text:
Hard to breathe during meditation
I started with a new goal: meditate for a month daily and it reminds me of my experiences during group meditations in the past. After relaxing the body, it gets very hard to breathe, my chest feels very heavy or like something is on top with a lot of pressure. I feel like I should breath deeply all the time, yet still feel like I don't have enough air. A bit scary too. Has anybody experienced the same?

Are you merely wanting to ask if anyone else here had the same problem? Or do you want help in this?

it's not enough air. A bit scary too.
It's quite difficult to give detailed advice over the internet. What you describe is actually somewhat concerning. The best advice would be to seek out someone who could watch your meditation and advise.
For example, a common reaction to fear can be to hold one's breath so that a predator cannot detect our breathing. Meditation should feel relaxed and secure and peaceful, especially if you are alone without support. Simple things like poor posture can magnify suppressed anxiety. For example, if my chin is sticking out a bit, then fear tends to arise. However, if I am sitting straight and relaxed, chin in and back of neck smooth and unkinked, then I feel secure and fear evaporates.
Please do seek at least a friend who can compare your sitting posture with a picture of a meditating teacher. Such a friend would be a good spiritual companion.

In my experience leading meditation groups with folks who have anxiety, panic...focusing on the breath during meditation can trigger the physical feelings of panic if the meditator is overly sensitive to physical sensations in the body.  This can happen in groups when the leader is pacing the breath too fast for you or you are breathing too deep, causing too much oxygen/too much CO2 which creates symptoms like lightheadness, pressure, panic etc.  When you are new to meditation and are susceptible to this, it is important to start with 'noticing' your breath vs. trying to alter it.  You could accompany 'noticing' the breath with 'greeting' any of these symptoms as they appear, "hello chest pressure, thanks for giving me information today," and then let the thought subside.  You could also try some other forms of meditation (walking meditation, guided meditation, body scan etc) to kick off your practice and then over time add in more advanced breathing techniques.

I feel the same way. I am meditating for quite a while. But especially lately I feel almost like suffocating when trying to "be breathed". It seems like my mind says no! You keep on doing it! :D I also have this deep intuition that it is something about letting go control and to really sink in pure conciseness which the mind refuses to let me do.
What I tried so far is, just to be stubbern and not taking over the breath again. But it seems my subconscious is not willing to take over, so it is kind of a panik situation and ultimitly I take over again. However in the moments of letting go taking care for breathing, I am fully focused on source without any distraction. It seems exactly right. I always feel in case it would be taken over at that point from my subconscious, I could stay in this mode forever. But until now it didn't do it.

Welcome, Sven. Like to inform you a few things: 1. To answer Rasa, just go ahead with the answer. No need to have “@Rasa - ”. As for commenting on someone's answer—such as user14928's—have it as a comment below the answer instead. Click on "add a comment" to reveal the text box. I suggest you copy what you have in your answer and paste it as a comment, then edit your post to delete that part. May you have a fruitful time here.

Dear Kumãra, thanks for your warm welcome and suggestions. I actally wanted to add the "user14928 part" as a comment, but I haven't earnt the required 50 reputation points. So I chose the way I did. :) Will change it after javing my 50 points :D

"user14928" is a deleted user and probably won't see a comment. But you could post your question as a new question.

As followup to @ChrisW's comment, I suggest that you remove your message to user14928.

Done :) Sorry for the mess up.

There are things one can try;
Try the satipatthana noting method, focusing on the states of mind and the arising, persistence & cessation of thoughts, feelings & perceptions, in particular as they occur when the "panic" starts.
Optionally try the preliminary counting method outlined in Visuddhimagga.
I think neither counting nor noting will prevent it from occuring but if this is something that occurs constantly then it's kind of more interesting to sort it out & breakthrough and for that satipatthana is king imo.
My guess is that to prevent it from happening without dealing with it or dealing with "head on" one needs to do controlled breathing exercises and that correctly. This might (as in i wouldn't be surprised if) eventually lead to it not occuring either way as one becomes advanced but i think it is a waste of time and personally would just try satipatthana and see if id pass out or pass on.

Rationally I know that when I'm bicycling (or otherwise exercising, walking, climbing stairs) then the breathing then (when there's a need for an increase flow of air) is sufficient to keep the body alive. So there's no need to be scared of that (insufficient flow of air) when you're just sitting still -- the body can take care of itself, breathing is autonomic (see also apnea).
Rationally too I know the body will die of something -- possibly (or even always) insufficient breathing -- so might as well get used to that (e.g. note the perception or feeling with equanimity) and not scared (maybe become conscious of and let go of whatever "attachments" -- some fear of "dying" for example -- might make you crave the situation to be otherwise and cause suffering).
Perhaps the feeling (of insufficient breathing, if this is what you're feeling) is a result of too much CO2 (i.e. carbon dioxide), rather than too little oxygen. I think people can get confused when that happens and try to breathe in more, to inhale more deeply -- whereas actually what the body needs is to breathe out more, to exhale. See also e.g. a "barrel chest" being a symptom of emphysema -- when the patient can breathe in but can't breathe out properly.
I find that breathing out (exhaling) properly/deeply/completely, using the ribcage and the diaphragm to empty the lungs, is a prelude to (i.e. a start to) a slow deep breathing cycle, and a component of it.

Excellent!  That's a very, very good sign.  It's indicative that you are starting to loosen your conscious hold on the breath and, instead, are allowing yourself to be "breathed".  Like anything else, there's always some fear associated when we relinquish control.  How much more so when that happens with the very thing keeping us alive!
Buddhism, more than anything, is about trust.  This is your first opportunity to really experience that.  Trust that your body knows what it's doing.  Forget about inhaling and exhaling.  Don't concern yourself with deep breaths or shallow breaths.  Just let breathing be what it wants to be.  If you give yourself over to the process, I guarantee that you will finally begin to know what breathing is all about!


text:
Is "no-self" or "self" the more secure bet, e.g. for householders?
While Nihilism and the Uposatha of the Jains lead to no prosperity at all (and is said to stand far from the Path), the Uposatha of the cowherds (cow-boys) is said to have still chances (that seems at first glance equal for both, but the context makes clear, i mentions the comments in other suttas an commentaries of the Arahats).
Given that Self-view is actually not included in the grave wrong views leading upward, maybe an argument that might help out of taking a stand.
Are the answers which could challenge: is a tendency toward hope of lasting self a far better bet and anchor for most? Without that hope might be people be cut off from the path, before they actually waking to it with sure ideas of no-self? What about vibhava-tanha?
There are some views of non-self which are actually wrong:

The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny'  constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha), are the following three:

(1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncaused ness' of existence (ahetukaditthi),
(2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi),
(3) nihilism (natthikaditthi).

from: How to address wrong view?

Maybe this is a reason why the Buddha never really taught the higher Dhammas to "householder"(1), not beyond holding on world?
What is taught at large where you dwell? And to whom from whom?
When ever possible, try to answer without getting caught in papanca and self-defense, holding a stand, as a householder. Refuge first might help, or the other recollections if available.
1) Housholder means a person who has not left the sphere of six sense and has not come to a borderland (i.e. accessconcentration). Discussions whether an othwardly householder can access the Dhamma or not are useless and it's known that Dhamma is taught in steps, i.e. amount of ones release/liberty of mind and never the Dhamma of the Arahat has been taught to housholder, standholder, since they can not understand it right at all. The Ariya Uposatha serves exactly this purpose but of cause need refuge first and not the ironic approach of the modern Jain "Make your self an island", yet drifting away on an island build of conceit "I am not, I am nothing...".
[note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or ;uddh-ism, but simply for a tiny door to liberation]

I edited a bit (just for grammar and spelling), I hope it's still the question that you wanted to ask, but a bit clearer

Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote though because what's currently written in the first paragraph seems to contradict what's in the Muluposatha Sutta -- i.e. I think the sutta says that there are three Uposathas, that the Uposathas of the Jains and of the cowhers are both of no great benefit, only the Upothosa of the Noble Ones is beneficial i.e. cleansing the mind. But it says that includes e.g. thinking, "The same sort of virtue that is present in the Devas is present in me as well" -- and maybe that's the kind of thing you mean by saying that some self-view might be fruitful/beneficial.

Your premise is that the Buddha taught a different Dhamma to householders, compared to monks.
This is incorrect, as according to SN 42.7, the Buddha taught the same Dhamma to monks, lay followers and non-Buddhists alike:

“Sir, doesn’t the Buddha live full of compassion for all living
  beings?” “Yes, chief.” “Well, sir, why exactly do you teach some
  people thoroughly and others less thoroughly?”
“Well then, chief, I’ll
  ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. What do
  you think? Suppose a farmer has three fields: one’s good, one’s
  average, and one’s poor—bad ground of sand and salt. What do you
  think? When that farmer wants to plant seeds, where would he plant
  them first: the good field, the average one, or the poor one?” “Sir,
  he’d plant them first in the good field, then the average, then he may
  or may not plant seed in the poor field. Why is that? Because at least
  it can be fodder for the cattle.”
“To me, the monks and nuns are like the good field. I teach them the
  Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in
  the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal a spiritual
  practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is that? Because they live
  with me as their island, protection, shelter, and refuge.
To me, the
  laymen and laywomen are like the average field. I also teach them the
  Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in
  the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal a spiritual
  practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is that? Because they live
  with me as their island, protection, shelter, and refuge.
To me, the
  ascetics, brahmins, and wanderers who follow other paths are like the
  poor field, the bad ground of sand and salt. I also teach them the
  Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in
  the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal a spiritual
  practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is that? Hopefully they
  might understand even a single sentence, which would be for their
  lasting welfare and happiness.

