate. I find it unsettling to be told to pay whatever I feel. I want some guidance.
From a very pragmatic point of view, if it is a genuine donation then there are tax rebates that can be claimed. That is not a major consideration - the principle remains that everyone should be able to access the dharma. But it is another angle to it I think.
But generally I just wanted to put this model forward as (our) way of combining dana and universal access to the Dharma with the realities of running a Buddhist centre.

Agree, I like what they do in your centre, seems fair. The Centre I went to was operating in a different way, you had to pay before class, it was not optional, a fixed amount. As I said it is fair because they have to pay the bills but I don't like the idea of charging for Dhamma


text:
What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into English?
What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into English? When was it translated and by whom? Was it reasonably available to those interested and did it have much of an impact within academic circles and perhaps to the wider culture?

UPDATE:
These seem to be the first Buddhist texts ever translated into English, published in 1693:

THE LIFE OF THEVETAT, Translated from the Balie (i.e. Pāli)
An Explication of the Patimouc, or Text of the Vinac

More information can be found in A philological approach to Buddhism by K. R. Norman, p. 4:

Simon de La Loubère [...] in 1687-88 went to Siam as an envoy of
the king of France (King Louis), and on his return wrote a book about the
Kingdom of Siam, which was published in France in 1691. Two years later an
English translation was published in England. La Loubère gave a fascinating
account of many aspects of Siam and Siamese culture, and he also included an
account of the Siamese religion — Buddhism — and the sacred language of the
Siamese. He noted the differences between that language, which he called Balie,
and the Siamese language, and noted, correctly, the relationship between the
former and Sanskrit. He also gave French translations of a few Buddhist texts.

Here is the English edition of Loubère's whole book, which contains the above-mentioned texts:

A new historical relation of the kingdom of Siam by Monsieur De La Loubere ...; done out of French, by A.P. Gen. R.S.S. London: Printed by F.L for Tho. Horne ... Francis Saunders ... and Tho. Bennet ..., 1693.

Some other translations that can be regarded as quite early, include:

The History and Doctrine of Budhism: Popularly Illustrated: with Notices of the Kappooism, Or Demon Worship, and of the Bali, Or Planetary Incantations, of Ceylon by Edward Upham (London, 1829): contains translations of some Jātakas

The Catechism of the Shamans (London, 1831) by Charles Fried. Neumann: contains translation of portions of a Mahāyāna Vinaya from Chinese

Fragment of the Lotus Sutra translated from French by Elizabeth Peabody in 1844 (Wikipedia incorrectly calls that the first English translation of a Buddhist text)

None of these publications seem to have made a big impact.

In 1844 the magazine published Peabody's translation of a portion of the Lotus Sutra from French [...]. The publication ceased shortly thereafter in April 1844.

Very cool story about Devadatta (Thevetat), thoroughly enjoyed it!

As to the first notable translation, I would give this honorary title to Max Muller's translation of Dhammappada, first published in 1869, later included in Muller's Sacred Books of the East series published around 1880s.
Beside Dhammapada, the series included important suttas such as Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion, Mahaparinibbana, and others, all of Sutta-Nipata, most of Vinaya, one of the earliest post-canonical texts Milinda-panha, a Chinese version of the Life of Buddha by Asvaghosa, and some of the most important Mahayana texts such as Heart Sutra and Lotus Sutra.
Arguably this was the most notable early publication of Buddhist texts into English.

It depends somewhat on what you mean by a Buddhist text. The book of “Barlaam and Josephat” is a famous Christian reworking of the life of the Buddha. It was translated from Latin to Middle English in the 15th century.

Sándor Csoma de Kőrös (Hungarian: Kőrösi Csoma Sándor) was a Hungarian-Szekler orientalist who went to Asia around 1820 looking for the ancestors of Hungarians, but ended up in Tibet instead.  He is well known among Hungarians for his journey and for compiling the first Tibetan-English dictionary and grammar.
He spent considerable time in Tibet studying Tibetan and Buddhist philosophy between 1827-30. He was declared Boddhisatva in 1933 in Japan.
While I do not know if he translated Buddhist texts into English, it is plausible that he may have, as he immersed himself in Buddhism.  Unfortunately it is unlikely that this will be easy to research on the internet, you may need to go to dusty old libraries to get definitive information ;-)  Nevertheless, I thought that this was a good lead which is worth mentioning (since the dates are similar but a bit earlier than in the other answers).

Max Müller, in Buddhist Mahâyâna Texts Part II (SBE vol. 49), says (Intro., xiii) that an "account of the Tibetan translation" of the Diamond Sutra "was given as far back as 1836 by Csoma Körösi in his Analysis of the Sher-chiu, the second division of the Kanjur, published in the Asiatic Researches, vol. xx, p. 393 seq."  The text may be found online, albeit in a poorly OCR'd form.

@hardmath That's interesting, thanks for the pointer!

Some of the earliest translations are covered in the Sacred Books of the East (Dhammapada by Max Müller based on a Latin translation by Viggo Fausböll and Sutta-Nipata by Viggo Fausböll) series by Max Müller in which some of the books are Buddhist books as per the Theravada tradition.
More notable translation work (in the Theravada tradition) has been done by Thomas William Rhys Davids who founded the  Pali Text Society.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
First Buddhist text translated into a Western language
As a follow-up to another question:
What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into a Western language? (That probably means French or Latin, but other options are also possible)
When was it translated and by whom? Was it reasonably available to those interested and did it have much of an impact within academic circles and perhaps to the wider culture?

There are Greek versions of several of Askoka's inscriptions, erected during Ashoka's lifetime. He died in 232 BC.

The Dhammapada: Being a collection of moral verses in Pali (trans. into Latin) (Copenhagen, 1855) by [Viggo Fausböll][1] seems to be the earliest Theravada text i have found so far. This was the basis of the translation by Max Müller in the Sacred Books of the East series. This question: What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into English? cites some Mahayana sources also throug restricted to the English language.

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


text:
Mixing Buddhism with other religions
The predominant opinion of people with a lot of experience with practising Buddhism seems to be that there are irreconcilable gaps between Buddhism and Christianity and that it makes no sense to be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time. On the other hand, they don't seem to have a problem with mixing Buddhism with Hinduism, Bön, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism and Chinese folk religion.
Are there objective differences between these all these religions on the one hand and Christianity on the other that make Christianity much more irreconcilable with Buddhism?
EDIT: It seems that many answerers didn't understand my question. Let me say it again. I'm not asking: "Is it possible to reconcile Buddhism with Christianity?". This is what I am asking:
Are there objective differences between Hinduism, Bön, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism and Chinese folk religion on the one hand and Christianity on the other that make Christianity much more irreconcilable with Buddhism?

Christianity claims explicitly in a number of places in the Bible that it's religion is the only true one. There is no room for another religion. I think that sums it up on Christianity's side.

I am asking about irreconilability from the perspective of Buddhists, not from the perspective of followers of other religions.

@michau You asked "if there are objective differences between Christianity and other religions that makes it more irreconcilable with Buddhism". Christians might have some insight into what it is that makes Christianity different. Did you want objective quantifiable differences or was that just rhetoric?

OK, perhaps both the perspective of Christians and of Buddhists are relevant to this question. But still, I don't think @fredsbend's comment sums it up on Christianity's side. It is not clear to me if Buddhism would be considered a religion by the writer of the Bible.

@Andrei Volkov How come a question about existence of objective differences between some religions in some respect can be "primarily opinion-based"? A good answer to this question should provide references to scriptures of the religions in question that show irreconcilable points, or illustrate that such points don't exist.

@michau I struggled trying to decide if this should be closed as "off-topic", "opinion-based", or "too broad". It's just not a good fit for this site IMO. We want to focus on Buddhism, not on comparative analysis of 8 different religions.

@michau The Bible was written by about 30 different people spanning about 1600 years time. Each writer would have his own opinion, I'm sure, but I think most would fall on the side of calling it idolatry. They would also critique the Nirvana/reincarnation aspect because that is in stark contrast with Christianity's Heaven/Hell.

"The predominant opinion of people...", I'm not sure if this is correct. I know many people who mix Christianity with Buddhism without any problems.

I agree with Andrei; this question is basically asking for differences between Christianity and other non-Buddhist religions; while the point of the question is to compare it with Buddhism, experts on this site will be ill-equipped to answer it. Probably better for Christianity.SE

Within my own experience of this, I think it is entirely down to personal opinion. Throughout my upbringing, I was very lucky to be brought up in a country with so many temples and religions that there was hardly any discrimination and a huge encouragement to take part in celebrations. I have always been taught that each religion is equal, and that they mostly aim to reach the same goal: Love and Compassion to alleviate suffering. I think due to modernisation and differing ideologies — e.g. a Westerner's take on Buddhism is rather different to an Asian's take on Buddhism simply due to social and cultural differences — texts have been interpreted in a whole multitude of ways, which therefore causes a whole host of problems. Some will say all religions are very different, others will say they all wish for peace, etc.
My mother was brought up Taoist and Buddhist, she does prayer, and goes to the temple every time we are back in our native country. However, she calls herself a Christian. She believes in God, and at no point do I feel I have the right to question any of her beliefs. I also feel it is easy for her to believe in differing religions because our home town embodies the churches, mosques and temples. She happily practices what she believes in, regardless of its religion. Buddhism in itself is a philosophy, like the Tao, and it is wholly accepting of all religions. If my mother is happy, let her be happy, as long as she feels she is living a good life.

