text:
Want a simple explanation that sense restraint is an important aspect of ethical conduct, for a loved one who is not into Dhamma
Could you try to formulate an answer to the above question, in line with the Pali Canon, using simple colloquial language, for someone who doesn't yet know Buddhist terminology?
I'm asking because I want to try to explain this to a loved one
For a run-of-the-mill sort of person, life would take the path of least resistance and indulgence in sense pleasures is what is long sought. It is the path of least resistance, the downward path or ‘Anusothagami’ while the traveler of this road less traveled is climbing in the opposite direction to the flow or ‘Patisothagami’. How can one get such a person to see this otherness?

I edited the question, please rollback to the original version or edit it further if you don't think my edit was an improvement.

That's a good one Chris. Looks a lot better now. I think that I'm going to answer it. I can always revise the answer once I get your feedback. I'd like to collect a good set of Q & A thanks to you'll.

Right view means understanding the four noble truths.
Right intention follows as a consequence of right view.
There are three intentions (renunciation, non-aversion or loving-kindness, and non-injury or compassion).

And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve. (SN 45.8)

Right view gives motivation to renounce attachment (clinging to pleasure, fame, and so on ... these are usually seen as desirable but with right view you see that they lead to dukkha ... with right view you naturally choose to renounce them).
I'm not sure whether that's an important aspect of ethical conduct, though ... according to many definitions of "ethical", it's the intentions of loving-kindness and compassion, not the intention of renunciation, that motivates ethical conduct.
Still, I suspect they develop together (the factors of the eightfold path are inter-related).
It may be possible to think of examples of where someone has hurt or ignored another, either because they're busy greedily chasing a sense-pleasure or because they're suffering the consequences of misplaced attachment -- for that reason even if "ethical" is taken to mean "good to others", renunciation (to avoid attachment and suffering) is "an important aspect" (which, for example, may make it easier to follow the precepts).

Chris, the hard part is saying this in simple Colloquial language to an uninformed loved one. Want to give it a try?

"Simple colloquial language" sounds like you're looking for a Dhamma talk. I'm not confident that I could improve on the Buddha's (canonical) explanation. When I've tried to explain it in the past, I have had trouble communicating even the First noble truth, let alone the fourth -- see also How to explain what Buddhism is?

It is extremely hard but not impossible. My teacher did it in Sinhala and many thousands are looking up to him. I've got to try to do this in English, for my son's sake. He is not into Dhamma.

I registered a web name - A MEDITATIVE LIFE - last week with this lofty aim in mind. I am going to try my hardest to make this web site a reality within two years.

Saddha leads to Seela.
So try to bring him to an understanding that:

There is no real refuge from kama vastu (money, wealth,  parents, spouses,  children, looks, education, government, etc.)
True refuge is the Buddha; his Teachings; and the Sangha who led by example.
Only a well guarded mind can bring one's own happiness and peace
Enlightened ones explain the workings of the mind
Impurity  of mind manifest in speech n conduct
By default an impure mind is unable to be at peace... and enjoy worldy blessing .... let alone see the Truth of samsara

Personally I try presenting the Buddha's views as an "alternative knowledge" to common knowledge of modern man. I tell my children that a Buddha's knowledge is far superior -- it's based on Dana, Bala, Jnana (generosity, strength, knowledge) -- whereas what modern fields of knowledge says is that it's based on sensory perception of the 5 sense faculties

I also help to practice Seela (precepts):

By example, as far as possible
Pointing out the exemplary conducts in real life... jataka stories where the bodhisatwa practised the virtues under extremely difficult conditions... also buddhist stories of lives of Disciples.... and any family or friends who are keeping precepts
Inculcating values such as, "all living beings are equal... all are in samsara, with a mind and a body that is liable to experience pain... thinking of oneself, one does not harm other living beings"

There can come a time for any one of us who are indulging our desire for pleasure (such as desire for attractive and entertaining eye candy, liking to listen to music and wanting to smell nice odors, looking to delight your taste buds with comfy places to lie on and lost in thoughts etc. etc. ) the thought of what is it like walking to the beat of a different drummer. Then a thought would cross ones mind, what would it be like to practice Buddhism?
One has to first learn to take baby steps. You know well that it is impossible to jump over the wall of a big fortress. One can only enter through the door. Similarly, one cannot jump over walls to enter the dispensation of the Supreme Buddha. It can be entered only through that one door. That door is called, “listening to advice.” Once a person learns to take delight in advice that door opens immediately.
However, that advice he receives may be gentle and sweet at times and bitter and rough at other times. Every so often those words of advice may even feel like whiplashes. But the person who likes advice does not assess the nature of advice. He happily accepts it, knowing that it is for his benefit.
If one begins this journey through ethical conduct, that can be a big leap into this road less travelled. Note that ethical conduct is one of the three main lines of development of the noble eightfold path. “The avoidance of all wrongdoing, The undertaking of what is skillful, The cleansing of one’s own mind—This is the teaching of the buddhas.— Dhammapada 183.
All of us afraid of going to have to let go of our sensual pleasures. As the Buddha said, the reason we’re afraid of death too is because we’re afraid we’re going to have to let go of our sensual pleasures. If you look into the mind to see it’s doing, to see where you’re adding any unnecessary element of stress, you will see the other side of indulging in sensual pleasures. The Buddha located that unnecessary element in craving, and specifically in three types of craving. The first is craving for sensuality, and here sensuality doesn’t necessarily mean sensual pleasures. The Buddha makes the point that our intentions for sensuality are what we’re really attached to. The idea of sensual pleasure, the activity of thinking about sensuality, is a lot more attractive than the actual pleasure itself.
You can obsess about the idea over and over and over again, whereas the actual pleasure, once you’ve experienced it, quickly grows stale and is gone. Then you have to find another one to replace it. But ordinarily we don’t get so upset about replacing it because then the new pleasure provides more fodder for our sensual obsessions, and as long as we can keep on obsessing, we feel we’re okay.So our craving for sensuality, this tendency of the mind to keep obsessing about, planning about, how it’s going to experience different sensual pleasures: That’s what we’re really attached to. We really cling to that, feed on that. It’s our fodder. So that’s the first kind of craving.
Lets take the life of a Buddhist Monk. He is one who observes the eight precepts, and thereby move into another area of training for the mind. The eight precepts add the element of restraint of the senses. Each of the added precepts places restraints on the types of pleasures we might try to get through the sense doors. The precept against illicit sex turns into a precept against sex, period. That covers all of the sense doors right there. Then there’s the precept against eating after noon or before dawn. That covers pleasures of taste. The precept against watching shows, listening to music, using perfumes and scents covers pleasures of sight, hearing, and smell. And then the precept against high and luxurious beds and seats covers the sense of touch. As you go down the list, you can see that each of the five senses is covered. This adds a higher level of restraint and places some barriers on our typical ways of indulging our desire for pleasure: evening munchies; the desire for a nice, thick mattress to lie on; wanting to smell nice; liking to listen to music.
By taking on these precepts, you learn to put some barriers around your self-indulgence. These barriers serve several purposes. One, they focus you on the meditation: If you’re going to find any pleasure in the course of the day, you have to look more intently at developing pleasure in the meditation to make up for the restrictions you’ve placed on your foraging for pleasure outside. In addition, you learn important lessons about indulgence. If you tend to be indulgent in your daily life, you’re going to be very self-indulgent when you meditate. If you can’t say No to your daily desires, it’s going to be hard to say No to them while you’re sitting here mediating. The mind-states that want to go off and think about pleasant sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations are very easy to indulge in if you don’t have the habit of saying No to your impulse to look for pleasure in those things throughout the day. As you develop this habit of saying No to sensual indulgence in the course of the day, it’s a lot easier to say No to sensual thoughts in the course of the mediation.
You’ve also developed the habit of learning when to say “enough,” which will hold you in good stead as you begin to develop the sense of non-sensual pleasure and rapture that come with concentration. You’ll be more likely to realize when you’ve indulged enough in those kinds of pleasure so that you can turn to the further work you need to do in terms of insight and discernment. You can’t just stay wallowing in the pleasure of concentration. You’ve got to learn how to understand what’s going on in the mind, why it creates mental worlds to begin with—the worlds that pull you away from the present moment and lead to suffering and stress.
So the precepts are a crucial part of meditation. They help you develop good habits and foster insight. In particular, they help you see into your habits of self-indulgence. A lot of the pleasures we indulge in really do get in the way of deeper pleasure, deeper happiness. We all want to have our cake and eat it too.
When we play chess, we want to keep all our pieces and yet win at the same time. But an important lesson in life is that certain pleasures really do get in the way of higher happiness. You’ve got to learn how to say No to them. And to develop a sense of moderation: how much pleasure is enough for you to do the real work at hand. Ultimately, you see that even the most harmless pleasures in this world are not absolutely harmless. This realization leads to the sense of samvega that motivates you to look for an even higher pleasure: the absolutely blameless bliss of nibbana.
So learn to look at the precepts as an important part of the meditation. They’re not Sunday school rules or “conventional truths” that someone who hits the more “ultimate truths” can eventually put aside and discard with impunity. They’re an important part of training the mind in the skills and attitudes it’ll need in concentration, in developing discernment, and ultimately leading to release. So how you meditate in daily life is by being very careful about your precepts, respecting them, and being alive to the lessons they teach.

