text:
What is the purpose of the 5th precept?

“Furthermore, abandoning the use of intoxicants, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking intoxicants. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings.”

To be clear, I am trying to figure out the spirit behind the 5th precept. To see how far it spans and what exactly constitutes intoxication.

To dispel any doubt about his reasons for prescribing this precept, the Buddha has written the explanation into the rule itself: one is to refrain from the use of intoxicating drinks and drugs because they are the cause of heedlessness (pamada). Heedlessness means moral recklessness, disregard for the bounds between right and wrong. It is the loss of heedfulness (appamada), moral scrupulousness based on a keen perception of the dangers in unwholesome states. Heedfulness is the keynote of the Buddhist path, "the way to the Deathless," running through all three stages of the path: morality, concentration, and wisdom. To indulge in intoxicating drinks is to risk falling away from each stage. The use of alcohol blunts the sense of shame and moral dread and thus leads almost inevitably to a breach of the other precepts. One addicted to liquor will have little hesitation to lie or steal, will lose all sense of sexual decency, and may easily be provoked even to murder. Hard statistics clearly confirm the close connection between the use of alcohol and violent crime, not to speak of traffic accidents, occupational hazards, and disharmony within the home. Alcoholism is indeed a most costly burden on the whole society.
-- A Discipline of Sobriety (by
Bhikkhu Bodhi)

Where do addictions enter the equation? Drugs other then alcohol?
These do not seem to be covered by the explanation (assuming the claim is true, which I do not know of).
What about intoxicating love? Where do we draw the line between lust and intoxication?
What about intoxication and ignorance? Is there even a difference?
Thank you

the word 'addiction' or its synonym are absent in the the formula of this precept and so, as already pointed out by Sankha Kulathantille in his answer, the precept is not about addiction, Ven Bodhi in my opinion very accurately described the purport of this precept (please don't delete without notification)

The 5th precept is not about addictions. It is referring to taking substances that lead to heedlessness, whether you get addicted to it or not.
Love/sexual misbehavior is covered under the 3rd precept. Again, it's not about addiction.
The intoxication discussed under the 5th precept is chemically muddling your senses. Especially the mind. Ignorance plays a role in wanting to do that. Once you are intoxicated, it leads to more ignorant acts.

Its very simple.
If your goal is the spiritual path, you must do well to not harm yourself, or other people mindlessly. Alcohol used for intoxication is not good for this purpose. If you're looking for a good time just generally, socially, it is okay in small amounts. You won't do much wrong because it is moderate. In this regard, I also have something to say about abstaining from alcohol. You can still have a nice time without it and don't need to depend on it unless it is a social stigma. This includes things like excess of love or lustful feelings. If you are mindful of what you want to do, you will understand what to do. :)
With alcohol/drugs, there is a tendency to go mindless and do "weird" things. Without alcohol/drugs, you have your senses firmly with you and you can control your actions well.
Which part of this did you not understand?
Its not a rule. It is a basic understanding or reasoning of what your goal is, and what your action should be.
Thus, it very clearly depends on which path you are taking, either spiritual or material. The path is the goal.
PS: I see NUMEROUS questions about the precepts on this site. Don't get too technical about what is mentioned and what is not mentioned in the texts. That will become endless interpretation. Measure yourself and your goal and you will automatically know the actions you need to take up.

What about intoxicating love?

it's the cause of all suffering. AFAIK
The 5th precept in my country translation is avoid the food and drink that can cause intoxicate and addiction. Some people believe the smoking is not one of the consideration because it's not a food neither a drink, even though it is caused addiction. And small amount of alcohol would not cause the intoxicate.
It's all can be arguable and I don't think the winner also hold the right answer. So, the best I think we look at the original purpose of following the precepts like you mentioned above "In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings." And know what the best for us.

Intoxicants usually refers to alcohol and drugs. But it can also refer to the five pungent herbs: onion, garlic, leeks, chives, asofoetida. Supposedly, these act as aphrodisiacs. So, they are banned by one of the minor bodhisattva precepts in the Brahmanet Sutra.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Not listening to parents is bad karma?
This is something that I keep hearing from my grandmother that annoys me so much. Although I am of age (26 to be precise), I am still expected to listen to almost every word that my parents say (at least according to my grandmother).
Not to bring personal matters to the site, but I keep arguing that not listening to parents should not be considered ill-treatment of them. They expect me to wear nice clothes, but I don't. (I prefer wearing the same clothes. Who has time for fashion?) They expect me to marry the one they want. They always say that as a Buddhist I should be very obedient. These days when you turn on the TV to listen to some Buddhist advice, monks most of the time talk about parent-child relationships and go on about how children should always listen to their parents.
I am not saying my parents ask me to do anything bad, but as children we know (sometimes, not always) what is best for us. But when we do what we want all hell breaks loose. Daddy shouting, Mommy crying, and Granny shouting that my bad karma will eventually give me disobedient children just like me.
Jokes aside, I want a serious explanation when it comes to parent-child relationships. I am quite aware of the Sigalovada Sutra, but when we do something we want and parents get hurt, is it always bad kamma? It can't be, right? Otherwise the amount of bad karma Prince Siddhartha would have gained after all the pain his father went through...
Please share your thoughts.

Instead of asking about 'bad kamma', if I were asking this question I'd ask something about how to decide whether and when to listen to parents' advice, and/or (if not advice) whether and how to respect or fulfill their wishes or desires.

This is something I keep hearing from my grandmother that keeps annoying me so much. Although I am well off age (26 to be precise) I am still expected to listen to almost every word that my parents say (at least according to my grandmother). Not to bring in any personal matters into the site but I keep arguing that not listening to parents should not be considered as ill-treating them.

Not listening is not necessary ill treating but if you are intentionally hurting them then it is negative Karma.
Any way it is a good idea to listen to your parents but it does not mean you have to do exactly. They may have experiences you might not have. So best cause of action is to get their input and them proactively take the best possible and rational action. Sometimes by just listening you parent maybe happy.
Also be diplomatic when when you have a difference of opinion.

They expect me to wear nice clothes but I don't (I prefer wearing the same clothes. Who has time for fashion?).

Fashion is actually changing and attitudes. Getting too attached or averse to them is not skillful. Best is to get into a happy medium. If you are scruffy then your social acceptance will also go down hence there is some point in having to dress nicely. Everyone has to depend of society even monks to get their requisites hence you should be reasonably acceptable and presentable.

They expect me to marry the one they want.

If you have someone see how you can present the person of your choice. Sometimes there may be issues with your choice you might have not considered. If it is purely driven by lust it might not work. So think about compatibility. Play it tactfully.
Also the following answer maybe of some help: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/14207/295 in choosing the right person.

They always say that as Buddhist I should be very obedient and these days when your turn the TV to listen to some Buddhist advice, monks most of the time talk about parent-child relationship and goes on about how children should always listen to parents.

As mentioned above getting wider range of input is beneficial to make optimal decisions. More than just robotically doing what you parents say what is needed is to make the relationship more cordial. This maybe difficult due to the generation gap.

I am not saying my parents ask me to do anything bad. But as children we know (sometimes not always) what is best for us.

Life choices perhaps may not be determinable until it plays out when you do not know who is right. All you can do make decision with the best facts you have.

But when we do what we want all hell breaks lose, daddy shouting mommy crying and granny shouting my bad karma will eventually give me disobedient children just like me.

Disobedience and rebellious behaviour sometimes maybe rooted in version. What you have to is to see if there is aversion or some sort of irritation is present and this is influencing your cause of action.
If 3 people feel your are in the wrong perhaps take a step back and see if actually what you have done is the best and what other alternatives would have been there. I am not saying you might be wrong but when this happens it is good through revisit something you have done just to reaffirm what you did is best with the information you had.
In addition willfully making your parents happy would be positive karma. So if you can do something to make them happy go for it. It is some time very little things which go a long way.

Jokes aside, I want a serious explanation when it comes to parent-child relationship. I am quite aware of the singalovada sutta but when we do something we want and parents get hurt is it always bad karma?
It can't be right?