If you want to reconcile the Buddha's teachings with the Bible, it will be impossible as the key pillar in Christianity is the creator almight God and He is just not present in Buddhism.
For me, the most important point is this: Buddhism can make you a better human being, the practice of the Buddha's teachings (Dhamma) can give you valuable tools to improve your life and the life of people around you, meditation is a great example. So, even if you are a Christian you can use Buddhism in your favour, put aside the philosophical differences and focus on the daily practice! Don't bend to the Buddha if you are not comfortable in doing so, but read the books, walk the path, meditate and do good deeds! :)

Perhaps the closest thing to a "creator" (a.k.a. "builder" in the following translation) in Buddhism is verse 153+154 of the Dhammapada: "153. For countless births have I passed through this cycle of births and deaths, seeking the builder of this tabernacle, but in vain. Sorrowful indeed is this cyclic repetition of births.
154. O builder of the house, I have seen you; you shall not build the house again. All the rafters are broken; the ridgepole is sundered. Mind has arrived at dissolution (nirvana), having attained the extinction of all cravings (tanha)."

Your answer has nothing to do with my question. Please read it again: "Are there objective differences between these all these religions on the one hand and Christianity on the other that make Christianity much more irreconcilable with Buddhism?". In the present form, your answer is off-topic.

Yes there are many things lile the Creator God and the fact that if you don't belive in Him you will go to hell, Hinduism is much much closer to Buddhism, but instead of focusing on what is irreconcilable and will create confusion in one's mind I was trying to focus on the commom ground, but if you want to call it off-topic I'm fine with it.

Buddhism revolves around the 3 Fold Training. A person of any religion, cast, background, etc. can practice them to start with. Any religion worth the name cannot have anything against Virtue, control over the mind and wisdom.
Once you see things for your self you can then strain your views in line with your experience.
Also the Buddhist teaching center around stress (psychological misery or unsatisfactoriness) people experience in life and the way out of stress. Where as in Christianity the central teaching revolves around God. See Buddhism and psychology, Buddhism and Modern Psychology and Buddhist Meditation and the Modern World.
Trying to reconcile the differences at a philosophical level may not be the most productive way. Best is to realise your self and do the reconciliation keeping in mind there is nothing in Buddhism which a person from any other religion cannot practice.

So, assuming Christianity has nothing against virtue, control over the mind, and wisdom, Buddhism is accepting of it. Correct?

Let me put it this way. Say if you are a Psychologist and Christianity has nothing against it is Modern Psychology accepting Christianity. They are just two different things. Buddhism is more of a Psychology than other contemporary religions. See: https://www.coursera.org/course/psychbuddhism, https://www.coursera.org/course/meditation

So the answer is "yes because, according to Buddhism, they are different things?"

It is trying to compare apples and oranges. Buddhism has taken a religious outlook over time but is a practice which leads you out of stress more like Psychologists treatment to patients.

Yes, but Christians might not be accepting of Buddhism in the same way Christians might not be accepting of evolution theory.

Leave what you do not accept aside and practice the part which is agreeable. There is nothing wrong leading a moral life, there is nothing wrong to gain mastery over your mind and nothing wrong to develop wisdom mainly with a view to reduce stress as per Christian perspective. To start with just do what is agreeable.

You didn't answer my question. You say that trying to reconcile the differences between Buddhism and Christianity at a philosophical level may not be the most productive way. Yet people apparently reconciled differences between Buddhism and Hinduism, Bön, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism and Chinese folk religion, which in turn gave rise to new, different branches of Buddhism. I am asking why Christianity is different from all these religions.


text:
What is Thögal?
Recently I came across a progressive series of workshops working out of the Kusum Rangshar (by Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen) where one of the classes revolved around a practice called Thögal (ཐོད་རྒལ་).
Searching for this term to determine what exactly it is has not been particularly fruitful in English-language sources other than to say that it is linked with the practice of dzogchen, so I am wondering if there is a reasonable high-level description of what it is or what it entails?

could you please point out to a book teaches dzogchen in easy er way.

@faezeh - I moved your "answer" to a comment, as it is actually a question. Maybe you should post it as proper question and then someone may answer it.

While I'm clearly out of my depth with this question, let me give you a few pointers.
(TL;DR version: Thogal is cultivation of "suchness", aka tathata).
First, you need to understand what Dzogchen, or Great Perfection, really refers to. Basically, this is the direct realization of the Heart Sutra experience. In other words, you need to clearly see that what you imagined to be the solution, is really a part of the problem. To quote Dogen,

The water is clean, right down to the ground,
Fishes are swimming like fishes.
  The sky is wide, clear through to the heavens,
And birds are flying like birds.

Second, you need to have experienced a glimpse of your "true self" or "true nature". This is separate from the above, and requires a teacher to push you off "the cliff of your ego", one way or another.
Then, once you've seen your true nature both ways, you will have no doubts as to why you want to cultivate it, neither at conceptual, nor at experiential level.
In my limited understanding, Trekcho ("cutting through") and Thogal ("transcending the peak") are two aspects of cultivation of the true nature. Trekcho is fearlessly cutting through all your B.S., while Thogal is learning to spread the wings of natural spontaneity, with no sense of observer, no boundaries -- the space is dancing by itself.
To give a totally unrelated quote (at risk of getting killed by lightning for messing with the will of gods LOL!)

Dance like there's nobody watching,
  Love like you'll never be hurt,
  Sing like there's nobody listening,
  And live like it's heaven on earth.

Or to quote Chogyam Trungpa,

[Trekcho]
You need to develop a state of mind that is cutting through fundamental spiritual materialism. Beyond this, there is nothing to cut through.
  ...
  At the same time, we see that destroying spiritual materialism is itself a form of spiritual materialism -- and destroying that destroying is spiritual materialism as well. Finally we begin to see that even the idea of cutting through becomes questionable.
[Thogal]
The mandala practice of Dzogchen is to just experience things as they are, fully and completely. You realize that there is nothing to hold on to, and at the same time, there is no way to make the groundlessness another ground.
  ...
  You experience the vastness of space and the sense of no boundary. You experience the playful aspect of space, in which there is no hope or fear, pleasure or pain, which is the best dance. And you experience the pragmatic aspect of space: the fact that space is hopeless, and it does not mean anything very much.
  ...
  This discipline of noncaring is not so much the accomplishment of the path, but rather the style of the path.

As you can see, in all truth, I have no idea what I'm talking about. But here are a couple of links that may shed more light on this obscure topic:

http://www.dzogchen.org/study/
http://www.sofiatopia.org/bodhi/dzogchen.htm

(Bear in mind that I have no knowledge of Dzogchen, this is only what I found through search engines.)
What is Thögal?

Tögal (Tib. ཐོད་རྒལ་, Wyl. thod rgal) — one of the two aspects, along
  with trekchö, of Dzogchen practice.
Tögal, translated as ‘direct crossing’, ‘the direct approach’ or
  ‘leapover’, can bring very quickly the actual realization of the three
  kayas in this lifetime, and thus is a more rapid way of bringing about
  the dissolution of the practitioner’s karmic vision. The practice of
  tögal brings the realization of ‘spontaneous presence’ (Tib.
  ལྷུན་གྲུབ་, lhundrup), and it can only be undertaken by a practitioner
  who has first gained stability in the practice of kadak trekchö.
Sogyal Rinpoche writes:

Only when the master has determined that you have a thorough grounding in the practice of trekchö will he or she introduce you to
    the advanced practice of tögal. The tögal practitioner works directly
    with the clear light that dwells inherently, “spontaneously present,”
    within all phenomena, using specific and exceptionally powerful
    exercises to reveal it within himself or herself.
Tögal has a quality of instantaneousness, of immediate realization. Instead of traveling over a range of mountains to reach a
    distant peak, the tögal approach would be to leap there in one bound.
    The effect of tögal is to enable a person to actualize all the
    different aspects of enlightenment within themselves in one
    lifetime. Therefore it is regarded as the extraordinary, unique
    method of Dzogchen; whereas trekchö is its wisdom, tögal is its
    skilful means. It requires enormous discipline, and is generally
    practiced in a retreat environment.
Yet it cannot be stressed too often that the path of Dzogchen can only be followed under the direct guidance of a qualified master.

-Tögal @ Rigpawiki.org

Is there a reasonable high-level description of what it is or what it entails?

Dzogchen: Thödgal (Leap-Over) Instructions by Dudjom Lingpa

In terms of practice, the key point I've learned is that thögal can only be practiced from the perspective of rigpa (pristine awareness); which in turn assumes that one has achieved shamatha, perfected vipashyana, and completed trekchö. Even kind, authentic teachers that openly and lucidly teach Dzogchen do not generally teach thögal, simply because there is absolutely no benefit in doing so until the student has truly realized rigpa. In the meantime, pretending to practice it is a distracting fantasy at best.

