text:
Where is the story that Buddha was worried about a monk who meditated with a straight back?
I'm trying to find a story in the Pali canon (or maybe not) reportedly told by Ajahn Brahm that goes like this (copied from here):

Buddha was wandering along with Ananda when they came across a monk
  sitting under a tree in meditation. The monk was sat on the ground
  with a straight back, his hands were folded, and his head and neck at
  just the right angle. He was deep in meditation and had been for some
  time. The Buddha turned to Ananda and said “I’m worried about that
  monk.”
A few minutes later they came across another monk sitting under a tree
  in meditation. He was on a comfy cushion, his back was bent forward
  and he’d fallen asleep. Every now and then he’d wake up only to nod
  off again. He was even snoring. The Buddha turned to Ananda and said
  “this monk I’m not worried about at all, he’s doing just fine.”

I've been googling around but found nothing.

I don't know about this one... It's uncharacteristic of the Buddha not only to worry, but also to use this kind of humour. For instance see the beginning of the Satipatthana Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html
"There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out...

That's an apocryphal Zen story if I've ever heard one!  Think of it as a koan of sorts.

Considering it's given as a third hand account - what Brahmavamso supposedly said about what the Buddha supposedly said - I'm betting it lost something significant in the chain of retelling; i can't believe Brahmavamso would knowingly make up such a story, but this doesn't sound like any story that the scholarly Theravada monks here can think of.

@yuttadhammo & qweilun, I have similar doubt that's the reason I'm here to ask :)

I've heard Ajahn Brahm tell this story during a lecture which was recorded on YouTube, so I can confirm it's definitely told by him; however I don't remember which one it was.
The story is not (strictly) in the suttas. It is probably (very loosely) based on AN 6.42, and deals more with the disturbances of nearby lay life as opposed to the wilderness.

Nagita, there is the case where I see a monk sitting in concentration in a village dwelling. The thought occurs to me, 'Soon a monastery attendant will disturb this venerable one in some way, or a novice will, and rouse him from his concentration.' And so I am not pleased with that monk's village-dwelling.
But then there is the case where I see a monk sitting, nodding, in the wilderness. The thought occurs to me, 'Soon this venerable one will dispel his drowsiness & fatigue and attend to the wilderness-perception, [his mind] unified.' And so I am pleased with that monk's wilderness-dwelling.

So in this sutta it looks more like he's worried about the auspiciousness of the environment rather than the current condition in which a monk  dwells, and his being pleased is based on his assumption that the monk will soon generate right effort, and not that he'll be heedless.
However, I think it's important to stress that Ajahn Brahm's purpose for telling this story, regardless of where he had heard it, were probably that he has many lay followers which come to the practice with high expectations for quick results. He has to teach people how to give themselves some breathing space first - and that, I believe, he does very well.

Thanks. Buddha it appears was telling people to leave him and his monks alone. I've seen this in other suttas as well, where the Buddha prefers solitude for his sleep, so much so, he drives out a snake from a shed than sleep with others.

From what I read in several sources, the straightness of the back is not as important as the intention of the meditator.
Here is where I was reading [CTRL F and insert "straight" in the search box]
http://ask.sirimangalo.org/book

Hello!  The posture (straight back) is not so important as long as you
  are able to note the rising and falling of the stomach ! So next time
  you realise you are focusing on maintaining your posture remind
  yourself "distracted","distracted" or "sitting" ,"sitting" and bring
  your focus back on the rising and falling of the stomach.
This should help you : http://www.sirimangalo.org/files/HTMa5s.pdf
"Chapter 2: Sitting meditation
The formal method for sitting meditation is as follows:
We sit with the legs crossed if possible, with one leg in front of the
  other, or in any position which is comfortable as necessary.
  Traditionally, we sit with one hand on top of the other, palms up on
  our lap.
  3. We sit with our backs straight, although it is not necessary to have the back perfectly straight if this is uncomfortable; just as
  long as one is not bending over to the point where one is not able to
  experience the movements of the abdomen. We practice with the eyes
  closed. Since our focus is on the stomach, having the eyes open will
  only distract us away from our object of attention. Once we are in a
  suitable position, we simply send our 5 Please see illustration 41 in
  the appendix for two traditional sitting postures.mind out to the
  abdomen; when the abdomen rises, we simply say to ourselves, silently,
  in the mind, "rising". When the stomach falls, we say to ourselves,
  "falling". "Rising", "falling" "rising", "falling". "

Seems like the Buddha may have seen some pride in the perfectly straight back and some dogged determination in the slumping monk.
Others say don't worry, meditate walking or standing on your head. Presence.

Thanks, actually my main concern is whether this story really came from the Sutta.

I do not know for sure where this comes from. Sometimes I have to ask myself does it sound reasonable. If it makes sense in my life, then I add it to my practice or refine my practice with it. Then it is an experiment. If dharma grows it works. If not perhaps not. To me, the path is an experiment in consciousness. Like natural selection, what works builds a bridge to the next step. I think things can really happen this way. Progress is possible, not by lightning strikes but by the kind of effort one makes in walking a long distance.


text:
What is the symbol sometimes depicted on images of the Buddha which looks like a swastika?

I often look up images of the Buddha online to use as desktop backgrounds for pc or phone. I've seen quite a few images that show a symbol that looks like a swastika on the Buddha's chest. What is the meaning of this symbol?

Buddha is said to have had 32 major physical characteristics, and the second feature among them is named,

heṭṭhāpādatalesu cakkāni jātāni honti
DN30

This means, on the soles of Buddha's feet there's a wheel sign with thousand spokes.
According to commentaries, this wheel sign is said to have accompanied by 108 sub features, and Swastika is the first of those 108 sub features.
It symbolizes auspiciousness and prosperity for Buddhists. This is the traditional Swastika, it is flat and counterclockwise while the Nazi swastika is tilted and clockwise.

Swastica is an ancient symbol of sun, rotation, wheel, cyclic activity esp. in nature, and by extension -- eternity. When German Nazis adopted a then-emerging theory of racial superiority of Germans, finding it well suiting their political goals, they took swastika as a symbol of their supposed identity with the Aryan race, and, more generally, inherent superiority.
Buddha, too, used the symbolism of Aryan superiority as a way to point to the holistic multi-dimensional excellence of Sat-Dharma and how it manifests outwardly in behavior of its practitioners. Such true excellence is beyond the concept of superiority, beyond any trace of conceit. In Mahayana we call this "unity of wisdom and compassion".
To weave in the solar symbolism, Buddha (and incidentally, Chogyam Trungpa) called himself a kinsman of sun. In my understanding, this is a reference to the message of positive constructive attitude inherent in Buddhist philosophy: taking on the universe with all its inherent problems, and winning (remember Buddha is often referred to as "Victor" in texts). In Chogyam Trungpa's explanation, the philosophy of Raising Sun is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of Setting Sun, because the latter relies on solving the problems through external means (feeling hot -- turn on the AC; feeling pain -- drop a pill of painkiller; feeling depressed -- watch a movie or smoke a joint), which too easily ends up encouraging weakness of character, while in the philosophy of Raising Sun, the problems are solved at a deeper, more holistic level.
So if I were to summarize the meaning of swastika as used in Buddhism I would say it is a symbol of true excellence transcending even the highest ideals, including the ideal of transcendental excellence itself; taking on the universe with all its inherent problems, and winning in the most fundamental sense.
It is the attitude of facing your darkest shadows; becoming a heir to Sat-Dharma and then coming back to the marketplace to share with people; embodying the eternal cycle of teachers and students, the Unconditional Buddha Nature.
In one word, it is a symbol of perfection.

Actually I think this symbol is associated with Jainism and not Buddhism. At least that is what one sees in India. The enlightened beings in Jainism are often depicted in similar postures as the Buddha and it is easy to mix them up. In India usually the Jain images are depicted naked. In the case of the picture above it could be a case of just mixing things up.
As far as I can recall in the traditional Theravada countries that symbol is not used at all. In India, more specifically at Sanchi, which was built at a time when the Buddha was represented with symbols instead of a human image, one mostly sees the Bodhi Tree, the Dhammacakka, and Footprints to represent the Buddha.

Wikipedia suggests Jainism and Buddhism (and others).

Wikipedia confirms that it is a symbol often found in Jainism. There is no archeological evidence about the use of this symbol in the early Buddhist sites in India, like Sanchi, Bahrut, Ajanta, as well as in Bodhgaya. The same applies to the suttas in pali, there is no mention about this symbol. It seems that there is enough evidence to sustain the argument that this symbol was imported to Buddhism from Jainism at a later stage - Mauryan period? like mentioned in Wikipedia.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What's Buddhism view on choice, choicelesness and causality?

You see, there is only one constant, one universal, it is the only
  real truth: causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect. (...) Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without. (...)  Beneath our poised appearance, the truth is we are completely out of control. Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it.
-- The Merovingian, The Matrix Reloaded

I've read/listened somewhere that the illusion of control and choice is a source of suffering. Does the Buddhist see it in a unyielding manner as the Merovingian?
Does different groups of Buddhism view this point differently?
EDIT:
Please complement your answers. Beyond the views on causality (deterministic or stochastic perception) how these views relate to suffering? Is there relation between suffering and how someone perceives choice? The misunderstanding of causality and control can produce suffering?

The entire matrix series is advocating of determinism. Like the oracle said, "dont worry about the vase". I think a simulated world will be deterministic. Buddhism encourages mindfulness and right efforts so it inclines on free will of individual.