Householders may generally be able to practise the dhamma less effectively than the monks, but in some cases it can be the opposite. A householder can realize Nibbana in a very short period of time If s/he has the right conditions and time to practise the dhamma. There are some lay people living in all around the world (Buddhist or non-Buddhist) that realizes Nibbana and even attains high stages of enlightenment. So I think that it is not a right thing to alienate the householders and say that they are unable to practise dhamma good or they can't go beyond self-view. Also it is not possible to not have thoughts about non-self even for the relatively advanced meditators. Practising the dhamma would eventually lead people to the same direction, so telling any dhamma follower to cling to self view can not work.

I suppose your mentioning "safe bet" is a reference to a different sutta, by the way, MN 60 -- part of that is (or it seems to be) about whether or not there's a "next world".
I think that some of the Westerners who may be interested in Buddhism might be (almost by definition) dissatisfied with the traditionally-Western religions (e.g. Christianity etc.) -- so they're sceptical of a message like, "Believe in God, obey God's laws, then you will have eternal life in Heaven after you die".
For such a person, a doctrine like "You'll be reborn in heaven or hell after you die" might make them sceptical of Buddhism too -- "What is the evidence for that?! Buddhism is just another religion or superstition."
So I don't think it's beneficial to push "belief in a lasting self" on everyone, if that's what you're suggesting -- perhaps at least some Westerners might find it off-putting.
Also this kind of line of thinking -- i.e. "a safe bet" -- might not be a persuasive argument at all. There's something in the Christian tradition, i.e. Pascal's Wager -- perhaps you've heard of it before -- which may be a close analogy: if that wager (about God) doesn't convince people to be Christians. then I'm not sure that equivalent Buddhist logic (about Self and/or a next world) would persuade them to be Buddhist.

But I'm not sure how the question (what I think is the question), e.g. ...

A tendency toward hope of lasting self is a far better bet and anchor for most

... is at all related to the Muluposatha Sutta (AN 3.70) which you referenced in the first paragraph.
I'm guessing that the most "selfish" (or the only "selfish" bit) of that sutta is something like ...

There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects the devas, thus: 'There are the Devas of the Four Great Kings, the Devas of the Thirty-three, the Yama Devas, the Contented Devas, the devas who delight in creation, the devas who have power over the creations of others, the devas of Brahma's retinue, the devas beyond them. Whatever conviction they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of conviction is present in me as well. Whatever virtue they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of virtue is present in me as well. Whatever learning they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of learning is present in me as well. Whatever generosity they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of generosity is present in me as well. Whatever discernment they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of discernment is present in me as well.' As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is calmed, and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned, just as when gold is cleansed through the proper technique.

I suppose that's a form of bhavana -- like metta-bhavana (or even tantrayana).
That's also a form of conceit (i.e. comparing oneself to a Deva), like as you know from the Bhikkhuni sutta,

This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.

'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?

According to the sutta, it is a means of "cleansing of the defiled mind through the proper technique".
I don't think the doctrine of that sutta (i.e. the "the Uposatha of the Noble Ones") is necessarily related to a doctrine of a lasting self (e.g. "I will be reborn as a Deva").
I suppose too that conceit might be quite wrong if it's misused (e.g. "I am like a Deva and you are not -- you, you are like a hungry ghost") -- wrong to say and wrong to hear, too easy to misunderstand.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is the concept of Gandhabba Brahmanical teaching?
Is the concept of Gandhabba Brahmanical teaching?
I just wonder the teaching of Gandhabba is not a Buddhist teaching.
‘But do you know
‘Jānanti pana bhonto—
how an embryo is conceived?’
yathā gabbhassa avakkanti hotī’ti?
‘We do know that, sir.
‘Jānāma mayaṃ, bho—
yathā gabbhassa avakkanti hoti.
An embryo is conceived when these three things come together—the mother and father come together, the mother is in the fertile part of her menstrual cycle, and the spirit being reborn is present.’
Idha mātāpitaro ca sannipatitā honti, mātā ca utunī hoti, gandhabbo ca paccupaṭṭhito hoti; evaṃ tiṇṇaṃ sannipātā gabbhassa avakkanti hotī’ti.
https://suttacentral.net/mn93/en/sujato

https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/18816/is-the-word-gandharva-related-to-the-conception-of-an-embryo

Could Gandabba be a confusion/corruption of Garbha?

From MN 93 (though translated by Sujato, I replaced "spirit being reborn" with "gandhabba"), the sentence in question is:

An embryo is conceived when these three things come together—the
  mother and father come together, the mother is in the fertile part of
  her menstrual cycle, and the gandhabba is present.’
Idha mātāpitaro ca sannipatitā honti, mātā ca utunī hoti, gandhabbo ca paccupaṭṭhito hoti; evaṃ tiṇṇaṃ sannipātā gabbhassa avakkanti
  hotī’ti.

Pretty much in Buddhism and Hinduism, Gandharvas are a kind of musician devas . According to the wisdomlib page on Gandharvas:

A Gandharva (Sanskrit) or Gandhabba (Pali) is one of the lowest
  ranking devas in Buddhist theology. They are classed among the
  Caturmaharajikakayika devas, and are subject to the Great King
  Dhrtarastra, Guardian of the East. Beings are reborn among the
  Gandharvas as a consequence of having practiced the most basic form of
  ethics (Janavasabha sutta, DN.18). It was considered embarrassing for
  a monk to be born in no better birth than that of a gandharva.
Gandharvas can fly through the air, and are known for their skill as
  musicians. They are connected with trees and flowers, and are
  described as dwelling in the scents of bark, sap, and blossom. They
  are among the beings of the wilderness that might disturb a monk
  meditating alone.

As stated in the Hinduism.SE answer linked by Dhammadhatu in his comment, Kandarpa is another name for Kamadeva, the cupid god of Hinduism, from the wisdomlib page on Kandarpa:

Kandarpa (कन्दर्प).—Another name for Kāmadeva. Kāmadeva was born of
  the mind of Brahmā and as soon as he was born he turned to Brahmā and
  asked "Kaṃ darpayāmi?" (Whom should I make proud?) So Brahmā gave him
  the name Kaṃdarpa alias Kandarpa.

It doesn't make sense that a Gandharva is present for conception.
It could make sense that cupid (Kandarpa) is present for conception, so this is the first hypothesis from me. Of course, cupid here could be a personification of romantic or sexual passion. So, this could just mean that sexual passion is present.
From the wisdomlib page on Gandharvavivaha or Gandharva marriage, we find:

Gāndharvavivāha (गान्धर्वविवाह):—The Gāndharva marriage (vivāha).—This
  is a marriage arising out of the voluntary union of a maiden or her
  lover which springs from desire and has sexual intercourse for its
  purpose. It can be compared with the modern love marriage.

Based on the definition above, once again, "Gandharva" being present, could just mean sexual passion being present.
From the wisdomlib page on apagabbha, we read:

apagabbha : (adj.) (apa + gabbha) not destined to another rebirth; (a
  + pagabbha) not haughty.
  (Source): BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary
Apagabbha, (adj.) (a + pa + gabbha) not entering another womb, i. e.
  not destined to another rebirth Vin.III, 3. (Page 50)
  (Source):
  Sutta: The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary

From this page (quoted from Max Mueller's book "Vinaya Texts"), we see that this comes from the Vinaya, where the Buddha said:

He who has freed himself, Siha, from the necessity of returning in
  future into a mother's womb, and of being reborn into new existences
  who has rooted out (his being subject to) rebirth, and has done away
  with it, as a palm tree is rooted out, so that it is destroyed and
  cannot grow up again - such a person do I call apagabbha.

So, if "apagabbha" means one who is not destined for descending into a womb, then presumably "pagabbha" means one who is destined for descending into a womb i.e. being to be born. It's possible that "pagabbha" became changed into "gandhabba".
So, these are my two theories:

"Gandhabba being present" just means sexual passion is present.
"Gandhabba being present" was originally "pagabbha being present", meaning the one who is to be born is present.

The second theory originated from Andrei's comment on gabbha.

‘But do you know
‘Jānanti pana bhonto—
for sure whether that spirit is an aristocrat, a brahmin, a merchant, or a worker?’
taggha, so gandhabbo khattiyo vā brāhmaṇo vā vesso vā suddo vā’ti?

This part nullifies the first theory, so we are left with the second i.e. "gandhabba being present" was originally (probably) "pagabbha being present", meaning the one who is to be born is present.
This is probably the same meaning as "sambhavesi" in the Karaniya Metta Sutta which according to the wisdomlib page on sambhavesi means:

sambhavesī : (m.) one who is seeking birth. || sambhāvesi (aor. of
  sambhāveti), esteemed; honoured; mixed with.
  (Source):
  BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

It simply means one who is to be born.
The OP asked whether there is a spirit or soul or being that is born or reborn?
If one answers "yes", that would eternalism. If one answers "no", that would be annihilationism.
According to SN 23.2, there is the definition of "being" as follows:

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord.
  'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
  caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
  fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
  when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
  being.'

There is another definition of "being" in SN 5.10:

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
  Mara, have you grasped a view?
  This is a heap of sheer constructions:
  Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
  The word 'chariot' is used,
  So, when the aggregates are present,
  There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be,
  Suffering that stands and falls away.
  Nothing but suffering comes to be,
  Nothing but suffering ceases.