While I believe that the other answers here are more on-point from the standpoint of the question, after I learned more about it (though I won't claim to understand it) I wanted to add one additional piece more from the mechanics side than the inherent nature:
Thögal is a practice of cultivating what are called "clear light" visions based on top of the natural state of mind. There are several components which are designed to facilitate and cultivate the vision aspect, but it requires first as a prerequisite a steady natural state of mind.
In his teachings around the Heart Drops of Dharmakaya (by Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen) Khenpo Tenpa Yundrung Rinpoche said the following (transcribed):

The Tibetan word Thögal has many meanings. The most known is Thögal as a practice that renders manifest the visions of Clear Light. In some contexts, the term Thögal actually refers to the Clear Light itself.

[...]

When things are presented in this way, it seems that the Thögal practice is more exalted than the Trekchö practice, as if the Thögal is better than the Trekchö. But without Trekchö there is no possibility of practicing Thögal. Therefore Trekchö is the most important practice, and as such is the core of the Dzogchen teachings.

read more about Trekchö at rigpawiki http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Trekch%C3%B6


text:
How can one overcome agitation developed by not sitting regularly?
This one is for the lay meditators.
Although i think there is a component of sloth and torpor involved in the situation. There are other factors too. At times for me breakage of a sila makes it hard for me to sit. And if this cycle is not broken it can take days to come to mindset to start sitting again and to convince myself it's ok to start from scratch.
Does anyone else encounter this problem and how do you deal with it?

This is a common problem. When you are week in Sila you get "Storms" in your meditation due to the bad Karma generated from breaking your Sila surfacing.
Also when meditating you have to keep your balance through the 5 faculties and 5 Strengths.

The effects of meditation are similar to the effects of brushing your teeth: If you don't brush your teeth for one day nothing will happen but if you do for one week... you will suffer the consequences in the dentist, so what I'm saying is that what you lose for not meditating will have a price in the future specially when you face a bad situation, stress and aversion will come stronger, you are losing a precious opportunity of improving awareness and becoming a better and stronger human being.
Make it a priority, meditate for 10 minutes if you don't have much time, but do not let lazyness wins this battle, do it for yourself and your own well being!

Your problems with sitting are due to your body-and-mind not being stable enough; irritability makes even regular activities difficult, let alone sitting meditation.
At this time, I suggest you to approach your problem two ways: from physical perspective and from psychological perspective.

Physically, you need to train your body by learning deep breathing through the following exercise. Walk very-very slowly, making one inbreath for about 4 steps / 10 seconds, and one outbreath for the next 4 steps / another 10 seconds.
Psychologically, forcing yourself to sit is not a good idea. Instead, try to develop a habit to sit every day, but not for a long time. Start sitting for only 20 seconds, and slowly add a few seconds every day, so you only sit as long as you really can. Again, the most important is to do this regularly. You must be determined to give up any other activity in favor of your daily sitting.

You know what? Habits, habits, it's all about forming a habit. Start small, exercise for six months until it becomes a habit, then practice for 10 years, one life, next life -- and you will have a different temperament.
Whatever requires conscious control in the beginning, becomes natural and effortless once the habit has formed. Eventually, you will be able to set your mind in a natural state -- and you become a Buddha!

The content of the answer seems interesting although I wish you could sort out the grammatical errors. It would help

Made an attempt at clearing out the weeds, check it out :)


text:
Beautiful Balloons for Buddha
Can someone explain the tradition of releasing balloons with candles inside for Buddha? What is the meaning? Is it a Theravada or a Mahayana tradition? When and why people do it?

Through a search I've found use of releasing lanterns to be common in a few Buddhist areas that host both traditions. In Burma (Myanmar) there is the Tazaungdaing festival, which is celebrated as a national holiday and marks the end of the rainy season. It also marks the end of the Kathina, during which monks are offered new robes and alms.
Most of them sound like lay practice to me. Many countries traditionally celebrate with balloon lanterns.
Is there a specific festival you are referring to?

A saw that in a movie about thailand and I was wondering the meaning of it, it wasnt the first time I saw it, but I really dont know the meaning

whoever the grammar police are on here that keep editing all my stuff... i think your attachment to perfection could be a source of suffering... maybe you should chill out! Your obsession with convention and traditional grammar "rules" is quite unnecessary. perhaps you do better to meditate on why youre so worried about it instead of spending that time fixing something that really doesnt "need" to be fixed!

Yes it happens quite often, but do not worry with it unless someone changes the meaning of what you are saying. I get edited all the time too and I really don't mind, in case they change the meaning of what you are saying or remove it from the original context, you should flag it in a comment

@ANonimous On all stackexchange websites users can suggest or make improvements to questions and answers. Our goal is to create a high-quality Q&A site. I'm sorry if I've offended you with my edit, my only intention was to make it better readable and provide easy access to additional information. If you disagree with my changes feel free to roll it back (click on 'edit' and then on 'rollback' on your original post). Chances are however that another user will come along and do a similar edit.


text:
Might immediate retaliation or reaction inhibit future bad kamma?
If someone hits you and you even the score, purely to HELP them avoid future bad kamma           (like if your intention is purely that... you want to neutralize their bad kamma... not an excuse, no anger at all, general concern):

Would it neutralize the bad kamma for the other individual?
Despite necessary force to subdue the assailant and keep things even steven... would it still be good kamma based on intention?

for example, someone punches (attacks) me so i subdue them, then punch them back deliberately in the exact same way to help them stay balanced...

dude... dont change my question!

its not retaliation per say... or reaction... its a deliberate not retalitory act with the sole intention of keeping the angry individual kammicly balanced.

another example would be true shaolin monks... which are actually ordained zen buddhist monastics.

IMO the word "retaliation" describes the action itself, regardless of your intention (which allegedly causes the action) or its future result. In any case, questions need a separate title (I tried to reformat your question without changing it, but I had to invent a title because you didn't supply a title yoursef). You can edit the title again if you think title I chose is not a good summary of your question.

For the first question the answer is NO. In AN 5.57 we can see that Buddha has used this phrase,

I am my own kamma, I am a heir to my kamma, I am born [in this life]
  from my kamma, I am the kinsman of my kamma, I am protected by my
  kamma. Whatever kamma·s I shall do, kalyāṇa·s or pāpaka·s, I shall
  become their heir.

So you can't neutralize someone else's bad deeds by your actions. He will eventually reap the results of his actions when all the conditions fall into place. I think it's easy to understand this if we consider kamma as a natural law like gravity.
There are four types of kammas with respect to the time of taking effect in abhidhamma.

Immediately effective kamma (Dhitta dhamma vedaniya) - in the present lifetime
Subsequently effective kamma (Aparapariya vedaniya) - in the immediately following lifetime
Indefinitely effective kamma (Upapajja vedaniya) - in lifetimes two or more in the future
Defunct (Ahosi) - kamma whose effects have ripened already

If I consider your example of hitting back when someone hits you, we can categorize this as a immediately effective kamma for the person you're hitting back. But we can't still say the power of his initial kamma has weakened. In another life, in several other lives or even in this life he may reap the results of this. If the conditions didn't fall the kamma may never function as well.
For the second question the answer is also NO. You may not have have anger at the point you hit him, but your intention is filled with delusion. You are purposefully hurting someone with a wrong view in your mind.

so, "he" is generating kamma by acting in anger making him more kammicly apt to angery acts and being conditioned for that type of phenomena to come up in the future... seems to me if he learns a lesson and it changes him to understand his anger, then by punching me he actually generated good kamma due to my intentional response?!... and i also do.

Buddhism is about suffering. And suffering is about attachment. And you question is pretty attached. So you suffer from your imagines. ;)
If you don't create karma, your action is clear. If your mind is unclean, your action is unclean too.
Thinking doesn't help here. No common solution for your question doesn't exist. Every situation is unique. Like this one.

very insighful but not necessary to type out.


text:
Is gender a result of Kamma?
Are the genders male/female a result of Kamma, or is it associated with it in any way?