If I could be as bold as to identify the viewpoint of Buddhism in terms of western philosophy, I would say Buddhist position on free will is close to that of Compatibilism (see the Wikipedia entry).
Basically, on one hand, the universe can be seen as deterministic. On the other hand, our choice-making is what objectively leads to our outcomes, so even if our choices are metaphysically determined by various factors, bad choices still lead to bad results, and good choices -- to good results.
From this perspective, Buddhism provides a way to escape the inherent dominance of the deterministic universe, through exercising control over your mind. Because our experience of existence is 100% assembled by the mind, we have leverage over our experience.
In Buddhist philosophy it is not the illusion of control that is the source of suffering, it is the clinging to something that you think is supposed to be a certain way while in fact it is not. Basically, clinging to illusions.
The entirety of Buddhist path can be seen as the quest for Freedom through mastery of mind. "Mastery" means, as my Zen Master says, to operate mind, instead of letting mind operate you.

If your choices are metaphysically determined, there is no true freedom.  The person who escapes the deterministic universe is merely being determined by a higher force which other people have not been lucky enough to receive.  Essentially the same as the Calvinism tradition in Christianity.  There is no true compatibilist position, compatibilism is an illusion.

If you choose to think so ;)

But seriously, your consideration above is at kindergarten level, the level of objectified logic. You take your mental constructs and assume them to fully express the ontological. But in reality, "ontological" is infinitely multifaceted. Buddhism goes far beyond simplistic single-faceted metaphysics. As my Zen Master said, learn to operate your mind, instead of letting your mind operate you.

Right, if you don't want to care about logic and consistency, anything goes.  But, if we are dealing with logic here, then what I say is correct.  Of course, you can just insult me instead of responding to my point :)  I guess us kindergarteners deal with logic and reason, and adults just deal in insults....

Yes, the way you rushed to dismiss a 2600 years old living philosophical tradition you know virtually nothing about as "essentially the same as the Calvinism", is nothing but childish. Your conclusion that deterministic universe is incompatible with freedom is based on your (implied) assumption that freedom means an agent capable of action independent of any cause. But Buddhism operates in a different frame of reference, phenomenological, rather than mechanistic. From phenomenological perspective, experience of freedom is freedom, because experience covers 100% of our ... er... experience :)

That's just one example of how by changing our frame of reference we can transcend seemingly indisputable logical constraints. Buddhism teaches us to juggle frames of reference freely. So a chain of reasoning applicable in one frame of reference may not be applicable in another. That's why I called your consideration "kindergarten" (childish), because it naively assumes a single frame of reference. Which is typical for younger people, but also happens with foolish adults. At the end of the day, "freedom" means freedom from any frame of reference, aka "learning to operate your mind".

Besides the flaming, doesn't clinging imply a sense of control over reality?

I Basically agree with Andrei Volkov but would like to add that if you believe that everything is predetermined then you presume that you have no choice in how you react, it is therefore impossible to alter your own behaviour, if you believe that you have free will, then how you react today will in no way reflect on how you react tomorrow, it would therefore be impossible to alter your own behaviour. The teaching of the buddha is to divorce the mind from "mental politics", the view taking, defending positions or dwelling on ideas. The mind is the host which transcends the guests(eg intentions)

Hi Andrei, nice answer, I just have a question here, you say'our choice-making is what objectively leads to our outcomes', what if it is already determined what choice you will make and that choice making is simply an illusion. I mean if there is no-self who or what is making the choice?

To clear my point, Siddhart Gotama was already destined and predicted to become the Buddha but after his enlightenment he as not sure should he teach or not after intervention from Brahma he made a choice to trach the dhamma. So did he had a choice? When it was already determind that he will be  a Buddha. So his making a chouce to teach was merely an illusion.

@thewhitecloud Your choice may be predetermined but you still have to make it. If you make a bad choice thinking things are predetermined, then you are a predetermined fool. And if you try your best and make a good choice then you are a predetermined wise man. Which one are you?

causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect

This is agreeable with Theravada Buddhism. This is dealt in dependent origination

Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without

Not relevant. As there is no one with absolute power nor are we puppets to some external force.
Having said this. We do have some degree of choice in the present moment, which has some degree of influence on the future which hence some level of influence of the future.

the truth is we are completely out of control

Do not aggree. We have some degree of control but not absolute control (Anatta nature, marks of existence), i.e., fuzzy, stochastic and complex.

Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it.

Do not agree.
By understanding cause and effect (dependent origination) you can break out of this vicious circle and attain Nirvana. You are at Nirvana when you break the cycle of dependent origination, hence free from cause and effect.
Also cause and effect in Buddhism is more like:

Fuzzy
Stochastic
Complex System

Hence we not completely enslaved nor are we completely free from it. We have some degree of choice but not absolute choice. (Refer to marks of existence)

Is there relation between suffering and how someone perceives choice?

Also any form of perception clouds your view of reality. So any perception regarding choice also results in misery as you are looking through coloured glass (See Moha and Avidyā in the 3 unwholesome roots).

Even though your "we are somewhat free" position is not ultimately satisfying, for practical purposes this is a great answer, +1.

@Suminda Is it because of karma that you say we don't have total control?

Annatha nature of existence.

Why don't you give that reason in the answer then? That makes it more easier to grasp what you say :)

OK edited it. See if it is OK now.

Is there relation between suffering and how someone perceives choice? * See added questions above.

It is actually impossible to break free of cause and effect. Zen koan claims that a master once told a pupil that the buddha was free of cause and effect and as a result the master was reborn as a fox until he realised that none are free from cause and effect but can be free from uncontrolled rebirth and ignorance.

Only after Nirvana will this be final.

This says,

In this way, the Buddha points to one of the most distinctive features of his own teaching on kamma: that the present experience of pleasure and pain is a combined result of both past and present actions. This seemingly small addition to the notion of kamma plays an enormous role in allowing for the exercise of free will and the possibility of putting an end to suffering before the effects of all past actions have ripened. In other words, this addition is what makes Buddhist practice possible, and makes it possible for a person who has completed the practice to survive and teach it with full authority to others. For more on these points, see the articles, "Karma," "A Refuge in Skillful Action," and "Five Piles of Bricks"; see also the Introduction to The Wings to Awakening, along with the introductions to the sections on Skillfulness and Kamma & the Ending of Kamma in that book.

I think the summary is that, although the past affects the present, and the present affects the future, nevertheless we can also choose (control ourselves) in the present, which affects the extent to which we're liberated now.
I looked through the hyperlinks quoted above; and what seemed to me the most relevant snippet/extract/highlight from each links were:

Kamma

So, instead of promoting resigned powerlessness, the early Buddhist notion of karma focused on the liberating potential of what the mind is doing with every moment. Who you are — what you come from — is not anywhere near as important as the mind's motives for what it is doing right now. Even though the past may account for many of the inequalities we see in life, our measure as human beings is not the hand we've been dealt, for that hand can change at any moment. We take our own measure by how well we play the hand we've got. If you're suffering, you try not to continue the unskillful mental habits that would keep that particular karmic feedback going. If you see that other people are suffering, and you're in a position to help, you focus not on their karmic past but your karmic opportunity in the present: Someday you may find yourself in the same predicament that they're in now, so here's your opportunity to act in the way you'd like them to act toward you when that day comes.
This belief that one's dignity is measured, not by one's past, but by one's present actions, flew right in the face of the Indian traditions of caste-based hierarchies, and explains why early Buddhists had such a field day poking fun at the pretensions and mythology of the brahmans. As the Buddha pointed out, a brahman could be a superior person not because he came out of a brahman womb, but only if he acted with truly skillful intentions.

Skillfulness

The most basic lesson he learned was that mental skills can be developed.

The Khandhas

Instead, it quotes him as saying that to define yourself in any way is to limit yourself, and that the question, "What am I?" is best ignored. This suggests that he formulated the concept of the khandhas to answer other, different questions. If, as meditators, we want to make the best use of this concept, we should look at what those original questions were, and determine how they apply to our practice.

The Awakening

After trying several false paths, including formless mental absorptions and physical austerities, he happened on the path that eventually worked: bringing the mind into the present by focusing it on the breath and then making a calm, mindful analysis of the processes of the mind as they presented themselves directly to his immediate awareness. Seeing these processes as inconstant, stressful, and not-self, he abandoned his sense of identification with them. This caused them to disband, and what remained was Deathlessness (amata-dhamma), beyond the dimensions of time and space. This was the happiness for which he had been seeking.