The simile of the Six Animals in SN 35.206 might be useful...

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


text:
Alternative to lying?
This looks like a bunch of riddles, for that pardon me....
If someone run past you and some chasing him with weapons ask you if you saw him or not, seeing the danger that he is in you might want to lie but if you do not lie he might get hurt
If your boss call you and ask if one of your Co-workers said something bad about the boss, you will have to be truthful but in doing so you break a precept as you are using your word to make two people dislike each other.
In these kind of situations can we imagine some other thing and answer thinking i'm answering in reference to my imagination and skip the breaking of precepts?
Like saying i did not saw the man who ran away, thinking "There is no such being called me in reality, also there is no man who ran away in reality either"?

I saw something like this done by Lord Buddha when Lord Buddha tamed the anger of "Anguli maala". Lord Buddha says....
"I've stopped now you should"
while walking, this was said in reference to the stopped journey through samsara in a Lord Buddha's life not in reference with feet.

If someone run past you and some chasing him with weapons ask you if you saw him or not, seeing the danger that he is in you might want to lie but if you do not lie he might get hurt.
While lying is deceit, if it saves a life, can that not be considered a wholesome act?
Recently while visiting one of the Sea Shepherd ships, I noticed a Buddhist statuette that was gifted from the Dalai Lama. While the sea shepherd ships stand between whales and other species that need their protection, the Dalai Lama himself is quoted as saying, in reference to Sea Shepherd tactics, 'when protecting life, it is not a [sin] to cause damage, as the life is more valuable'.
I would consider this to be in the same league as lying to someone who is going to cause serious injury or death. You are protecting life.
In Buddhist teachings it is the intention that is of utmost importance in may areas of life decisions.
If your boss call you and ask if one of your Co-workers said something bad about the boss, you will have to be truthful but in doing so you break a precept as you are using your word to make two people dislike each other.
This would be the equivalent of 'gossip' I would say. I have been put in this situation before and my answer was "the two of you need to sort your own business out and not involve others".
In these kind of situations can we imagine some other thing and answer thinking i'm answering in reference to my imagination and skip the breaking of precepts?
Like saying i did not saw the man who ran away, thinking "There is no such being called me in reality, also there is no man who ran away in reality either"?
This would be very bad for you. At the end of the day your 'intention' is deception when you think this way. This can form a bad habit as you deceive yourself even more than you deceive the other people. As my example above, you don't have to lie, there are always other options.
For example, with the man chasing the other man, you could ask him instead "what is wrong" "can I help you", maybe he is chasing a man who hurt his child, or a robber. There are many options to be considered, and delving into the situation to gain better understanding would be better than deceiving yourself.

the answer is simple and it was offered in response to similar questions earlier
you cannot tell truth, you stay silent
maybe a white lie burdens with less black kamma than a malevolent or self-interested lie, but it's still a lie, so i see silence as the best strategy

It is common to desire not to tell a lie but at the same time to desire to answer a question and both desires can be very strong.
However, the answer to a question is a statement, so what statement to make, if any?
You can choose.
This question is about control and influence. You perceive the opportunity to influence the action of another person by your own action of answering his question. But this is a conditioned and conventional response. In truth you have the opportunity to influence by your physical proximity, and always do. Other options are an attempt to disarm, a gift of money, a prayer, a quizzical look, to engage, or to ignore... the possibilities are endless!

If you say anything which is a lie it will give bad karma. So avoid lying at all times. If you have a situation where you have to tell a lie otherwise you hurt someone, you should be silent and say nothing. Saying nothing and keeping quiet is a great way to avoid telling lies.

I don't really agree with replying using a riddle with the intention of deceiving or deluding the person you're talking to.
For example, instead of ...

Like saying i did not saw the man who ran away, thinking "There is no such being called me in reality, also there is no man who ran away in reality either"?

... you could just say "no" with the intention of openly lying, as described in this answer.
In a less extreme circumstance, (talking to your boss), if you don't want to say then don't say. You could reply something like, "I think it's better not to gossip." and optionally explain why (e.g. "because gossip gets taken out of context" and stuff about "confidentially" and "trust" and "team" and so on).

These situations require what is sometimes refereed to as skillful means
In your first example there are some possible replies, like in one Buddhist story a witness is called to the stand, and when asked a series of questions, he replied "I saw" "I did not see" to each of the questions. In such a way that no new information was added to the trial.
However what if the man with weapons turns on you, then you have a different problem.
So then what answer is neither lie nor an answer that might anger the man with the weapon towards you?
"I had dinner a few hours ago"
"I like your pants, where did you get them?"
"It sure is cloudy today"
These statements (assuming they are true at the time) avoid the truth that the weapon wielder seeks. Aside from the Bodhisattva vows there is nothing saying you have to answer a question when asked, and even there, there are provisions for being asked questions that might cause harm.
In the second situation you could say things like
"I don't feel comfortable having this conversation"
"You should ask them that not me"
or as ChrisW pointed out "I think it is better not to gossip"

As per my understanding lying with any intention would break the fourth precept, whether its a white lie or not.
But instead of lying, I have heard that we can use Samyak Prayoga that would technically be a truthful statement, but deceive the listener, this basically like skipping the original question by providing a statement related to the question .
Other way may be bumping them back with a related question. Because when you are questioning someone that doesn't fall under the category of lies. For e.g. you can simply ask something like, Are you mad?, Oh, is that so? in which you don't lie or directly answer the question, but skipping the question letting the listener to go with his own assumptions.

If someone run past you and some chasing him with weapons ask you if you saw him or not

In this situation I may point to somewhere else other than the person actually went ( a direction slightly angled to the direction he actually went) and say I didn't see any one going to there(or this direction)  or something similar to that which is technically not a lie.

If your boss call you and ask if one of your co-workers said something bad about the boss

In this case if the co-workers have ever told a good thing about the boss you can remind it. Oh, is that so? but I heard them talking that  you are good in this with me, that day. Or if they haven't told any good about boss before, then you may say Oh, isn't it hard to believe that they told something like that about you?
However there may be situations you couldn't come up with a tricky answer/statement or you may be forced to answer exactly to the point. (Like if someone asked explicitly to say yes or no). Here the best option would be to remain silent, If you can't answer without lying, may be even though you had to sacrifice your life (I have heard of a Arhath thero who scarified his life by being silent to save a life of a bird (Kosava Lihini) which swallowed a gem in a jathaka katha) .
If in any case being silent is also not an option, my action would depend on the consequences. (Like king Dutugemunu who is suosed to be the Maithree Buddha decided to continue the war with the intention of preserving Buddhism, as the consequences of preserving Buddhism will be immense as unthinkable due to the many number of people who would find their path to Nirvana and it will out weight the bad merits gained by continuing war which took lives breaking the first precept.)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Escaping "certain death" in the Mahayana tradition: does it occur in India?
I was struck, when reading on the history of Buddhism in China, by the stories of brave monks escaping certain death, often many times in one life.
I was curious is this was something Indian Buddhists also wrote about, or if it was something peculiar to China. Do these stories also appear in earlier reports, in the Buddha's life, etc.?

In the Indian suttas (attributed to the Buddha), monks generally prepared their minds to accept death by violence, as described in SN 35.88 & MN 21.
In the Indian suttas & commentaries, there are also stories of the Buddha & his disciples using love & psychic powers to avoid death, such as Angulimala Sutta, the assassination attempts by Devadatta and Maha Moggallana using his psychic powers to escape assassination.

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


text:
Do any of scholastic currents conclusively affirm or deny that there are any facts at all?
Do any of scholastic currents unambiguously affirm or deny that there are any facts at all? In any tradition, so I welcome a reply from any perspective.
By facts, I don't mean certain knowledge.

But if there are facts then, if we did know that fact, what we knew
would be always be reliable, and there's nothing out there which
means we couldn't be entirely certain, only our limited knowledge of
what is.
And if there are no facts, then any supposed knowledge that anyone
has is possibly untrue, and not just because of anything about the
belief.

If that sounds very convoluted, I apologise; I've tried to give necessary and sufficient conditions of a fact.

Do you want to define what you mean by "a fact", or is it up to each answer to supply its own definition of the word?

i tried to define it

Your definition just seemed to be, what I mean by "a fact" is not "certain knowledge".

i tried to give a necessary condition

This looks like a question for the philosophy stack.

It's not clear to me what your definition of "fact" is.
My definition of "fact" is literally, "something which has been done".
This definition of 'fact' says:

from Latin factum, neuter past participle of facere ‘do’.

... so it means "done" (for example, if you ask, "Is that a fact?", then I think that's the same as asking, "Is or was that done, did that happen?").
Furthermore a sutta like MN 60 Apannaka Sutta says that there is action:

Because there actually is action, the view of one who thinks, 'There is action' is his right view. Because there actually is action, when he is resolved that 'There is action,' that is his right resolve.

I think that this sutta is saying that, yes, there really are facts: there are actions, there are things done.
I think that to say otherwise would be a form of nihilism or solipsism.
I think (described is more detail here) that even the Yogacara (or "mind-only") school teaches that there are facts or conventional reality (albeit dependently-originated).

Since this question is epistemological, I will speak of knowers rather than objects of knowledge.
The Mahayana abhidharma defines seven types of consciousnesses. Lati Rinpoche says:

There are three divisions of awareness and knowledge: into seven,
  three, and two. The division into seven consists of direct perception,
  inference, subsequent cognition, correct assumption, inattentive
  awareness, doubt, and wrong consciousness.