Karma is a very complicated process. We could in fact say that just about everything affects just about everything else - if a butterfly beats its wings in China, it does probably play some infinitesimal role in causing hurricanes in Florida. If, by karma, you mean any old action whatsoever, then indeed, there are probably certain actions (especially mental ones) that lead one to be reborn as one gender or the other.
Specifically, a man's obsession with women would most likely cause him to be reborn as a woman, and vice versa. This is most likely what happened in the stories we have that have been traditionally interpreted as suggesting that adultery leads to being born a woman. It is far more likely, in my mind, that male adultery with women leads to being born a woman, and female adultery with men leads to being born a man. The cause being the insane obsession.
This, of course, is not what is meant by karma and result in a Buddhist sense. Here the fact that one was born a woman or a man was not a "bad" or "good" result, it was just a case of obsession leading to realization of the object of obsession.  If one were insanely obsessed with cats, one would likely be born a cat.
If, by karma, you are referring to ethical acts, in the sense that, for example, being born gender A is the good result of certain good deeds and being born gender B is the evil result of certain evil deeds, it seems unlikely that one could infer that from the Buddha's teaching - itthindriya and purisindriya are just two of the many aspects of physical being; there is nothing intrinsically inferior or superior between the two, I don't think.
That being said, genders are hardly ever equal, physically or socially, in any species of being; in India at the time of the Buddha and when the commentaries were written, for example, being born a human female would have been a bad thing given their inferior social status, and thus could be taken indirectly as a sign of bad past karma. Too, the physiology of a human female is arguably (though not conclusively so) a cause of greater potential suffering than of its male counterpart, forcing one to deal with menstrual cycles, pregnancy, etc., as well as generally inferior strength.
Of course, this need not always be true; nor does it imply that the female faculty itself is inferior to the male faculty, or brought about by bad karma in all cases. Several species of mammal exhibit characteristics of female domination; the human species itself seems to be heading closer to a level of equality between the genders. Thus, it seems erroneous to suggest that one gender is an intrinsic result of good karma and another the intrinsic result of bad karma.
To be perfectly clear, in the abhidhamma, karma refers to one's mental volition or motivation, and the result is always expressed in terms of experience - good karma results in good experience, bad karma results in bad experience (viz. of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking). For gender to play any intrinsic role in bringing about the result of good or bad karma, it would have to intrinsically be the cause of specific pleasant or unpleasant experiences. Again, any such relationship seems more related to the evolution of certain species and cultures than the intrinsic nature of the genders.
Finally, the whole concept of karma is suspect; an arahant performs no karma, good or evil, and doesn't see any experience as either pleasant or unpleasant. In ultimate reality, whether certain experiences are "good" or "bad" seems largely subjective, and any volition or motivation that leads one to be reborn as either a male or a female of any species is definitely "bad" or "wrong" in an ultimate sense.

Bhante, regarding good Karma resulting in pleasant experiences and bad Karma resulting in unpleasant experiences not being true in the case of Arahants, I've seen a relevant distinction being made as Paramatta Sacca vs Ariya Sacca in the book "Chaturarya Satya" by the late most venerable Rerukane Chandawimala thero. It is presented as an instance when Paramatta Sacca also becomes false in comparison to Ariya Sacca, i.e. even if the experiences are categorised into three(Sukha, Dukkha, Adukkamasuka) in Paramatta Sacca. The first noble truth describes any experience as an instance of Dukkha.

Yes it's a result of kamma. Being born as a male is considered a result of a higher kamma. In Paramatthajotika by Buddhaghosha thera(can't find the english translation) it is mentioned that being born as a female is due to the violation of the third precept in a previous life.
In Therigatha 400-470 mentions the story of a Bhikkuni named Isidasi who lived during Buddha's time who violated this precept eight lifetimes ago being born as a man. The rest of her lives are as follows:

Therefrom deceasing, long I ripened in Avici hell And then found
  rebirth in the body of an ape. Scarce seven days I lived before the
  great Dog-ape, the monkey’s chief, castrated me. Such was the fruit of
  my lasciviousness.
Therefrom deceasing in the woods of Sindh, Born the offspring of a
  one-eyed goat And lame, twelve years a gelding, gnawn by worms. Unfit,
  I carried children on my back. Such was the fruit of my
  lasciviousness.
The next time she was born a calf and was again castrated, and as a bullock pulled a plough and a cart. Then, as the worst of that evil kamma’s results had already ripened, Isidasi returned to the human realm. But it was still an uncertain kind of birth as she was the hermaphroditic child of a slave. That life too did not last long. Next, she was the daughter of a man oppressed by debts.

In Abhidhamma the definition of the two sexes (Bhava rupa) is given like this,

The sex of a living thing, purisa bhava (male) or itthi bhava (female)
  is determined at the very beginning of pregnancy. The determining
  factor is of course, one's past kamma. The female chromosome is called
  itthi bhava rupa; the male chromosome purisa bhava rupa. These bhava
  rupas, chromosomes, dispersed all over the body, determine the
  physique, organs, behaviour and characteristics in the male and female
  respectively.

Interesting, wouldn't that imply an unbalance between male and female which would contradict Fisher's principle?

No it won't be an issue. There are innumerable amount of sentient beings that live if we consider all the humans,animals,insects, microscopic creatures, hell creatures, devas, brahmas etc. Imagine how many beings would dwell inside a single human being. Not all of them are born like that because of the bad karma from violation of the third precept. When the conditions are right anyone of them can be born either as a male or female keeping the above said ratio.

I'd say, your overall energy configuration is a result of karma, which in its turn is a product of your predominant state of mind. Outwardly, energy configuration manifests as circumstances, and inwardly, as character. This character includes traits such as a certain balance of masculinity and femininity, but also a bunch of other, harder-to-pinpoint characteristics. Depending on the exact combination of outer and inner factors, you may be a masculine man, a feminine woman, a masculine woman, a feminine man, or anywhere in between.
Tracing phenotypes back to their karmic roots is like tracing the ocean water back to the rivers it came from, or to use a modern analogy, like decomposing a product of prime numbers back to its factors. While the opposite is pretty much trivial: if you follow the ocean-bound stream down, you are guaranteed to get to the ocean. What's important is to understand that it is your predominant state of mind that shapes your reality. As long as you get a feeling of directionality, even a rough idea of what Buddhism calls "right" (samyak), by cultivating it over a long enough period of time, however imperfectly, you are guaranteed to get to Enlightenment.

According to the Fifth Method of Dependent Origination, there are five causes and five results.  The five results are the five khandas.
The five causes are ignorance, craving, clinging, formations, kamma force.
This is listed in the Vissudhimagga.  Path Of Purification (2011 PDF, p601)
These are broken up into two consciousness wholesome and unwholesome for humans who are lucky to have a wholesome factor in their near death moment of the immediate past life.  Humans always have wholesome kamma force and sankhara (formations)
The unwholesome is the craving consciousness.  It includes the ignorance mental factor which is part of craving.  Clinging is repeated craving.  So all three are nearly the same type of unwholesome mind.
Got that?
Wholesome with unwholesome do not mix together, but the unwholesome mind can "surround" the wholesome mind.
So when you did something good in a past life, like something of generosity, you wished to do something (that requires a body) or you wished to become someone (ignorantly).  So someone who is male previously wished for becoming male.  Someone who is female previously wished to be female.  Whether or not one has enough kamma to get that wish is another story.
It is like a raffle ticket.  Buy more raffle tickets and you have better odds.  Do something once that is really big and many raffle tickets get put into the pot.  Habitual kamma is a good way to get that wish.  Heavy kamma like what Bill Gates did, will also help.  (His is both because of his continued involvement, but he may wish other things).  Bill Gates probably did something similar in a past life and kept wishing to help other people (to do that with a male body).  Then the opportunities (supporting kamma) from other kammas helped support that wish.  Read "Outliers" and you will see it was not chance for him to become so rich.
Often people switch sexes and species, but I imagine that most people wish with the same sex perception because they do not imagine otherwise.  I suspect most sex changes happen via the animal realm.  For instance, a dog may want the conditions to have food and whoever feeds him may be the gender resultant next life gender.  There are of course humans who wish for sex changes and even do so even in their current life too!   So it does happen as humans for future births as well.
There is a wheel publication by Venerable Nyantiloka called "Fundamental Themes".  It is not easy to read, but it is correct.
"The Workings of Kamma" by Venerable Pa-Auk Sayadaw explains this too.
There is a chapter on kamma in Ven. Narada's book..  "The Buddha and His Teachings". I think a pamphlet was made from that chapter too.  This is a great book for newbies.
You might be able to find a meditation manual on dependent origination by Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw.  It is called "The Fifth Method". It is not readable for the average person.  However the first section might be interesting.  It is posted it to my website..unlisted.  The rest should be easy to find for free.

I will be hopefully writing a readable version of the fifth method in my Abhidhamma Lessons located at http://Subhuti.net.tf .  It is planned for Lesson #9 and cumulative knowledge is assumed from lesson #1 onward.  I am currently writing lesson #8 on mental factors.  My guess is that it will be released sometime in November.  I announce new lessons via gplus or Facebook.  I will try to remember to update this entry when/if it gets finished.