In my opinion, determinism is a feature that appears in all conditioned phenomena (at the very least, in all phenomena of our subjective experience), which makes those phenomena follow inconditionally causality and conditionality.
With X set of conditions, Y consequences occur; Y depends on X to arise.
Some fact or state of affairs A leads to a new state of affairs B; B is caused by A.
This order of things is what allow us to predict events, to manipulate circumstances, to increase our chances of success, and to achieve desired outcomes. Both Dhamma and science follow this, with the former having the main purpose of attaining liberation from dukkha and the cycle of rebirth.
What the Dhamma training does, in my view, is not to "bypass" determinism, but to change what factors are decisive to give rise to interpretation, subjective experience, intentions and deeds. Instead of being governed by the "imposed" interpretations of others, becoming ourselves trained and habituated on such interpretations; becoming ourselves replicators of such interpretations; producing intentions and new interpretations from such habitual and learned interpretations.
Right View is key for all lf this: RV is achieved by reasoning or by influence of others, which leads to acquiring or producing new information that could make our interpretation not giving rise to afective and cognitive contradictions between expectations and facts.
With Right View sufficiently developed, other mental factors and qualities start developing as well, while others become diminished in its presence and influence. This makes one's own critical judgement, reflection and knowledge (both led by the wisdom we have cultivated previously) to have be more preponderance when taking decisions or intending something, or to put ir from the opposite perspective, allows us to not get blindly and impulsively influenced by old habitual patterns, by others' opinions, by unsupported assumptions, by the worldly winds, etc.
I wouldn't summarize all of the above by stating that the mind becomes predominant over the external conditions. This is because, without exceptions, it is the mind the one that give rise to mind states. As long as there is the conditions for the arising of intentions, intentions will arise, choices will be made, and deeds (thoughts, communication or bodily acts) will be executed. The question, then, is what factors and conditions are responsible for the arising of intentions as it arises in some specific context.
Instead, I'd summarize all of the above by saying that the training in the Dhamma strenghten, develops and takes to fulfillment the factors that give rise to wisdom and mindful living, while weakening, diminishing and eradicating the ones that lead to ignorance, acritical and impulsive lives.

As I understand it, the teaching is that the simple picture of "cause and effect" that dominates the western / scientific view is a fiction, because every cause has many effects and every effect has many causes. With this in mind, the notion of personal choice is seen to be, perhaps too simple to be explanatory. Choicelessness is therefore also untrue, and so with anything "personal". It all unravels in the light of awareness.
The questioner asked how this influences / brings about suffering. Pushing on a door which is locked, or opens the other way, will produce suffering. Wrong ideas about anything will inevitably lead to choices that do more harm than good. Does this answer the question?
I referred to the above noted Wikipedia article on Prattiyasamutpada for this analysis. This stuff need not be so complicated! Nor need anyone judge others. - Peace

I like the question's reference to The Matrix movies. I call a person who is (somewhat) free of ego but with the point of view of a Self, a "Neo".

"Does this answer the question?" My doubt is wether choice itself is a source of suffering. Trying to always make the correct choices, or make the most correct choices can produce suffering? Trying to bend causality does produce suffering?

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

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


text:
How to deal with people and handle rude language?
How should one properly handle cases in which people use a rude language and indulge in idle talk or gossip, according to the Buddhist teachings?
How to speak or act with a pure thought when people say stupid things and jokes at you, and use rude language towards you, trying to upset you, according to Buddhist teachings? And how to change the unwholesome thought to wholesome when the mind is full of hatred and aversion towards these people and cultivate loving kindness? Which way is best of sending metta to them?

Great question +1 and very relevant to buddhists. Actually i think also non-buddhists would benefit from watching such language and words with mindfulness. That might contribute to deminishing a lot of arguments in the world.

In Kakacupama Sutta, the Buddha says:

"Monks, there are these five aspects of speech by which others may address you: timely or untimely, true or false, affectionate or harsh, beneficial or unbeneficial, with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. Others may address you in a timely way or an untimely way. They may address you with what is true or what is false. They may address you in an affectionate way or a harsh way. They may address you in a beneficial way or an unbeneficial way. They may address you with a mind of good-will or with inner hate.
In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."
[...]
"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words [...]' That's how you should train yourselves.
-- Kakacupama Sutta, MN 21

An addendum to this would be when the authors of rude language and idle talk or gossip are buddhist themselves committed to the practice. In that case, with the above in mind, one may, at his/her discretion, chose to bring their attention to this, so as to help them steer back to their practice. Of course, one certainly may chose to intervene in the case of non-buddhists, but since they may not be committed to not perform these kinds of speech, raising the matter can make things worse -- that's when taking responsibility for being timely and beneficial applies specially to ourselves, specifically:

Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech; he speaks truth, adheres to truth, is trustworthy and reliable, one who is no deceiver of the world. Abandoning malicious speech, he abstains from malicious speech; he does not repeat elsewhere what he has heard here in order to divide [those people] from those; thus, he is one who reunites those who are divided, a promoter of friendships, who enjoys concord, rejoices on concord, delights on concord, a speaker of words that promote concord. Abandoning harsh speech, he abstains from harsh speech; he speaks such words as are gentle, pleasing to the ear, and lovable, as go to the heart, are courteous, desired by many, and agreeable by many. Abandoning gossip, he abstains from gossip; he speaks at the right time, speaks what is fact, speaks on what is good, speaks on the Dhamma, and the Discipline; at the right time he speaks such words as are worth recording, reasonable, moderate, and beneficial.
-- Culahatthipadopama Sutta, MN 27 (Nanamoli/Bodhi)

In the case of monks engaging in these acts, there may be something specific in the Vinaya, the collection of monastic rules, about how to handle these situations.

It seems to be difficult at times dealing with people. People can Pull your strings and push all your buttons to make you react an contribute to their state of anger or gossip or ignorance.
Through my studies of Buddhism. I found meditation is a must, Learning to center yourself an to improve your focus. The Eightfold Path is like the corner stone of my Behavioral guide line, along with the 5 Precepts.
When you realize in the moment ( 07. Mindfulness ) , that they are either : angry, are ignorant of their own actions, or prefer to gossip an cause people to divide from each other. You will know where they are coming from, an their goal. Some of the things you may do is you can just walk by them an ignore them, or help to correct them. As with correcting them you will meet a very negative response. Not many people accept being corrected, mostly because of Ego. But if they are willing to see the truth then you have just helped one person more often then not out of their own ignorance of their actions.
I learned that in the Non self it is Like the removal of Ego an returning to the true self. Who you were before the life experiences an the world around you forced you to develop this "ego". Basically if you have no ego nothing can bother you in a way. When we are clashing with people its because of Ego, when people say "take yourself out of the situation" seems to me its hints at Buddhas teachings of NON Self. Take the Ego out of the batch an you can see clearly an respond clearly. If they say things to hurt you an you are unaffected by them, they lose that power to harm you. When they cannot control you, they cannot become difficult to you, because when you are in control, you allow what happens in your life to a degree.
If they are difficult because of religion then you should ignore them, a religious person who wants you to become like them only are focused on their own desires an not the desires of you. They may be intolerant of your beliefs, but that only means you should be tolerant of theirs, an them, as a Buddhist seek the middle ground, religions come an go an some have stayed for a little while, keep true to your own understanding. Dont be convinced by others. You must be able to convince yourself an if you are not convinced then dont follow it. Fundamentalist have their own way of doing things even if its not true to their own dogmas or doctrines they cannot be persuaded, more often then not, they are conditioned to that method an will remain in that method till they are willing to leave it. There is nothing you can do but only be kind to them an if they are curious answer questions. From my experience Fundamentalist are aggressive an will come at you over an over an try to guilt you into following their way an will shun you or condemn you according to you response. It will save you time an effort to be kind an compassionate but firm in your own convictions.
Through Meditation you build mental awareness, an a stronger fortitude of mind. Concentration is key, when you are in control, you will have the ability to respond out of thought not reaction for them. When you are in the present you can say or do things vastly easier. Couple of the Eightfold Paths to remember:
Right Speech - Be careful of what you say- does it become aggressive to others? Does it divide others? Is it at the right time to be said? Will they mature from what you have said?
Right Action - what are the right steps to the situation? If by becoming involved will they learn anything or will it further cause you suffering an trouble. Is it best not to become involved? Can you become the diplomat an help the situation mold into common understanding. It could simply be a misunderstanding that escalated into something worse.
Right Mindfulness - In the moment are you present? Do you see what they are getting at? What is the cause of their reactions? What causes them to respond an become so difficult? Can you find the Middle Path that will lead to each persons peace?
Right Concentration - Through meditation, you create a stronger awareness of self, an centering your self well help keep you from being caught off guard an unable to respond. Becoming intimidated by the situation.
The Dhamapada states : In this world where has Hate conquered Hate? Only Love can conquer Hate. This speaks to me in the way of dealing with people, have compassion an love for them, some times people are simply difficult because others are difficult to them all the time an they only developed a habit of being difficult.
key points : Try to see where the person is coming from
             What actions can do you to diffuse the situation, or if you should act at all.
             Remain Calm an Dont give into Intimidation, Be mindful of the moment.
             Are they just in need of some one to understand them?
             If they are wanting to cause trouble, then dont contribute to the trouble.
Hopefully this helps you in some way or another.

Make an effort to be mindful. Seeing things mindfully is seeing things as they are. What that means is when someone says something rude you just are hearing the sound of the rude words but not listening to the meaning of the words. "Seeing things as they are" means "experiencing things without any of the conceptual agreements we have made in the past". For instance, the English word "tree" has been agreed to mean  "those long poles with branches and leaves on them" but people who never learned English will hear the word "tree" and won't understand what the English speakers have agreed on. So when you hear the word "tree" and you hear it "as it is" you are hearing it with no prior agreements. So if you heard the word "tree", to hear it as it truly is in ultimate reality, you hear it as just "an audio formation" meaning that you hear it as just a sound, a noise formation. You're just experiencing hearing. Then when someone makes you angry, you can see the "anger" within yourself and be mindful of that anger formation. You might find that the anger is gone as soon as you're mindful of it but it usually leaves tension in the neck, spine and shoulders(at least that's how it worked for me). Sorry if I'm kinda giving you sort of a rambling answer and idea of what mindfulness is. There are lots of good books and videos for free about it on the internet. It's not as  difficult to learn as some people would think.  Also maybe you could Google up the practice of metta or loving-kindness. This meditation targets anger and can bear good temporary results.  I hope this helps :)

This answer is one of the best answers i have read on Buddhism SE. Execellent description with the tree and how ones who does not know the word/language just hears it as audio/noise information. Also when you talk about the anger feeling and how it leaves tension in the body. I can say that its the same for me, although it also leaves a mark on the breath which becomes more rapid. Thank you very much for this answer +1.