So, there is a being in Buddhism, but it's not eternal and it is constructed dependent on conditions.
The concept of "rebirth" in Buddhism is simply the continuation of suffering beyond death. There is no eternal person or being or soul or spirit or consciousness or self that dies and is reborn. In fact, it's not even the same being or person or consciousness throughout a single lifetime. It's always changing.
However, looking at the context of the sutta, the Buddha simply wanted to prove that there is no such thing as caste from birth.

Thanks, Ruben  My question is whether this is Buddhist teaching. The Gandhabba theory does not tally with Buddha's teaching. There is no person to be reborn.

@SarathW I just updated the answer. Hopefully it answers your question.

MN 93 has the following discussion:

"'But do you know, masters, if the mother who bore you went only with
  a brahman, and not with a non-brahman?'
"'No, master.'
"'And do you know if the mothers of the mother who bore you — back
  seven generations of mothers — went only with brahmans, and not with
  non-brahmans?'
"'No, master.'
"'And do you know if the father who sired you went only with a brahman
  woman, and not with a non-brahman woman?'
"'No, master.'
"'And do you know if the fathers of the father who bore you — back
  seven generations of fathers — went only with brahman women, and not
  with non-brahman women?'
"'No, master.'
"'Do you know how there is the descent of an embryo?'
"'Yes, master, we know how there is the descent of an embryo. There is
  the case where the mother & father have come together, the mother is
  fertile, and a gandhabba is standing
  present. The coming together of these three is the descent of the
  embryo.'
"'But do you know for sure whether the gandhabba is a noble warrior, a
  brahman, a merchant, or a worker?'
"'No, master.'
"'That being the case, do you know who you are?'
"'That being the case, master, we don't know who we are.'

The above teaching questions two things:

How do you know if your mother slept with a non-Brahman (i.e., had an extramarital affair)?
How do you know if the sperm your mother received was non-Brahman sperm (from the above extramarital affair)?

This teaching has nothing to do with reincarnation. The teaching explicitly asks how can you know who your mother slept with & what she bore?
Shame on so-called 'Buddhists'. Shame. How shameful the superstition, which the Buddha condemned (in MN 95). Shame.
Shame on Thanissaro for slandering the suttas by including "[the being about to be reborn]" into the sutta translation. Shame.

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


text:
What is the visa process for ordaining foreigner monks in Sri Lanka?
I heard that the monk candidates outside of Sri Lanka have to make two trips to Sri Lanka in order to get an extended visa. I would prefer just making one trip to Sri Lanka(in the future) being enough to get an extended visa to be able to ordain as a monk. Is there a special way that don't require the foreigner monk candidates to make two trips to Sri Lanka?
Note: I would like to ask the same question for the foreigner monk candidates in Thailand but I heard that they don't accept foreigners to be monk there anymore. If anyone has any informations about the foreigner monk situation in Thailand I would be glad If they inform me.

Sir, I don't know whether this is helpful or not. But in this ebook, visa process mentioned very briefly: Na Uyana Monastery Information.pdf

@Damith thank you very much. I recorded the link.

Sir, this ebook has a detailed information about the visa process: Buddhist Forest Monasteries and Meditation Centres in Sri Lanka. To be eligible for free one year residence visa, monk photo in the passport is necessary. Otherwise you have to pay for one year residence visa. Since you cannot use money after ordaining as a monk, you have to make prearrangement for that (visa renewal).

@Damith thank you for the e-book. It has very detailed explanations about the visa process. From what I understand is I have to make two trips to Sri lanka, first with tourist visa, find a monastery and ordain as a monk there. And then I have to leave Sri Lanka and apply for an entry-visa with the help of the monastery that I ordained as a monk. After Sri Lanka's police checking of me is finished they will send me an e-mail and then I can return to Sri Lanka with the required documents.

Previous discussion from Dhamma Wheel.
1) I have obtained a residency visa by this method in the past and it states it clearly in the NUA information:

After arriving in Sri Lanka with the entry visa, you can apply for the resident visa. You will be given a 30 day-visa on arrival, and the monastery will help you to apply for the resident visa. Visas for monks and nuns are free. Lay people need to pay for the application. (~Rs 20,000/USD200 per year).

In relation to the visa, understand that Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country and the religion carries great influence in the secular sphere as well, it is part of Sri Lankan nationalism, just as Hinduism is in India. Don’t worry about the visa, if you have a genuine intention to become a monk, then NUA will organise it.
2) This, including the language barrier, has a disadvantage for foreigners, as they are regarded as outsiders and you will have to find your own way within the monastic system. You will be able to choose your own teacher and in many other ways will have to make your own decisions. The situation will not be a clear-cut training as you expect. It is not a training monastery (pirivena).
NUA APPROXIMATE TIMELINE TO BHIKKHU ORDINATION
1-4 months: Upāsaka (8 Precepts)
6-12 months Pabbajjā (going forth) and abiding as a Sāmaṇera (Novice monk) (10 Precepts and 75 Sekhiya rules) January – March: Vinaya Classes
April: Vinaya Exam
June: Upasampadā (higher ordination) at Galduwa Monastery
3) You should be familiar with the eight precepts and the history of Buddhism in Sri Lanka as custodian of the dhamma after it declined in India.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=30722

Thank you for the information about visa and other details of ordination.

Wouldn't it be not more important to think about how to leave ones land without duties left and then look around if there are places who still accept a homeless state? It might be the times are already gone and householder domain  remain where there was once a way out.
How could a monk, taking his mode of live serious, look after such as Visa, makes contracts, ask for stay... that's nonsense or?
Look discussion about the matter here, a very serious one.
If wishing to walk a juristic way, a lay person could possible walk, ask as refuge for asylum.
[Note that is not an answer to feed ones stackes, or for exchange, trade, Buddh-ism, but as always an compassionate advice for simply ones liberation, so one may delete it if the place is not given for such but up to bind people.]

Sorry my English is not good enough to understand you but my main purpose for asking this question is I don't want to make two trips to Sri Lanka because the plane tickets and other costs in a foreign country are expensive

My person would also not like to come back. Risky. Leaving home is good if just a one way ticket. So good to have nothing that actually pulls one back. As told, the problem actually might be to get released from ones state. Whether there are some who still accept (tripple gem) refuges or not, who knows... Nyom Murathan.

@Murathan1 I think this was another example of "advice" instead of "an answer". The advice seems to be, 1) Make sure there's nothing in your old country to hold you back 2) Find a place that accepts the homeless 3) Do you really have to worry about secular visas etc.? 4) Read the linked page (the second half is English) 5) A sentence which includes "refuge" (a Buddhist term) and "asylum" (a political term), suggesting the two might sometimes be related -- IDK, perhaps that hints as e.g. SarathW's answer about a monastery handling visa details.

@ChrisW thank you for the explanation, it's very helpful. I will try to fulfill all the requirements for ordination.


text:
A good Abhidhamma monastery to ordain?
I am looking for a monastic community that fits these criteria;

Abhidhamma compliant
Vinaya compliant; one meal a day, no afternoon snacks, not using
money etc
Analytical attitude towards the commentaries;
Westerners can receive ordination and stay for the nissaya

No geographic preference.
If you know of a suitable community please do let me know.
Thanks

Sir, Na Uyana Monastery Information.pdf may be helpful.

All the criteria matches, I think, in International Institute of Theravada ( https://www.theravado.com)

This institute fits the criteria you have listed. (one-meal is optional)
Most of the teacher monks at IIT are top scholars in different subjects. They are of Forest-Vinaya sect in Sri Lanka.

International Institute of Theravada (IIT)
Vision
To groom and capacitate the Buddhist monk who is capable in: • Attaining the ultimate liberation, the Nirvāṇa • Guiding others
(both clergy and laity) in attaining the ultimate liberation, the
Nirvāṇa • prolongating the sāsana by performing formal acts in the
code of discipline (Vinaya Kammas) according to the exact teaching of The Buddha
Mission
The International Institute of Theravada (IIT), a fully-fledged training institute based on Theravada teachings is
dedicated to the spiritual and academic development of Buddhist monks
irrespective of sects (Nikaya) and other differences. A group of
competent monk-disciples (who have completed Theravada Buddhist
education in Myanmar and exposed different traditions in Thailand and
elsewhere) of the Late Most Venerable Nā-Uyane Ariyadhamma Mahāthera,
the vice president of the Śrī Rāmañña Mahānikāya and the Supreme Head
of the Śrī Kaḷyāṇī Yogāśrama Saṃsthā, and also affiliated to the
well-known Nā-Uyana Forest Monastery, Malsiripura, has already
commenced initial work in establishing IIT at Karuwalagaswewa, Sri
Lanka with the blessings and guidance of senior Mahātheras of both
Rāmañña Mahānikāya and Amarapura Mahānikāya.

Venerable Maggavihari's famous Lesson series: Fundamentals of
Theravada
IIT Youtube Channel Global
IIT Facebook
Theravado.com (Website)

There is another Vinaya Monastery which is famous for its Classical Vinaya studies (No website yet).

Diddeniya Ranagirilena Forest Monastry in Sri
lanka (A forum post where some info can be seen)

And currently the biggest forest monastery in Sri Lanka (affiliated to Burmese Pa-auk) is Na Uyana where there are more than 150 monks.

Nauyana.org

All the 3 monasteries follow Vinaya, train monks, give Nissaya and have learned teachers speaking good English.

IIT is more open-minded and analytical
Diddeniya is more strict-vinaya and Classical
Na uyana is more meditative but Pa-auk follower.