Here is an honest answer to this question based on facts or observations or both. In all religions (the original versions not the altered ones) and in spiritual views vibrations of beings indicate how "divine" or "heavenly" or "more gifted by the creator" they are. Vibration of non-human animals and very very young children is the highest, making them more "clean/innocent/angelic/pure/close to the source energy" or whatever you want to call it. That's why we humans even being blind to such holy facts, still feel their energy and if we're healthy in the head, have some fondness of them and feel good when these beings are around us. After them the vibration of more innocent people is the highest and generally speaking women tend to have much higher vibrations overall than males.
Anything that's regarded as vice and wickedness and bad brings the overall vibration of people lower, anything such as cruelty, violence, hatred, being sex-crazed, taking lives, torturing others, bad intentions,etc. Anything that's regarded as angelic like kindness, good intentions, compassion,etc. raises the vibration. Statistics are facts. As a result this could be proven factually as well. Men are proved to suffer from far more vices (along with mental illnesses that could lead to evil deeds) than women overall, making the staggering wide gap in committing felonies. Testostrone itself makes one more prone to not use their brains if they're wicked inside. Men have more of that, women have only small amounts of it in their blood.
Accordingly, in all original version of holy texts also it's emphasized how women and girls are the "cores" of life, who make the world go around, who are guaranteed to go to heaven as long as they don't do wrong deeds, who must be treated like the sun, bringing life and warmth and safety to the universe. As a result, a being who's deserving to be punished simply CANNOT be reborn as a female AS part of their punishment.
Aside from that, being a woman by itself seems to, in many ways, prevail over being a man. Any misery women had to suffer throughout the history of mankind was forced on them by men, remember that. Otherwise, should we consider a being independently, a woman by herself would make a scene similar to the happy-go-lucky scenes from Disney cartoons with her enjoying herself with the non-human animals around her, the nature and the warmth that generates from within her. A woman's mind is also proven to be more "free", enabling her to enjoy her thoughts, dreams, wishes, etc. more than men generally speaking. Women live longer too on average, giving them more time to complete their missions here on earth. With XX being more strong since neither Xs have been mutated, babies with XX are also stronger in physical strength and combating illnesses and maturing.
Not to mention that a woman has the chance to give life and her baby's entire world WILL revolve around her for some time, enabling her to influence other people more than men generally speaking. Hence, being a woman on its own is even more likely to be part of good karma. As someone else said, system of karma is complex. It could possibly be said that, considering the surroundings, that view might differ to a small extent meaning if someone's to be punished, they'd be born at a time at a place with certain gender that's suffering some obvious disadvantages, e.g. a woman is Saudi Arabia now, a man in the Amazon tribes who enslaved men and buried male babies alive. OR it might be due to them being connected to a loved-one who was "spawned" in that situation OR they could be put there to make a far better life in the next life (basically paying it forward).
So by no means and in no way one could claim what you claimed, that "if one's a woman, they're being punished". In fact the other way around seems to be more accurate IF we're talking differences between karmic effect of genders since should men not be around or in a woman's life, the said woman would most likely have a much easier and happier life than if she was a man and she, just by being born a girl has the ability to impact her surroundings and people way more than a male.
As technology is progressing, as you see, it's possible for women alone to give life while such a thing is purely impossible for only men since men have XY and the offsprings would most likely never live enough to even develop internal organs (even if some functioning uterus magically fell off the sky) and with how things are as you see, an objective mind observing could conclude that it's men who need women not the other way around.
Last but not least, let's not forget that we're talking karma here, the tit for tat, eye for an eye, you reap what you sow, divine justice, etc. system. I'm sure all sane people really would want to go back and prevent how men for many years did women wrong and committed the most vile unspeakable things to women but facts are facts. History is a collection of facts from the past. Facts never get erased or change. Having "divine justice" or even the logical order of nature in mind, men are guilty horribly and hence will have to pay for their horrible misconduct of the past. No pain and aching soul goes unanswered and as a result, especially with the times about to come, it'd be way more likely for someone who's to be punished to be born a boy for karma to take its course and "serve" them what's rightfully deserving.
As you see, I only mentioned a very few notions but even with these it's proven how your response has nothing to do with facts or even the knowledge the Source provided for us to make better decisions and be better beings. I strongly advise you to refrain from doing what you're doing as people are awakening more and more and are seeing how some (the some with major karmas to pay) have been using religion or beliefs to oppress others, steal rights,  take personal benefits, commit sins, justify sick behaviors, etc.

In the Pali suttas attributed to the Buddha, the results of kamma are two-fold, namely, "heaven" ("happiness") and "hell" ("pain & torment"). For example:

When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
  rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away &
  reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified &
  surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I
  discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly,
  fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings
  — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who
  reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the
  influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death,
  have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the
  lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good
  conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who
  held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right
  views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared
  in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of
  the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing
  away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior,
  beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their
  kamma.
Bhaya-bherava Sutta

The five-fold results of kamma, namely, human (virtuous), godly (powerful), ghost (addicted), animal (without conscience) & hell (pain & torment) are more diverse descriptions of the two-fold kamma. For example:

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident.
Nidānasutta

The Buddha applied the above results of kamma equally to both men & women. The Buddha did not teach sex is determined by kamma. For example:

Student, beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is
  what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness &
  refinement... There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a
  killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing &
  slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted &
  carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death,
  he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the
  lower realms, hell.
Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta

I don't know how one could prove that he didn't ever teach that -- only that he taught other things besides (e.g. that both genders experience result of kamma, as you quote in this answer). And if he doesn't teach much about gender then it's difficult to say, "teaching that about gender would contradict other things he said about gender".

The Buddha said he only teachings about suffering & the cessation of suffering. The teachings of kamma, while mundane, are the same. They teach about happiness (heaven) and suffering (hell). They don't teach about the origins of gender.

@Dhammadhatu Hi! I recently found this explanation from Bhikkhu Bodhi about the mistranslation of the phrase commonly quoted as "[...] only suffering...". Here it is if you're interested in it: https://tricycle.org/magazine/i-teach-only-suffering-and-end-suffering/

Thanks. Bhikkhu Bodhi is a valuable translator but doesn't really understand Dhamma. For example, in the article, BB refers to naga, a garuda, or a gan-dhabba—that is, as a celestial dragon, a celestial eagle, or a fragrance deity— yet in his SN he regards these teachings as mythology. BB doesn't have much credibility apart from as a translator. He is often agenda driven and appears to have never transcended his socio-cultural-ethnic roots. Regards. The explained what he teaches in many suttas, such as Simsapa Sutta, AN 3.61, etc.

As I know, In Buddha time no one asked that question. Personally I don't think gender is based on kamma but Sankara.

There are numerous places in Buddhist literature where it is stated that women cannot achieve enlightenment. I won't catalog these, or evaluate them either. They are mostly based on social norm, conjecture, and opinion, no matter how they are worded.
From Wikipedia: "Karma (/ˈkɑːrmə/; Sanskrit: कर्म, translit. karma, IPA: [ˈkɐɽmɐ]; Pali: kamma) means action, work or deed; it also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect). Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and bad rebirths."
In the first definition of the word karma (simply action), yes, gender is determined by some kind of action in the field of manifestation. But in the second definition, that individual action in the past determines gender in the past I have never seen this convincingly argued. And in the final sense, that good or bad past karma determines a good outcome (male) or a bad outcome (female) there is no support for this in Buddha teaching.  Everything is a result of some kind of karma, somewhere. Even being on the Path, this is karma from skillfulness in your past and the generosity of teachers and sangha past. Everything, including gender, is a result of action, but only in the broadest possible sense. Karma is basically unfathomable to the human mind. We (meaning you and I) do not possess omniscience.
If your question had been "do females have Buddha Nature?" I would answer yes, they do. As do males, and as do all sentient beings. And I support the women who journey forth and seek Enlightenment.

In Theravada literature, or later? I thought the Therigata would contradict "women cannot achieve enlightenment". But see also Can the Buddha ever be a woman?


text:
Will parents full of Dhamma attract good minds for their babies?
Is it more likely that a mind with more positive Kamma and closer to the Dhamma will reborn as a son of a couple that follows the Dhmma? Is there like an attraction due to the Dhamma?
There is a story that Buddha once told a couple that if they have the same religion, similar dana and sila they may meet again in the next life.

In addition to what Suminda said. What usually happens is, whatever is a hidden trait in parents, it attracts a child mind with the same trait manifested explicitly. This works both ways, good and bad. If parents quietly despise imperfect people, they will attract the child mind that openly hates the whole world and may eventually develop a drug addiction or something. The same way, parents with few attachments will attract a child mind that may be too unfettered, perhaps to the point of having issues in school etc. So it's not as much bad => bad and good => good, as it is inner => outer and subtle => explicit.

In Buddhism there is no definiteness in Karma. Since there is not definiteness we can just say there is a higher probability this might happen.


text:
In Vipassana, what's the difference between 1st and 2nd "knowledge of dissolution" (paṭhama- & dutiya- bhanga-ñāṇa)
One of the main station of insight before stream entry is bhanga-ñāṇa. In some explanations this seems to be subdivided further into 1st (paṭhama) and 2nd (dutiya) bhanga-ñāṇa ("knowledge of dissolution"). What is the difference between them?

Bhanga-ñāṇa or "knowledge of dissolution" is the first major direct (nonconceptual) experience of Emptiness. Although every practitioner's experience is unique, there are some common themes that can help one recognize the milestones as they are passed. Here is one description of bhanga-ñāṇa by Patrick Kearney of buddhanet.net, a dharma teacher in the lineage of Mahasi Sayadaw:

What happens next? The meditator’s awareness and concentration continues to develop. As a result, he now sees only the passing away of phenomena. It is as if his awareness is so fast, it is faster than the experiences he is examining, As soon as he places his attention on some aspect of his experience, it disappears. This is the knowledge of dissolution (bhanga-nana). In a weak aspect, this can take the form of the meditator apparently losing his concentration. It seems like he can no longer focus on anything; his attention keeps sliding off whatever he tries to look at. It can be lie trying to grasp something that slips out of your hand the moment you touch it. In a stronger aspect, it can be like falling into the black hole of Calcutta. Wherever you look, there is nothing - only blackness. The meditator is shocked, because he used to be able to focus on anything. Now, it seems, he can focus on nothing at all. All his good work has dissolved into nothing.