How? With

Right view
Compassion
Taking obstacles as the path
Wisdom

First, with understanding that there is no "you" and there is no "them". There is just an infinite field of interacting mental-and-physical factors. They don't act as they do because they want to. They must act as they do, given their background and the input you give them. Whatever is happening, is happening for objective reasons.
Second, with compassion. Whatever background and whatever experiences they had, have led them to think as they think now, and to act as they act. So they too are victims, of their circumstances. Because if their actions are routinely based on incorrect understanding, they will fruit in trouble for them, sooner or later.
Third, as an opportunity for practice for YOU. Every time there is trouble that would normally generate emotions, that's a perfect chance to practice on YOUR SIDE. Practice what?

letting go of ego
control of emotions
equanimity
compassion (see above)
right view (see above)

The letting go of ego part is very important. Normally, we take ourselves very seriously, and if someone endangers our self-image we react frantically. Instead, by letting go of attachment to our illusory self-importance, we can get back to the zero-point state of mind, the state before the problem.
Finally, you have to understand that problematic situations don't just happen out of the blue. There is always a sequence of actions and words that lead to them. We have to learn to watch for subtle signs of emerging disagreement that may turn into an argument, and solve the problem before it happens.
How to do that? We have to understand the other person's perspective (whether "right" or "wrong" does not matter) and learn to speak in terms of their reality, using the framework and the concepts they can relate to. Or carefully introduce them to your frame of reference. But never ever argue across different frames of reference -- that never works.
Again, this has a lot to do with our own preconceptions. If instead of rigidly holding on to our basic assumptions we can be flexible, then we can understand other people and they can understand us -- which is how you avoid getting into arguments that end up as rude language.

Thanks for your answer.my english is not very good and when i ask questions sometimes i miss some points.maybe i should edit this questions,i wrote when they use rude language but i meant as well when they say stupid things or joke to you without the intention of arguments ,what is best to do?and when the mind is full of ill will towards this people which way is best of sending metta to them and changing the unwholesome thought?

Same thing. Just ignore #4 then, the rest still applies.


text:
Are there different types of emptiness (Śūnyatā)?
Even though emptiness (Śūnyatā) seems like it should just be one thing (concept/experinece/realisation) does it in fact have different types? Can it be categorised in any way? I know Buddhism is very keen on lists. Is there a list of different types of emptiness in any tradition?
The motivation for this question is that I remember hearing that there were 32 types of sūnyatā. However I can't remember where I heard this so I'm hoping that this question might cast some light on that issue.
If anyone could provide reference to canonical texts, commentaries or other sources about this, that would be particularly good.

This reminds me of E. F. Codd - founder of the Relational Database concept - coming up with more and more Nulls (placeholder for "no information").

In Tibetan Buddhism, emptiness is analyzed in many different ways. Madhyamakavatara by Candrakirti lists 16 types of emptiness. These include emptiness of emptiness, emptiness of the unobservable etc. I will not list them all here, but if you are interested you can find detailed explanations in Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara with Commentary by Ju Mipham.
While it is utterly impossible to give justice to such deep subject as emptiness in one answer, let me try and mention the most important points.
First, there are the two types of emptiness that represent the crucial distinction between a beginner practitioner's view and an advanced practitioner's view:

emptiness of self
emptiness of all dharmas

It is said that beginner practitioners ("hinayana") only understand corelessness of beings (anatta), but still assume various stuff to be objectively/ontologically existing. This results in them erroneously reifying such concepts as the five skandhas, 12 nidanas, 4 noble truths, nirvana, and enlightenment. Advanced practitioners ("mahayana") clearly understand that all knowable phenomena without exception are contextually defined composites.
Another classification scheme I like is the one used by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche:

External Emptiness
Internal Emptiness
Absolute Emptiness

External emptiness ("form is emptiness") means: the apparent objects of the so-called physical world are not real entities. There are no real boundaries between objects, and as the time goes and the elements mix and recombine, there are no identities carried over from moment to moment. All objects are imputations of the mind. If we start with any form (a generic object of thought) and engage into analytical decomposition we will never find any stable reference point; everything is defined against of, and in terms of, something else. In other words, phenomenal reality is an illusion, or in modern terminology, what we naively assume to be reality is but an interpretation we make.
Internal emptiness ("emptiness is form") means: and yet, through the power of dependent-coarising, phenomenal reality spontaneously exists. In other words, the illusions are manifestations of the ultimate reality; our mind with its interpretations is a result of beginningless process. Our mind with all its experiences and emotions is but an interplay of forms. So not only all forms are empty imputations of the mind, the mind itself is empty interplay of forms.
Finally, absolute emptiness is the Liberating Realization, what Gotama Buddha called "the final knowledge". According to Chogyam Trungpa, "Absolute emptiness means that there is nothing particularly to do. There is nothing to work on, no one to make a reference point, nothing whatsoever."
Yet another way to explain the same progression is the Four Emptinesses of Completion Stage Meditation:

Emptiness, experienced when the first five consciousnesses (of sense-organ experiences) dissolve into the sixth (the consciousness of mental experiences).
Great Emptiness, experienced when the sixth consciousness dissolves into the seventh (emotional consciousness).
Extreme Emptiness, experienced when the seventh consciousness dissolves into the eighth (ground consciousness).
Total Emptiness, experienced when the eighth consciousness dissolves into primal wisdom.

Since this answer is based on research and my other answer was based on my experience alone, I am starting another answer in the hope of avoiding confusion with all the previous comments.
The following posits that the original approach to sunyata is positive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana

According to some scholars, the Buddha nature discussed in some
  Mahāyāna sūtras does not represent a substantial self (ātman); rather,
  it is a positive language and expression of emptiness (śūnyatā) and
  represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist
  practices.[51] It is the "true self" in representing the innate aspect
  of the individual that makes actualizing the ultimate personality
  possible.

Prior to this Mahayana held a different definition of emptiness

Prior to the period of these sūtras, Mahāyāna metaphysics was
  dominated by teachings on emptiness, in the form of Madhyamaka
  philosophy. The language used by this approach is primarily negative,
  and the Buddha nature genre of sūtras can be seen as an attempt to
  state orthodox Buddhist teachings of dependent origination and on the
  mysterious reality of nirvana using positive language instead, to
  prevent people from being turned away from Buddhism by a false
  impression of nihilism. In these sūtras the perfection of the wisdom
  of not-self is stated to be the true self; the ultimate goal of the
  path is then characterized using a range of positive language that had
  been used in Indian philosophy previously by essentialist
  philosophers, but was now transmuted into a new Buddhist vocabulary
  that described a being who has successfully completed the Buddhist
  path.[52]

There is one more citation that speaks to the subtle differences of the different schools in relation to emptiness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

Emptiness Main article: Śūnyatā Mahayana Buddhism received significant
  theoretical grounding from Nagarjuna (perhaps c. 150–250 CE), arguably
  the most influential scholar within the Mahayana tradition.
  Nagarjuna's primary contribution to Buddhist philosophy was the
  systematic exposition of the concept of śūnyatā, or "emptiness",
  widely attested in the Prajñāpāramitā sutras that emerged in his era.
  The concept of emptiness brings together other key Buddhist doctrines,
  particularly anatta and dependent origination, to refute the
  metaphysics of Sarvastivada and Sautrantika (extinct non-Mahayana
  schools). For Nagarjuna, it is not merely sentient beings that are
  empty of ātman; all phenomena (dharmas) are without any svabhava
  (literally "own-nature" or "self-nature"), and thus without any
  underlying essence; they are "empty" of being independent; thus the
  heterodox theories of svabhava circulating at the time were refuted on
  the basis of the doctrines of early Buddhism. Nagarjuna's school of
  thought is known as the Mādhyamaka. Some of the writings attributed to
  Nagarjuna made explicit references to Mahayana texts, but his
  philosophy was argued within the parameters set out by the agamas. He
  may have arrived at his positions from a desire to achieve a
  consistent exegesis of the Buddha's doctrine as recorded in the Canon.
  In the eyes of Nagarjuna the Buddha was not merely a forerunner, but
  the very founder of the Mādhyamaka system.[56]
Sarvastivada teachings—which were criticized by Nāgārjuna—were
  reformulated by scholars such as Vasubandhu and Asanga and were
  adapted into the Yogacara (Sanskrit: yoga practice) school. While the
  Mādhyamaka school held that asserting the existence or non-existence
  of any ultimately real thing was inappropriate, some exponents of
  Yogacara asserted that the mind and only the mind is ultimately real
  (a doctrine known as cittamatra). Not all Yogacarins asserted that
  mind was truly existent; Vasubandhu and Asanga in particular did
  not.[57] These two schools of thought, in opposition or synthesis,
  form the basis of subsequent Mahayana metaphysics in the Indo-Tibetan
  tradition.
Besides emptiness, Mahayana schools often place emphasis on the
  notions of perfected spiritual insight (prajñāpāramitā) and
  Buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha). There are conflicting interpretations
  of the tathāgatagarbha in Mahāyāna thought. The idea may be traced to
  Abhidharma, and ultimately to statements of the Buddha in the Nikāyas.
  In Tibetan Buddhism, according to the Sakya school, tathāgatagarbha is
  the inseparability of the clarity and emptiness of one's mind. In
  Nyingma, tathāgatagarbha also generally refers to inseparability of
  the clarity and emptiness of one's mind. According to the Gelug
  school, it is the potential for sentient beings to awaken since they
  are empty (i.e. dependently originated). According to the Jonang
  school, it refers to the innate qualities of the mind that expresses
  themselves as omniscience etc. when adventitious obscurations are
  removed. The "Tathāgatagarbha Sutras" are a collection of Mahayana
  sutras that present a unique model of Buddha-nature. Even though this
  collection was generally ignored in India,[58] East Asian Buddhism
  provides some significance to these texts.