While it's hard to find such a monastery that meets all the requirements that you have laid out, it's likely that the Thai Forest Tradition monasteries founded by Ven. Ajahn Chah and his students (see Forest Sangha for worldwide monasteries) could be credible. The main monastery for this lineage is Wat Pah Nanachat in Thailand. Ven. Ajahn Sujato and Ven. Ajahn Brahmali who are scholars of the Pali Canon and located in Australia, are affiliated to this tradition. The famous Youtube speaker Ven. Ajahn Brahm, who studied under Ven. Ajahn Chah, is the abbot of the Bodhinyana Monastery in Perth, Australia.
In California, you can consider the Metta Forest Monastery. The abbot of this monastery was or is Ven. Ajaan Thanissaro, another well-known translator and scholar of the Pali Canon. Ven. Ajaan Thanissaro is also of the Thai Forest Tradition. The main monastery for this lineage, founded by Ven. Ajaan Thanissaro's teacher Ven. Ajaan Fuang Jotiko, is Wat Dhammasathit in Thailand.
According to the Wikipedia page on Metta Forest Monastery (which quotes a book):

Ajaan Ṭhānissaro stresses the importance of strict adherence to the
Vinaya or Buddhist monastic code which teaches relying only on
donations from the lay community as well as living in the wilderness,
a key feature of the Thai Forest Tradition of which he is a part.

It is also likely that some monasteries and some teachers lean towards Vipassana more than Samatha (jhana) or vice versa. For example, Ven.  Ajaan Tong Sirimangalo and his student Ven. Ajaan Yuttadhammo may lean more towards vipassana, while Ven. Ajahn Chah and his student Ven.
Ajahn Brahm may lean more towards samatha.
If you haven't read it already, the book "Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika would help you to avoid romanticizing life in Theravada monasteries, especially in Asia. However, at the same time, you should not let it discourage you, as there are bound to be a mix of good and bad experiences when it comes to monasteries and life in monasteries.

I hope there are some Burmese communities but i don't know of any. Burmese tend to accept the abhidhamma so maybe some of them also eat once a day and will tolerate disagreement on commentaries. I've read the book and i want to see if i can find a suitable community to get well along with people if i was to live with them:)

Yes. According to this blog post, Burma or Myanmar studies Abhidhamma more than others. However, most traditional Theravadins accept the Abhidhamma, but not all give it higher importance compared to the Sutta and Vinaya.

Non of these places supports Abhidhamma. They are openly unorthodox. And everyone knows that as well.


text:
Is there a kind of consulting service in Buddhism?
Similarly to psychotherapy counselling/consulting service, is there an equivalent form in Buddhism, in that the counselor is trained in Buddhism instead of clinical psychology? I haven't heard of such a professional service, but I guess this doesn't go against Buddhist teachings? There are short meditation courses, which can be seen as equivalent forms of short training courses in therapy I think. Or does Buddhism not advocate for this, because in its nature it doesn't advocate conceptualization?
I think if it exists, then the customers will have the mindset of psychotherapy service anyway, so it's just psychotherapy in Buddhism form. This is not a mean to be disrespectful – there are psychologists who have very solid knowledge in Buddhism, such as Jung. But I'm talking about those who once or still practice Buddhism as "professional" monks.

Related: Is there a kind of "pop Buddhism"?

First a bit of background or context -- just in case you didn't know.
So apparently, as well as the suttas, there's something called the vinaya i.e. the code of Monastic discipline. These are (or include) many of dozens of rules which the Buddha established for monks -- and "following the vinaya" is one of the things that a monk is supposed to do (and affects or defines whether someone is considered to be a monk).
The (codified) vinaya defines the letter-of-the-law of what monks must or mustn't do. I only know some details and vague outlines but I think it amounts to something including this (and more) ...

No handling money
No secular "job"
Maybe a limited acceptance of secular authorities (e.g. perhaps no secular "boss")
No selling the Dhamma (no secular "clients")
Limited interaction with lay-folk

... so "psychotherapy service" doesn't quite sound like what a monk should do -- e.g. I wouldn't expect to look up "psychotherapy" in the Yellow Pages and find a Buddhist monk advertising there.
People also have an ideal (perhaps idiosyncratic or judgemental) of what a monk should do, I think it's something like ...

If you're interested in Buddhism you go to a  monastery for training
Monks teach Buddhism to novices (i.e. monk-candidates), to lay people who are taking "retreats", and the occasional Dhamma-talk (like an academic "lecture" on a subject) to a group of people when invited
Monks take their bowl e.g. to the local village or onto the public street once a day, where people may put food in the bowl, but that's a silent transaction (or not transactional)

... so limited opportunity for any one-on-one -- and, "providing a service" to lay-people isn't entirely what being a monk is about. To the contrary, it's lay people who should provide some service to the sangha, doing or providing things which monks may need but aren't allowed to do themselves (including storing food, buying any goods and services, and so on).
Incidentally some people observe that the present actuality isn't as ideal as the outline above, in many Buddhist countries -- e.g. that some monasteries (or temples) do collect money, that monks live luxuriously, that there are "superstitions" or "folk religions" mixed in, that monks seem to make a living by showing up at lay funerals, and so on.
But anyway the content of the Vinaya -- the letter of the law if not the spirit -- varies quite little I think, over the centuries and over continents. Monks are expected to memorise it and recite it regularly.
Still there are deviations, in particular I think it's difficult to practice ...

When there's no support or cooperation from lay society (e.g. where the lay society isn't Buddhist and isn't prepared to support a monastic society)
When there's hostility from the secular powers (e.g. when the emperor thinks that Buddhist monks have become a drain on the empire's or the provinces' ability to raise taxes and/or armies)

For these reasons the existence of the sangha is a bit precarious, and without the sangha i.e. without monks being able to live, Buddhism might not be viable. Other traditions develop e.g. monks work in the fields to help support themselves, etc.
There also "competition" from other religions -- Hinduism, Islam, Daoism, Folk religions (e.g. animism), not to mention Christianity (and, perhaps most recently, western Rationalism and/or Science) -- but that's not on-topic here.
Anyway I think that Japan -- Japanese Buddhism -- might be one of the more extreme examples of the Vinaya being modified by secular edict. So, for example, I think that Japanese senior abbots might even marry and so on. I can't comment on countries where Buddhism itself has become a secular power.
As a gross approximation I'd guess that the "ideal" I outlined above (e.g. keeping separate from lay society) is a "Theravada" (the "Way of the Elder monks") ideal, whereas mixing more with lay society might be more "Mahayana" (the "Great vehicle") -- though Andrei points out that in practice this is a great oversimplification (and perhaps or arguably not a genuine distinction at all).

Anyway, to get round to your question -- yes, I think there are: in some places.
You asked about "in Buddhism" -- and I'm not sure what that means ... e.g. "in traditional Buddhism", or "in modern Buddhism", "in what we know of original or early Buddhism".
But for example, there's Welcome to Kusala.org ...

Kusala Bhikshu - is a volunteer Buddhist chaplain for -- The UCLA Medical Center Spiritual Care Committee, the University Religious Conference at UCLA, and the Garden Grove Police Department. Rev. Kusala is active in the interreligious communities of both Los Angeles and Orange County. He lives/works at the IBMC teaching Buddhism and meditation.

Perhaps what you're looking for is a Buddhist "chaplain"?
If you're dying in hospital then the staff might ask you if you want a visit from a chaplain, and some people might want a Buddhist chaplain.
Another possibility is that what you're asking about is a "teacher" -- i.e. a teacher might talk with you one-on-one and so on.
Another possibility is that you are asking for a (e.g. clinical) psychotherapist, but a Buddhist one.

It's this which ties the first bit of this answer to the second, by the way:

Kusala Bhikshu
Ven. Kusala Bhikshu (Thich Tam-Thien) is an American born Bhikshu (monk) ordained in the Zen Tradition of Vietnam.

Another (more famous) example of Vietnamese Zen in the west is Plum Village and Thich Nhat Hanh (I don't know whether that has anything to do with psychotherapeutic consulting though).
I don't know much more -- this suggests that the Vietnamese Zen tradition might be inclusive rather than exclusive, maybe not very dogmatic.
Also I hope the first bit of this answer might help to explain, amplify or give some context to the answers from Samana Johann and user12901.

This, I don't know, might be another example, it's a publisher's blurb about an author:

Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula
Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula, PhD, was born in Sri Lanka and became a Buddhist monk in childhood. He holds a Master's Degree in literature, and a doctorate in English. He serves the congregation at the Houston Buddhist Vihara, and teaches English at the University of Houston. He lives in Texas.

I don't know what "serving the congregation" there might mean exactly, but that might include something of what you're asking about (see also that book).

I think I've also seen it argued or imp[lied, though, that a monk who serves the community which supports them is therefore not a true monk.

My personal opinion is that, broadly, lay people will want you to function well or to improve your functioning within samsara -- conversely Buddhism might be about stopping samsara altogether -- consequently there may be some disconnect between the aims of lay society and "Buddhism".
I also think that anyone who wants to "stop" might be seen as dysfunctional, by "puthujjanas" and so on (people who aren't disinterested in what you do for them).
Wanting to stop might therefore be stigmatised as some symptom of mental illness -- ironic that stopping, if it's meant as a cure or therapy, should be mistaken for the disease.
I can only hope that any psychotherapist worth their salt, Buddhist or not, might have some patience for their client's best interest, advocate for their client/patient rather than only for society.
People tend to be pushed, not just by their society but by their family, to perform. I happened to read an extreme example of that recently, here:

In my country if I will become a homeless guy who don't want any money even à cents who looking for illumination I will send to psychiatrict hospital.
Asking for food when you made de choice to live without money is ok in bouddhisme and Indian for yogi. Not in my country.
And the weather...