In reality, this and the following several stages are a very painful experience. It feels like losing your mind, so frustrating it is. You can't even focus on your frustration -- the moment you look at frustration, it slips right through your fingers. This is truly the very bottom of "the dark night of the soul". All preconceptions collapse. You really see the BS-ness, the emptiness of all mental formations. Up until this moment you were holding onto the hope that something must be real, but now your ego is exhausted and can no longer maintain yourself.
As for the distinction between the first and the second "knowledge of dissolution", when the thought-form you are "looking" at collapses, falls apart, and dissolves right in front of your "eyes" -- that's the first bhanga-ñāṇa, and when, in utter frustration and disbelief, you look at this "looking", and it itself collapses, falls apart, and dissolves -- that's the second bhanga-ñāṇa.
In case you don't believe my first-hand experience ;) here is an explanation by Ven. Sayadaw U Jotika in his "A Map of The Journey" (a transcript of a series of preparatory talks given prior to a meditation retreat held in Australia):

At this stage, every time the meditator is meditating -- no matter what the object is, even the movement, (without paying attention to the shape anymore but to the sensation) - the meditator is aware of the sensation and the very fast passing away one after another very clearly. All the shapes and solidity disappears, which means that you don't pay attention to shape or solidity anymore. You pay attention only to sensations and their passing away very quickly.
Seeing the object passing away very quickly is the first bhanga-ñāṇa, paṭhama-bhanga-ñāṇa. Seeing the wisdom passing away is the second bhanga-ñāṇa, dutiya-bhanga-ñāṇa. The two together make the bhanga-ñāṇa complete.
In any insight there is the beginning and the maturity of insight. In the beginning you see the object passing away very quickly. When this becomes more mature, stronger, you see the passing away of consciousness, vipassana consciousness, and the wisdom also passing away together.

You notice one thing, that passes away and
that consciousness which is aware of
that passing away also passes away.

...
Because of seeing this passing away, passing away, continuously you feel
  that this process is dangerous; it is passing away so quickly you cannot rely on it. You cannot identify with it. You see that nobody can identify with
  this and hold on to it and rely on it. There is no reliance. There
  is nothing reliable in these mental and physical phenomena.

As interesting as it is to read about these things, my advice to all practitioners is to forget about these stages/levels and instead focus on your practice. In Buddhism, knowing stages does not help you get there. Buddhist experience cannot be contrived! Once every 5 years you might want to check yet another stages-of-the-path text, congratulate yourself on another achievement, confirm that your intuition was right again -- and then forget about stages for the next 5 years.

"All preconceptions collapse. You really see the BS-ness, the emptiness of all mental formations. Up until this moment you were holding onto the hope that something must be real, but now your ego is exhausted and can no longer maintain yourself." This is the best description I've read of Dissolution. I guess everyone's experience is different, but the shock that my ego/opinions weren't a rock solid foundation of me, and were actually changing and shifting, arising and passing away, threw me into a spin that took me years to recover from (aka a "spiritual emergency")... (cont)

...If some of the descriptions had been clearer in describing the terror you might experience when you learn that nothing is truly real (as you put it). Or rather, that you learn that nothing is completely solid and without change (even the things you cling to in order to feel safe), I probably wouldn't have suffered so. The "arising and passing" of everything is a very vague and mild term for what can be a truly terrifying experience for some.

my experience has been different - dissolution felt wonderful, my entire body dissolving into champagne-like bubbles. It didn't bother me to feel apparent solidity dissolve. It was more of a, 'wow isn't this a fascinating way of experiencing existence'. Just wanted to put that out there as another experience of the phenomenon.

Seeing the object passing away very quickly is the first bhanga-ñāṇa, paṭhama-bhanga-ñāṇa. Seeing the wisdom passing away is the second bhanga-ñāṇa, dutiya-bhanga-ñāṇa...

...was told in an answer. Of what is thought to be the 1st, that is bhanga-ñāṇa, a worldly knowledge. General isn't further bhanga good done, if cutting different angeles, losing parts, leaving holes.
The secound, like here described, perceive-able, doesn't seems to grasp bhanga-ñāṇa but actually already knowledge in an overworldly sphere: Dubhato vuṭṭhāna-vivaṭṭane paññā magge ñāṇaṃ

The wisdom gained by emerging and turning away from both [the external and internal] is knowledge of the Path.

...If one wishes to follow this kind of Vibanga taken on here as concept.
Good, how ever, encouragement to letting go of accumulation of knowledge, accumulated perceptions, once sufficient faith has been gained, and actually walk the path, go forth.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades or entertainment but to gain Dubhato vuṭṭhāna-vivaṭṭane paññā magge ñāṇaṃ]


text:
Ledi Sayadaw Raised a Few Points in Contrary to the Commentaries. What are They?
Initially some of the writings of Ledi Sayadaw were considered to be controversial and they differed from the commentaries. What were the points that differed?

Can you provide a source for your statement of controversy?

"The Great War of the Commentaries: Ledi Sayadaw’s Abhidhamma Controversy" by Erik Braun is one source.

One of the controversies and many others were concerned with attribution of the work of Abhidhamma and that some books contained errors
"4. Paramatthadipani-Tika, "The Elucidation of the Ultimate Meaning," by
Ledi Sayadaw. Ledi Sayadaw of Burma (1846-1923) was one of the greatest
scholar-monks and meditation masters of the Theravada tradition in recent
times. He was the author of over seventy manuals on different aspects of
Theravada Buddhism, including philosophy, ethics, meditation practice, and
Pali grammar. His tika created a sensation in the field of Abhidhamma
studies because he pointed out 325 places in the esteemed Vibhavini-tika
where he alleged that errors and misinterpretations had occurred, though
his criticisms also set off a reaction in defense of the older work."
Excerpts of some of the controversies


text:
Why is Buddhism less evangelical than Christianity?
Currently when I walk to work I frequently pass Christians of various denominations passing out free books and talking to passers by. I have never heard of a Buddhist group doing the same. I think it is a common perception that Buddhism is not an evangelical religion and Christianity most definitely is. I think this one of the reasons is why people (in the UK) are generally fairly well disposed to Buddhists.
But are my perceptions correct? Is Buddhism really not an evangelical religion? It is a universal religion like Christianity and in both there are notions of personal salvation (liberation/nirvana) that surely everyone would benefit from. Is there something in the scriptures or teachings that make Buddhist less evangelical? Or is it just something cultural and in a different place and time things might look very different? Or am I just flat wrong and Buddhism wants to spread the word just as much as Christianity but I'm just not seeing it.

I'm not sure what you mean by evangelical. Do you mean that Buddhists don't put as much effort into gaining converts as Christians or do you mean that we just aren't as pushy?

SGI is, or was, very evangelical, keen to prosthelytize. In the US, the various immigrant communities, by the fact that they provide service only in Thai or Vietnamese or what have you, might be prothelytizing, but it would be invisible to me since I don't speak Thai.
Ancient Buddhism was not content to wait for people to just magically show up and learn the Dharma,

"The Sangha had grown to 60 in number ..
  and Buddha sent them out in all directions to travel
  alone and teach the Dharma. "
  ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarnath

There is a better quote for this, but I can't find it.
In China, Thailand, India for a while, Japan, it was a state supported religion. As such, it has a massive advantage in getting adherents. In fact, in Japan, the government would just assign you to the county Buddhist temple.
And finally, when people talk about growing membership, all they can think about are Jehovah Witnesses at the door with Watchtower trying to do essentially door to door personal sales in a world where nothing is sold that way anymore. Marketing is done with online media, writing books and getting them on book store shelves, getting the military to recognize your religion so it can participate in the chaplain program. All of that is  a million times more effective at getting more members than tacky, pushy person to person sales.
In the Brahma Net Sutra, there are several precepts obliging precept takers to teach the dharma and to teach it well, which as a side effect may result in more self-identifying Buddhists.
So Buddhist doesn't lack in prothylthizing, what it lacks (other than the example of SGI) is a marketing campaign involving tacking person to person sales. Just about everyone else is working on "growing membership" but by other means.
(This contrasts to what a lot of atheist think-- that no one should teach anyone, not even children, anything about any religion unless that person spontaneously and enthusiastically asks for it)

Is there something in the scriptures or teachings that make Buddhist less evangelical?
One thing is that Buddhist scripture has some emphasis on teaching 'skillfully'.
Some explanations of 'right speech' include the requirement that speech be beneficial, welcome, and at an appropriate time; for example:

The Abhaya Sutta elaborates:[34][35]

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue,
    unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not
    say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, yet
    unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not
    say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
    beneficial, yet unendearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense
    of the proper time for saying them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue,
    unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not
    say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, but
    unbeneficial, yet endearing and agreeable to others, he does not
    say them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
    beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, he has a sense of
    the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata
    has sympathy for living beings.