If you do it with intention to hurt or your are due to being internally angry then it will be. So try to get into knowing your true intentions and motivation and what it is rooted in.

Otherwise the amount of bad kamma prince Siddhartha would have gained after all the pain his father went through... Pleas share your thoughts.

Prince Siddhartha left the householder's life with the intention of liberation and helping mankind. This is positive. Though incidentally his father maybe hurt it was not his intention.
If you can think of ways to do something without hurting someone then this would be the best cause of action. But with many lifes choices not everyone will be always agreeable and satisfied, hence try to be accommodating as possible within reason and follow through with the best action taking into account to all opinions and parties affected. Keep in check there is no negative motivations, volition of roots in what you are doing.

Thanks again for your advice. But social acceptance is something I do not get or like to consent to because it is mostly about outer appearance. I did not mean I wear terrible clothes but I tend to be very modest with my attire  but it is mostly frowned upon in this society sadly!

You have to try to live in harmony with oneself and others. This means sometimes you have to try to fit in. Also see if simplicity is an ideal you hold and trying to be simple is creating issues then perhaps you are too attached to your ideal.

There is always someone who will have an issue with what someone does. Maybe it's they who should have a different outlook? Trying to fit in is just the easy way out and is a temporary solution from the way I see it.

In a way you are right. But see if what you do is the norm or not. It is not clear cut.

Dhammapada Verse 43. Well-Trained Mind Excels people of the world
What one’s mother, what one’s father,
whatever other kin may do,
the well directed mind indeed
can do greater good.
Explanation: A well directed mind can help a person better than one’s worldly   father or mother.

I found this article when I was searching "Buddhism" and bad parents.
For nearly 20 years I have been working with young people who have been emotionally abused by their parents.
I have learned a lot about society and belief systems while doing this work.
Right now I am trying to help a 15 year old transgender teenager who was sent to a mental health hospital by her emotionally abusive and neglectful mother.
It is unhealthy for her to live under the control of this mother. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about this.
The mother is not meeting the emotional needs of the teen.
I suggest we look at things from a perspective of "who needs what". I have found that a lot of parents have a big need to control their children, of any age.
One way they do that is with guilt trips.
If you are not sure what a guilt trip is, you can google it.
I would say that telling someone that to "not listen to your parents is bad karma" is a manipulative guilt trip designed to control behavior.
I thank Heisenberg for their post and for using their brain and emotional intelligence to question something that is, for me at least, very obviously messed up.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE:) Could you add a reference to the article?

In this columns all I can see is they are talking of the parents who are carelessly neglecting their children and now the children are wondering how to deal with it. BUT in truth & in fact, there are some parents who have suffered so much in their younger lives to bring up their kids, and those kids grew up, they seem to ill treat their very caring yet now older parents. How can that be regarded as? How could such children be blessed by anyone?

Buddha have explained that people have unskillful mental factors, in English we call them "delusions" or "vexations".
It would be unwise to always chain yourself to a duty of listening to all the streams of information that deluded-vexated minds produce.
In fact, Buddha have advised to avoid useless conversations.
On the other hand, we always can try to act with karuna (compassion) and prajna (wisdom).
It does not require listening to everything a person would say; sometimes ignoring and mocking someone is wise and compassionate.
To become wiser and more compassionate, we need to dissolve opposition to others (and oppositions in ourselves).
If we do not oppose people, we can understand their delusions and vexations as something that does not oppose us; rather it's some part of our own life, of our own existence.
Then we can deal with problems, opposing problems, not opposing people.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Head oscillations, magnetic force movement, dizzy head after Vipassana
I did my first Vipassana course in Feb 2016. 10 Days.
As a first timer, it went pretty well till the 7th Day.
1) On 5th, 6th and 7th day i was suffering from my head thrown back, or front, or sideways. At that that i thought i had dozed off hence the jerk. I ignored it. (I can never sleep while sitting, what i learnt in life from flights and long bus rides).
2) My forehead, third eye, used to feel strong sensations from past 1-2 yrs. It increased in vipassana and Teacher said it was normal.
3) On 7th day, I started having a feeling of light-headedness, like I was flying. I did the evening meditation very dedicatedly. I started "flying" even more, and i went ahead with it thinking it happens in meditation. It drove me away from focusing on body sensations. My focus went to forehead and head which was feeling extremely high sensations and feeling of flying.
I ceased to feel my body. There was no pain anymore due to sitting for long without moving. My head was spinning, very high sensations, and flying high and high. I went with it. This was last meditation of the day and I went to bed.
4) The sensations wouldnt stop. Even with eyes open, even if I focused at the wall, the head would spin, sensations in forehead were strong and i would "fly".
I tried to sleep, but as soon as i closed eyes, head was extremely dizzy, strong sensations, like maddening. Head was oscillating back and forth and sideways.I had to open my eyes. I sat up and rested my head against the wall.
I fell asleep very late, when the body was so damn tired that it gave up, when i went to sleep in 1 second, before the closed eyes could feel the sensations i fell asleep.
The night was spent sitting.
Next day I talked to the teacher and she said the experiences were normal. She asked me not to "fly" and focus on sensations.
5) Day 8, 9, 10: I was not able to meditate. Day 8 - I was not able to close eyes. The moment i would close, the spinning and flying sensation would start and was unbearable for me. To stop from flying and focus on sensations i had to open my eyes. Day 8 i pretty much spent with few minutes of closed eyes only. Rest, i have sat with eyes open looking here and there, or focusing on breathing with open eyes.
6) Day 8, i realized that the spinning feeling was because of an invisible magnetic field moving around me. I was feeling it like wind blowing around me.
Passing time nothing to do, i was casually looking at my thumbs together. My palms were in shape of a ball/cup. And it was like oh my god!.. There was a ver strong magnetic field rotating between my palms!!
With this revealation, i focused on it and realized, that was what causing my head oscillate upto 135 degrees left and right, back and forth, 24 hrs, if i didnt held it with force.
7) Day 8, i decided not to meditate in evening. I sat through the sessions blankly with open eyes, after permission from teacher.
But this helped me fall asleep at night.
8) Day 9, I met the teacher again. She said, meditate 2-3 min as much as i can. The moment i start flying too much, i should move to Aanapan and focus on breath. If i still fly, i should open eyes, come back to normal, and restart again with sensations.
9) I accepted it and spent my day9 and 10 like this. My concern was, what after 10 days? Do I continue like this? Am i doing anything incorrectly?
10) after returning home, the dizzyness continued.Flying sensations continued. It has been 10 days since i have returned, but i still feel little dizzy all 24 hrs.
Dizzyness has reduced as my meditation has come down to 1 hr per day. But not gone.
A hard rock music listener before, now even loud talking hurts my ears and head badly. But i take it as anitya and bear with it neutrally.
The first time i drove car after vipassana, i took reverse to take it out from house. The reverse movement spinned my head so badly, if there was a car behind me, i wd hv hit it.
It's difficult to focus on one thing, like a book, screen, one car ahead close to you, someone talking to you standing close,etc.
This is going on with me all the time. I am not reacting, letting it go.
11) Meditation : I try for 1 hr daily, but the same problem persists. In 3-4 mins, i start flying. Forehead has severe sensations and takes my attention away. If i dont open my eyes, i start flying with the flying feeling. Magnetic force starts running around me again.
If I continue with it, my head will oscillate again.
But I shift to Aanapan, and open my eyes. Take 2-3 mins to be normal.
Then restart.
I am a strong believer, and I am not gonna leave it being scared.
I am hear to face it, and if anything needs to be changed i am ready.
Question..
whats happening to me?
did i do anything incorrectly?
what should i do with problems in normal life?
what should i do with meditation practice?
Please help
Be happy and God bless

When energy which is stored in lowest chakra starts rising you experience jerks. Vipassna has unleashed the stored energy.
Unfortunately your past has created lot of bottlenecks for the energy to rise upwards. There is simple technique of removing bottlenecks which Buddha taught. One needs to scan all parts of his body slowly with eyes closed. whenever on some part there is some sensation (twitching, pain etc) center your attention for sometime till the sensation subsides.
Try this technique and if it does not help go to some other expert. Do not try to force the upward movement of energy till you are pure in body, mind and heart.