The first four are realizing consciousness while the last three are not. A realizing consciousness realizes its object of engagement. A consciousness that does not realize its object of engagement can not be factually concordant. While an eye-consciousness seeing blue where there is blue is factually concordant (and an actual direct perceiver), an eye-consciousness seeing a blue snow mountain instead of a white snow mountain is not 'factually concordant' because there is no blue snow mountain.
A consciousness can be 'incontrovertible with regard to its object of engagement' and 'factually concordant'. For instance, a correct assumption is factually concordant (that is why it is correct) but is not firmly established (that is why it is just an assumption). It is not established in dependence on a perfect reason (contrary to an inferential cognizer, for instance). Because it is not firmly established, it is said to be 'controvertible'. All non-realizing consciousnesses are controvertible. A non-realizing consciousness can 'tend towards the fact' though: for instance, a doubt consciousness thinking 'all products are probably impermanent'.
Here, that 'all products are impermanent' is a fact. That 'there is a white snow mountain' is a fact. That 'blue is the attribute of such or such entity' is a fact.
Since you ask about 'scholastic currents affirming...', I will explain what 'a current' is. Mahayana scriptures explain four philosophical schools also called 'tenet systems'. The first two are so-called 'hinayana schools of thought' (Vaïbashika & Sautrantika) while the last two are called 'mahayana schools or tenets' (Cittamatra & Madhyamika). The meaning of 'Tenets' is  'established conclusion'. A person who propounds a tenet system is someone who has established conclusions in his continuum. For instance, he as come to established that 'all objects of knowledge are truly established, externally established', that 'all conventional truths are imputed existent while ultimate truths are truly existent', that 'there is no self-cognizer', that 'the four seals are valid', etc. He takes these as facts. For instance, a Buddhist monk disrobing and becoming a Christian monk is a person who had not established such conclusion in his continuum. His conviction was not firm, not based on proper reasoning, not derived from 'a perfect reason', not incontrovertible.
Generally speaking, he four seals are posited by all Buddhist tenets since it is what makes a school Buddhist. There are other facts as well that are posited, such as reincarnation, that karma is infaillible, and so forth.

In original Buddhism, absolute truth, such as in the Four Noble Truths, are 'facts'. One interpretation of the terminology 'Four Noble Truths' is they are irrefutable, which is why they are called 'Noble' or 'Ariya' (which means: 'without enemy'). The scriptures say at SN 56.11:

...the Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma
  that cannot be stopped by brahman or contemplative, deva, Mara or God
  or anyone in the world.

Those facts or absolute truths of Buddhism are considered to eternally & inherently exist, even if they are not comprehended or known by the human mind.
At SN 12.20 & AN 3.134, the scriptures say about the natural laws of the Four Noble Truths (Dependent Origination) & the Three Characteristics (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self):

...whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas (Buddhas), this property
  stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness
  (lawfulness) of the Dhamma...

In original Buddhism, the workings of kammic inheritance are not absolute truth or fact, since bad can be the result of good kamma and good can be the result of bad kamma (per MN 136).

I think this is maybe defining "a fact" as "a truth".

I was just providing what might serve as an answer rather than getting caught up in philosophy. It is not a question I personally would quibble about. Regards

I'm not complaining, I just wanted to verify that I understand your answer and why it's slightly different than mine.

Sure. I was just verifying the question is too complicated for me & I made no exacting attempt to answer the question. Obviously, due to impermanence, there are no 'facts', apart from the fact of impermanence & the unconditioned fact of non-factualizing (Nibbana). Regards.


text:
Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction
I read the question/answers on mindfulness of feelings and emotions. When I am meditating on the breath unpleasant body feelings arise and they are noted. (Example: A wave of fear permeating the body.  Not long after the fact, I realize that those unpleasant body feelings were a result of a thought. So, I get caught up in trying to label it correctly. I.e. Is it a body unpleasant feeling or a mind unpleasant feeling? This creates more anxiety and doubt. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed. Thank you

I can't think of a better instruction/explanation than this one by Ajahn Jayasaro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hu5onZPHJI&feature=youtu.be&t=22m25s

Even though I cannot help explain the first part of your question, for sure I can help you reduce the anxiety and doubt that arises in meditation. What I give below is only one small part of the many things that you can do to overcome this feeling. Please try the following and see….
Impermanence of Breath
Anapanasati is something that should be developed and pursued mindfully and discerningly. Now, he trains himself to breathe in focusing on impermanence, and to breathe out focusing on impermanence. Purity of mind has been achieved through the elimination of the hindrances (nivarana). His effort, mindfulness and concentration are now being directed towards focusing on impermanence. He is contemplating on impermanence within anapanasati. He can see the impermanent nature of his own breath in its rise and fall; the impermanence of his body; and the impermanent nature of the pleasant feeling and perception that he experienced.
Impermanence of Body
What has he seen in the body? What does this body consist of? This physical body contains and comprises the four great elements, which are known as: solidity/earth (pathavi), fluidity/water (apo), heat or temperature (tejo) and air (vayo). We generally use the word rupa (material form) to denote the body. When he is breathing in and out, he is focusing on impermanence of material form which is derived from the four great elements.
Impermanence of Feeling
Thereafter, he is focusing on feelings. Dependent on contact, feeling arises. What is contact? Contact is the coming together of three things. For example, eye, form and eye-consciousness come together, and it is their convergence, that is called contact. Similarly, with ear and sounds, nose and smells, and so on, through to mind and mental-objects.
In this instance, when body, tangible object and consciousness come together, there arises contact. With the arising of contact, simultaneously, there arises feeling (vedana) – feeling born of body contact. Since feeling is conditioned by contact, feeling differs in accordance with the change of contact. This way, he contemplates on the impermanence of feeling.
Impermanence of Perception
Then, there is the recognition of perception. This is called sañña (perception) which is also subject to change as it is conditioned by contact. Perception changes due to impermanence of contact.
Impermanence of Formations
Perception is followed by sankhara (mental formations). If the mental factor was directed to a certain matter, on that occasion there is volitional activity, and this is called sankhara. Here, he observes the impermanence of the mental formation with the change of contact. All these are based on the activities of the mind.
Now he understands every aspect in this life process which was considered as self (form, feeling, perception and formation); or anything pertaining to a self. He has real wisdom to see things as they really are. One may contemplate on impermanence saying “anicca, anicca” continuously, but still be holding onto the notion of “I am” or “mine”. To avoid this, it is important to realize the impermanent, no-self nature in inhalation-exhalation and in any other external object.
Impermanence of Consciousness
Finally, he sees the impermanent nature of all that has been cognized (the rise and fall of breath, rapture, joy, feelings, and perceptions). It is through this insight that the true nature of the five aggregates of clinging is understood and seen in the light of impermanence:
material form (rupa) derived from the four great elements,
feeling (vedana) that is conditioned by contact,
perception (sañña) that is conditioned by contact,
mental formations (sankhara) that is conditioned by contact, and
consciousness (viññana) that is conditioned by mentality-materiality (nama-rupa)
Being fully concentrated on anapanasati, he now dwells ardent, with full awareness, and clear comprehension of impermanence. With the base of this awareness, established in anicca (impermanence), he develops an understanding of his own life, the impermanent nature of others who breathe and live, and the impermanent nature of material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness (the five aggregates of clinging).
Thus, he observes the impermanent characteristic of phenomenal existence, internally and externally. He does not see a difference in him and the outer world. He sees the characteristic of phenomenal existence as subject to cause and effect. Now he is gaining knowledge, and his comprehension is increasing. He sees things as they really are, in whatever material form: whether past, present or future, far or near, external or internal. He sees the impermanence even of the rapture and pleasure that he is experiencing in breathing mindfully. Now, based on the impermanent breath, he understands the impermanent nature of the five aggregates of clinging.
He realizes that whatever is impermanent and subject to change, is suffering (dukkha). And, whatever is impermanent is without self (anatta). It is through this insight that the true nature of the aggregates is clearly seen; in the light of three signs (ti-lakkhana): impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and without self (anatta).
He sees the impermanent, suffering and no-self nature of all conditioned and component things. As a result, he knows there is no “I”, no self, or anything pertaining to a self. When he trains himself to breathe in and out focusing on impermanence, he understands that anything taken as ‘mine’ is impermanent; anything taken as ‘I am’ is impermanent; and anything that is taken as ‘my self’ is impermanent. He realizes that whatever is impermanent, is without self. That which is without self, is not ‘mine’, not ‘I am’, and is not ‘my self’. Thus he sees everything as it really is – with wisdom.

Painful bodily feeling is, for example, a pain in the knee or a mosquito biting.
Fear is not a 'feeling'. Fear is a mental defilement, mood or emotion.
You should label using a descriptor (label) that is most natural.
An empathetic label that resonates the feeling or emotion is also useful (such as 'sensation' or 'trembling') because this helps the mind harmonize with the sensation or mood.
A pain in the knee you should label as 'pain' or 'painful sensation'.
Fear you should label as 'fear' or 'trembling' (in the clear knowledge it is a passing temporary mood).
Fear is a normal & ordinary arising in new practise. Even the Buddha-To-Be experienced it.