It appears that there are different interpetations of what emptiness is based on the basic precepts that a Buddhist sect adheres to.
Or then we can just stick to the simplicity of what the Buddha says to Ananda"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

Pali Canon[edit]
A simile from the Pali scriptures (SN 22.95) compares form and
  feelings with foam and bubbles. The Pali canon uses the term emptiness
  in three ways: "(1) as a meditative dwelling, (2) as an attribute of
  objects, and (3) as a type of awareness-release." [7] The Suñña
  Sutta,[8] part of the Pāli canon, relates that the monk Ānanda,
  Buddha's attendant asked,
It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what
  respect is it said that the world is empty?" The Buddha replied,
  "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self:
  Thus it is said, Ānanda, that the world is empty.

Nagarjuna is frequently referred to in explanations of nonduality. What I have observed is that every nondual person describes it differently, and it is left to the listener to decide what commonalities apply to them. This is like the "blind men and the elephant" idea, except that listeners are blind and don't know anything about elephants, while the "wise men" can see. I am all for simplicity: your quote - "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ānanda, that the world is empty" - is good. I am all for silence as well. "You can't teach height."

Actually, there are different perspectives on emptiness within Tibetan madhyamaka. One might even say different types of emptiness! On the one hand there is "rangtong" which means "empty of self" and there is shendong, meaning "empty of other". The idea of shendong, "empty of other", implies that dharmakaya or the Buddha nature is not itself empty of intrinsic nature. Shendong might be interpreted to say that emptiness itself is not empty - quite contrary to Nagarjunas exposition, I'd say. For a good discussion on this subject, I reccomend Guy Newland's talks on varieties og Tibetan Madhyamka. You can easily find it on YouTube. The shendong/rangtong difference can be explained in many ways, and different emphasis can be but - especially on the shendong side

If I relate emptiness to my own practice, what I first see is there are many types of emptiness, but as I sit quietly with this, I realize it is not emptiness that is multiple, but it is my changing perception that creates the illusion that emptiness is changing.
Emptiness is the same, yet my perception of it is never the same. So as many different states of consciousness that are possible, that is how many possible perceptions of emptiness there are.
A simple example from nature, an Eskimo sees water as ice, a Fijian sees water as ocean, a person from the Great Lakes sees water as the lakes.
They are all observing water, though in different forms.
When we wake up, the perceptions appear as they are, but we are not fooled. We know they are all water.

This might fit better as a comment to the question, only because this answer is highly personal and subjective. At SE, we are looking for fact-based answers, ideally with links to sources. That being said, I appreciate your perspective! Happy practicing.

I respect your point of view and value facts based answers. However if I cannot include my own meditation experience along the path from any sharing, then I see limitations to speaking only about others opinions that could also be personal and subjective to the best of our knowledge. Happy practicing to you.

I didn't mean to offend you, my intention was to help this SE conform to its main purpose: to provide expert answers to questions. Maybe I'm wrong, and personal answers have a place here after all. I don't know.

I think I have taken it further than necessary in attempting to moderate. May the best answer get the most votes. That is the true spirit of SE. As for my original objection, it seems this site is still trying to figure out where it stands on that issue. Thanks for bearing with me.

What's more, I practice Theravada so I am really not in a position to know about emptiness. :-)

Thanks for the answer - appreciated. I personally think that generally experiential answers are very valid however I have to say for this one I was hoping for some textual reference (i didn't specify so my fault). I won't upvote this question (yet) - not because I don't think it's valid - but because I would like this to stay on the unanswered list for a while to see if anyone can give sanother answer with sources. But thank you

The answer is No, there are not different types of emptiness.
The historical Buddha taught that we humans are made up of five skandhas, sometimes called the five aggregates or five "heaps." These are form, sensation, perception, mental formation, and consciousness. The Buddha was describing our bodies and the functions of our nervous systems -- sensing, feeling, thinking, recognizing, forming opinions, being aware.
As recorded in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta of the Pali Tipitaka (Samyutta Nikaya 22:59), the Buddha taught that these five "parts," including our consciousness, are not "self." They are impermanent, and clinging to them as if they were the permanent "me" gives rise to greed and hate, and to the craving that is the source of suffering (see the Four Noble Truths).
The teaching in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta is called "anatta," sometimes translated "no self" or "not self." This basic teaching is accepted in all schools of Buddhism, including Theravada. Anatta is a refutation of the Hindu belief in atman -- a soul; an immortal essence of self.
But Mahayana Buddhism goes further than Theravada, and teaches that all phenomena are without self-essence. This is sunyata.
Do not misunderstand sunyata to mean that nothing exists. It tells us that there is existence, but that phenomena are empty of svabhava, a Sanskrit word that means self-nature, intrinsic nature, essence, or "own being." And sunyata has no intrinsic nature that one could call a "type".

authors: Илья Смирнов


text:
Through the Processes of Jhana does it have a Permanent effect or temporary effect on your life
Is Jhana like a meditative absorption state?  I've come across this term.
Is Jhana like a barrier, once broken, you go onto the next barrier, and so on and so on. Is this process a permanent effect on the mind or a temporary effect of the mind? Do you basically start over from stage 1 every time, does your body ever become accustomed to it, and do you have to constantly renew the Jhana over and over in order to progress?

I'm not a native English speaker, but can process really be "permanent"? Perhaps "continuous" or did you want to ask, is jhana a permanent state?

I guess with the meaning of process it is a series of steps or actions to reach an end. In that format I had before It was confusing. Thank you for bringing that to my attention so I can make my question Clear for others.

"Jhana is like a meditative absorption state? I've come across this term."

"[Jhanas are] distinctive meditative states of high concentration in which the mind becomes unified. [...] Jhana is often referred to as an absorption state, since the mind in Jhana is so deeply concentrated that it 'absorbs' into the meditation object."
Richard Sankman, The Experience of Samadhi

Yes. Jhana also corresponds to "right concentration" (samma samadhi) in the eightfold path (see SN 45.8).
"Like a barrier once broken you go onto the next barrier an so on an so on."
Yes. There are multiple jhanas. The canon describes a sequence of 4 Jhanas followed by 4 more states (in later commentaries, they are known respectively as Rūpajhānas and Arūpajhānas). The commentarial tradition also expanded on the states that precede the first Jhana (e.g. access concentration).
"Is this process a permanent effect on the mind or a temporary effect of the mind, Do you basically start over from stage 1 every time [?]"
It may affect the mind in many ways, but one doesn't really stays permanently absorbed in Jhana during day-to-day. Reaching a certain Jhana may not necessarily require going through previous jhanas (though it is emphatically advised to perfectly master them in sequence and develop stability instead of trying to "jump around").
"does your body ever become accustomed to it [?]"
I'm not aware of any body related issues associated with Jhana.
"do you have to constantly renew the Jahana over an over in order to progress?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "renew", but just like any training that requires repeated practice, mastering jhanas also requires effort and training, specially to reach deeper Jhana states.


text:
"Plunging" or Challenging Yourself in a New Enviornment
On television I recently heard about a technique related to Buddhism called "plunging," where "you go somewhere completely unfamiliar, somewhere that has nothing to do with your usual way of thinking." The context of the quote involves a Zen monk who lived among the homeless for a time. As a student of Zen Buddhism this idea interests me a lot, but I couldn't find any reference to it on the internet or in my books. Is there a better name for it and is this a real concept or was this just made up for the show?

I have never seeing this term as a concept in Buddhism nor Zen. To the best of my knowledge, the closest formulation of something in that vein are the specific instructions to practice samadhi in the Vishuddhimagga targeted at people with distinct temperaments  -- which is kind of a compilation of pedagogical strategies developed at the time. Example:

"A suitable lodging for one of greedy temperament has an unwashed sill and stands level with the ground, and it can be either an overhanging [rock with an] unprepared [drip-ledge], a grass hut, or a leaf house, etc. It ought to be spattered with dirt, full of bats, dilapidated, too high or too low, in bleak surroundings, threatened [by lions, tigers, etc]. with a muddy uneven path where even the bed and chair are full of bugs. And it should be ugly and unsightly ..."
A suitable resting  place for one with hating temperament is not too high or too low, provided with shade and water, with well-proportioned walls, posts and steps, with well-prepared frieze work and lattice work, brightened, with various kinds of painting, with even smooth soft floor, [...] smelling sweetly, of flowers and perfumes and scents set about for homely comfort, which makes one happy and glad at the mere sight of it."
-- Visuddhimagga, Chapter III

In searching for choosing inhospitable or uncomfortable environments, I discovered many practices that, at least for beginners, involve choosing a safe comfortable environment.
http://www.westernchanfellowship.org/news-item/wcf////connected-practice-enhancing-your-practice-in-your-own-environment/
Here people are practicing in a natural environment that may not be a monastery:

Connected Practice: Enhancing your practice in your own environment By
  Hilary Richards Join us in a commitment for a period of connected and
  enhanced practice. We will undertake this in our daily lives, whether
  at home or in the workplace, with the silent support of knowing that
  we are not practising alone. We intend to raise the tempo of our
  practice for this period, increasing our capacity to be aware in our
  daily lives. A Mindfulness Bell will be rung at noon every day, when
  all participants may pause and be joined in the silence that the bell
  marks. Members of our Sangha may use this opportunity in different and
  creative ways. Open to all. Choosing the Practice Buddhists find
  practising as a sangha to be essential, but it is not always easy for
  people to come together. Connected Practice links practitioners at
  different locations to practise within a virtual sangha. We begin on
  Sunday May 18th with the WCF Wesak Celebration in Leominster and end
  on the morning of 29th May. We will practise at specified times during
  this period, each person in their own environment
  So this says non-traditional environment but one consistent with your life style.