Thank you, Shashank. Is your suggestion about meditation same as that taught in 10 day vipassana (which is again, Budhdha's) ? I am asking because it sounds similar. I was observing sensations in body parts when this occurred. However, I do seem to agree with your thought of energy bottleneck. It would help if you explain your technique a little more and with its name. ... Also, I practiced Reiki before. Until about day before I did Vipassana, I have practiced it.  Is there a chance that it may be related?

oh yes it is same thing...its a classic detox method taught by many masters including Gurdjeff. Energy blocks can be removed by massage, accupunture etc. But yogis didnt have tools for direct physical detox so they used pranic body for detox. Though its slow but nonetheless quite handy as no external things are required.

Dont go after names understand the principle involved. Your attention to the part increases the pranic flow and thereby blood flow. Somebody downvoted my answer for simple reason they do not want to understand, they just see whether it fits in their domain of knowledge.

When you do meditation you stop creating new Sankhara. The implication of this is past Sankhara surfaces and gives minute results and pass away. When this happens you get positive or negative out of the ordinary experiences. Best is not to give importance to them. These experiences can stay for a long time but eventually will pass off. Do not make yourself unstable by worrying about them.
An analogy is opening a soda bottle. It initially fizzers and then settles after the gas is gone.
Also see: Why is my head going all Poltergeist on me

One day a young man came to our monastery asking to be a monk. He was a committed person and soon he started screaming in the night and he had other discomforts too (Loosing focus & interest). One night he was screaming and the Monks gathered to see why. The young man was talking oddly and monks understood that he is under the control of a "Pretha" (A being from a lower ralm, a bad birth caused by bad karma).
When the conversation went on the being revealed his true identity.It was his Grandfather. The being said "I can't let him reach nirvana, i will never see him again".
No matter how much Monks tried the being did not listen. But in the end the young man was relieved from that.(Monks had to chant).
The Reason i said this was that sometimes the reasons aren't tangible.So it's better to take all precautions than being ill prepared.
The solution for this issue is...
01 - Start your meditation with this :- Paying Homage to Buddha
02 - Learn this Meditation (Loving Kindness Meditation) and practice it (This meditation can be done on the go and does not require you to sit down). This Meditation can help you with any other realm disturbance and it will also gain good Karma too.
03 - Breathing Meditation can aid any other meditation. So use it before your meditation begins.
04 - If you feel any discomfort stop and give it a break. After it pass away start with this Meditation Budhdhaanussathi meditation. This is Lord Buddha's values so after doing this wish no pain or discomfort to come by the power of good karma you gained from this meditation and by the power of lord buddha.

My friend i must suggest that you should see a good teacher. Maybe something can be wrong with your posture, it can lead to many discomforts. Pick a position that is good for your Body Weight.
May the triple gems bless your efforts!

Use this Link to learn additional things on meditation
Dhamma Talks

yes, i think it's a very reasonable advice - to change the meditation method altogether, start doing samatha or metta meditation

Thank you, both of you. I do Metta at the end always, as taught by Guruji Goenka.  But yes, I agree I should also consult an expert in case there is something to be adjusted about my sitting position. As a new meditator, I used to change my position during my first 10 day vipassana and that is also when the above problem started. Thanks once again

@pritishi , You are welcome dear!  May the triple gems bless you!    Use the links i have given in the answer, those helped me a lot.

all sensations will pass away. don't give attention to that sensation and by time it will fell less stronger. if u so mind about unpleasant sensation it will multiply the magnitude of the unpleasant sensation just ignore  it. tell your self anicca anicca annica impermanent you will be fine.

You are having classic signs and symptoms of neurological problems--Lightheadedness, dizziness, head spinning, very high sensations, flying/spinning sensations, strong  forehead sensations, palm sensations, head oscillations
feeling dizzy 24 hours, inability to focus.
THESE ARE DANGEROUS NEUROLOGICAL SIGNS/SYMPTOMS DUE TO MEDITATION.
http://kundalini-brahmajnani.blogspot.com/2016/05/dangers-in-meditation-meditation-or.html
You are going to end up in the hospital if you continue your meditation. If you want your well-being, give up all meditation/concentration/focusing practices.
Shubhamsatu = Let Good Happen To You!

I am having the same feeling of spinning from the last 5 days and I started feeling this during meditation, but from the last 5 days my head is spinning all the time. I asked my spiritual mentor, and he told me to control this. Furthermore, I have to pay attention whenever it starts happening and not to get too carried away with this spinning sensation. I have a strong feeling to control it, and it is really helping me. We have to pray to our Guru to help us in this spiritual path we are attempting to move through.

Thanks for contributing and welcome. I have edited your question so that it reads slightly easier.

Praying to the Guru to help you doesn't sound like Buddhism. It sounds like Hinduism.

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

authors: Баян Купи-ка

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


text:
Best type of meditation for attention
I struggle tremendously with ADHD despite years of exploring traditional and nontraditional treatments. There are certainly many different kinds of meditation one can practice, so I was wondering what kind of meditation works best for creating lasting focus and a higher attention span in the mind.

You might want to try Samatha meditation. This type of meditation would have you fix your attention on a single object of meditation over a period of time. The common object is your in and out breaths. The point of focus is usually the tip of the nose or the upper lips where you could feel the in and out breaths making contact. Since this training requires you to stay with a single object over a long period of time, it could help your mind maintains a higher attention span and lasting focus on a subject. Sutta reference is available here and a detailed analysis is available here. Good luck..

... I was wondering what kind of meditation works best for creating lasting focus and a higher attention span in the mind. ...

Anapana meditation increases focus and attention.

Scientifically demonstrated benefits
See also: Research on meditation
The practice of focusing one's attention changes the brain in ways to improve that ability over time; the brain grows in response to meditation. Meditation can be thought of as mental training, similar to learning to ride a bike or play a piano.
Meditators experienced in focused attention meditation (anapanasati is a type of focused attention meditation) showed a decrease in habitual responding a 20-minute Stroop test, which, as suggested by Richard Davidson and colleagues, may illustrate a lessening of emotionally reactive and automatic responding behavior. It has been scientifically demonstrated that ānāpānasati slows down the natural aging process of the brain.

(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anapanasati#Scientifically_demonstrated_benefits)
So does Metta meditation

His mind can concentrate quickly

(Source: Metta (Mettanisamsa) Sutta: Discourse on Advantages of Loving-kindness)

You should also try these Meditations
Breathing Meditation :- Help increase the focus and calmness of a mind
Meththa Meditation :- If you are an angry person this will help you to come over it
Meditation of posturest full awarness :- Increases Mindfulness

I believe meditation of posture could be really good for this.

I'm relatively new to meditation, but a few things spring to mind from my experience within one tradition:
From my experience, I'd be very surprised if one form of meditation will suffice (this is true for most people). You may need a combination of awareness/mindfulness meditation to cultivate undistracted (while unstrained) concentration, kindness meditation to allow whatever arises in your experience to open up in its own way and time, and to give yourself the confidence to continue, and a receptive meditation such as the zen zazen or just sitting practice to encourage openness and patience with your experience, and an unforced approach.
Choose a set of meditations which work well together. If you are a beginner, it might be best to find a particular system or teacher and stick with their practices. I can offer the Triratna tradition's meditations, with free guided meditations here: https://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/audio/ (search "metta bhavana", "mindfulness of breathing", and "just sitting" - I would, but my internet's playing up)
Stick with the practices rather than jump around between traditions/styles. This will allow you to cultivate momentum and depth in your practice, whilst avoiding confusion. ONE CAVEAT: this is unlikely, but if the meditation is putting you in a worse state of mind, STOP (though unpleasant isn't necessarily bad). Discuss your difficulties and problems with someone, and consider changing teacher/style.
You will greatly benefit from a lifestyle which compliments your meditation, otherwise you will be pulling in two directions at once. For example, try

spending time outside of meditation without occupying yourself with activities (i.e. stillness), e.g. sitting in a chair without a purpose (not reading, talking etc) - even if this is only 5 minutes a week at first, increase it over time. If you forget - that's fine. I suspect this might be the most important one for you (though it's difficult to tell without meeting you)
extending your kindness meditation to generosity, patience etc. outside your meditation
finding things that you naturally enjoy focussing on undistracted - perhaps landscapes, relaxing music etc

And if you can, I strongly urge you to find people who are also practising meditation to discuss the process with in person.