Thank you both for your prompt and helpful responses. I have a follow up question. What is the difference between a mental feeling and an emotion? Can you provide some common examples or something to help me differentiate between the two?

Feelings/sensations ('vedana') are pleasure & pain (or unpleasantness). For example, the taste of ice-cream, being sweet, is a pleasurable sensation. The smell & sight of a rotting dead animal is an unpleasant feeling. Or a mosquito biting is a painful sensation.
Emotions/cravings/desires/defilements ('kilesa') in Buddhism are categorized into three types: (1) greed/lust/love; (2) anger/hatred; & (3) confusion (including fear)/ delusion/self-obsession.
(When there is a lack of mindfulness) pleasant feelings give rise to greed or desire towards that pleasant feeling & experience. Unpleasant feelings give rise to hatred, anger, aversion or desire against that unpleasant feeling & experience. 'Vague' feelings give rise to confusion, fear, etc, circling around that 'vague' feeling (which Buddhism calls 'neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feeling').
The practise of Buddhism is that of having mindfulness & wisdom when feelings occur. For example, you may feel pleasure towards the sight of expensive food but have the wisdom to realise you cannot afford that food. Such wisdom will eliminate the desire/craving towards that pleasant food. Or you may feel pleasure towards the sight of your friend's beautiful wife but have the care, good-will & wisdom to know lust for your friend's wife is wrong, inappropriate & harmful. Or you may feel displeasure in your work against a difficult client but know if you exhibit anger in your voice you may lose the client or have a complaint lodged against you.
In Buddhism, it is taught pleasant & unpleasant feelings will always occur. Even Buddhas have pleasant & unpleasant feelings. But Buddhas, because of their mindfulness & wisdom, do not have the arising of unwise emotions/desires that lead to harm & suffering.

How suffering arises: On seeing a form with the eye, he is passionate (sàrajjati) for it if it is pleasing; he is angry
  (byàpajjati) with it if it is displeasing. He lives with attention to
  body (kàya-sati) unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not
  understand realistically (yàthabhåtaü nappajànàti) the deliverance of
  mind (cetovimutti) and deliverance by wisdom (pannà vimutti) wherein
  those evil unwholesome states (dhammas) cease without remainder.
  Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels
  - whether pleasant or painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful - he delights (abhinandati) in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains
  holding on to it. As he does so, delight (nandi) arises in him. Now,
  delight in feelings (vedanàsu nandi) is clinging (upàdàna). Becoming
  is conditioned by his clinging; becoming conditions (egoism) birth;
  (egoism) birth conditions (egoism) ageing-&-death; sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, grief and despair come to be. Thus is the arising
  of this entire mass of suffering.
~~~~
How suffering ends: On seeing a form with the eye, he is not passionate for it if it is pleasing; he is not angry at it if it is
  displeasing. He lives with attention to body established, with an
  immeasurable mind, and he understands realistically the deliverance of
  mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states
  cease without remainder. Having abandoned favouring and opposing,
  whatever feeling he feels - whether pleasant or painful or
  neither-pleasant-nor-painful - he does not delight in that feeling,
  welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in
  feelings ceases in him. From the cessation of his delight comes
  cessation of clinging; from the cessation of clinging, the cessation
  of (egoism) becoming; from the cessation of (egoism) becoming, the
  cessation of (egoism) birth; from the cessation of (egoism) birth,
  (egoism) ageing-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair
  cease. Thus is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering.
Mahàtanhàsankhaya Sutta


text:
What would you say about being overly optimistic or overly pessimistic about the ways of approaching the path?
As everyone is entitled to their own opinion to a question of this nature, let me first say this. Now I recognize that they’re both forms of conceit. If we learn the proper use of conceit: the confidence that, yes, you can do this; other people can do it, it’s something human beings have done—you’re a human being, you can do it too. Once you’ve got that amount of conviction, then it is time to drop the “you,” drop the “me,” the “I,” and then set to work. That right there makes it a lot easier. And this way you become your own best friend.

What question would you ask about being overly optimistic or overly pessimistic?

The mind when covered with the five hindrances is like clouding a clear bowl of water (still mind) with different contaminants or situations. - Sangarava sutta (SN 46.55). Likewise why would a dhamma teacher advice you not to be overly optimistic or pessimistic in practice?

@SapthaVisuddhi If it's your dhamma teacher who told you this, you probably should ask him.

Yes, OidaOudenEidos, when I get a chance I will ask him of it, and share with you'll the answer. I am sure that it is a very important point. Otherwise he would not say such a thing.

Being overly optimistic creates a turbulent mind, and in this Dhamma path it is important to calm your mind. Overly optimistic may fuel this “optimism bias” and specially in meditation takes you off base. An optimism bias, if its expectations are not met, its absence can signal anxiety or depression, its pessimistic opposite. The Buddhist term for this is Uddhacca-Kukkucca.
Many are the obstacles which block the road to spiritual progress and uddhacca is one such. Uddhacca is a Buddhist term that is translated as "excitement", "restlessness", etc. Here I have to remind you that uddhacca is not the same as what we mean by “restlessness” or “agitation”, used in conventional language. Even when there is pleasant feeling, for example, when we are attached to a quiet place, there is restlessness, uddhacca, which arises together with lobha-mūla-citta. We may think that we are calm at such a moment, but we have actually “mental excitement”. In the Theravada tradition, uddhacca is defined as a mental factor that is characterized by disquietude, like water whipped by the wind. Uddhacca or 'restlessness', belongs to the 10 fetters (samyojana), and to the 5 hindrances (nīvarana). It is one of those 4 mental factors inseparably associated with all unwholesome consciousness. Uddhacca is a close friend to moha (ignorance). Uddhacca spreads and disperses and wanders around. It is said to be like throwing of a stone into a heap of ash. In its presence, citta becomes restless and upset.
The person who develops belief and confidence in Satipatthana will not be in a hurry. Also he will not be lazy. Many people have this indecent hurry. They are in an unnecessary hurry. That is why they try to practice for hours at the beginning itself. Such a person is in an unnecessary haste. That unnecessary haste is due to impatience. One who has trust in Satipatthana or has confidence in it is not in haste. What does he have? Patience. The nature of one who is pleased with Satipatthana, who trusts it, who understands it becomes patient. Patience arises in him. Why does he have patience? Why does patience arise in him? Why is he not in a hurry? Because of confidence. What is his confidence? It is the unflinching confidence in the Triple Gem.

Being your own best friend is good if you can manage it. Conceit is an attempt at having self-worth probably as compensation for being unloved as a child. The need to be conceited is a tragic situation that is very difficult to unlearn. Being overly optimistic or overly pessimistic may or may not be caused by conceit, but it is caused by ignorance (lack of information). Real confidence comes from knowing how a meditation actually works. For those of us who have grown up in a culture that values meditation, confidence in meditation comes easily. But, for those of us who grow up with a high regard for Western science, there is a need for an explanation that is not provided by Buddhist texts. I have recently written a book on "How Mindfulness Meditation Works." The explanation I suggest is that the Bodhicitta provides "safeguards" that eventually correct mistaken beliefs, wishes, and emotions, by seeking a better versions of the mental actions (karma) involved. The Buddhist mindfulness meditation accelerates this innate process of correcting attitudes that undermine our ability to be attuned to the wisdom of the Bodhicitta. The traditional way to deal with a hindrance is to take note, "I am experiencing conceit," and carry on meditating. "Dropping" the "you," "me," and "I" is based upon a misconception that these concepts are hindrances to Enlightenment or to a true understanding of the mind. The reality is that every concept has meaning in terms of the frame of reference, representation of reality, and/or the past experiences of the person using the concept. By questioning your concept of "me," you do not come any closer to the Buddha's concept of "me."

I consider much of the content of your post to be good but, in my opinion, it is best to relinquish the unproven idea you keep posting that negative mental states are due to being unloved as a child. The Buddha taught all people are born with the inborn underlying tendency to develop conceit. The Buddha taught conceit is one of the last 3 from 10 fetters eradicated for full enlightenment. Conceit is unrelated to be being unloved, in fact, many conceited people are the product of being overly loved. See link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.011.than.html


text:
Goal of Meditation
Currently writing a summary of Buddhism, I now have to write about the famous
Samatha Bhavana meditation.
Having explained how to practice Samatha Bhavana, I'm now proceeding to explain why practice Samatha Bhavana, and that's where I need your kind help.
Many say that the point of Samatha Bhavana is to stop desire, and therefore suffering - as desire and suffering are indeed intimately connected.
Is that true : is that the point ?
And if yes, how does Samatha Bhavana stop desire ?
If that's not true, what then is the real point of Samatha Bhavana ?
I've come across many different views on that matter, really... That's why I need the help of seasoned Buddhists in order to answer it.
Thank you in advance.

The real goal of meditation is insight. The calm from the samatha practice is just a means to this end.

Both very precise and short, thank you very much!

The purpose of Samatha Bhavana is to obtain a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now (AN 4.41) so the mind has a source of pleasure that is superior to (AN 2.66) & therefore overcomes the need for using (dangerous, troublesome, diminishing value & unsatisactory) sensual pleasures as a source of happiness (MN 75).
Keep in mind the 'Middle Way' taught by the Buddha (SN 56.11) is that way of life that seeks the pleasure of jhana. The Middle-Way is not a path of deprivation or torment.
In addition, Samatha or Tranquility is also one quality contributing to the stability of Concentration ('Samadhi'). Concentration serves as the means to Insight (Vipassana).
That said, Samatha Bhavana cannot permanently stop or 'uproot' the tendency towards desire (craving). Only Vipassana Bhavana can uproot desire.
However, as already stated, Samatha Bhavana does help in giving up much sensual desire since the pleasure of Samatha Bhavana is superior to the pleasure of sensuality.
To quote the scriptures:

Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Sensual pleasantness and the pleasantness of giving up sensuality. Of these
  two, the pleasantness of giving up sensuality is better.
AN 2.66