That's actually a bit contrary to my limited experience (or at least, "in my country") of homelessness and psychiatric hospitals, it might help[ to illustrate a dichotomy though (possibly a false dichotomy).

Well the people who are trained in the dhamma are called the asekhas, meaning the arhats.
The people in training on the dhamma are called the sekhas and they are not puthujjanas, so the sotapannas and all that.
The people who are not trained in the dhamma are the puthujjanas and those people know nothing about the dhamma. Seeking advice from those people,  about your life, your behavior, what to do and what not to do is always a bad idea. All those people do is create conditions for future dukkha (and they do not even know it, those people think that what they do is righteous and smart). When a puthujjana follows the advises from a puthujjana, the puthujjana seeking advise will only stay a puthujjana.
The sekhas have more important tasks to realize than advising puthujjanas. At best they can reply to a few questions from the puthujjanas.
The asekhas can talk about the dhamma, to anybody, but they are not here to tell puthujjanas what to do, especially about the worldly affairs of the puthujjanas. At best their generic answers for lay puthujjanas will be about respecting the 5 precepts and being mindful. Asekhas are here to tell the sekhas what to do and what not to do, that works well especially since the sekhas know the asekhas are better than them, and to the puthujjana bikkhus who may like or dislike what the asekhas say or do not say...
So for a puthujjana who seeks advises about worldly affairs, when there are no non-puthujjanas, especially no asekhas, it is going to be hard.

Some monks provide such a service of spiritual guidance to lay people, even if they are not required to do so. But expect the teacher to teach on his terms and not your's. He is not a commercial service-provider, and you are not his customer. If a monk provides such a service, it should be only out of compassion.
Of course, not all monks are equal, so some would be better than others, in terms of character, knowledge, insight, compassion and attainment.
From the life of Ajaan Fuang as written by his student Thanissaro Bhikkhu in "Awareness Itself":

§ One of Ajaan Fuang's students complained to him about all the
  problems she was facing at work. She wanted to quit and live quietly
  by herself, but circumstances wouldn't allow it, because she had to
  provide for her mother. Ajaan Fuang told her, "If you have to live
  with these things, then find out how to live in a way that rises above
  them. That's the only way you'll be able to survive."
§ Advice for a student who was letting the pressure at work get her
  down: "When you do a job, don't let the job do you."
§ Another one of Ajaan Fuang's students was having serious problems,
  both at home and in her work, so he appealed to her fighting spirit:
  "Anyone who's a real, live person will have to meet up with real, live
  problems in life."
§ If any of his students were bearing a grudge about something, he
  would tell them: "You can't even sacrifice something as minor as this?
  Think of it as making a gift. Remember how many valuable things the
  Buddha sacrificed during his life as Prince Vessantara, and then ask
  yourself, 'This anger of mine has no value at all. Why can't I
  sacrifice it, too?'"
§ One of Ajaan Fuang's students complained to him, "I look at other
  people, and they seem to have such an easy life. Why is life so hard
  on me?" His answer: "Your 'hard life' is ten, twenty times 'the good
  life' for a lot of people. Why don't you look at the people who have a
  harder time than you do?"
§ There seem to be more excuses for breaking the fifth precept than
  for any other. One evening another student was conversing with Ajaan
  Fuang at the same time that a group of people were sitting around them
  in meditation. "I can't observe the fifth precept," he said, "because
  I'm under a lot of group pressure. When we have social occasions at
  work, and everyone else in the group is drinking, I have to drink
  along with them."
Ajaan Fuang pointed to the people sitting around them and asked, "This
  group isn't asking you to drink. Why don't you give in to their group
  pressure instead?"
§ The seamstress saw her friends observing the eight precepts at Wat
  Dhammasathit, and so decided to try it herself. But in the middle of
  the afternoon, as she was walking through the monastery, she passed a
  guava tree. The guavas looked inviting, so she picked one and took a
  bite.
Ajaan Fuang happened to be standing not far away, and so he remarked,
  "Hey. I thought you were going to observe the eight precepts. What's
  that in your mouth?"
The seamstress realized in a jolt that she had broken her precepts,
  but Ajaan Fuang consoled her, "It's not all that necessary to observe
  the eight precepts, but make sure you observe the one precept, okay?
  Do you know what the one precept is?"
"No, Than Phaw. What is it?"
"Not doing any evil. I want you to hold onto this one for life."
§ A woman came to Wat Dhammasathit to observe the precepts and
  meditate for a week, but by the end of the second day she told Ajaan
  Fuang that she had to return home, because she was afraid her family
  couldn't get along without her. He taught her to cut through her
  worries by saying, "When you come here, tell yourself that you've
  died. One way or another, your family will have to learn to fend for
  themselves."
§ A Bangkok magazine once carried the serialized autobiography of a
  lay meditator who used his powers of concentration to treat diseases.
  One installment mentioned how he had visited Ajaan Fuang, who had
  certified that he (the layman) had attained jhana. This didn't sound
  like Ajaan Fuang's style, but soon after the magazine came out,
  unusual numbers of people came to the wat under the impression that
  Ajaan Fuang, like the author of the autobiography, could treat
  illnesses through meditation. One woman asked him if he treated kidney
  diseases, and he answered, "I treat only one kind of disease: diseases
  of the mind."

The Sangha is not meant as a social service. Althought 95% act as such and this corrupt way of livelihood is actually the only kind most of you will ever come in touch.
If one looks for such, there are institutions one can pay or be paying ones tax.
What one seeks for one get's. So nothing to worry aside of seeking the right.
Even most will not see any benefit to leave the state of being just a away-consumer of some merits in the past, not willing to give, here some words to understand the liberating economy of Dhamma: Better to Give than to Consume
Now one can start to think how much one has actually given since birth and how much simply consumed away for nothing but increasing of desires till today. And here one actually has already the answer why modern people suffer hardly in all ways of mind illness.
Take the most needed with you, close the door from outside and come here not much thinking on going out to simply return back where you came from. Only that resolve and act will heal much already.
A good answer by the way.

I have met some phycologists during meditation retreats and service, I wouldn't recommend Western psychology. Especially be committed to not taking medications, it wasn't that long ago that a spiritual being or someone talking about higher and lower realms etc. Might have gotten the electric chair and a labotomy. I have heard some people getting a lot of improvement and balance and noticed some good qualities from that type of work. That addresses the issues calmly and assertively, apologizes and quickly-ish admits mistakes. But drugs and some treatments repress and supress the madness causing more subconscious smoldering that will later erupt, and be a roaring fire.


text:
What to do that wise would not disappear again?
My person, just seeing that you are certain gifted to be, possible not so aware, gifted to have another Noble one around here thought it would be good to be asked an importand question:
What needs to be done, what should a community take care of, in the case someone more skilled in liberating means would approach?
How does one "bind" such a blessed gift?
[Note: this is not given for stackes, exchange and trades in the world, but to get bind toward liberation. Should be deleted if place does not have interest in releasing it's visitors.]

There is a good book about community building; Community Building on the Web : Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities – by Amy Jo Kim.
The most knowledgeable people are those who are able to answer almost any questions. They are extremely valuable but are also quite likely to retire from a community in part because they don't need the community to learn and their lack of peers is proportional to their expertise.
If one is looking to keep the knowledgeable people around one should protect them. They do need to be protected from harassment and it is the job of the moderators. The moderators have to work with them and this can be difficult.
Other than that they can also just lose interest in teaching or become otherwise disinterested.
Related Sutta stories;
There is a story about monks quarreling and the Tathagata leaving the community because the monks did not settle their quarrel.
There is another story about The Buddha not teaching in an "impure" assembly which results in a monk being removed by force from the assembly.
Another is when Ven. Sariputta stops teaching because a monk harasses him by openly disagreeing in front of other monks and nobody defends Ven. Sariputta. Later Buddha admonishes the monk for harassing Ven. Sariputta and admonishes the community of monks for not defending the Elder.

Dhamma, as all religions (re-bindings) is open to use to bind one toward a certain aim. The Buddha Dhamma provides with the means of the robe to bind toward Undinding.
It's not possible to move on without firm bound, i.e. Nissaya, Upanissaya.
Only neither-sekha-nor-asekha (wordlings) or asekha (arahats) are without Nissaya. The fist instead to strong Nissaya toward sickness, oldage and death, bond to Samsara. A Sekha, one in training, has firm bonds to finish the path.
As devoted lay people but also monks in traditional countries say: "When ever you meet someone hard to meet (a Noble one, advanced monk), do what ever possible, that you don't loose him, even if he casts you hardly off, on and on."
Upasaka number-string pointed out some things, quoting commercial strategies. Those can be found in the Sangha-vatthu, the bonds of fellowship as well, and are ever since also misused for binding for lower purposes. Actually this commercial, directed toward gain, strategies are the main reasons why wise would certain not dwell under those tended toward the world. The highest four kinds of help go totally against the wishes of worldlings and therefore will not be desired in a community without even faith and plenty of ingratitude toward real help.
How ever, the question does lesser go into direction of community build or how one best helps but has the knowing "I am in need of help" as starting point while a certain community where one, according to ones tendencies dwells, should be always just for a time being.
There are many advices found in the Vinaya (starting by providing best dwelling, service, providing with specials...) and a lot of rules in regard of respect also point on the importand issue. People of a dhammic-community, desiring to increase the bounds toward liberation, should first of all always keep the thought: "May those more advanced in means required toward liberation, more liberated, soon come.", in mind.
If that point is clear, 1. that one would need the assistance of those more advanced, 2. a good desire for such is maintained, if that is the case, it would be worthy to elaborate more here. If not, than it would be wasted time.
Note: that this is not given for trade, exchange, stackes... for the world but liberation.


text:
Is life not blessing or mystery but suffering in Buddhism?
Just like the title my question is as simple as it gets.
Please give your thought as short as possible. I just wanna confirm my idea.