ADHD like any other disease has origin in imbalance of five elements. Meditation is a word derived from medicine but unfortunately it is not the complete cure for a disease. It is part of balancing oneself. You need to detox through diet and lifestyle changes prior to starting meditation. I suggest you take a look at Pancha-karma of Ayurveda or Accupuncture and massage therapy of TCM. If you have resources go to India or China to get the best people. If you want to go for fast relief take veg light diet and deep tissue massage for 15 days (start with light massage) on a continuous basis.
Meditation is of two types - centering, which requires you to concentrate and decentering which requires you to let go of mind. I believe silent witnessing will work best in your case. Just sit or lie with your spine straight and watch. Do not try to control your body, thoughts or emotions. Use music, incense for help.


text:
Which Hindrances are counteracted or enhance by the 37 and Jhana Factors?
If you take Jhana factors or the 37 Factors, many of them counteract one of the Hindrances. So if these factors (and perhaps other factors mentioned in the Tripitaka) are grouped with the hindrance they counteract or enhance, what would this grouping look like? I.e.,

each hindrance
with the factors that counteract it
and the factor that enhance them either as a single factor or pair of factor being unbalanced

An answer should minimally include the Jhana and 37 Factors, and references to the Tripitaka.

This is just an outline of a few things I have collected so far:

Sensual Desire

...

One-pointedness of mind, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);
Mindfulness, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
Mindfulness, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).

Ill-Will
...
Rapture, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);
Faith, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
Rapture and equanimity, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).

Sloth and Torpor
...
Applied thought, of the factors of absorptions (jhananga);
  Energy, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
  Investigation of reality, energy and rapture, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).
When the mind is sluggish, it is not the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, because a sluggish mind can hardly be aroused by them.
When the mind is sluggish, it is the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: investigation of reality, energy and rapture, because a sluggish mind can easily be aroused by them.
— SN 46:53

Restlessness and Remorse
...
Rapture, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);
Concentration, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
Tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).
When the mind is restless it is not the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: investigation of the doctrine, energy and rapture, because an agitated mind can hardly be quietened by them.
When the mind is restless, it is the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, because an agitated mind can easily be quietened by them.
— SN 46:53

Doubt
...
Reflection, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);
Wisdom, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
Investigation of reality, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).

Source: The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest, SN 46.53 - Fire


text:
Looking for a complete list of how the 37 factors are balanced
The 37 Factors are sometimes paired as balancing factors. When they are out of balance there are some implications, and there is a controlling (or pivotal) factor which is instrumental in keeping the balance.
In many publications these are scattered throughout, so I am looking for:

balancing factors, or pair of factors which need to be balanced
the implications of any imbalance
associated Controlling (or Pivotal) Factors

... with references from the Canon where these appear.

You are referring to the 37 factors of enlightenment here correct?
http://satimabhikkhuni.blogspot.com/2009/08/thirty-seven-requisites-of.html

This is what I had in mind.

This PDF could be a useful resource, specifically the following passages:

faith and wisdom are to be balanced
  so as to avoid blind belief and mere intellectual cleverness;
  effort and concentration are to be balanced
  to avoid mental restlessness and sluggishness.
Mindfulness is the key factor that keeps all the other
  factors in balance and harmony

and

The three factors of investigation (dhamma,vicaya), effort (viriya) and zest (piti) counteract torpor.
The three factors of tranquillity (passaddhi), concentration (samādhi) and equanimity (upekkhā)
  counteract mental agitation.
Mindfulness (sati) keeps the two sets of factors in a harmonious balance.

Other than these areas I could find no references to balancing the 37 factors. Hopefully this is what you are looking for...

Thanks. In the 37 factors there are 7 sets. I am looking for a summary including each of the sets. What you have pointed is one of the 7. Thanks for this. If you manage to locate the other 6 please add then. If somebody else does please add a new answer.

I'll keep looking, but I think that the idea of balancing does not apply to all the sets.

Take a look at the PDF, in the meantime I'll see if I can find another resource.

I know this applies to some of the sets only so in which case what does it apply to and which it does not apply to. So what I have found so far is 5 Powers, 5 Faculties and 7 Enlightenment factors. I am trying to ascertain if these are the only factors or not. Also please keep searching. Also thanks very much for your efforts.

Also another personal notion I have is in the 8 fold path is each sub division of morality, concentration and wisdom has balancing factor also. I have not still found any source to confirm my hunch on this.


text:
"Human Dignity" in Buddhism
Can we find a concept of "Dignity" or "Human Dignity" in Buddhism? My understanding is that in the Western World the concept of Human Dignity is used to justify that each of us deserves to be not only treated with respect but also valued as a part of humanity whatever our origin or our place in society.
I read that each of us has the nature of Buddha. Could this be considered as the foundation of Human Dignity or a similar notion in Buddhism? What would be the closest(s) equivalent(s) in Buddhism?

Dignity in Buddhism is not built-in, it is to be earned. A realized person is respected because they deserve to be respected. If someone can control one's emotions, does not fall victim to one's weaknesses, has deep vision and wise judgement, flexible mind, and clear moral - then one can be respected. The word "arahant" ("arhat") is a Buddhist term for a realized person - it means "worthy" (of respect). The word "arya" is another such term which means "noble" or "civilized" in the highest sense.
Then there is compassion. This is when someone does not deserve to be respected, but nevertheless we don't disrespect them either, out of compassion. Compassion reminds us that at fundamental level we are products of our environment, our experience, and our choices - so no one is fundamentally better than another because they "are actually" better. They could be better off due to luck or circumstances or their own good karma or someone else's compassion etc. So compassion tells us to not disrespect those whom we can't respect.
And then of course on the personal level, for one's own perspective on oneself, the notion of Buddha-Nature reminds us that we have the same right to be here as the stars and the trees, that at the most fundamental level we are the heirs to Buddha-Dharma, and that we are not less worthy of Enlightenment than the closest students of Buddha, if we make the effort to take it.
So these are the three sides of Dignity in Buddhism. Dignity of the unlucky - thanks to compassion, Dignity of the aspirant to Enlightenment - thanks to the Buddha nature, and the fully deserved Dignity of the winner.

"If someone can control one's emotions, does not fall victim to one's weaknesses, has deep vision and wise judgement, flexible mind, and clear moral - then one can be respected.". These are wise words. Thank you for sharing.

each of us deserves to be not only treated with respect but also valued as a part of humanity whatever our origin or our place in society

That may be true, for at least three reasons:

It's not "a person's place in society" that makes a person valuable: for example verse 396 in the Dhammapada (there are other examples in the suttas) say that it's not a person's caste (place in society) that would make them holy.
Buddhism teaches that being born human is of itself valuable (because humans are able to work towards enlightenment, whereas being born an animal makes that more difficult or impossible).
Compassion and loving-kindness is arguably a (if not the) prime motive of Buddhism.

Also, and I'm not sure whether this counts, at least in its original form Buddhists were encouraged to renounce the ties of having close family and the responsibilities of having a household to support -- in exchange, I think that monks and nuns acquire broader or more universal social relationships, i.e. to the whole Sangha and to (all) members of lay society.