Here is an urban center that tries to support people in non traditonal monastery in a city
http://www.cambridgezen.com/index.php?c=resident.training

Resident Training
The Great Way is not difficult: Just don't pick and choose. Cut off
  all likes or dislikes And it is clear like space.
Tseng Ts'an, Third Zen Patriarch Located in the heart of Cambridge,
  Massachusetts, Cambridge Zen Center is one of the largest urban,
  residential Zen training grounds in the U.S. Zen Master Seung Sahn
  taught us that the fastest way to change our karma and become
  compassionate beings is by practicing and living together. The center
  provides residential training opportunity in an urban environment both
  short and long term. Training includes practice & retreats, community
  work and service, outreach, sangha events, gatherings and much more to
  provide a supportive and nurturing environment in which to grow
  spiritually.

So they are trying to create a feeling of support in a monastery where you walk out the front door and are immediately confronted with the world.
This quote from above

The Great Way is not difficult: Just don't pick and choose. Cut off
  all likes or dislikes And it is clear like space.

may hold the key to your question. Don't pick and choose your environment once you are beyond the novice stage, where nothing shakes your practice. Then practice wherever you find yourself.
This is the answer closest to the heart of the matter in my opinion. Choosing a disgusting environment can just toughen and strengthen the personal ego or break it down so that someone is not really doing the practice but just going on this ego trip of extreme fear.
In Zen, the personal yields to the depth of the silence. Sure a master can go sit on a pile of manure and remain calm, but how would that help someone who has not yet reached the other side of the river?


text:
Buddhist view on out of body experience (OBE)
Wikipedia defines this as,

An out-of-body experience (OBE or sometimes OOBE) is an experience
  that typically involves a sensation of floating outside one's body
  and, in some cases, perceiving one's physical body from a place
  outside one's body.

There are numerous studies on people having this type of experience, and I remember Ven. Yuttadhammo once said he also experienced this when he was young.
I think interpretations like astral body projection do not quite adhere with Buddhism.
Are there possible explanations on this from the Buddhist perspective with regards to Five Aggregates?

Why it does not adhere to Buddhism? It does! In all the cases of astral body projection, they were able to see things. What is seeing? Seeing is the union of the light, the eye and the eye consciousness. They had thoughts about what they were seeing and they were aware of what they were seeing. In other words Rupa, Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara, Vinnana. Which means both Nama and Rupa were present. Astral projection does not mean that the mind wanders out without a body. There is a subtle body that goes with the mind. One can't have sensations, if there are no sense doors. Nama cannot be without Rupa except in Arupa realms. That's why beings in the Arupa realms can't see, hear, taste, smell, feel anything.

I agree that consciousness (Vijñāna) is wandering here. But wasn't aware that a subtle body is also involved.

Nama cannot be without Rupa except in Arupa realms.

You should view this more in terms of psychic abilities (Abhijñā) and Jhana. Though astral projrction is not explicitly referenced as a ability. There are instances where you can have multiple copies of your self in different places.
What you can achieve through Jhana is unthinkable. Also our minds will be going to Jhana like state in near death or sometimes during other experiences, which bring out certain abilities.

Trying to bring my perspective on this though.

"I think interpretations like astral body projection do not quite adhere with Buddhism."
OBE, at least as documented by Dr. Waldo Vieira, is aligned  with suttas describing contact with devas and super normal abilities (in particular, visits to celestial realms, etc). In other words, communication through long distances, contact with celestial beings (through the will of the human, not of the deva), etc may be explained in terms of astral projection.
But in this case, it's a grey area explained by pseudo-science (*), which doesn't look very good :)

(*) The greatest pseudo-science though: the time dr. Vieira didn't spend trying to come up with scientific experiments to gather evidence was the time he spent documenting every little detail of the astral experiences.


text:
What is the story where some of the Buddha's followers commit suicide?
There is a Buddhist story when some monks (or followers of the Buddha) misinterpret what the Buddha is saying and commit suicide. Does anyone know anymore details about the story and where it comes from? I think it is in the Pali Canon.

What you're looking for is Vesali  sutta.
vesali sutta

Then the monks — [thinking,] "The Blessed One, with many lines of
  reasoning, has given a talk on the unattractiveness [of the body], has
  spoken in praise of [the perception of] unattractiveness, has spoken
  in praise of the development of [the perception of] unattractiveness"
  — remained committed to the development of [the perception of]
  unattractiveness in many modes & manners. They — ashamed, repelled, &
  disgusted with this body — sought for an assassin. In one day, ten
  monks took the knife. In one day, twenty monks took the knife. In one
  day, thirty monks took the knife.

Edit: I don't think the monks didn't misinterpret the teaching. Perhaps since they're still under training, their mind is not developed and overcome by disgust.

This described it as, "The original story describes how some bhikkhus wrongly grasped the Buddha's meditation teaching on the loathsome aspects of the body and, falling into wrong view, committed suicide or asked someone to end their lives for them."

The commentary says that they were hunters in their past lives, and the Buddha, knowing they were doomed, gave them something that would at least lead them to be reborn in heaven. Apparently they all were.


text:
Overcoming distractions in meditation as per the Tripitaka?
According to the Tripitaka how do you overcome distractions in meditation. Distractions can be including but not limited to:

Wondering mind
Pains
Hindrances
Defilements arising in the mind
etc.

Tibetan Buddhism recognizes following "five faults" arising during meditation:

laziness (kausidya) -- with 3 subtypes;
forgetting the instructions (avavadasammosa) -- aka losing the object of observation;
non-identification of laxity (laya, with three subtypes) or excitement (auddhataya, with three subtypes);
non-application of antidotes (anabhisamskara);
overapplication of antidotes (abhisamskara).

1. Laziness
The 3 types of laziness are:

a sense of inferiority -- a thought like "I cannot possibly succeed at this meditation";
attachment to worldly activities -- the tendency to do something else instead;
the lack of impulse -- absence of motivation to meditate now.

The actual solution for laziness is pliancy (prasrabdhi) -- physical and mental serviceability that comes with experience in meditation. Until that is attained, the antidotes for laziness are faith (sraddha) , aspiration (chanda), and exertion (vyayama), which can be generated through contemplation of the advantages of meditation -- and disadvantages of being driven around by random impulses.
2. Forgetting the instructions
This is when the object of observation suddenly disappears. We lose the object of observation because the mind is greatly distracted.
The antidote for this is called tight mindfulness (smrti). This has three parts to it:

familiarity -- the object of observation must be familiar; the mind should be accustomed to it;
tightness -- continuous (with no gaps) apprehension of the aspects of the object;
non-distraction -- not letting the other objects displace the object of observation.

As soon as the object of observation is lost, we should immediately, with tight grasp, bring it back.
3. Non-identification of Laxity or Excitement
If we don't notice laxity or excitement, we can't apply a corresponding antidote. As a result, laxity or excitement grows until it gets out of control, and then we lose the object of observation.
The antidote for non-identification is introspection (samprajanya). We must occasionally (not continuously!) analyze the mind to see if laxity or excitement has arisen, and which subtype thereof.
The three subtypes of laxity (aka sluggishness) are:

Lethargy (styana) -- heaviness of mind and body, a state of being close to sleep;
Coarse laxity (audarika) -- a case of having stability of mind but not clarity of the mind; This is often caused by the mind becoming too withdrawn inside;
Subtle laxity (suksma) -- a case of having stability and clarity but not intensity of clarity. This is caused by the weakness in the mode of apprehension of the aspects of the object of observation.

The three subtypes of excitement (aka unruliness) are:

Negative scattering -- remembering a disagreeable object;
Coarse excitement -- remembering a pleasant object;
Subtle excitement -- having a part of the mind come under the influence of discursive thinking (vikalpa), and as a result, having an (agreeable) object about to appear to the mind, "like water moving under ice". This is caused by the mind being a little too tight.

4. Non-application of antidotes
After introspection has discovered laxity or excitement and identified its subtype, to not apply an appropriate antidote would lead to laxity or excitement getting out of control and subsequent loss of the object of observation.
The antidote for non-application is ... application (surprise!!!) of antidotes:

The antidote for Subtle Laxity is tightening the mode of apprehension of the aspects of the object of observation.
The antidote for Coarse Laxity is expanding the scope of observation.
The antidote for Lethargy is giving up the object of observation and engaging in invigorating the mind: contemplating topics that get one happy and inspired about practicing Dharma, reducing the amount of food taken prior to meditation; cooling the body down; washing the face with cold water; moving to a higher elevation; moving to place with a wider view; yelping loudly; resting if needed.
The antidote for Subtle Excitement is loosening the mode of apprehension a little.
The antidote for Coarse Excitement is reducing the mind elation by leaving the object of observation and contemplating negative topics that will get the mind sobered (if mind is distracted towards a pleasant object) or by following the inhalations and exhalations (if mind is captured by discursive thinking).
The antidote for Negative scattering is contemplating topics that generate maitri (Pali metta) -- the mind of loving-kindness.