~~~

Māgandiya, a delight apart from sensual pleasures, apart from
  unwholesome states, which surpasses even divine sensual bliss. Since I
  take delight in that, I do not envy what is inferior nor do I delight
  therein.
MN 75

~~~

There is the development of [mind using] concentration that, when
  developed & pursued, leads to a pleasant abiding in the here &
  now....There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from
  sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in
  the first jhana...
There is the development of [mind using] concentration that, when
  developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents....There
  is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away
  with reference to the five aggregates...
AN 4.41 Samadhi Sutta

~~~

These two qualities have a share in clear knowing. Which two?
  Tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana).
When tranquillity is developed, what purpose does it serve? The mind
  is developed. And when the mind is developed, what purpose does it
  serve? Passion (lust) is abandoned.
When insight is developed, what purpose does it serve? Discernment is
  developed. And when discernment is developed, what purpose does it
  serve? Ignorance is abandoned.
AN 2.30

~~~

O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus [the five
  aggregates are impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self], gets wearied
  of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets
  wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being
  wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he
  is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is
  emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life,
  what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"
Anatta-lakkhana
  Sutta

Arthur A. Jacomelli.. I felt that there is an inherent error in your question or approach. I do hope that you would see this from this little note that I will write. The goal of meditation in Buddha Dhamma is Nibbana, and nothing less than that. When writing a summary of Buddhism, Samatha & Vipassana, the most important point that should be stressed is that the thirty seven (37) requisites of Enlightenment (Bodhipakkhiya dhamma) comprise the entire Doctrine of the Buddha and all these dhamma pertaining to Enlightenment could be realized through contemplating on breathing. Only other summery is the discourse addressed by the Tathagatha to a hermit named Bahiya Daruchiriya (Bahiya of the Bark-cloth).
The Buddha had the exceptional quality of being able to direct his discourse in the most appropriate manner like an arrow that meets its target.  The Blessed One said to Bahiya,

“Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus – In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen.  In reference to the heard, only the heard.  In reference to the sensed, only the sensed.  In reference to the cognized, only the cognized.  That is how you should train yourself.  Then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that.  Where there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there.  When there is no you there, you are neither here nor between the two.  This is the end of suffering”.

I am sure that you will find enough material on Samatha as it is not particular to Buddhism alone. But in Buddhism Samatha and Vipassana cannot be separated. If you do the goal of meditation can never be reached. Before even getting into these two aspects something else needs to take place. The following simile explains this:

Take the case of a wild elephant, the wild elephant has first to be brought out from the forest into the field hitched to a tame trained elephant. Hence it is taken to a stockade and tied up securely until it is tame. When it thus becomes absolutely tame and quiet, it is trained in the various kinds of work in which it will be employed in the service of the king. It is only then that it is used in state functions and on battlefields. The realm of sensual pleasures resembles the forest where the wild elephant enjoys himself. The Buddha Sasana resembles the open field into which the wild elephant is first brought out. The mind resembles the wild elephant. Confidence (saddha) and desire (chanda) in the sasana-dhamma resemble the tame elephant to which the wild elephant is hitched and brought out into the open. Sila-visuddhi (purification of virtue) resembles the stockade. The body, or parts of the body, such as out-breath and in-breath resemble the post in the stockade to which the elephant is tied. Kayagati-sati resembles the rope by which the wild elephant is tied to the post. The preparatory work towards samatha and vipassana resembles the preparatory training of the elephant. The work of and samatha and vipassana resembles the parade ground or battlefield of the king. Other points of comparison can now be easily recognised.

People are different to one another, so there are four different ways samatha and vipassana is developed in us. In the first type… A person first develops Samatha, and after having established himself in subsequently contemplates the five groups of grasping etc. develops Vipassana. So that is Samatha followed by vipassana - after which the path is born in him/her. The second type is Vipassana followed by samatha - after which the path is born in him/her.
Yuganaddha Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya Sutta 4.170) explains the third type. That is these two develops in Tandem. Ven. Ananda describes the paths to arahantship by which insight (vipassana) and tranquillity (samatha) work hand-in-hand in this sutta. So that is Samatha and vipassana together, simultaneously - after which the path is born in him/her, and lastly in another type of people the mind stands fixed internally (i.e. on the cognizant consciousness or 'self') until it become one-pointed- after which the path is born in him/her.

Mm. Thank you very much, I feel that my question has been answered quite in depth already thanks to you two. I'm going to use all these useful pieces of information and keep on writing my essay.                           Thank you once again!

Does one practice meditation to develop Right Concentration, and if so, would this make access to jhāna necessary to meditation?

You are partly right @avatar Korra, as Buddha has said if you don’t have the pleasure & rapture that can come from jhana, you’re always going to be tempted by sensuality. That been said, one cannot come to  Right Concentration without having the first seven parts of the link. Most important is Right Understanding (clear comprehension of the Four Noble Truths). If & when you have that Jhana is like stores of food.  The first jhana is like water & grass. With the higher jhanas you get honey, butter & ghee. With Right Understanding if you practice Right Concentration, you develope right resolve,

If jhāna is where the Noble Eightfold path leads us, then is access to jhāna something that meditators should try to do at each sitting? When can one expect to develop such a skill?

Jhana can be said as a sense of wellbeing and stability you can develop from within. Only inside Jhana, can the sapta bodhyanga (Seven factors of enlightenment) can be fully developed. For this one has to practise Samatha and Vipassana properly. Then dispassionateness with understanding definitely take place. When I say PROPERLY, this is way to do this. READ.


text:
text for the 2013 course: Shamatha and the Bodhisattva Way of Life. Class 2 on Motivation and 7 Point Mind Training
Alan mentions a handout for this class from which he's teaching the Lojong. Is there any way to acquire this hand out or; is there a text that goes along with this lojong portion of the class?

You might try contacting the sponsors of the course: Santa Barbara Institute fro Consciousness Studies
P.O. Box 3573
Santa Barbara, CA 93130 info@sbinstitute.com

This is an old question, but just popped up at the beginning of my feed.
I am not sure about a handout, but the book on the subject by Alan Wallace is The Seven-Point Mind Training: A Tibetan Method For Cultivating Mind And Heart
The kindle or paperback is available on Amazon.

there are texts here on lojong
Dr. Berzin is a guru of a tibetan Mahayana lineage and offers lojong training on his website under Tibetan Mind training. There are also audio files for the mind training lectures on his Soundcloud Study Buddhism.

Could you provide a more specific link please -- a hyperlink or instructions on how or where to find the text in question on that site?


text:
How is the "self" able to recognize the interplay between the cognitive process and "desire"?
I read in Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts by Bhikkhu Bodhi that "cognition is subservient to wish", and "in subtle ways concealed from ourselves our desires condition our perceptions":

The Buddha teaches that cognition is subservient to wish. In subtle ways concealed from ourselves our desires condition our perceptions, twisting them to fit into the mould they themselves want to impose.

Can the practice of insight meditation reveal this deception of the "self", and, if so, how does the process work?

I found the introduction a strange way to encouraging people to go for Refuge, i.e., on the basis of a "human situation is similar to an iceberg"; since this is going to Refuge on the basis of ignorance or blind faith.
In my reading of the Pali scriptures, generally people go for refuge for reasons such as a clear awareness of their personal suffering or dissatisfaction or in their clear awareness of the virtues & liberation of the Buddha.
For those cognizant of their own suffering & dissatisfaction, the Buddha pointed to craving & attachment as the causes of that suffering and pointed to the Noble Eightfold Path as the method to develop mental tranquility & liberating insight.
In short, it is self-clinging that causes suffering. If you are suffering, you should be able to see it is the mind's own selfishness, self-obsession, possessiveness, etc, that is causing & manifesting the suffering.
~~~~
Further, the article is confusing because it gives the impression the 'self' creates desires and desires create perceptions.
In reality, ignorance & feelings condition perceptions, which in turn condition desires, which in turn condition attachment & the sense of "our self". That is why the Buddha called feelings & perception the 'citta sankhara' or 'mind conditioner' (MN 44).
The "self" does not create desires. It is desires that create the "self". It is feelings of pleasure & pain that create desires. The Buddha made this reality very clear in the Phagguna Sutta, in the Parileyyaka Sutta & in many other places.
Imagine a small new born baby. The baby has has no idea of 'self'. It has no concrete perceptions. A new born baby is an organism subject to the painful feelings of hunger & discomfort. From these painful feelings of hunger & discomfort come primal desires for relief. The parents of the child feed it food & give it comfort, from which the mind of the child experiences pleasant feelings. From these pleasant feelings it develops perceptions of "milk is good", "breast is good", "mother is good" and, eventually, as its brain/mind matures, perceptions of "my mother" & my father".
Therefore, the original source of perception is painful & pleasurable feelings rather than desire.
~~~~
Attempting to see through the "deception of the self" is a difficult way for a novice to approach the path. This is similar to attempting to climb a tree from the top.