To be fair I can also think of some Buddhist beliefs (not that all Buddhist have these beliefs) which might be counter-examples to your "(valued as a) part of humanity whatever our origin" definition:

It's better to be born in a country/society where the Buddha-Dharma exists
It's better to give Dana to the Sangha than to other people
One should avoid being too anthropocentric (seeing people as special just because they're human), and one should consider animals and so on too under the category of "sentient beings"
The Sigalovada Sutta (which describes "the six directions") says to behave differently towards different members of your society depending on their 'place' (though maybe each with dignity in their own way)
Buddhist doctrine might identify (shine a light on) human foibles (a.k.a. "defilements"): greed, anger, laziness, ignorance, and so on. To that extent maybe it doesn't assume that humans are all always especially dignified all the time.

These 'counter-examples' don't necessarily mean that Buddhism has no concept of human dignity; but if these contradict your definition of human dignity, then maybe it wasn't a fool-proof definition.

I read that each of us has the nature of Buddha. Could this be considered as the foundation of Human Dignity or a similar notion in Buddhism?

Yes, I'm pretty sure it could.
The Buddha deserves respect so by recollecting the Buddha one feels respect (IMO).
The Buddha taught (or Buddhism teaches) people to behave themselves -- minimally the five precepts e.g. don't kill people, don't lie to them or steal from them -- or in more detail, much advice on how to talk respectfully.
The "nature of Buddha" is (it's written) difficult to define. Part of its meaning is, apparently, the "seed, embryo, or womb" of Buddha, i.e. the potential for being Buddha.
Speaking of potential etc., my opinion (and this isn't necessarily Buddhism) is that something like this is an argument for, for example, treating children with dignity. You may prefer relationships with people that are not stained by anger, greed, coercion, nor indifference.
Being a little bit disrespectful of people's vanities might be enlightening sometimes (see e.g., I don't know, the Calling Card or the Nothing Exists stories for examples of that), but doing that kind of thing deliberately is maybe something that only a teacher should do.

I didn't add a reference for every sentence of this answer: please post a comment to let me know if you'd like references or 'texts' for any specific statements in this answer.

In the time of the Buddha there was a cast system whereby people were segregated by cast. The Buddha mentioned that it is not by birth but through conduct that a person would become superior or not.
In addition, women did not have equal place in society. The Buddha did eventually allowed the Bhikkhuni ordination.
Also there were animal sacrifices in India during this time. The Buddha mentioned that the animals also should be treated humanely and did not endorse these practices. Therefore the Buddhist philosophy did go beyond human dignity and it promoted respect to life itself.
Also the Buddhist teaching revolves around the 4 Noble Truths. Regardless of race, caste or any other factor all being get stressed and unsatisfied. One of the pillars of the part to alleviate stress is morality and living in harmony with others and society. Being moral you have to have self dignity and also treat others in a dignified way.
In Buddhism you have the concept of Karma. This encourages one to treat others the way you would like to be treated, i.e., in a dignified way.

Thats what it's all about.
When practicing metta I usually feel this profound sense of dignity I suppose because all my defilments are temporarily gone.
The Buddha's teaching guides those who are willing to listen to dignity, selflessness and beyond.

Human dignity is built into all religions of Earth. Religion says we are all same on higher plane though grosser and different on lower plane. We are all different shadows of One. Since Buddha remained silient about God and stressed on nothingness, people mistake it for non existence of God.
God is another name for the force which is inherent in living and nonliving beings. In this universe nothing is dead. Ask any physicist and he/she will confirn it. Therefore everything needs to be respected whether living or nonliving. It is just level of animation is different for different beings.

Do you have to earn respect? everyone including murderers have dignity and you have to respect not the murderer but godliness inside. Dignity/ respect for others cannot be conditional. It goes against Buddha. Earning respect and dignity sounds more christian. Only one thing needs to be earnrd i.e Buddhahood nothing else.

I guess this was meant as a comment on Andrei's answer. When your 'reputation' is '50' then you'll be able to post comments on other people's answers.


text:
How to find motivation to overcome a hindrance in the moment of truth?
I am trying for a long time to find motivation to practice meditation - i think i found a good general motivation finally after watching a dhamma talk
but it still doesn't fully solve my problem  :      when i have the hindrance show up - how to overcome it ?  hunger - tiredness - pain - cold ect
now people can say : "just be mindful of it and let it go"    BUT  .....   how do i find motivation to be mindful at that specific moment ?  i can be mindful for half an hour meditating being mindful  but what should i do when i become very tired or very hungry - where its very hard to stay mindful - what gives me the power to overcome it than - how to find motivation to be mindful at that specific hard moment ?

the only motivation possible is the internal readiness to cultivate the mind and the virtue, understanding that this is what's the Noble Eightfold Path is about
the motivation to follow the path proposed by the Buddha comes from the very understanding of the 4 Noble Truths at least at the intellectual level
so if one does have desire to end suffering they'll follow the path which facilitates attainment of that goal, and strive for proper maintenance of mindfulness
if such understanding and desire are not there, then there's no point in forcing oneself and looking for other types of motivators
speaking of hunger, it's the same as forcing oneself to eat without being hungry or even have an appetite
if one understands the concept of suffering but the understanding still doesn't engender enough will power to follow the Path, there's a good chance that the understanding isn't profound enough and so more reflection on suffering and its ubiquity is probably required
here maranasati may come in handy to develop a certain degree of samvega
Maranasati sutta 1 (AN 6.19)
Maranasati sutta 2 (AN 6.20)
in the Capala sutta (AN 7.58) the Buddha instructs Ven Moggallana on the strategies of dispelling drowsiness during  meditation, which may be of help in cases of waning mindfulness
in the Vitakkasanthana sutta (MN 20) the Buddha explains how to counteract unskillful mental states with appropriate attention
in the Aggi sutta (SN 46.53) he explains what mental states are appropriate for development of certain factors of awakening

The purpose of meditation is to experience profound inner peace and happiness, so that you can let your bad habits and mental afflictions go.
As Thanissaro Bhikku point out in one of his Dhamma talk, the reason people continue to engage in unskillful behaviors, is because they couldn't find an alternative source of happiness, so they continue to try to obtain it through greed, obtaining wealth immorally, illicit sex, drinking and drugs. Experiencing the joy and peace that comes from meditation (and other mindful practice) provide a powerful alternative. You can't give up your bad habits unless you have something better to fall back on.
Here's the scriptural basis:

"Excellent, Sariputta. Excellent. When a disciple of the noble ones enters & remains in seclusion & rapture, there are five possibilities that do not exist at that time: The pain & distress dependent on sensuality do not exist at that time. The pleasure & joy dependent on sensuality do not exist at that time. The pain & distress dependent on what is unskillful do not exist at that time. The pleasure & joy dependent on what is unskillful do not exist at that time. The pain & distress dependent on what is skillful do not exist at that time. When a disciple of the noble ones enters & remains in seclusion & rapture, these five possibilities do not exist at that time.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.176.than.html
The popular Ajahn Brahm frequently reminds people that the Jhanas are better than sex. In fact, it is accepted in Buddhism that the blameless pleasures of Jhana are better than any worldly pleasures. Now I have personally not been able to reach in that deep and cannot verify that claim, but I have experience the powerful benefits of the mental peace and joy that comes with meditation, and that alone is a powerful motivator to continue practicing.
When you encounter difficult situations you often find yourself unable to maintain that peace and joy however, but with practice you will begin to find yourself less likely to become irritated and annoyed with problems you were routinely frustrated with before the practice. So you won't get better over night, but you will inevitably get better. And even if you fail to do so, you can at least pull yourself out of the annoyances rather than stewing in your mistakes the whole day.


text:
When you are an enlightened Buddha do you have no more worries or fears and desires?
All Buddhist traditions hold that a Buddha is fully awakened and has completely purified his mind of the three poisons of desire, aversion and ignorance. A Buddha is no longer bound by Samsara, and has ended the suffering which unawakened people experience in life.
The term buddha is also used in Theravada to refer to all who attain Nirvana. Within the Buddhist tradition, this term has commonly been interpreted as the extinction of the "three fires",or "three poisons",passion, (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance.
But does this all mean that fe Siddartha Gautama never worried about his health or was never doubting about hisself whether he was doing good or not?