Why not all three?

@X-pression Hi! Here is a good reading about Dukkha, which has more possible meanings than just "suffering". http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Wheels/wh_191_193.pdf

OP: Is life not a blessing or mystery but suffering in Buddhism?

All three are correct in Buddhism in my opinion. Past is mystery, present is suffering and future is blessing. Let me explain.
Life in the past is a mystery. Life in the present moment for an unenlightened being, is suffering. Life in the future is an opportunity for blessing.
Why is life in the past a mystery?
From the Tears Sutta:

From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration (samsara). A beginning
  point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered
  by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus
  experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the
  cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things,
  enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

In this question, we find that when effluents arise, ignorance arises, and when ignorance arises, effluents arise. So, a beginning point of samsara is not evident.
In any case, according to the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, it is not useful to try to discover the origin of all this suffering. And according to the Unconjecturables Sutta, that might drive you crazy.
Why is life in the present moment for an unenlightened being, suffering?
In MN 75:

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.

Analyzing this more closely in the Fire Sermon Sutta:

"Monks, the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame.
  Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the
  eye is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on
  contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what?
  Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of
  delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows,
  lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.
"The ear is aflame. Sounds are aflame...
"The nose is aflame. Aromas are aflame...
"The tongue is aflame. Flavors are aflame...
"The body is aflame. Tactile sensations are aflame...
"The intellect is aflame. Ideas are aflame. Consciousness at the
  intellect is aflame. Contact at the intellect is aflame. And whatever
  there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect —
  experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too
  is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire
  of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I say, with birth, aging &
  death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.

Why is life in the future an opportunity for blessing?
Although it's not possible to change one's past, it's possible to change one's future to become free from suffering, by changing how one responds in the present moment.
As written by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in "To Suffer Is an Active Verb":

This is one of the reasons why the Buddha doesn’t have us try to go
  back into the past and ask, “What did I do to deserve an illness, a
  mental state, a situation in life?” He said that if you tried to trace
  all those things back, you’d go crazy. In fact, he said, you can’t
  trace back and find a beginning point for the ignorance that underlies
  suffering. But you can see what you’re doing to sustain it now.

From the Themes Sutta, we find that we can avoid future suffering by being aware of the consequences of our thoughts, words and deeds of the present moment:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished.

Continuing the Fire Sermon Sutta, we find that ultimately all suffering traces back to craving and craving needs to be eliminated, in order to become free of suffering:

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
  disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with
  consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye. And
  whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye,
  experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: With that,
  too, he grows disenchanted.
"He grows disenchanted with the ear...
"He grows disenchanted with the nose...
"He grows disenchanted with the tongue...
"He grows disenchanted with the body...
"He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas,
  disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with
  contact at the intellect. And whatever there is that arises in
  dependence on contact at the intellect, experienced as pleasure, pain
  or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: He grows disenchanted with that too.
  Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is
  fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully
  released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled,
  the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

Life as in our existence is explained to be worth escaping from and the escape is possible because there is an element to be discerned apart from life and existence as we know it. The "unconditioned" element, when discerned, it is discerned as superior of the two and an escape even from the highest pleasures of existence and so to it there is a natural inclination and a preference. The release even from the pleasant feelings is the most pleasant of the two because having discerned directly the cessation of feeling and the release from feeling there is inclination to the escape due to the superior discernment of the greater good. Apart from that, the "existence" in the Sutta is once compared to the excrement and is called dukkha and even the rupa and arupa jhana can be explained to be dukkha because there is a progressive release, so the highest release is the purity itself and everything else is defilement by definition.

I assume your answer to my question is "Yes life is suffering according to Buddha" and love to read this kind of clarification.

yes if one had all possible  information and essential experience to make such distinction one would say that there is an escape from existence and that existence turns out to be comparable to shit.

There are levels and categorizations of suffering and an objective standard for not-suffering.

The English word "blessing" usually means "a gift from God" -- so yes, maybe it's not that (though with due gratitude to one's benefactors).
I suppose it's not meant to be much of a "mystery" either -- e.g. there's a lot of doctrine which explains what "life" is, which predicts, and which makes generalisations (e.g. sabbe sankhara anicca)
I'm not sure "life is suffering" is right either -- Did the Buddha really say that "life is suffering"?
I think I've seen (e.g. here but elsewhere too) that life (and especially this life) is an opportunity -- to learn the dhamma, to stay mindful/heedful, for enlightened practice and even to "live the holy life".
Or if it's true that we don't believe in death then maybe beliefs about "life" (and suffering) are a bit conceited as well.

Attachment to anything is suffering in Buddhism. A being can experience life with complete freedom from suffering if it doesn't cling to anything. But most important thing is to become free from the self-view and completely disidentifying from it. If there is no identification with the self/ego then it is not possible to experience the life as suffering and the being would have continous peace and joy no matter what is happening in the outside world or in the being's mind. But the ultimate freedom from suffering and the perfect peace and happiness is Nibbana. As for "blessing" or "mystery" words, some spiritual traditions and teachers uses that words for life, I don't know If Buddhism uses these kind of words for life but it says that: "Happiness follows a pure mind".

Life is a blessing especially if

not stupid
coming into contact with the Dhamma
living in an area where people hold right view (having good friends and association).

Life, or better birth, is the first prerequisite for liberation and one is wise to have a lot of gratitude and estimate in regard of ones many sacrifices done to come till here, should not neglect them and use them wise to go toward beyond birth, aging, sickness and death. See: Upanisa Sutta: Prerequisites
So one can be 100% sure that life of a person of gratitude is no wast at all but a Maha Mangala (the basic Great blessing one owes foremost ones parents who gave one this possibility hard ever to gain).
For more an value Condistions one may look here Workplace for good condition - [Arbeitsplatz für gute Bedingungen]  pāramī and this Why it is important to value our Conditions?
One knowing this "gate, gate, paragate..." might find this as a bridge to the Buddhas Dhamma: Modern "hierarchy" and devotion - obstacles: āgati & agati
May all strive for the best use of sugati and toward a better with every deed.
And to get aware of suffering, suffering perceived, is actually the highest blessing in the set of the Maha Mangalas.

"The mind that is not touched by the vicissitudes of life,[1] the mind that is free from sorrow, stainless, and secure — this is the highest blessing.
"Those who have fulfilled the conditions (for such blessings) are victorious everywhere, and attain happiness everywhere — To them these are the highest blessings."

Only fools value what is a hindrance to go beyond and make no wise use of good gifts but take the waste as gold.
{not for trade, exchange... but for liberation}

"Is life not blessing or mystery but suffering in Buddhism?"
Life is not _______ (any one thing) "in Buddhism". For every sentient being the experience of life is different. According to Mahayana Buddhism, sentient being's experience depends on 1) their state of mind and 2) on the choices they make.

This is not an answer to be read alone by itself, but as an addition to the other wonderful and insightful answers.
The Pali texts tell us that the Buddha pointed to three main features of existence:
1) All phenomena are empty of self
2) All conditioned phenomena are impermanent
3) All conditioned phenomena are Dukkha
Let's check the two latter statements:
The second statement may, in some respects, point to the direction asked by you. Conditionality is a feature of most phenomena (except Nibbana, "The Unconditioned" by definition). This means that if something arises, there must have been some previous causes that, under certain conditions and specific arrangements, made possible the existence of that very phenomena. The thing is, in practice, we, ignorant and not-omniscient creatures, will hardly ever know all the conditions responsable for every cause; this problem leads to a factical uncertainty of the world and, in other words, to its mysterious façade.
The Buddha talks about this conditionality most prominently in the context of the arising of Dukkha; this is the teaching about Dependent Origination. In this case, the conditions that give rise to Dukkha are well-defined, and are no longer a mystery for us - thanks to the Buddha.
This leads us to the third idea: what does "Dukkha" mean?

It is important to know why this term is left untranslated. To illustrate the reason behind that, think about the word "love" as it's used in the gospels of Christianity. Originally, the gospels were written in greek, and later translated into other languages as time went by and new missions were done in places outside the greco-roman world. In greek, there are at least three words to describe the idea behind our modern term "love", with very different meanings: eros, philia and agape are the most frecuently used, which indicate three different kinds of love (sexual attraction, fraternal love, and all-inclusive/encompassing love). As you can see, the modern english word "love" is one with a broad range of uses and meanings, and in modern translations of the Bible, "love" is used for those three contexts.
Well... the same thing happens in buddhism.
Dukkha was the word used by the Buddha when talking about existence in general, and when the first western translations of the Pali texts were made, that concept was translated as "suffering". Maybe it was due to sheer ignorance, or maybe because it was convenient to translated such a rich word into one easily understandable. I have no idea. Regardless of that, that translation is only partially true.
"Dukkha" suffers from the same issues above mentioned as the word "love".
Have you ever felt happiness in your life? Well, certainly I have, and the Buddha does not deny that fact (doing it would be delusional). We, wordly creatures, have most likely experienced happiness in our lives, no matter how short in duration and shallow in quality it was; the important fact is that we feel happiness, at least some times and under specific conditiones. So, we cannot say that "life is suffering", because that would rule-out all those moments of little (compared to the bliss of Liberation), conditioned happiness.
So, what does 'Dukkha' mean?