"Self" is certainly a deception however the path begins by seeing the deception of desires (in that worldly pleasures cannot bring lasting & true happiness). If the mind cannot see the deception of worldly pleasures & desires, it will struggle to develop the clear concentration (samadhi) meditation which serves as the basis for the insight meditation (vipassana) that can see through the deception of the illusory 'self'.
In short, when the mind is clear, it can start to examine the arisings & nature of the 'self' thoughts. There is actually no special method. One must simply meditate in quietude & stillness.


text:
What does Buddhism say about success?
I grew up in a western country raised in a western atmosphere with a western mentality. I'm talking things like the pyramid of needs and how apparently self-gratification and personal success are the highest on the checklist. I grew up with an attitude that stressed individuality above everything else, self-accomplishment as the most important trait of a person, and everything under it (money, fame, finance, cars, houses, etc). When I started practicing Buddhism, I began to look into the nature of the "self" and the ego, and now it seems to me like there is an inner cultural conflict.
What does Buddhism say about success and accomplishment in life? It seems on one hand you have an absolute western mentality about achievement and individual strength and standing out from all others as an ultimate success. On the other, Buddhism and a lot of eastern cultures traditionaly emphasize humility, selflesness, and non-attachment to one's ego.
Thank you all~.

True. Individualism, self-achievement & success are strong features of Buddhism. The Maha-mangala Sutta & Sigalovada Sutta are excellent examples.
What mitigates blind & excessive material pursuit in Buddhism is the emphasis upon duty ('dhamma') towards the well-being of one-self & others and thus not pursuing what is excessive, harmful &/or unnecessary.
The scriptures always praise materially successful people who earn their wealth blamelessly (eg. Anana Sutta) and share their wealth with others, without being attached to it (eg. 41.1.12.).
My impression is Thai Buddhists have been particularly shrewd & successful as a nation, at least historically (rather than currently). The following link, whilst listing teachings from the ancient Pali scriptures, has a particularly Thai bent in its explanations. The focus on 'success' is very apparent.
A Constitution for Living: Buddhist Principles for a Fruitful and Harmonious Life

Also remember to read the Dighajanu Sutta or Vyagghapajja Sutta. The layman’s welfare.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.nara.html
In this sutta Buddha instructs rich householders how to preserve and increase their prosperity and avoid loss of wealth. This is  The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity.


text:
Jivaka Sutta on three conditions
In this Sutta Buddha says there are three conditions meat can be eaten

When the animals are not seen to have been killed for oneself
When someone is not told by other people that an animal has been killed for himself
When one does not suspect an animal has been killed for oneself

What if someone heard an animal was screaming when that particular meat is prepared, is this included in three conditions above or not?

2nd condition is if you didn't hear the animal being killed

Well, it can be interpreted that way too hence the question.

Based on the third point, I would give the benefit of the doubt and avoid eating that meat. This is prevalent in bhikku vinaya too, if you are in reasonable doubt; refrain.

I agree with Dulan's reply. We should heed what “Leave that which makes you doubt” means - that is to refrain from that which you are uncertain. The following example of a "Analogy of Serial Killer" will show you how we can knowingly or unknowingly be involved in 'killing' kamma.
Suppose we have a serial killer in a certain city who has raped and killed many women so that no woman dares to venture outdoor at night. The whole city is in uproar and the citizens demand that the authorities do their duty and catch the killer. So the police, after several months of pains taking effort, finally nabs the culprit. After this is a long trial and then the judge passes the death sentence on him. On the appointed day the killer is led to the execution platform where the executioner pulls the lever to end the killer’s life.
All this now leads to the question: “Who is involved in the evil kamma of killing a human being (i.e. the serial killer)?” According to the law of kamma-vipaka, the executioner bears the heaviest offence because he intentionally carried out the killing. Next would be the judge for pronouncing the death sentence. These two persons are directly involved in the killing kamma of the execution of the serial killer. The police are only indirectly involved and not responsible for the execution. How about the citizens? Ultimately the serial killer was executed to protect the citizens, i.e. he was executed for the sake of the citizens, or the citizens were the main beneficiaries of the execution. So are the citizens responsible for the killing kamma involved? No, because they did not ask for the execution of the serial killer. But they could be if they demanded his execution. The scenario is similar to the slaughter of animals for food.
The persons who slaughter the animals bear the heaviest killing kamma. The persons who breed animals for slaughter are also involved in the killing kamma. They are like the judge who condemned the man to be executed. But the people who buy the meat of animals already slaughtered are not involved in the kamma of killing even though, like the citizens of the city above, they are the main beneficiaries. But if someone orders a live animal to be slaughtered for its meat, then killing kamma is involved for him.

The third point of three conditions is  "Suspecting of killing an animal for oneself." Therefore hearing screams of an animal of being killed will definitely give a person doubtful thoughts about the purpose of the killing. Whether the animal is killed for his own meal or not. If in doubt the person should not eat the prepared meal.

What about if someone lives near slaughter house, they might hear the cry of animals most of the time but the animal maybe killed not specially for him.

The person nearby a slaughter house should not buy meat from the slaughter house itself. Because he will be conscious about the killings and will be guilty of himself. And eventually get bad karma for having thoughts of guilt.

Meat eating is prevalent in most Buddhist communities because of interpretation. Interpretation is a matter of convenience. So interpret it whatever you deem fit. If meat is the only thing you can survive on eat meat otherwise be vegetarian. Being vegetarian has its advantage that it helps in meditation but if you can digest meat easily and it is not a hindrance in meditation I guess you can have it. Be objective and use your own experience which can only be only obtained through experimentation. If you go by books and interpretation it will be impossible to come to any conclusions.


text:
Do we reduce hindrances gradually?
Do we reduce hindrances gradually ?  is it like we have 10000 units of hindrances (of different types)  and we lower them each time we are aware of them ?
is it a right way to see how we advance - as how much we lowered our hindrances ?

The mind when covered with the five hindrances is like clouding a clear bowl of water (still mind) with different contaminants or situations. – Sangarava sutta (SN 46.55) Also try to refer to Nivaranapahna Vagga. (The 5 mental hindrances: their causes and ending – A 1.2).
The five mental hindrances (nivarana) which obstruct concentration, are: (1) sense-desire, (2) ill-will, (3) sloth and torpor, (4) agitation and remorse, (5) skeptical doubt. For details, see The Five Mental Hindrances and their Conquest, by Nyanaponika Thera (BPS Wheel No. 26).
In the Samyutta Nikaya (Sutta 46.4.8), it is stated that when one listens to the Dhamma attentively, the five hindrances (nivarana) do not exist and the seven factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga) are present. Through factors of concentration these five are suppressed (also when wholesome activities are done these five hindrances can be suppressed).

One 'pointedness' opposite of sense desires
Joy opposite of ill will
Discursive (applied) thoughts opposite of sloth & torpor
Happiness or comfort (pali term 'sukha') opposite of restless & worry
Sustained thought opposite of doubt

A person becomes mindful about:

Existence of a hindrance (sense desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & worry, or doubt)
Non-existence of a hindrance
When a non existing hindrance arises
When a hindrance that has arisen is removed
When the removed hindrance does not arise again

This widespread harmful influence of the five hindrances shows the urgent necessity of breaking down their power by constant effort. One should not believe it sufficient to turn one's attention to the hindrances only at the moment when one sits down for meditation. Such last-minute effort in suppressing the hindrances will rarely be successful unless helped by previous endeavour during one's ordinary life.
One should carefully observe how, and on which occasions, these hindrances usually appear. One should further know the positive forces within one's own mind by which each of these hindrances can best be countered and, finally, conquered; and one should also examine one's life for any opportunity of developing qualities to counter these. In some cases, subjects of meditation have been added which will be helpful in overcoming the respective hindrances.
By the "worldling" (puthujjana)  however, only a temporary suspension and partial weakening of the hindrances can be attained. Their final and complete eradication takes place on the stages of sanctity (ariyamagga):

Doubt is eliminated on the first stage, the path of stream-entry (sotapatti-magga).
Sensual desire, ill will and remorse are eliminated on the third stage, the path of non-returner (anagami-magga)
Sloth and torpor and restlessness are eradicated on the path of Arahatship (arahatta-magga).

Hence the reward of the fight against the hindrances is not only the limited one of making possible a shorter or longer spell of meditation, but every step in weakening these hindrances takes us nearer to the stages of sanctity where deliverance from these hindrances is unshakable.

Thanks for the answer - do we have a certain amount of hindrances which we slowly with practice (meditation+daily life)  ?

As long as we can be in 'sati sampajanna' we can keep the hindrances at bay. Alertness and awareness come under the Pali word, sampajañña. Sati means keeping something in mind, like remembering to stay with the breath, remembering the various things that help in the training of the mind. It functions a lot of ways in the practice.

i read mahasi sayadaw said we should have continued awareness non stop to advance - so i always wonder if i did a retreat for 15 days  but since than i didnt do anything wasnt mindful nothing for a year - did i lose all i "gained" in the mahsi sayadaw (ven. ajahn tong technique)  retreat ?
thats why i ask this question - to know if a way of advancing is removing hindernaces - cause if so it means that i did "gain" something in the retreat which lasts even though a year has passed

Mahsi Sayadaw says that the mind is only temporarily purified from the five mental hindrances at a retreat & when meditating. Then he too refer you to the same source that I mentioned in my post, for details –ie. see The Five Mental Hindrances and their Conquest, by Nyanaponika Thera. Though meditation help the dust (of hinderances) to settle, it gets blown and clouds your sight once you are out of the meditative state. Only once you begin walking the Noble Eightfold Path that you can with time find a permanent solution.