I'm not sure but maybe people use different names: "Siddartha Gautama" before he became self-enlightened, and "the Buddha" (or sometimes "the Tathagata") after he became enlightened; so, using that convention, maybe "Siddartha" was worried but "the Buddha" wasn't.

The term buddha is also used in Theravada to refer to all who attain
  Nirvana.

please let me make a correction, in Theravada a term used to all who attain nibbana is arahant
Buddha is one who only attained nibbana on their own having discovered the path to nibbana for themself without reliance on anyone else

But does this all mean that fe Siddartha Gautama never worried about
  his health

i think it means that as a Buddha he didn't

or was never doubting about hisself whether he was doing good or not?

as a Buddha he could do nothing BUT good, because with awakened beings virtue and skill are natural, it's like a compass hand which points at only one directon
Doubt is one of 10 fetters, which is abandoned at as early as the sotapanna stage not to speak of the arahantship

An enlightened Buddha or an arahant never experiences worries, fears, or cravings like ordinary humans even if they appear to. After enlightenment an individual can have wishes, wills, etc...but not in the same way that an ordinary person does.
In regards to health, The Buddha did heal himself on occasions, and could stay alive for an entire world-period:

"And the Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed,
  practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and
  brought to perfection the four constituents of iddhi power could, if
  he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of
  it. The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could,
  if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of
  it."
.....
  Then it occurred to the Blessed One: "It would not be
  fitting if I came to my final passing away without addressing those
  who attended on me, without taking leave of the community of bhikkhus.
  Then let me suppress this illness by strength of will, resolve to
  maintain the life process, and live on."
And the Blessed One suppressed the illness by strength of will,
  resolved to maintain the life process, and lived on. So it came about
  that the Blessed One's illness was allayed." - Maha-parinibbana Sutta

After enlightenment The Buddha was doubtless, fearless, and always in bliss regardless.
The Buddha and arahants described this bliss and happiness many times:

"Before, when I has a householder, maintaining the bliss of kingship,
  lord, I had guards posted within and without the royal apartments,
  within and without the city, within and without the countryside. But
  even though I was thus guarded, thus protected, I dwelled in fear —
  agitated, distrustful, & afraid. But now, on going alone to the
  wilderness, to the root of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, I dwell
  without fear, unagitated, confident, & unafraid — unconcerned,
  unruffled, my wants satisfied, with my mind like a wild deer. This is
  the compelling reason I have in mind that — when going to the
  wilderness, to the root of a tree, or to an empty dwelling — I
  repeatedly exclaim, 'What bliss! What bliss!'" - Ven. Bhaddiya, Kāḷigodha Sutta

"'Now, I — without moving my body, without uttering a word — can dwell
  sensitive to unalloyed pleasure for a day and a night... for two days
  & nights... for three... four... five... six... seven days & nights.
  So what do you think: That being the case, who dwells in greater
  pleasure: King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha or me?'
"'That being the case, venerable Gotama dwells in greater pleasure
  than King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha.'" - Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta

"Any sensual bliss in the world,  any heavenly bliss, isn't worth one
  sixteenth-sixteenth of the bliss of the ending of craving." - Raja
  Sutta

And the Lord Buddha, perceiving that, on this occasion, pronounced
  this solemn utterance:  "'Happy is the solitude of him who is full of
  joy, who has learnt the Truth, who sees (the Truth). Happy is freedom
  from malice in this world, (self-)restraint towards all beings that
  have life. Happy is freedom from lust in this world, getting beyond
  all desires; the putting away of that pride which comes from the
  thought "I am!" This truly is the highest happiness!'" (Mahavogga 1.3)

"cessation of perception and feeling" is described as the very most extreme form of pleasure:

"And what, Ananda, is another pleasure more extreme & refined than
  that? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending
  of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters &
  remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. This is another
  pleasure more extreme & refined than that.
Now it's possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions
  might say, 'Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of
  perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this?
  How can this be?' When they say that, they are to be told, 'It's not
  the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant
  feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in
  whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.'" -
  Pañcakanga Sutta

Many imagine this type of "bliss" as something like relaxation, or a blissful state, but it isn't so, those are merely other "states". It really is the most extreme form of pleasure and happiness, unimaginable, indescribable.
I first experienced the "deep relaxation" state, very peaceful and tranquil, and thought that must be what enlightenment must be like, but then I experienced a higher more blissful state and thought that must be what enlightenment must be like, but then I experienced and even more enjoyable higher state....so eventually I concluded that these higher states and feelings are merely feelings and states, incomparable to the enjoyment that isn't a state or feeling.
The highest state I've personally experienced is extremely enjoyable, you feel full of confidence, fearless, doubtless, sorrowless, worry-free, care-free, stress-free, full of extreme joy. The other forms of happiness, fun, and pleasure I've experienced pale in comparison.
When entered that state I saw how the other states I experienced were merely temporary transient feelings, it's difficult to explain.
Having seen my own errors I know that I haven't achieved perfection or enlightenment yet but maybe eventually I will.
When describing destinations, The Buddha uses a clever analogy to explain what enlightenment is like:

"By encompassing mind with mind I understand a certain person thus:
  'This person so behaves, so conducts himself, has taken such a path
  that by realizing it for himself with direct knowledge, he here and
  now will enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and
  deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the
  taints.'
And then later on I see that by realizing it for himself with direct
  knowledge, he here and now enters upon and abides in the deliverance
  of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the
  destruction of the taints, and is experiencing extremely pleasant
  feelings.
Suppose there were a pond with clean, agreeable, cool water,
  transparent, with smooth banks, delightful, and nearby a dense wood;
  and then a man scorched and exhausted by hot weather, weary, parched
  and thirsty, came by a path going in one way only and directed towards
  that same pond. Then a man with good sight on seeing him would say:
  'This person so behaves... that he will come to this same pond'; and
  then later on he sees that he has plunged into the pond, bathed, drunk
  and relieved all his distress, fatigue and fever and has come out
  again and is sitting or lying in the wood experiencing extremely
  pleasant feelings.
So too, by encompassing mind with mind... extremely pleasant feelings."  - Maha-sihanada Sutta

I think it's a great analogy. It reminds me of a time when I was riding my bike one day and after I became very tired and exhausted I decided to stop by a river. The river looked clean and transparent so I jumped in and swam in the river, it was very relaxing and pleasing.

I think this would depend on what you mean by "worries and desires." There are certainly supernaturalist Buddhists who would argue that an arahant is literally, physically immune to such things.
But I'd argue against that; human emotions (at least to some extent) are the product of the brain and brain chemistry. Arguing that sitting and meditating can fundamentally alter brain chemistry to the extent that--for instance--you would feel no "desire" for water even if you hadn't had anything to drink for 3 days...well, it flies in the face of neuroscience. Likewise, doubting and worrying about your health are just things that brains do. It is unlikely that any spiritual realization would cause these normal processes to stop.
I think, in the modern world, a more reasonable interpretation is that an arahant feels cravings, fears and doubts as acutely as we do, but sees them clearly as unskillful products of greed, hatred, and delusion--and is therefore not bound by them and does not suffer because of them.
Zen has a bit to say on this subject:
'As far as Buddha-nature is concerned, there is no difference between an enlightened man and an ignorant one. What makes the difference is that one realizes it, while the other is kept in ignorance of it.'
(Hui-neng / Daikan 637 - 713)
And here is Sogyal Rinpoche:
'When you realize the nature of mind, layers of confusion peel away. You don't actually "become" a buddha, you simply cease, slowly, to be deluded. And being a buddha is not being some omnipotent spiritual superman, but becoming at last a true human being.' (The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying)

I wondered about that earlier today, when the previous answer said "never experiences". An explanation might be that there are several different attainments or "stages of enlightement". For example, perhaps a "stream enterer" would be, as you said, "seeing them clearly as unskillful products of greed, hatred, and delusion" ... yet, still having these "feelings" ... whereas although an aharant might have "sensations" they might not have "feelings" nor "fermentations". For another example, see How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?


text:
Laying down for the benefit of all sentient beings
I heard a Dhamma talk wherein a monk said that Mara blamed the Buddha being lazy cause he laid down and the Buddha replied something like "I am laying down for the benefit of all sentient beings".
Can someone explain the logic behind his answer and expand on this issue?  Is there a practice wherein you gain a mind set to take action for your own good while thinking you are doing every action? ie.   "for the benefit of all sentient beings"

Probably this passage: Sakalika Sutta (SN 4.13)?