In every case, if it is not true, beneficial nor timely, one is
  not to say it. The Buddha followed this, for example, when asked questions of a purely metaphysical nature, unrelated to the goal, path
  or discipline that he taught. When asked a question such as "Is the
  universe eternal?", the Buddha dismissed the topic with the response:
  "It does not further." (or: "The personal possibilities (goals)
  assigned you are not furthered by an answer to an ultimate question
  about the universe's fate.")

Conversely, "The gospel" is from a Greek word meaning "Good news": and the word "news" implies that it's meant to be broadcast? And the Christian Parable of the Sower seems to me to imply "broadcast" instead of "person-to-person" speech.

Currently when I walk to work I frequently pass Christians of various denominations passing out free books and talking to passers by. I have never heard of a Buddhist group doing the same.
To some extent some Buddhists do pass out free books: for example I picked up one free book by walking in to a Buddhist temple and looking in the book store.
I've also seen a "free book" left in a hotel room in Singapore (in the same way that you might find a "Gideon's Bible" there).

Most Christians believe, based on Matthew 28:18-20, that they must spread Christ's message. In other words, if they don't do it, they aren't following Christ's instructions:
'Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.'
And one possible reason Jesus himself gave that instruction was because the Christian view of existence is one where this human life is pretty much your one and only chance to get into heaven. If you screw up here, there's no rebirth, no time-limited lower realms, and not even simple extinction -- it's the Bad Fire and the Jaggy Stick Up The Bum Fandango, for eternity.
Obviously we can find some sense of urgency in Buddhism too: e.g. the illustration of practising as if one's hair was on fire. But nothing scares the bejeezus (literally) out of people the way the Christian notion of eternal perdition does.

As long as this view is not misused or abused. Some churches used this as an excuse for denigrating other religions and rewarding followers for their successful proselytizing. This view can also incite constant fear that they and their loved ones will be tempted by other religions and unleashed rounds of hatred and fear that caused conflicts and strife in the world.

Just so it's said, Christianity is effectively an 'all or nothing' faith. You're born, you live, you die, and then you go to heaven or you don't. Buddhism (in its original form) is a 'recycling' faith. You're born, you live, you die, and if you don't get it quite right you just go back around to the beginning and do it again.
Buddhists can afford to be more chill about it.

True, that is why I see this constant fear in some Christians. Unfortunately, this fear can cause unnecessary conflicts and strife.

@DesmonicaSin:  Unfortunately it can. But I've also seen it create quite striking forms of courage and grace. It makes me think that people who put in the effort succeed regardless of the faith they were born into, and those who don't, don't. But I'm a bit moody this evening, so take that as you will...

This is 8 years late but I would like to offer another perspective. I agreed that Buddhists (at least those that I know of) are not very proactive or keen to proselytize. Partly, it is because the Dharma is hard to understand and it appeared that the Buddha himself was initially not keen to teach for this same reason. (Note: there are some disputes that the Brahma’s request to the Buddha to teach is a later addition as it is not found in the Mahayana version). But the fact that the Buddha initially thought of teaching his Dharma to his first teachers, Ālāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta before settling on his five companions (and not anyone he sees), already showed his concerns that his teachings is hard to grasp.
My observation is that Buddhism tends to attract truth seekers i.e. people who are more interested in understanding reality. Therefore, it is no surprise that scientists and researchers are naturally attracted to Buddhism. Similarly, the Buddha’s intention was to share his discovery with the belief that anyone who followed his steps would likewise come to the same conclusion. This is, in a nutshell, the scientific method. The Dharma, therefore, represents a body of knowledge. Like all bodies of knowledge, there are many pieces that needed to fit together to see the whole picture and not everyone is naturally passionate to spend the time and effort to learn the pieces and fit them together.
My analogy would be someone approached a professor in Mathematics and requested to be taught calculus. The professor proceeded by explaining he needed to first teach the wannabe-student algebra followed by geometry and trigonometry. The student protested and insisted they just want to learn calculus, they were not interested in geometry or trigo and they already knew algebra. So, the professor tested the student on some algebraic questions and the student failed. The professor patiently pointed out that the student's understanding of algebra was wrong and lacking. At this point the student complained that the professor was a quack and walked away in anger.
Supposed an enthusiastic Buddhist approached some non-Buddhists to spread the Dharma. And he began by telling them their understanding of stress or suffering (dukkha) is wrong. I believed there will be a lot of disappointed or angry faces. The sad truth is most of the people in the world are not interested in reality. People are constantly looking for ways to twist reality to suit their hearts’ desires. If a religion declared that reality was created by an almighty god and that if they become followers even the laws of physics can be altered for them. That would be news that is instantly comforting and heartening to those who are struggling in their lives. Unfortunately, for Buddhists, who truly understand the Dharma, to make such a promise would be an outright lie. For this reason, there are not many who are receptive to the Buddha's message. Not many are willing to question their desires and investigate the reality behind their struggles in lives.
For the truth seekers, the words of the Buddha alone act as a mirror reflecting themselves. There is no need to brainwash anyone because there is no "self" to be rewarded. This is why I believe traditionally, there was never any need to proselytize in Buddhism. I hope fellow Buddhists will not be goaded into emulating the misguided ways of others by denigrating other religions just to proselytize. I hope we will continue to emulate the Buddha's approach. Speak the truth, lay out the facts and invite people to come and examine themselves, ehipassiko.

For the sake of salvation, Christianity is an easy religion of basic morals & faith. Jesus said:

Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in
heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Matthew 11:29

In Buddhism, attaining Nibbana requires the eradication of self-view, which is too difficult & even potentially psychological dangerous for most faith-follower Buddhists, let alone too difficult for most people. The Buddhism himself did not teach non-self/emptiness to most people.


text:
What is a Tao Buddhist?
This answer refers to a Tao Buddhist. I've never heard of this term. Is a a definite religious movement or is it just a colloquial term that refers to someone who holds both view simultaneously? In either case, is there any conflict when subscribing to both philosophies at the same time?

The earliest translations of Buddhist texts to Chinese just used Confucian and Taoist jargon in place of Buddhist jargon.  Syncretism happens.

I was wondering myself, because I know there are some trivial differences between the two.

There was a Neo-Confucianism movement back around 800 C.E.  It incorporated aspect of Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.  Not sure if that's really what you're looking for though.

The statement "my mother was raised Tao Buddhist" is grammatically incorrect, it should say "Taoist and Buddhist". So "Tao Buddhist" is probably not a religious sect.
Source: my own experience growing up around Chinese speakers who learned English as a second language.

I would think a Tao Buddhist is a Taoist an Buddhist. The Tao is the religious experience of the world, an the Buddhism is the philosophical experience of the world. The Tao developed its understanding of Yin an Yang this is sort like the Hindu/Buddhist concept of Karma.
You can find that Buddhism mingles with all type of religions. Buddhism is a very adaptable system that can help improve people in or out of religion.

"The Tao is the religious experience of the world, an the Buddhism is the philosophical experience of the world" is not really a concrete statement of fact. May I suggest replacing it with a fact, for example that Taoism and Mahayana Buddhism coexisted because Mahayana Buddhism was seen as external confirmation of Taoism.

Sure. The Question is What is a Tao Buddhist. A practitioner of Taoism and a Follower of Buddhism.Taoism is the religious aspect Because Taoism is a Form of religion, where forces of Yin an Yang Balance out the Universe an Buddhism would be the philosophical aspect Because it is commonly Known that Buddhism is not considered a religion. Well I guess I assumed they were asking what was the meaning of the term.Im glade that you came to add some help to the question, Now the user knows more about the connection of Taoism an Mahayana Buddhism that they didnt know before, thank you for helping.


text:
Physical Exercise as a Monk?
Is a monk allowed to exercise the body in order to keep it fit and healthy? I reckon both 'healthy' and 'fit' as attachments, but is there an overall rule/teaching that explains this?

Healthy and fit body does not need to be seen as an attachment. If a monk took the Bodhisattva Vow, all his activities will be done with the wish to benefit others. A healthy body is actually a very useful tool if one wants to help other beings. During a long life free from illnesses one can do much more than during a short life with numerous visits to doctors and hospitals (which are usually costly). Precious human body is also a topic of various teachings (see this or that) which invite us to realise how rare it is to obtain a well-functioning human body and how easy it is to lose it. With that in mind, maintaining a healthy body is a very wise thing to do.
In Tibetan Buddhism one of the main meditation practices involves doing physical  prostrations. In Vajrayana traditions all practitioners - monks and lay ones - need to complete at least 100.000 prostrations as a part of preliminary practices. Some practitioners continue to do prostrations on daily basis and even Dalai Lama admitted that he indeed does them every day.

The Dalai Lama takes daily exercise, including walking on a treadmill if it's too wet to walk outside -- http://www.dalailama.com/biography/a-routine-day. It makes sense to me since given that this human life is very precious in that it gives us an opportunity for moving towards enlightenment, it follows that it's a good thing to keep the body alive for as long is reasonably possible.
Yuttadhammo gives an interesting view on the whole exercise thing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJifR6EGTb8. He says that physical exercise "doesn't play any part", certainly for an enlightened being although I think he was also referring to people who want to become enlightened. But I think his overall point is one of adequacy. He doesn't deny that it's useful to, for example, eat enough so as to be able to meditate, but his position appears to be that there is no point beyond that.