the mind is temporarily purified but a certain amount of hindrances are purified for good right ?  they might come back -  i purified some greed and than gained it back doing action in daily life that create greed --   and maybe because the retreat purify a big amount of hindrances than maybe i didnt "fill" the amount of hindrences i "lost" during the retreat in the passing year ?

Breath... just see... you are reaping the benefits in this very life. The Supreme Bliss of Nibbana which most of us postponed is not knowing this Sandittiko property (realisable in current life upon practice) that you are seeing in your own life. It is the same in me. Now I have not used pesticides in my garden for the last 8 years, I do not drink even wine. I am careful not to say even white lies. Now I never rely on astrology or horoscopes or auspicious times, but seek the protection of Dhamma. I am sure that you too see such changes in your life after coming to dhamma.


text:
How is the Anatta (not-self) doctrine useful?
My question today concerns Anatta's usefulness.
What good does it bring us to realize that the "self" (what things are
and who we are), because it is permanently changing, is therefore not real ? (that there's no "this is like that" or "I am like that" : only "this is", and "I am") ?
Personally - if this is Anatta, if I didn't get it wrong, realizing this gives me a sense of freedom (as knowing that I am born and that I die at
each moment makes me stop clinging to ideas I sometimes have about myself).
Is this what Anatta's supposed to produce ? Not-clinging to reach Nibbana ?
Thank you !

The 'self' is an idea/assumption born from craving for & attachment to things (Parileyyaka Sutta, paragraphs 9 to 11). When the things attached to pass away (due to impermanence) there is suffering because of the 'self-clinging' or 'self-identity' with those impermanent things produces the sense of 'loss'. The Nakulapita Sutta explains this very well & simply.
Therefore, yes. The purpose of anatta is to produce not-clinging to end suffering & reach Nibbana.
The Anatta-lakkhana Sutta answers your question, particularly the last paragraphs (below):

...all...must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality,
  thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets
  wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception,
  gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness.
  Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from
  passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge
  that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth [of self] is exhausted, lived
  is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more
  of this [self] becoming.'
This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were
  delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this
  exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks
  were freed of defilements, without attachment.

That's really helping, thank you for your kind answer! That's really hard to get what most sutras are trying to say, considering the almost esoteric language used within... That's why I need knowledgeable people such    as yourself to confirm me whether or not I understood them properly.

I think the use is described in Alagaddupama Sutta,

Abandoning Possessions & Views
"Monks, you would do well to possess that possession, the possession
  of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change,
  that would stay just like that for an eternity. But do you see that
  possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent,
  eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an
  eternity?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a possession, the
  possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject
  to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity.
"Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of
  self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of
  self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, grief, & despair?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a clinging to a doctrine of
  self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, grief, & despair.

The problem is that clinging to any doctrine of self would cause sorrow and so on to arise. So it's better to have no doctrine of, to not have a doctrine of, self.
I read this essay No-self or Not-self? as saying that the question of self ("Self or no self?") could lead to a doctrine of self if it were answered, and shouldn't be answered and/or an answer shouldn't be inferred (because doctrines of self lead to suffering).
The Anatta-lakkhana Sutta says that what's impermanent is unsatisfactory and that it isn't proper to regard that as self,

Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it
  proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present,
  internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all
  that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality,
  thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

In a sutta like Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta he holds neither that body and soul are same, nor that body and soul are different; partly because,

the position ... is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding

The Simsapa Sutta suggests that what's being taught is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

IMO the Anatta doctrine should be understood as being in contrast to the Ātman (Hinduism) doctrine.

I think that at least two of the fetters are associated with a sense of self: "identity view" and "conceit" (see e.g. these answers about identity view and these answers about conceit for further details).

Another famous, relevent summary is at the end of the The Anatta-lakkhana Sutta:

Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever [of the five khandhas], past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

That "This is not mine" could be viewed as an antidote to greed (thirst or attachment which, according to the second noble truth, causes suffering): either an antidote like a medicine taken to cure a disease, or perhaps a description of the healthy state when the disease doesn't exist.
Similarly the view that "I am not this" might be an antidote to pride.
Finally, "this is not my self" (or "not my soul") might be the logical consequence of the previous two, i.e. perhaps it's what you'd believe (i.e. what your view would be) if you had no craving (desire for "mine"), and also no conceit or pride.

Moving on (from the Pali suttas to Mahayana-influenced doctrine), the Dalai Lama said that he views himself as "not special" and "just like other people": that otherwise (e.g. if he thought of himself as "the Dalai Lama" or as "the Nobel Peace Prize Winner") he would feel imprisoned.

Na Tumhaka Sutta: Not Yours principle is also found in MN 22. "Not yours" is a easy explanation.

@Dhammadhatu Thank you, so I added a reference to "not mine, not me, not myself."

It is "useful" like you said. But I would like to mention that in the context of society, it is useful to assume an ego. Without it, we would not be able to function responsibly. But of course, be aware that you are just assuming it and responsibly commit actions.

Of course, of course.

It is a very interesting question @Arthur A. Jacomelli, that you have raised.
There’s a famous simile in the texts where a man is suffering from pain. He gets tied up in anxiety and misery around the pain. And the Buddha says it’s like being shot with an arrow and then shooting yourself with a second arrow. The physical pain is the first arrow; the mental pain is the second one. And it’s the mental one that’s important. As the Buddha says, the enlightened person, the awakened person, may still get shot with those first arrows but doesn’t shoot him or herself with the second.  It is because an Arahant has gone beyond the last of the four kinds of clingings – the Attavada Upadana (attachment or upadana is “firmly grasping”.) Attavada is the last of the attachments which is in other words a hindrance to the realization of Nibbana.
So our training is learning how not to shoot ourselves with that second arrow. The question is: How do we learn not to do that?  If a person who has gained very exalted states in meditation and responds by saying, “I am at peace. I am released”, the “I am” in those statements is what’s causing the problem. It shows that this person still has some connection, still has some clinging. After all, craving combined with clinging is what causes the suffering. You impose that idea of who you are on all kinds of experiences.
This is where the teaching on not-self comes in to help. Learn how to view things without creating that sense of self—because after all, that sense of self is something that we do. We make this sense of self. And it does have its functions. As the Buddha said, when you want to understand something, you have to see both its allure and its drawbacks. You don’t just watch it arising and passing away. You want to understand when it arises why you hold onto it? So if you want to understand why you make a sense of self, you have to look for its allure. And the allure here is that the sense of self is useful in a lot of contexts. When you’re eating food, you know which mouth to put it in.
It’s precisely at this fork in the road where the analysis of sabbe Dhamma anatta—all dhammas are not‐self—applies: where you might see nibbana as a dhamma, as an object of the mind. As long as you perceive it in that way, there’s going to be attachment, there’s going to be a dhamma to hold on to. So you have to learn how to overcome that attachment by applying the perception of not‐self to the dhamma of the deathless. Then, the texts say, you let go of all dhammas, which allows you to see nibbana in another way—not as a dhamma, but as the abandoning of all dhammas. That’s the ultimate. And at that point, these three perceptions lose their function. They’ve done their work, so you can put them aside. After all, they’re conditioned phenomena. When you’ve put all dhammas aside, you put them aside, too. Arahants can continue using these perceptions as a pleasant abiding for the mind, to remind them of why they’ve got the ultimate happiness, but these perceptions are no longer needed in the task of bringing about release.


text:
Which suttas in the Pali canon give instructions for how to cultivate equanimity?
Which suttas in the Pali Canon give flat out instructions for how to develop equanimity?

Indriya-bhavana Sutta translation 1
Indriya-bhavana Sutta translation 2 with commentary

Also you can check out Sata,upekkha Sukha Sutta. (The happiness of pleasure and of equanimity.) A.2.7.9.
When one is greedily attached to families one is always placed in an extreme position of difficulty and as a result one cannot maintain one's mental indifference, or equanimity. Equanimity (upekkha)is the main teaching of Buddhism. Attachment, either personal or impersonal, paves the way to ignorance (avijja) which prevents one from understanding what is good and evil, what is merit and what is demerit, what is right and what is wrong. Therefore we should be wise enough to be detached from the world as far as possible and of equanimity. But here I should emphatically say that revulsion is the other extreme. So attachment as well as revulsion should be understood very clearly and categorically. Understanding detachment paves the way to the realization of Nibbana through upekkha or equanimity.