The Buddha talked about three kinds of Dukkha (which I will explain with my very limited understanding of Pali, [so, please, correct me if I'm wrong]):
1) Dukkha-dukkhata: this kind of dukkha points to the grossest/broadest definition of the word, which is physical suffering and mental affliction (stress, frustration, depression, etc.)
2) Viparinama-dukkhata: this points to the unsatisfactoriness born from the fluidity and impermanence of all conditioned phenomena. Since all conditioned phenomena come to an end, we cannot put all our trust in them. It is unwise to attach to the things, because, at the time of their end, we will suffer.
3) Sankhara-dukkhata: this points to the very conditionality of all conditioned phenomena (forgive the redundancy). Everlasting happiness and satisfaction cannot come from conditionality, because of their impermanence.
In sum, as long as we are fettered by ignorance, craving and aversion, we will suffer when:
1) We lost what we love/want
2) We have what we do not want
3) We cannot obtain what we desire.
But we will find wordly happiness as long as we have what we want, and supramundane happiness if we do not depend of changing conditions to feel at peace and blissful.
"Life is suffering" is, as we can see, a very simplified, shallow, unnuanced and pessimistic statement. That's why you will find a lot of times the word without translations. If life was only suffering, Nibbana wouldn't be possible, because it is the very ending of Dukkha.

If you have noticed, most answers are not short nor straight to the point, because there is not easy and short answer for this kind of questions. If the answers were easy to find and understand, suffering and unsatisfaction would not exist anymore.
And a personal opinion: be careful of confirmation biases. Its better to be open to new perspectives and not to get attached to our own views.
Have a wonderful day!


text:
Dana Sutta 7.49
In this sutta the Buddha lists various reasons why people are generous and where their generosity will lead them. At the end of the sutta he mentioned the most powerful way of giving:

" — nor with the thought, 'When this gift of mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise,'
" — but with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world.

Now my question(s)
How exactly is this done? And how does it differ from the former?
"Makes the mind serene" vs "This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind"

It's a good question but I think it has already been asked (here). If someone has another answer, perhaps they could add it there. There were also answers here and here which associate it with samadhi.


text:
Time and Frequency of Meditation
I have read psychological studies and commentaries by meditators that frequency is more important than duration for meditation. Thus, 10 minutes seven days a week is more beneficial than 70 minutes in one sitting according to this view.

I am wondering what this site thinks of this idea. Is regularity more important than duration?
I am wondering whether changing the hour of regular meditation (e.g. one time at 5PM and another at 8AM) impedes on the efficiency of meditation practice. Should meditation occur towards the same time each day ideally?
If the previous ideas are true, then: Would meditating a short amount each day, whatever the time, ensure regularity?

I'm open to hearing any ideas on the subject. Thank you.

Just as with the practice of a musical instrument regularity is better than lengthy but occasional sessions. Sticking to the same time each day helps one achieve regularity.

I am not sure whether you can use a musical instrument, working out (as another example) or learning as a good example because in meditation the mind is focussed on one object (as best as possible). There is learning involved in both, but I'd say that  one could do 5h of meditation if a certain level of concentration is there. Studying or working on the other hand, have limits because at a certain level the body is fatigued and in studying there is too much information processing.

If you meditate really many hours a day(example: 8 hours) then duration matters. These long meditations are really beneficial and they forces the meditators to meditate correctly otherwise negative mind states like boredom can take over. But in other cases it is better to do shorter meditations few times or many times a day so it will lead you to be more mindful during the day.
Changing the time of the formal meditation can be problematic If you don't decide to increase the time of your meditation sessions. So doing the formal meditation in the times that you get used to is better.
Doing short meditations puts you in a better position than the vast majority of the humans who don't even have awareness for 1 second a day. But in the long run it is not enough. But If doing short amount of formal meditations lead you to be mindful during the day then it's beneficial.
The important thing is the continuity of the mindfulness during the day. Practising mindfulness all day long is the gateway to liberation. If the person haven't attained one of the four stages of enlightenment, it's necessary for him/her to practise mindfulness all day long to get results in spirituality.
This video is about short meditation sessions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XyQBI1ZPJ0

Some puthujjanas manage to think that they will progress by spending 20 minutes per day watching the thoughts and suppressing thoughts of harm and lust, then  spending the rest of the day allowing bad thoughts permeated with sensuality, ill-will and harmfulness.
Of course, the only progress possible is first to be mindful of thoughts and perceptions all the time, in order to keep only the good ones.
Sila is made complete with sati sampajana. When sati sampajana declines, sila declines. Without  mindfulness, a puthujjana will only a have sila for a few minutes up to a few hours

I don't understand why everyone tries to make this so complicated.  You need frequency and duration.  There's not other way about it.  If you expect to progress, you have to practice often and for significant periods of time.  There are no shortcuts.  Monks from the time of the Buddha to the present day would sit for hours, everyday.  It's curious to me that laymen today think they'll be able to get away with less.  If anything, they'll have to sit more often to combat the stresses of a householder's life!
Don't worry about when you sit.  While mornings are generally best, all that matters is that you are practicing.  If you're looking for a number to shoot for, aim for two hour long sits everyday.  While more is always better, if you can manage this much, your practice will drastically improve.
A little snark from J.D. Salinger to help you on your way -

"I don't want you to go away with the impression that there're any-you
  know-any inconveniences involved in the religious life. I mean a lot
  of people don't take it up just because they think it's going to
  involve a certain amount of nasty application and perseverance -you
  know what I mean."
It was clear that the speaker, with patent relish, was now reaching
  the high point of his address. He wagged his orange stick solemnly at
  his mother.
"As soon as we get out of the chapel here, I hope you'll accept from
  me a little volume I've always admired. I believe it touches on some
  of the fine points we've discussed this morning. 'God Is My Hobby.' By
  Dr. Homer Vincent Claude Pierson, Jr. In this little book, I think
  you'll find, Dr. Pierson tells us very clearly how when he was
  twenty-one years of age he started putting aside a little time each
  day-two minutes in the morning and two minutes at night, if I remember
  correctly-and at the end of the first year, just by these little
  informal visits with God, he increased his annual income seventy-four
  per cent. I believe I have an extra copy, and if you'll be good
  enough-"

I'm open to hearing any ideas on the subject. Thank you.
Consider making everything your practice. With this perspective, where and when and how you meditate simply flows along with your life sitting, standing, walking or lying down.
Because in the times that you don't practice with all your waking body, speech and mind, you are likely just chasing cravings.


text:
What is knowledge and vision?
I just wonder whether the translation of the following is correct.

And what are those things that are better and finer than knowledge and vision?
Katame ca, brāhmaṇa, dhammā ñāṇadassanena uttaritarā ca paṇītatarā ca?
SuttaCentral

I translate this as:
What knowledge and vision are better and finer than this.

ñāṇadassana is a neuter noun (ending in "a") -- and therefore I think that the ena ending is the "instrumental" case.
So, for a start, I don't think that can be the subject of the sentence.
Similarly dhamma is a masculine noun, therefore I suppose that dhammā is the nominative plural.
Given that ñāṇadassanena is instrumental ...

The fundamental use of the inst. in Pāli as in the older languages is to denote the thing with which an action is performed. Hence Brugmann prefers to call this the with-case (‘Mit-Kasus’, KVG §540), because the with-idea may either signify connection or denote the means by which an action is done or something happens.

... I'd therefore be inclined to try a translation like "using knowledge" or "with knowledge" -- possibly, "what things using-knowledge [are] better?"
But I'm quite reluctant to contradict Ven. Sujato's translation -- partly because he has far, far more experience with Pali than I have, partly because he studied this sutta and other suttas and so better understands the context of this sentence, and partly because I expect he has read any commentaries on this (which I haven't).
And indeed, here -- §86. Inst. of Comparison. -- says that one of the uses of the "instrumental" case is that it's used in comparisons, e.g.

dhanena seyyo M II.73
  “better than wealth”;

So I think that justified Ven. Sujato's translation, i.e. his use of it as the object or target of a comparison:

higher and finer than knowledge and vision

If it doesn't prove that translation (i.e. that's not the only possible translation, at least grammatically) then at least it shows that translation is plausible.
So literally (word for word) something like:

Katame ca, brāhmaṇa, dhammā ñāṇadassanena uttaritarā ca paṇītatarā ca?
  Which-one then, oh-Brahmans, things compared-to-knowledge-and-vision [the verb "are" or "is" is implicit here, not explicit, optional in Pali) higher and finer also?

Definition:
From The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions 1997,
by Oxford University Press 1997:

Ñāṇadassana (‘knowledge and insight’). Buddhist knowledge as an act of ‘seeing’. Dassana indicates ‘seeing or sight’. When combined with ñāṇa it gives the special meaning, ‘insight arising from knowledge’. Thus the Buddha is described as one who ‘knows and sees’ (tam ahaṃ jānāmi passāmi, Majjhima Nikāya 1. 329). The central truths of Buddhism are ‘seen’ (Saṃyutta Nikāya 229). Even nirvāna is ‘seen’ (Majjhima Nikāya 1. 511). According to the Nikāyas this ‘knowledge and insight’ is a result of mental concentration (samādhi), and it is said that there is a causal relation between the attainment of mental concentration and the emergence of this knowledge and insight (Dīgha Nikāya 1.75).