5. Overapplication of antidotes
This means mistakenly applying antidotes for laxity or excitement when meditation is already going well, and/or after laxity or excitement have been eliminated. This also means overapplying an antidote for laxity (which will generate excitement) or overapplying an antidote for excitement (which will generate laxity).
An antidote to overapplication is called desisting from application, also known as equanimity.
........
Source: Meditative States in Tibetan Buddhism by Lati Rinpoche

Great answer, as a beginner this will help me understand and fix my mistakes during meditation.

The VitakkaSanthana Sutta MN 20 ( http://suttacentral.net/en/mn20 ) suggests 5 strategies to counter an unwholesome mind state..

Can you summarizing the 5. Also any other Suttas which cover such steps. +1

I highly recommend "Essentials of Buddhist Meditation", a translation of an old Chinese meditation manual from I want to say the middle of the first millennia CE. It covers all of this stuff; it's pretty thorough.
http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Buddhist-Meditation-Kalavinka-Classics/dp/1935413007


text:
How does one calm one's bodily fabrications?
I personally start looking at the speed of the breath and then it slows down. In the Tripitaka are there recommended methods to accomplish this? What do different teachers and commentaries say about it?
One meditation teacher I found who emphasizes calming of the bodily is Bhante Vimalaramsi in 6Rs. But exact mechanics is not really covered on how the relaxation happens. Does this also lead to or linked to calming of the bodily fabrications? Are there more explicit instructions, especially those we can source from the Tripitaka?

Friend Suminda,
The bodily fabrication, i.e. the in & out breath, is said to calm considerably as one progresses through the first 3 steps mentioned in the Anapanasati Sutta, and it does.
The first 2 steps, requires an evaluation of the breath (not control it), to help the mind be mindful of the breath, and take it as it meditation object.

Aware that the in-breath is long one breathes in / aware that the out-breath is long one breathes out
Aware that the in-breath is short one breathes in / aware that the out-breath is short one breathes out

As mindfulness of the breath is established, the practitioner will be able to experience his/her whole body (sabba kaaya), albeit subtly, as the inhaling and exhaling motions generate sensations throughout the body. This will take some time to develop, before one experiences the entire body gently pulsating as the breath comes in and goes out. The upper body is usually more prominent at first. Eventually one should be able to feel sensations in the lower body. It could feel like floating on a lake with a gentle ripple.
Those sitting on chairs, may take longer to experience the lower body due to the posture, than someone sitting cross legged on a cushion of floor.
As one continues to be mindful of these subtle whole-body sensations, one will begin to be aware that the breath (kaaya sankhara, i.e. the bodily formation) is now calmer, more subtle, than before, sometimes its completely still for a while.
So, I would think that the recommended method in the Sutta can be found in the Anapanasati sutta mainly.
In addition, the sutta's mention about the importance of posture and preparation

A place conducive for meditation and free from disturbances (wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building)
The cross-legged position
Keeping the body erect
Non remorse due to having done immoral acts in the past. So keeping one's virtue and being moral is extremely useful.
Also the starving of the panca nivarana (five mental hindrences). Bhikkhu Nyanaponika's book contains direct references from the suttas on how to do so.

The Visuddhimagga ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf ) starting on page 268 gives a detailed explanation of Anapanasati Sutta MN 118 ( http://suttacentral.net/en/mn118 ). The specific method is the 8 steps starting on Vism. page 272..

+1 for this. I was actually looking for references from within the Tripitaka.

The Pali should be translated as "body fabricator". MN 44 defines the body fabricator as the breathing in & out. Calming the kaya sankhara means calming the breathing. That simple. The breathing is calmed by observing it; that is; by abandoning craving so the mind become clear & naturally observant.

Upasaka Sirinath, interested,
by "playing", using, testing out kinds of breath and perceptions, feelings, touches around it, one clams the body fabrications together with the related mind fabrications till joy within the body, and related calming of domanassa is experienced. Dwelling right there one, dwells in the first Jhana.
But such can not be done when still attached to home, the world, to the senses or when there is much remorse by not having taken the precepts by heart. If one is still a stingy person, or one without gratitude, wrong views, such as well is a total blocking hindrance. So a lot of merits in advanced are required and will give the causes to do such meditation.
Some generous recitations and advises in other words by Bhante Thanissaro Thera from Mindfulness of the Body:

The fourth step is, in the Buddha’s words, to calm bodily fabrication. You tell yourself, every time you breathe in, “I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.” When you breathe out, you tell yourself, “I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.” The word “fabrication,” or saṅkhāra, here has to do with what you are intentionally doing in the present moment to shape your experience. The term “bodily fabrication” means the breath, because there is an element of intention in the way you breathe, and this element of intention has an effect on the way you experience your body as a whole. As you begin to see the effect that the breath has on the whole body, you take advantage of the fact that you have the choice to make that effect more calming throughout the body.
Now, as he says elsewhere, one good way to calm the body is first to develop a sense of rapture—an energizing sense of fullness in the body. Then, when the body has been nourished by rapture, it will calm down, not from being forced to be calm, but because it feels naturally inclined to grow calm from that sense of fullness. So “calming bodily fabrication” can sometimes mean that you use the way you breathe to develop a sense of rapture in the body before you try calming it down. The sense of fullness and calm will then help you to stay more firmly in the present.

That's by the way also a tool how to prevent oneself in daily live, being touched by thing causing annoying or greed. By focusing on the breath for some deep breath in breath out one prevents oneself to act again foolish having uprooted the causes for foolish reactions within oneself.
This is why wise say "as soon as forgetting the breath one is like an orphan and acts in very foolish ways". Take care of you by not staying a poor orphan!
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)

Bodily, verbal and mind fabrications can be calmed through breath watching. Humans have three centers - body, mind and heart. These centers and breath are interlinked. If your mind is at peace breathing will slow and deeper and if your mind is restless breathing will be shallow and fast. Buddha's terminology is slightly different. Verbal fabrications have their origin in mind and mind fabrications origin lies in Heart. All three fabrications can be calmed through Vipassna. But one needs to follow percepts in spirit. Trouble is lot of people are trying out meditation technique without becoming a true disciple of Buddha. Meditation is about understanding and implmenting messages of enlightened souls such as Buddha.


text:
Buddhist Perspective on Value, Sentiment, Attraction?
Paul Bloom: The origins of pleasure describe pleasure based on information. To further elaborate original artwork is worth more than a duplicate, how we get attached or less attached to a person on additional information we have, how a artifact gains value because it was used by a famous person, and how you experience pain and pleasure due to additional information you have.  How is this explained through a Buddhist perspective in terms of how attachments works.

is this not too broad?

Are you asking, "Why do people like art, why do they find art attractive?" Or are you asking about Buddhist art? Or asking whether music has a role in Buddhist practice? Do people need to watch the referenced Paul Bloom video, in order to answer/understand this question?

I am asking based on the theory presented in the video mainly. How attachments (Thanha & Upadana) work at a more finer level.

The following gives an in depth explanation of the Jhanas and how at higher levels
Here is a very short excerpt from a long presentation
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html

By reflecting upon the second jhana as more tranquil and sublime than
  the first, the meditator ends his attachment to the first jhana and
  engages in renewed striving with the aim of reaching the higher stage.
  He directs his mind to his meditation subject — which must be one
  capable of inducing the higher jhanas such as a kasina or the breath —
  and resolves to overcome applied and sustained thought. When his
  practice comes to maturity the two kinds of thought subside and the
  second jhana arises. In the second jhana only three of the original
  five jhana factors remain — rapture, happiness, and one-pointedness.
  Moreover, with the elimination of the two grosser factors these have
  acquired a subtler and more peaceful tone.[17]
Besides the main jhana factors, the canonical formula includes several
  other states in its description of the second jhana. "Internal
  confidence" (ajjhattamsampasadanam), conveys the twofold meaning of
  faith and tranquillity. In the first jhana the meditator's faith
  lacked full clarity and serenity due to "the disturbance created by
  applied and sustained thought, like water ruffled by ripples and
  wavelets" (Vism. 157; PP.163). But when applied and sustained thought
  subside, the mind becomes very peaceful and the meditator's faith
  acquires fuller confidence.


text:
What is the Buddhist perspective on body language?
Some explain that body language affects qualities like leadership, command, personality etc.:
Your body language shapes who you are
What is the Buddhist perspective on body language? Does body language affect mental qualities?