MN 54 - Potaliya Sutta: To Potaliya
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.054x.than.html
The Buddha said in the Potaliya Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya that the pleasures of the senses are perilous and of much pain, (bahudukkha bahupayasa adinavo ettha bhiyyo). Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity .
In this Sutta, pleasures have been compared to a skeleton (atthikankalupamakama), to a lump of flesh (mansa pesupama kama),to a grass torch made of straw (tinukkupama kama), to a pit of glowing embers (angarakasupamakama), to a dream (supinakupamakama), to what is borrowed (yacitakupamakama), and to the fruits of a tree (rukkha phalupamakama). Sensepleasures are normally of little satisfaction and of much pain. In the Alagaddupama Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya the Buddha compared sensual pleasures; to a skeleton, a lump of meat, a torch of dried grass, a pit of glowing embers, a dream, something borrowed, the fruits of a tree, a slaughter house, an impaling stake, and a snake's head. There are ten comparisons. So we see that pleasures of the senses are through and through of little satisfaction and cause much tribulation. We shall now examine the relationship between raga and attachment.

In MN101 Buddha explains:

When I exert a fabrication against this cause of stress, then from the exertion of fabrication there is dispassion. When I look on with equanimity at that cause of stress, then from the development of equanimity there is dispassion.

What's meant here by fabrication, is a mental fabrication that counteracts the cause of stress. For example, when you see a person you like and suffer that you can never be together, you fabricate a thought like: "this person is actually not so good, we won't be happy together anyway" etc.
What's meant here by development of equanimity is looking at things philosophically and impersonally, as if from 30,000 miles away. You say to yourself, "this is just an instinct, the eyes caught the image, the brain interpreted it, the chemicals produced in the brain" etc.
Both of these techniques are further explained in the teaching on Five Perceptions (panca sanjna). The basic idea is that if dukkha is caused by a desire for an unobtainable attractive object, one should either fabricate perception of foulness, or perceive the object philosophically as a temporary arrangement of causes and conditions. And if dukkha is caused by repulsion for an unattractive object that one can't get rid of, one should either fabricate the attitude of metta, or again, perceive the object philosophically.
If you really think about it, the "philosophical" method is also a type of fabrication. We fabricate a perspective that sees the object under a different angle, which liberates the mind from the inner conflict that caused dukkha.
So what both methods boil down to, is understanding that all perspectives on things are optional, that you can pick any perspective you like, as long as it's helpful. The real equanimity comes from this realization that no perspective is "the right one" and from mastering an ability to switch perspectives at will, which leads to detachment from any single perspective and therefore to equanimity.


text:
Is hate meant to be useful in any way?
I am pretty confident that the act of hating is bad, no matter the situation/problem you are facing.
Now, does hate have any intrinsic purpose? I am thinking that maybe it was useful to hate in some step in the evolutional chain. Probably as an unconscious triggering method to keep us away of danger.
To what extent is this idea compatible with buddhism?
I am sorry if my question is not precise enough.

I think hate is in Buddhism seen as a consequence of craving. As soon as you want/like something, there are things you don't like. So the question could be as well 'Does craving have any intrinsic purpose'. The answer to this question in Buddhism would be 'Craving is conditioned by ignorance'.

Your question is clear. I have not read anything in Buddhism that explicitly states that hate is a survival instinct. This is because Buddhism concerns itself with ending suffering & hate is something that is not peaceful (SN 35.28).
That said, from an evolutionary perspective, your idea is compatible with the fundamental Buddhist principle of 'cause & effect' (conditionality) since Buddhism studies 'natural law'.
Buddhism explains hate is an underlying tendency (AN 7.11) that exists within the (subconscious) mind/brain from child birth (MN 64) (even before a child can express hate).
Buddhism states hate is a natural element or dhatu (MN 115).

The Buddha said that to really know any object, we must know five
  things about it, namely:
(1) What are the characteristics or properties of the object?
(2) From what does the object arise?
(3) What is its assāda, its enticing quality, its appeal, its
  allurement?
(4) What is the ādīnava, the hidden danger, the sinister power to harm
  that lies concealed in it?
(5) What is the nissaraṇa, the trick by means of which we can get the
  better of it?
Question
  45 page 59


text:
Bad Ordinations?
If a Novice was ordained but was not ready to be ordained because of one little issue, like for example, the novice:

admitted to not having parental permission
admitted to an alchohol problem
admitted to still have 500 shares in Facebook
claims to not be human
...and so on...

Is it the preceptor that gets in trouble or both? Is the novice defeated even if s/he didn't do anything wrong except tell the truth that s/he is defiled like most people?

Do you mean if the novice admitted this during the ordination ceremony, on being questioned, before/while being ordained?

There is an answer to all of these issues in the Vinaya. Vinaya is the Monastic Discipline (code of ethics to be obeyed). In other words Vinaya is the disciplinary code of monks and nuns. For you and I, lay disciples, it is the 5 -8 precepts. Sadly  in the present day Vinaya is not given a due prominence. That’s why many are not in a position to realize the true benefits of the Dhamma. The basic code of the monastic discipline, also called ‘Patimokkha’  contains 227 rules for monks and 311 for nuns.  Some rules and practices were regarded by the Buddha as essential and foundational to the pursuit of his teachings. Others were devised on an ad hoc basis as the Buddha encountered various behavioral problems or disputes among his followers.
Depending on the severity of the error a novice (sāmaṇera) can be re-ordained of expelled.
A novice (sāmaṇera) re-accepted (reordained) if the mistake is corrected and not that severe. Then "Immediately the uposatha is to be done, the Pāṭimokkha is to be recited." — Mv.X.5.14.  punishment should be rescinded. Physical punishment is not allowed. A bhikkhu may not hit or lift his hand against a novice any more than he can do so to any other unordained person (see Pc 74 & 75). Even playful rough-housing is forbidden. A bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa under Pc 52 for tickling a novice, and a dukkaṭa under Cv.V.31.2 for flicking a novice with his tooth wood.
Expulsion. As stated under Pc 70, a misbehaving novice may be subject to two types of expulsion: expulsion from his status as a novice and expulsion as a punishment. As with punishment, expulsion is the responsibility of the novice's mentor. Pc 70 covers the second form of expulsion.
"I allow a novice endowed with ten qualities to be expelled: He is a taker of life, he is a taker of what is not given, he engages in unchastity, he is a speaker of lies, he is a drinker of intoxicants, he speaks dispraise of the Buddha, he speaks dispraise of the Dhamma, he speaks dispraise of the Saṅgha, he holds wrong views, he is a molester of a bhikkhunī. I allow that a novice endowed with these ten qualities be expelled." — Mv.I.60
Rules for GOING-FORTH are….
"A boy less than 15 years old should not be given the Going-forth. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing." — Mv.I.50.1 "I allow that a boy less than 15 years old be given the Going-forth if he is capable of chasing crows." — Mv.I.51.1
"A son without permission from his parents should not be given the Going-forth. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing." — Mv.I.54.6
How a novice is to be ordained — Mv.I.54.3
"Bhikkhus, I allow the Going-forth for a novice by means of these three goings for refuge." — Mv.I.54.3


text:
Reference request: Can a king rule justly without killing?
I recall reading a sutta in which the Buddha rises from meditation and says that while he was meditating, it occurred to him: Is it possible for a king to rule righteously without killing? If anyone knows the text I am talking about, it would be much appreciated.

@PeterDavidCarter-Poulsen Well done, that's from the Dhammapada commentary for verses 331-333. Would you please repost that as an answer instead of as a comment?

What you are referring to comes from the Discourses of the Sutta Pitaka, and can be found within the book The Connected Discourses of The Buddha; A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya by Bhikku Bodhi, Vol. 1, pg 209.
"On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling among the Kosalans in a small forest hut in the Himalayan region.  Then when the Blessed One was alone in seclusion, a reflection arose in his mind thus: 'Is it possible to exercise rulership righteously: without killing and without instigating others to kill, without confiscating and without instigating others to confiscate, without sorrowing and without causing sorrow?' "
--SN 4.20

Basically the Buddha says "no" due to the 3rd noble truth.

Thank you, Bonnie!! I've been looking for this for a long time!

Try to read the "Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta" - D26. It is the  Discourse on the Lion-roar of the Wheel-turner.
The Supreme Buddha once explained... sometimes a person is born to the world with 32 bodily characteristics that a Buddha has. That person is known as a Sakviti Raja (a universal monarch). Even though the universal ruler also has the great 32 bodily characteristics, he could be a Prutakjana (one who has not come into Dhamma) person who has the propensity to be born in low-level worlds. Once he became the universal monarch, he rules the world or the Chakkavatti Rājjyaya (ChakkavattiKingdom) with great moral qualities. As a result of this, he gained great merits and will be reborn in heaven. However, if he is still in the Prutakjana state, he can get a birth in one of the four low-level worlds at the end of his lifetime in heaven. On the other hand, a noble disciple of Tathāgata (the Supreme Buddha) even with many difficulties in his life as a human will overcome the Prutakjana state. This results in his rebirth in same divine worlds as the Universal King was born. Thus, he overcomes the birth in these low-level worlds after his lifetime as that poor person. This example clearly shows us how the possibility of a normal being to be born in Hell, Animal, Preta, or Asura worlds.

Can you quote a bit from the sutta, to show that this sutta answers the question (contains the story summarized in the question)?

The explanation that I've given is more from the life of the Buddha, at the time of birth - how the acetic 'Asitha' and the other elders - explained thus. Also there are pointers from what the Srilankan monks have given - mostly taken from 'Atuwa' (Commentaries ?)   In the artical ( http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/36.10-Cakkavatti-Sihanada-S-d26-piya.pdf ) which is 50 pages long and contains related sutta, info about such universal monarchs is found in bits and pieces.