Interpretation:
What kind of knowledge and insight are we talking about here? -- Of course, it refers to direct, first-hand understanding of how things work.
Which "things"? -- Things as pertain to the realm of sentient beings' life and subjective experience.
What do you mean by "how [they] work"? -- General principles at play, high-level causes and conditions that shape subjective experience of sentient being.
Can you give some examples? -- Yes. Things like, what's ethically good / what's ethically bad and why. What is truly important and what is secondary (what's generally referred to as "The meaning of life"). What's possible and what's impossible in life (overall causality). The nature of mind and the relationship between mind and phenomena. The real nature of suffering and peace, and how the two originate from the nature of mind. How experience is shaped and what in our behavior shapes it.
Why is it called "direct" knowledge? -- Because it is practical experience of whoever attains it. It is something clearly seen in the everyday fabric of things, not just conceptually or in theory. "Direct" means, it is in front of your eyes, as concrete as milk and cereal.
Comment on that sutta:
What's interesting about that sutta, is its beginning and end. The Buddha is approached by a brahmin who basically says: Every other guru, just like you, claims direct knowledge into the nature of things - how are you different, dear Buddha?
To this Buddha responds by comparing different attainments with different kinds of timber, his attainment being the heartwood -- the densest, hardest and most valuable building material known at the times.
He then says that Ñāṇadassana (clear understanding) is only at the level of "softwood" - which is a very versatile kind of timber but still falls short of "heartwood":

And so, brahmin, this spiritual life is not lived for the sake of possessions, honor, and popularity, or for accomplishment in ethics (sila), or for accomplishment in immersion (samadhi), or for knowledge-and-vision (ñāṇadassana). Rather, the goal, heartwood, and final end of the spiritual life is the unshakable freedom of heart (ceto-vimutti).”

So basically, Buddha responds to the brahmin's inquiry by saying: yes, those other gurus may claim knowledge-and-vision all they want, but they are completely mistaken about the ultimate goal of the spiritual quest, which is the "unshakable freedom of heart" and is what I teach.

Thank you, Andri, Why Did Buddha say Knowledge and vision is inferior to first Jhana?


text:
When an experienced monk meditates how much does their mind wander?
I’m wondering if most monks would go 99 pct of time with no mind wandering, just focus on breath.

Case 38 of the Mumonkan An Ox Passes Through a Window
Case
Goso said, "For example, it's just like an ox passing through a
  laticed window. Her head, horns, and four legs have passed through.
  Why is it that her tail can't pass through?"
Mumon's Commentary
If in regard to this you are able to turn yourself upside down,
  attain one single eye, and utter a turning word, you will be able to
  repay the four obligations above and help the living beings of the
  three realms below. If you are still unable to do this, reflect again
  on the tail; then you will be able to grasp it for the first time.
The Verse:
If it passes through, it will fall into a ditch;
  If it turns back, it will be destroyed.
  This tiny little tail-
  What a strange and marvelous thing it is!

I'll let you in on a little secret - the mind never stops wandering.  Oh sure, the mind of an experienced meditator looks nothing like that of a novice, but to say that it's 99% focused on the breath is a pretty romantic view.  One thing that becomes apparent over the course of one's practice is that our illusions are depthless.  Unless you are the Buddha himself, there will always be imperfections in your awareness.  The only difference between someone who is experienced and someone who is just beginning their practice is the nature of these delusions.
To give you an example, when one first starts their meditative practice, the small mind is pretty much it's own master and it will drag itself around in limitless ways.  There is internal narration, irritation at discomfort, plagues of doubt, and an assortment of other defilements affecting the mind.  The mind of someone who has been sitting consistently for, say, ten years is much more spacious.  One's internal narration almost completely disappears.  Discomfort more or less vanishes.  Doubt has mostly been cured.  Those defilements that remain are much, much more subtle.  Most of them are completely beyond the realm of language.  Here, imperfections in awareness are dealt with in a way comparable to a master craftsman who knows how to apply his file just so to get the wood to respond in the way he wants.  Just how he could never describe the feel he uses to apply his craft, the skilled meditator simply cannot vocalize the feel they have for keeping their mind applied to a counter-point sign, for instance.
More to the point, the deeper one engages with emptiness, the more likely they are to discover a veritable ecology of subliminal mental obstacles, habitual patterns, and other phenomenon arising from the personal unconscious (e.g. those issuing from the alaya vijnana or store-house consciousness).  These subtle, unconscious phenomenon merely "perfume" the experience of the novice.  Their presence is so pervasive - like an odor from an old, soiled couch that lingers in a room - that they are mistaken as being fundamental to the nature of experience.  For the the experienced practitioner, on the other hand, these phenomenon are seen for what they are and become the fodder for much of his practice.  They are also the very things that will give rise to most of the subtle distraction he experiences in meditation.
Off the cushion, the experience is mostly the same albeit it is much, much more difficult to maintain a deep level of mindfulness with so much going on in the world.  The mind is far less stable off the cushion than it is on it.  Because of that, any disruption makes  a much larger splash.  Because there is so much going on, it is also much harder to really see the much more subtle defilements (like those arising from the alaya).  One might think that they are free from disturbance, but the truth of the matter is that their mind isn't quiet enough to see the torrents raging just underneath the surface of consciousness.
In short, no matter how experienced you are, there's always that tiny bit of tail.

Not sure about "experienced monk", but from my own perspective:
This question assumes the mind is single-threaded, that it thinks about one thing at a time. So, in this question's assumed framework, the mind can either "wander" from point to point or "stay" on one point, correct? - Which is not at all what happens as you gain experience in meditation.
Instead, as your meditation develops, you realize that the mind is in fact a lot more amorphous than our narrative of it, and that there are many, many different thoughts, perceptions, currents, and ebbs going on at various levels.
So your awareness expands. It opens. And as it expands, those trains of connected thoughts that your mind used to generate still occur. But now you can't really call it "wandering" because your scope is not limited to single thing at a time.
Those things that @000 mentioned: internal narration, discomfort, doubt - all kinds of inner drama - they come from this limited polarized mind that gets attached to one thing at a time and insists on keeping black-n-white about it. When the mind learns to be less polarized, less reified, less attached to black-and-white concepts - it no longer generates the types of polarized phenomena like wandering and inner drama. It becomes more like an ocean than like a river, more "analogue" than "discrete" etc.
So it's not like it stays on breath 99% of time - rather, it includes both breath and thoughts. And since you are no longer dragged around by your mind, there is no point in trying to keep it tied to any single object - be it breath or whatever.
Now, if we want to talk about progress in meditation, there is an entirely different aspect that improves as one gets better, which is scatter-mindedness vs. clarity.
When you are scatter-minded, your mind has a lot of noise coming from various activated ideas, memories, concerns, emotions, anxieties and so on. They send their signals all at the same time. As your meditation progresses, those noises calms down and you enter what can be called clarity or lucidity. In this state, things are "clear" - meaning, you have a sort of obvious spontaneous understanding of what's what - what's right, what's wrong, what you really want, what you missed, what's the most important thing you need to do - and so on. In this state of clarity, it is a lot easier to make fast spontaneous decisions - because you have a good connection with your "guts" and - well - your mind is clear.
So, to summarize my answer to your question: an experienced meditator's mind does not stay 99% on breath, instead his or her mind is in a state of open, expansive, effortless, all-inclusive, quiet clarity.

It depends on the monk's stage of insight. A monk can't immediately have a detached awareness that make him free from the negative effects of the wandering mind unless he already attained enlightenment in his lay life. It is possible to be a very experienced meditator but not realised Nibbana yet, so the confused mode of the mind would continue for that person, monk or lay meditator doesn't matter. Also the uncontrollability of the mind continues always, but the awareness of a person can be detached from the negative effects of the wandering mind. The important thing is not the wandering mind but how the person's relationships is with the wandering mind. If a person doesn't take his/her thoughts, feelings and emotions seriously and isn't pulled by them, then the mind can continue to wander as much as it likes and it doesn't really matter anymore.
After a person realizes Nibbana and attains enlightenment(stream-entry) gradually his awareness grows. After experiencing Nibbana many times, the disidentification process from the core of the self/ego(The core of the subconscious mind) would start for a stream-enterer, which would eventually lead a person to a really grounded spiritual state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment
Reaching the once-returner stage makes a person's awareness detached from his mind states and his thoughts, feelings, emotions doesn't lead him to a confused state anymore. But still nothing can be compared to the bliss and happiness of Nibbana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakadagami

A Sakadagami's mind is very pure. Thoughts connected with greed, hatred and delusion do not arise often, and when they do, do not become obsessive.

Before achieving enlightenment, the person will continue to be in ungrounded spiritual state most of the time. This is the nature of the humanity. Also a monk or a lay meditator doesn't only focuses to their breath to practise mindfulness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness
If the monk practises Samatha meditation, then he can achieve a no-wandering state of mind and he can have a peaceful and calm mind like the enlightened people, but generally it is not easy to achieve the goals in Samatha meditation and the person needs a good teacher to guide him.
I quote from a nice article here that explains the beauty of being detached from the wandering mind(but I will not quote the last 2 sentences about control and creating our own reality because as long as we are in a human form these two things are not possible and it is not easy to change our past karma's effects immediately):

What if We Didn’t Take our Thoughts so Seriously?
We would be able to live in the present, enjoy life at a higher intensity, without having to be busy and scared of the reality from our minds.
We would feel relief, we would be free of that mental and emotional weight that our negative thoughts put on us.
We would understand that we are not what we think, we’re not that voice in our head – we are much more than that.
We would detach from thoughts and we would become the observer.
We would understand the difference between the present, reality and the mental scenarios influenced by a disharmonious mind.

https://myexoticdream.net/en/what-would-happen-if-we-did-not-take-so-seriously-thoughts/