My name is Thomas. I was a Zen Monk for 2 years! Physical exercise was a key part of my day and with many other of the monks and nuns.

What kind of exercise Thomas? Elaborate, please.

If there's no other physical work to be done Christian monastries recommend gardening. A little more genteel and useful than jogging.

In his wonderful book "A path with heart", by Jack Kornfield, the author, himself a Buddhist monk under Ajahn Chan for several years talks about exercise and several other normal things monks ignore in order to pursue enlightenment single mindedly. He advises against this extreme behaviour, and urges monks and spiritual seekers to not ignore normal healthy living.
He recounts interviewing several monks who suffered from diabetes and other lifestyle diseases that came from not eating healthy food, from not exercising, from developing an aversion to their body and consequently not caring enough.
That said, Zen monks and nuns in the tradition of Thich Nhat Hanh perform the ten mindful movements as a group daily. It is a slow exercise set to be performed with mindfulness. In itself it is a meditation, when performed so beautifully by the monastics. His order breaks with tradition in several ways, including allowing monks to cook their own healthy food instead of depending on donated food. A logical thing to do in this age. Someone at plum village told me that they used to get catered food but it made everyone sick often, so Thay changed the rules to allow monks to take turns to cook their own healthy vegan food and eat thrice a day. The monks also modified their uniforms from traditional Vietnamese dresses to suit the French climate.
Perhaps in times when monks only walked around from place to place, that was more than enough exercise. In modern times, especially in countries like Thailand where monks often live in cities, and can ride for free on buses, trains where usually someone pays their fare, or offers a ride, walking is minimal. Plus, devout people often offer rich or special food into the monk's bowls because they think it gets them extra merit. So food for survival gets turned into abundance. Eating a single meal a day means the body goes into glycemic shock after the meal, which can affect the insulin secretion adversely in some.
Bodhidharma according to some accounts allowed his legs to rot away by sitting in the cross legged posture for nine years. The cross legged position can cut off blood flow, which isn't a problem for a few hours, but if a monk sits in this position regularly for hours, bad side effects maybe expected. Such attitudes and role models don't help.

Health is the greatest gift, contentment is the greatest wealth, a trusted friend is the best relative, Nibbana is the greatest bliss. -
  Dhammapada 204

For a lay person, moderate exercise, moderate diet and good hygiene can be considered as part of the middle way that the Buddha taught in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, as it contributes towards the maintenance of one's health, which is beneficial to practice.

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one
  who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual
  pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common,
  ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction:
  painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the
  middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing
  knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to
  Unbinding.

In the case of monks, the Buddha explains in the Sukhamala Sutta:

"Drunk with the intoxication of youth, a monk leaves the training and
  returns to the lower life. Drunk with the intoxication of health, a
  monk leaves the training and returns to the lower life. Drunk with the
  intoxication of life, a monk leaves the training and returns to the
  lower life."

Despite this, I can still find some example of a monk trying to get light exercise, in the Meghiya Sutta (below). This leads me to think that light exercise without "intoxication of health" might still be considered acceptable to monks.

Then in the early morning, Ven. Meghiya adjusted his under robe and —
  carrying his bowl & robes — went into Jantu Village for alms. Having
  gone for alms in Jantu Village, after the meal, returning from his
  alms round, he went to the bank of the Kimikālā River. As he was
  walking up & down along the bank of the river to exercise his legs,
  he saw a pleasing, charming mango grove. ...

To keep the body in good health is a duty, otherwise we shall not be
  able to keep our mind strong and clear. ~ Buddha, 563 BC to 483 BC

"Monk" is a broad term and I will interpret it as "layman", not as a monastic.
Traditionally though as said other places, walking exercise is the main form of exercise for monastics. Let's also not forget that monastics also begged for food, roving all over the villages, another form of exercise.
Back to the present moment: we are a sitting generation. Both of my jobs are completely sedentary and involve the computer. Most sought-after jobs nowadays involve staying in one spot be it in manufacturing or entertainment.
Studies show those who stay still for more than 6 hours per day do not get the blood flow they need and lose decades off their lifespan--probably in addition to adopting other bad lifestyle factors.
This is a major reason why I am watchful of my physical activity levels and overall state and have many emotional and physical management techniques.
I am certainly not as realized nor have I devoted enough retreat time to be worth anything in the Buddhist level of experience but... I strongly encourage all my fellow Buddhists to adopt non-Buddhist energy balancing practices including exercise but also mental visualization and nature cleansing.
Also, "healthy" and "fit" are not attachments in this case. They are prerequisites for cultivating the Way.
The Buddha proclaims the importance of doing ANYTHING that will encourage healthiness as well as longevity. (See my answer to someone's question about drinking for an excerpt.)
This is why the Buddha encourages things like the brahmavihara practices (metta, karuna, upekkha) and dhyana (jhana, samadhi) practice even though they have nothing at all to do with Enlightenment, the Ultimate, finding your True Self/Nirvana/Emptiness and cutting off the root of suffering.
On several accounts the Buddha commanded certain people to stay in the world (avoiding death) until Maitreya's arrival. Mahakashyapa is one of them, lying in Chicken Foot Mountain. Is this a form of attachment?
No, it is not, because they have been commanded to do so.
Just so, your truest desire is to Awaken is it not? This is a command from the Buddha within, a command which encourages everything necessary to continue cultivating and making more time for cultivation by becoming healthier physically, emotionally, financially, mentally, and socially.
Care for the physical form is absolutely crucial to the great Eastern endeavor for Awakening and Immortality: tai chi, chi gong, kung fu, chakras, kundalini, chi mai, gong-fu (super powers), acupressure, tcm... these were all originally created by people with high dhyana attainments or as gifts from aliens (heavens).
If the body isn't your friend on the path, then it will be your obstacle!
The way I integrate physical practices is not completely coverable in a text-based Q&A but go to my Youtube page Bodhisattva Lifestyle where I have posted and will continue to post videos, with many exercise instructional videos planned.
The following are exercises (some energy-based) I integrate into my exercise session: grounding, nature cleansing, martial arts, tai chi postures, up-side down pushups, running, tricking, and some rare participation in athletic activities.
During my exercise session I will take breaks when getting breathless, oftentimes mantraing, mudraing or doing short sessions of samatha or vipassana.
These practices reset my energy levels, moderate my mood and prepare me for meditation. It also makes me more courageous.
These fundamental energies are important factors in meditation. See: The Five Faculties. I emphasize this because these energies are crucial to balance at the beginner to advanced levels.
I will put here one exception to my encouragement for exercise:
those who have mastered a high stage in meditation (stable dhyana levels) do not need to exercise because they do not generate the negative poisons that most people are constantly generating (which needs purification) anyway. Such people can also control their heart rate and their cardiovascular system, among other chi effects not worth discussing but all of which may help the person to be able to sit even longer periods of time.

Lanka recently posted a new question How is Qi Energy used in Buddhist practice? if you'd like to try answering it.

You posted it already:) Thanks. Hi Ahmed i hope you see this post and my question. If its possible i would like to have an answer from you. Have a nice day.

One of the benefits of Walking Meditation is that it is also a form of exercise. Depending on how you want to get your exercise there are may way to do it.
Going to a Gym or Swimming may not be very appropriate as you cannot be in robes in public / among people. This might be an issue.

why does a monk have to wear robes all the time ?  it sounds kindof dogmatic and I always thought of buddhism as flexible and non-dogmatic ?

Householder Jordy van Ekelen, interested,
it's not proper for a monk to exercise the body in ways householder do, especially today. Also many "wanna be" traditions may do it. There are also cases where Monks teach lay people such. Both is not proper.
In the case of teaching such to householder, it's also easy to assume that there are grave wrongdoings till corrupting families involved. Monks and communities making a living on such, are not regarded by good monks and good communities and as it points a total wrong light on the way out of suffering.
Usually by walking, sitting, standing, lying, mindful on the body, by the usual required bodily tasks, the body of a monks stays naturally health as it is proper for the practice.
Moving the body and parts of it in wrong ways under householder would be a transgression for monks. In regard of the practice such as kammic not so good effects even not counting as wrong doings in regard of Vinaya.
Once one follows a livelihood in tune, once following right livelihood, such compensations of wrong are not required anymore. How wrong livelihood of modern people actually is, is best shown in the increasing of seek after wellness-compensations.
Although there are many today who follow ways of householder, do favors for householder, follow their trends to gain and maintain a market, one is wise not to regard such as the way of the good following disciples.
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

If your spiritual life suffers from your weak body, wouldn't you do physical exercises? Yoga is the best practice to have a strong and healthy body. Strong physical body is a key element for achieving top results in any field of activity. Senna, the legendary F1 driver, did strenuous physical exercise to keep his body fit and perform at the top level as a racing driver.

That, how ever, is not the practice of those hurting their body with extrems, but the Middle Way dhamma and it's related conducts, householder.