I believe that probably is the right one  -  not what i wanted it to be but thanks for the source

Mara is symbolic. Mara taunt is about being worldly, being productive instead of lying idle. Buddha was pretty young when he left the world in search of Truth. In those times, people used to leave household in later half of their lives. Young were supposed to take care of old ones. Perhaps this aspect is reflected in the anecdote.

What is the point of striving? It is to gain something you don't possess. Work is striving towards a gain, a goal. You work and get paid.
Not sure of the reference but in this case with action there are consequences for others.  The more you do, the more you strive for, there is less for others. The more you gain then the less there is for others to attain.
Laziness / idleness is anti-work; it is anti-striving. Idleness's purpose is to not have a purpose. Does that make it wasted?
If one contains all that is needed, why would one want more?
If one does not want more, then why not allow others to attain what they strive for?
Of course, she could be pointing out that while attaining an enlightened state he may not need anything more, but to spend time encouraging others would not be striving for anything other than fellowship and enlightenment. He did use the convenience of enlightenment more than he should have.


text:
Who is ignorant and when does one realize that one is ignorant?
Who is considered to be ignorant according to Buddhism? What does the term ignorance cover ? When does one realize, one is ignorant ?
Can one know nothing of ignorance and still become enlightened?

everyone who is subject to samsara or the round of rebirths is ignorant, because

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
  From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
  From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
  From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
  From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
  Fromc ontact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
  From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
  From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging.
  From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming.
  From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
  From birth as a requisite condition, then aging &  death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.

Paticcasamuppadavibhanga sutta ( SN 12.2)
i think ignorance covers nescience of the phenomenon of suffering and the way of escape from it

When does one realize, one is ignorant ?

perhaps once one realizes that they suffer while having no clue how to avoid that

Can one know nothing of ignorance and still become enlightened?

i find this an interesting  question, my guess is 'NO', but i'm not sure i can explain why i think so and can't remember suttas which explain this point.
that's as far as awakening is concerned
as for nibbana i'm a bit more certain, just as suffering is effected by a  chain of causes, quoted above, so is nibbana, for example

What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What
  is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus:
  ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
  When one sees this thus as it really is with correct wisdom, the mind becomes dispassionate and is liberated from the taints by nonclinging.
  By being liberated, it is steady;
  by being steady, it is content;
  by being content, he is not agitated.
  Being unagitated, he personally attains Nibbāna.

Anicca sutta (SN 22.45)
an aspirant needs to go through a series of stages of mind development to arrive at that destination and those cannot be bypassed
the first step in curing an illness is its acknowledgement

The explanation of ignorance is available in Sutta and can be intellectually understood, still the understanding does not remove the blind to realize the true sense of the condition that is ignorance.

"Who is considered to be ignorant according to Buddhism? What does the term ignorance cover ?"
In the Sammaditthi Sutta: The Discourse on Right View:

"And what is ignorance, what is the origin of ignorance, what is the cessation of ignorance, what is the way leading to the cessation of ignorance?
Not knowing about dukkha, not knowing about the origin of dukkha, not knowing about the cessation of dukkha, not knowing about the way leading to the cessation of dukkha — this is called ignorance.

"When does one realize, one is ignorant ?"
I guess, when one realizes one does not understand / is unskillful in the above.
"Can one know nothing of ignorance and still become enlightened?"
As far as enlightenment is understood as nirvana (which is understood as cessation of dukkha), and ignorance is understood as the above, no. That would be the same as asking if someone who knows nothing of arithmetic to be able to sum numbers: his sum would denounce the very knowledge of arithmetic.
In the same way, someone skillful and wise on origin and cessation of dukkha, someone who put an end on dukkha necessarily is someone who is not an ignorant on the origin and cessation of dukkha.

There are some who are not aware of ignorance claim to have attained nirvana.

@8CK8 Those who are 'not aware of ignorance' are often themselves ignorant. Just because someone claims to have attained nirvana does not make it true.

Who is considered to be ignorant according to Buddhism?
I think that asking "who?" can get complicated because of anatta.
And there are different forms or schools of Buddhism, which so far as I know may have slightly understandings or definitions of ignorance and enlightenment etc.
Still, if you look at the four stages of enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism, or look at the Sutta Pitaka's list of ten fetters, the "fetter" of "ignorance" is eradicated at the fourth stage: i.e. that of Arahant, a fully awakened person.
I think that implies that anyone but an Arahant may be subject to ignorance (isn't fully knowledgeable).

What does the term ignorance cover? When does one realize, one is ignorant?
The Pali word for "ignorant" is avijjā.
That word starts with the prefix "a-" which means "without" (that prefix has the same meaning in Greek and in some English words, e.g. "atheist", "agnostic", "anhydrous", etc.).
Many Pali words used in Buddhism are like that (i.e. beginning with "a-") and IMO that sense is lost when it's translated into English.
Look at the opening line of the chant of metta for example:

Aham avero homi
  May I be free from enmity and danger

A literal translation is ...

Aham -- I (first person singular)
avero -- if vera means "hatred, revenge, hostile action", so avera means "absence of enmity, friendliness"
homi -- I should be (first person singular imperative of the verb 'to be')

... "I should be without-emnity".
I like to think that's clearer, a translation closer to what the original actually said.
The English word is often phrased as if the noun is a something (e.g. "freedom" or "ignorance") whereas the Pali word is often phrased as a not-something (e.g. "not-emnity" or "not-knowledge").
So anyway, when you ask, "what is ignorance?", then the answer is, "it's not-knowledge"; so the next question then is presumably, "what is 'knowledge'?"
If you ask "what is knowledge?", then you get an answer like Thiago's which talks about 'Right View'.
There are other types of knowledge (maybe called 'higher knowledge') too, e.g. as described in the Sekha-patipada Sutta:

he recollects his manifold past lives ... he sees beings passing away & re-appearing ... he enters & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release

Can one know nothing of ignorance and still become enlightened?

The definition of ignorance as a "lack of knowledge" might suggest not -- even if a being is (at least temporarily) happy or at peace or humble, maybe that wouldn't be called "enlightened" or "becoming enlightened".
I'm thinking of Phil's snake as an example.
Not from the Theravada tradition, there is a famous koan, called "Joshu's Dog". Maybe it's the potential to be enlightened that is what they call 'Buddha-nature'.

Can one know nothing of ignorance and still become enlightened?

This is a very big epistemological question.
Ignorance is the state of being unaware, or uninformed.
Enlightenment is the state of being informed.
Knowing ignorance or knowing nothing of ignorance are posited opposites of non-existent states. Probably the answer is no.
However; take the Rumsfeldian view of knowledge - there are known knowns, and known unknowns. We know that we know things, and we know there are things we don't know - these are the states of knowledge everyone understands. There could also be unknown knowns and unknown unknowns.  I have yet to imagine a scenario for  unknown unknowns  - that's like proving the existence of a negative / non-existent thing. Perhaps unknown unknown knowns.... ugh.
Stay with me- for the case of unknown knowns - there may be things we would know if we were made aware of the possibility they could be known. A case that comes to mind is say you have knowledge in one science that people in another field of science don't realize exists. Phlogiston perhaps or the ether. All I need to do is tell you the knowledge you are seeking exists in another field of science.  I don't say where and I don't say what.
Now you are in a state of knowing you are ignorant about that knowledge, and you may become enlightened.


text:
What does Buddhism say about how to manage other people's anger?
What does Buddhism say about how to manage other people's anger? Does Buddhism suggest any specific attitude when we are facing angry people, especially when they are unable to control their anger and/or unaware of their anger?
Intuitively I try for example to listen to the person, understand him/her and remain calm myself as much as possible.
What kind of recommendations or advice does Buddhism offer to help us in such situations?