There are many examples in Buddha's life how others were inspired by his appearance.
King Bimbisara was tempted to offer him a palace seeing his stature on the first encounter (this was before his enlightenment),

Look at this one, sirs. How handsome, stately, pure! How consummate
  his demeanor! Mindful, his eyes downcast, looking only a plow-length
  before him, as one who's not from a lowly lineage: Send the royal
  messengers at once to see where this monk will go.
[..]
"You are young, youthful, in the first stage of youth, endowed with
  the stature & coloring    of a noble-warrior. You would look glorious
    in the vanguard of an army,     arrayed with an elephant squadron. I
  offer you wealth : enjoy it. I ask your birth : inform me."
Sn 3.1

Maha Kassapa accepted him as his teacher without hearing a word from him,

On the road between Rajagaha and Nalanda, the Master sat down under a
  fig tree, waiting for his future disciple. When Kassapa arrived at the
  spot and saw the radiance of the Buddha's countenance, sensing the
  enlightenment that shone through it, he thought, "This must be my
  Master for whose sake I have gone forth!" He approached the Buddha,
  and paying homage, fell at his feet and exclaimed: "The Exalted One,
  Lord, is my teacher, and I am his disciple!"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel345.html#ch4

The occasion where Milinda was introduced to Nâgasena in Milinda panha gives some insight on how Buddhist literature sees the influence of body language.
Nâgasena was a junior monk, yet Milinda was able to recognize him among others by his demeanor,

And as he looked over the whole of the assembly, in front, and down the centre,
  and behind, king Milinda detected Nâgasena seated in the middle, and,
  like a shaggy lion who knows no fear or frenzy, entirely devoid of
  nervous agitation, and free from shyness and trepidation. And as soon
  as he saw him, he knew by his mien that that was Nâgasena, and he
  pointed him out to Devamantiya.

Now, this is a king that gets nervous and frightened by the sight of a monk.

Whereupon the king rejoiced that he had recognised Nâgasena without having had him pointed out to him. But nevertheless, at the sight of him, the king was seized with nervous excitement and trepidation and fear.

This encounter conditions the king's mind, the king has accepted defeat by the very sight of this monk.

'At the sight of Nâgasena, wise and pure, Subdued in all that is the
  best subjection, Milinda uttered this foreboding word-- "Many the
  talkers I have visited, Many the conversations I have had, But never
  yet, till now, to-day, has fear, So strange, so terrible, o'erpowered
  my heart. Verily now defeat must be my lot, And victory his, so
  troubled is my mind".

Great answer. I was looking more on how this influence one or the other maybe using dependent origination or abidhamma. Anyway a great answer.

@SumindaSirinathSalpitikorala You should have mentioned it in the question no? I think it's better to delete the answer then. I have no issues with that :)

Please leave the answer. You can perhaps add some more to it as this answers about 60% of what I was looking for.

"How is this instrumented?" part is only missing.

@SumindaSirinathSalpitikorala Ok I guess the answer for that is more in abhidhamma, how positive thoughts relate to generating rupa kalapa, which I'm not so familiar with.

No worries. Your answer gives solid basis for further investigation.


text:
Meditation and Mouth breathing
Some meditation techniques use the nostrils as a point of concentration, others only mention that we should breathe via the nose.
Many people have problems with that and can only breath through their mouths. Is this a problem for meditation? How serious is it?

In my experience, the right place to focus on during breath meditation is the diaphragm, not nostrils or lips.

I think there is no right or wrong place, but we can say nostrils are the most "popular" :)

I disagree. There is a reason why diaphragm works better -- it is a gateway to the emotional mind, so-called  seventh consciousness.

@AndreiVolkov I also think the diaphragm region is better, but more so because the movement of the abdomen is much easier for a beginner mediator to discern.

Here are some of the reasons that focusing on the breath is beneficial in meditation.
http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/lifestyl/medi/breath.htm

Using the breath: Why? Assuming you see the value in taking up a
  specific object for developing concentration, the breath has many
  things to recommend itself as the object of choice. 1 - it is
  portable. Every where you go you have it with you. No need to worry
  about forgetting your worry beads. 2 - it comes free with every body.
  No need to buy any special equipment. 3 - it is complete in and of
  itself. No need for any upgrades or add-ons. 4 - it is 100% natural -
  they don't come more organic than this. 5 - it is effortless. The body
  knows how to breathe without you needing to do anything, You just sit
  back and let it do all the work - while you just watch. 6 - it is a
  connection with a vital life force. 7- it is calming. There is a
  simple, natural rhythm the breath follows and following that leads one
  to peace.

All of these reasons but especially 4, 5, 6, and 7 indicate that breathing should be natural and unforced, effortless and done in a relaxed way. So the emphasis is not on trying to make breathing to happen in a certain way, but allowing it to happen natural. If the nose is blocked from mucous then the mouth is the only option.
But on the same page are many variations of how breath can be integrated in meditation:
http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/lifestyl/medi/breath.htm
examples are counting, following, listening to noise. Observing and turning away.
Walking meditation can also use breathing in it.

If one gets stuffy nose, it should be ok to breathe thru the mouth for a while because the "location" is not as important as the awareness/mindfulness of the in-out breaths "brushing" the point of contact. The Visuddhimagga ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf ) page 274 gives some very good similes to demonstrate the importance of this kind of mindfulness..

Good to see you being active on the site.

I had a similar issue. When meditating without support, I would often experience intense back pain. I practiced meditating lying down but had doubts whether I would reap any benefits. I was comforted when I found out that there are statues of the Buddha meditating while in a prone position.
While breating through your nose may not be the same as back pain, I feel the important thing to remember is to get into a regular routine. If you must breathe through your mouth while meditating, then practice that way. Regularly. My first yoga book mentioned that if you can breathe, then you can do yoga. I'd like to offer a similar argument with regard to meditation.

If you are doing breath meditation this can be an issue as the best place to have your attention is at the base of the nose and upper lip. If you can't breathe through your nose all is not lost as you can put your attention to your stomach or chest in addition to the around the mouth.
If you do breath meditation your nose will clear up. I have been having stuffed nose before I started on meditation but it went away later on. So even on a stuffed nose it is best to breathe through your nose.


text:
How to use a Tibetan singing bowl when meditating solo?
Tibetan singing bowls produce a binaural tone which is claimed to be conducive to deep meditation. However, if you are meditating you would need someone to play it for you or you'd need to listen to a recording. The former is not always available and the latter doesn't have the same effect.
Is there a practice of using tibetan singing bowls for solo meditation? Is it effective to play and meditate at the same time?

Traditionally, both Tibetan as well as Far East meditation masters, use singing bowl as a gong to mark beginning and end of meditation session. In a Korean Zen school I attended, the bowl is struck three times, in the beginning and at the end, with an oddly very slightly longer pause between the second and third strike. Tibetan Dzogchen master I once meditated with, striked the bowl once in the beginning and once at the end. The exact way the bowl is hit is an expression of the enlightened mind. Listening to how exactly the master strikes the bowl can show one the way to enlightenment. Trying to do it oneself, makes very obvious the lack of one's zen realization. During the meditation itself the bowl is not used, as meditation pretty much requires getting bored, so playing with the bowl would be too much entertainment.

I don't think they were asking about a gong (which is stricken) they were asking about a bowl (which is rubbed circularly to produce a resonant tone). Also, if you believe that focusing on the precise number of times and/or way the bowl is being hit in order to "find the way to enlightenment" or that you have to "get bored" to properly meditate then I believe you have lost the plot.
If there is no one to produce the tone for you, then you just have to improvise by sitting as relaxed as you can while ringing the bowl in front of you, or even taking a slow and calm stroll while producing the tone yourself. It is far less about the mechanics or "rules" of meditation than it is about your state of mind, here and now.


text:
Is Nirvana eternal?
In the book, What the Buddha Taught, Walpola Rahula writes on page 65, "It is the vague feeling 'I AM' that creates the idea of self which has no corresponding reality, and to see this truth is to realize Nirvana, which is not very easy."
I understand this to mean that 'Nirvana' is "seeing a particular truth". Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that not seeing this truth is to not achieve Nirvana, and that losing sight of this truth is to lose Nirvana.
So, is Nirvana an attitude or capacity or insight that can be lost, or is it a solid destination or eternal achievement as some claim/hope?

This question is different because it starts with an unambiguous quotation from a highly respected monk who does much to debunk the Eternalist perspective that so often dominates less specific questions on this subject.

It'll be very difficult to define Nibbana within our mundane scope of dualistic concepts of temporal/eternal. That's why the suttas refer to Nibbana as an "apophasis" (the use of negation language to express a transcendental supramundane state that is ineffable that we can only 'touch' by personal experience truth or reality, such as awakening or nibbana). An example from Samyutta 43 where the Buddha said: "There is, monks, that base where there is neither earth, nor water, nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness, nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support. Just this is the end of suffering."

Completely in agreement with @santa100.
If I am to add to it, it is like a singularity where all conventional laws break down. So what happens beyond on in this state cannot be communicated through conventional wisdom or language.
Nirvana is the experience beyond the singularity. Once you experience it you have experienced it. You cannot unexperience it. Say you have gone and see Rome. This is a fact. Is it possible to turn back time so you have not seen Rome. Not possible. Likewise once you have seen what is beyond the singularity you cannot be made to be brought to the state where you have not seen it.
Also you experience Nirvana when you are in Pala Samapathi. When you come out of it you don't experience it but the fact you have seen it will not change. Since you know how you got there you can get to it when you want. This experience has a lasting impression / imprint on you. So your ways will change once you come out of the Samapathi.
To further elaborate. The lasting impression is like once your where in Rome had a life changing experience. This sticks.

If it is experience, can I forget it? Because I can forget how it was in Rome.

No you cannot. Will update answer.

When Public Broadcasting recently televised a documentary about the Buddha, one of interviewees mentioned to the effect that states of Nirvana come and go. Observing people walking down the street: "Is that person Buddha, Is that Buddha ? Buddha ?" Asking ourselves may be a healthy search for truth.
Also, many people often experience transitory moments of extreme clarity such as when they are near death or even doing very ordinary things.
http://www.pbs.org/thebuddha/