A very apt verse in the case of anger is this one from Dhammapada - Na Hi Verena Verani - Hatred is never appeased by Hatred. It is appeased only by loving kindness.
Here is the Dhamma talk by Ven. Yuttadhammo on that particular verse.
Although there are certain differences in anger and hatred, the basic approach will be the same - Remain equanimous by knowing Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta at the level of your body and then based on your sensations cultivate Loving Kindness towards the person.

Stop focusing on "other people" and focus on the experience. Focus on what causes anger to arise in the mind.
ex: If someone scolds at you, it's just sound hitting the ears. What's wrong with sound hitting the ears? Why you need to get so upset about it?
Anger arises due to ignorance. Ignorance personifies the experiences caused by bad Karma. That leads to aversion.

you may want to take a look at this list of suttas and Dhammapada verses dealing with anger, hatred, aggression and hostility
just one example from Theragatha Brahmadatta 6.12

One who gets angry at an angry person
  Just makes things worse.
  One who doesn’t get angry at an angry person
  Wins a battle hard to win.
When you know that the other is angry,
  You act for the good of both
  Yourself and the other,
  If you are mindful, and stay calm.

only that these are not words attributed to the Buddha

In Engaged Buddhism  (a belief started by Thich Nhat Hanh during the vietnam war in the 1960's) Thich Nhat Hanh states that
"Be aware of anger; anger blocks the communication and brings suffering"
He then advises that in order to reach Dhamma one must rid their mind of defilements of such things like suffering and ignorance, which cause angry fits of passion. By being constantly aware and in control of one's actions, conciously one can prevent from experiencing these selfish emotions and focus on the communication and the content of the heated debate, occurrence, and/or problem.

This desire to demonize an emotion is disturbing, and I have always had a problem with it.
Anger is a useful emotion. It can allow us to react properly to a life threatening situation, either for ourselves or for another.
The problem is not Anger. The problem is not being able to recognize when it is harming, rather than helping, the situation you are currently experiencing. It is also the problem that Anger severely limits our ability to reason, trading reason for energy.
If you understand these things, then Anger can be your friend, just like all other emotions.
Loving Kindness, in some situations, might be scolding someone back, if that is what teaches them the proper lesson. It could even be defending someone, or yourself, physically.
But to recognize that moment is the hard part. THAT is what I believe is the liberating thought in this case.

In the Dhammapada, The Buddha says:

"Conquer the angry one by not getting angry; conquer the wicked by
  goodness; conquer the stingy by generosity, and the liar by speaking
  the truth." (Dhammapada, 223)

And also here The Buddha says:

"Whence is there anger for one free from anger,   tamed,  living in
  tune — one released through right knowing,    calmed  & Such.
You make things worse when you flare up at someone who's angry.
  Whoever doesn't flare up at someone who's angry   wins a battle   hard
  to win." (Akkosa Sutta, SN 7.2)

But with making an end to mental fermentations, why would you be concerned about managing another's anger?
Happy, angerless, fearless, doubtless, sorrowless, becomes the one who's put an end to mental fermentations, such an extreme form of pleasure.


text:
obligation to render justice?
related to, but not the same as Does Buddhism have a significant notion of justice
I need some clarification.  What is one's moral obligation to render justice (or bring to justice) others for observed misdeeds?  this can but need not be as member of a jury which must render justice.
it is clear that one should sympathize with the perpetrator.  it is clear that one should not get emotional over a (passed) misdeed or over (or while) rendering a sentence.
I am guessing that to be compassionate is to contemplate the effects of a sentence on other sentient beings, [a] in light of the future incentives that one's judicial actions will create, and [b] in light of the contemporaneous effect that one's sentence will have on the perpetrators, victims, and others.  even though the deed was done and thus has passed, and even though others should be philosophical about it now, it is still true that a sentence can improve the lives of many others at the cost of worsening the life of the perpetrator.  [there is no dilemma if the latter is not the case.]
is there more Buddhist advice to us here?

because with a worldling justice is being served from a defiled mind, the intentions can't ever be completely pure and so justice will eventually not be just
i think the most Buddhist advice would be to refrain from rendering justice as much as possible, the law of kamma will in due course take care of that anyway

in response to the comment below

If anyone gives those bhikkhunis a blow with his hand, with a clod,
  with a stick, or with a knife in your presence, you should abandon any
  desires and any thoughts based on the household life. And herein you
  should train thus: 'My mind will be unaffected, and I shall utter no
  evil words; I shall abide compassionate for his welfare, with a mind
  of loving-kindness, without inner hate.'
If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a clod, with a
  stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and any
  thoughts based on the household life. And herein you should train
  thus: 'My mind will be unaffected, and I shall utter no evil words; I
  shall abide compassionate for his welfare, with a mind of
  loving-kindness, without inner hate.' That is how you should train,
  Phagguna.

Kakacupama sutta (MN 21)
to be sure, bearing no ill-will towards the perpetrator doesn't negate bringing him/her to justice, but the very act of bringing to justice is certainly not dissimilar to taking revenge, because that particular moment occurs after the fact, by the time the victim or the object of the crime is usually out of danger, and deprivation a person of freedom for X amount of time isn't after all an act of compassion or benevolence

this makes no sense to me.    this is not about revenge---it's about justice. one does not have to believe in reincarnation, so khamma won't necessarily take care of it anyway.  (if it did, is everything determined?)  and evidently often it does not.  and evidently there is evil in the world, in degrees, from hitler to shoplifters.  does one have no obligation to help protect other sentient being (a) from them, and (b) from such behavior in the future (which requires some justice)?

the original question was about rendering justice, but this and 'helping to protect other sentient beings' are not quite one and the same... the actual protection or rescue may only occur at the moment of crime, not so much after the fact... as far as kammic retribution/reward is concerned, it indeed IS determined (provided it's believed in), if a deed has moral significance the kamma principle is activated... since the question was about 'Buddhist advice' it's only natural that kamma has a role to play... indeed, life is suffering

the concept of justice in the form of isolation from society has two intrinsic flaws in its moral aspect: A) it is vindictive because necessarily is done after the fact when the victim doesn't require immediate protection and B) it recognizes possibility of retribution for uncommitted crime(s) under the guise of protection of society from anticipated conjecturable future crimes of the wrongdoer

(1) what about dis-incentives for future crimes?  (2) what if you are designated to be on a jury?

well i totally understand the purpose and the motives but i don't think the system is morally sound, after all it wasn't designed to be, was it? that's why i opine for abstention from rendering justice for an individual, obviously the system will never turn dhammic therefore there will always be people willing to take upon themselves this moral burden, but even if it became dhammic someone probably would still have to sacrifice their kamma and do that... if i was summoned to be on a jury i'd decline, i hope it's not illegal, but hey, one is allowed to avoid military service so why not jury

A true "Justice" isn't easy to render.
Read from page 37 of this PDF for example (which translates the Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta):

A king protects his subjects but doesn't give financial support to those who need it
Poverty becomes widespread
People begin to steal
And, it all goes down-hill from there: whether the king rewards or punishes the criminals, both/either of these courses of action have undesirable consequences.

Before you dismiss that as irrelevant (because "there is no wheel-turning ruler"), let's consider whether we do that ourselves: whether we help people to have no cause to behave criminally etc.

Maybe there's similar advice from later Buddhist stories too: e.g. The Thief Who Became a Disciple.

Another source of advice might be the Vinaya training rules for monks -- their society has lots of rules, which are pretty well defined. If you search that document for the word "accus" (it's there 150 times), it has some advice that you might not expect e.g. on page 137,

The next step, if one is qualified to make the charge, is to look for a proper
  time and place to talk with the other party—for example, when he is not likely to
  get embarrassed or upset—and then to ask his leave, i.e., to ask permission to
  speak with him

authors: Баян Купи-ка