text:
How do the four marks (cessation, change, etc,) build?
The four marks are, in order from coarse to subtle

Cessation
Changing
Abiding
Arising

These are discussed in a number of places, but the English language translator of Kihwa's (Korean) commentary on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, seems to associate them with the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana. See e.g. p157 of that book.
What I'm wondering, is how this works, how does the meditator go about "eliminating its mistaken function" (presumably -- see them to be empty), if there are no entities to be found in the first place?
i.e. do they study the mark of cessation, then study the mark of change, etc., as if each mark inhered on some identical object? Or is the mark of change just another way of looking at the mark of cessation, without any thought really bearing the four?

quite a whimsical question, but i wondered a little :)

"Turn to your experience"
Simply go as deep as you can go with each word.  Try and apply the word "abiding" to what is going on around you right now, then to your body, then to the totality of your undivided experience of the world.
Try and view the world from a frame where one could catch a glimpse of the flicker between moments.  What is that?  =)
Arising, Abiding, Cessation ... all of these together are "change"  but the wording is very particular here:
abiding is a process of sustaining, that is: something is upheld by causes and the context much like how a tree holds out a branch, whereupon there is a leaf, whereupon there is a ladybug, for now.
cessation is also a process, the translator clearly opted for "cessation" as opposed to "cessating" because it would be strange, but the -ing makes for better contemplation because cessation or cessating is also a process, the process of dissolution of one entity, because whatever was sustaining its causes burned out or the context shifted ... micro and macro terms for the "same thing"
arising is the process of becoming, the process of manifesting, and this is precisely what Noble Arya Nagarjuna illuminates with Madhyamika (or middle-way) reasoning in his composition Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way
For sake of completion to this answer, i'll add some words about arising
Arising is also no doubt a process; that of manifesting, as mentioned above.  Arising, the more we investigate it, can be seen to be a spontaneous (in-the-flash-of-the-moment) process yet there is clearly some sort of trajectory between qualities of moments.
In order to investigate on this level, one needs a lot of calm.  So first ones neural activity has to be very relaxed and near a state of homeostasis, which is Shamatha or Calm-abiding, the Tibetan term is Shi-nay.
Then there is insight meditation, it's possible for some people to really be able to get a perfect brief fissure/upheat of awareness and thereby polish their wisdom, but for the most part, and for sustaining clearer and more open / bare forms of attentiveness, it's crucial and wonderful, necessary and also exhilarating to develop a strong meditation practice.  That is, meditating every day for at least 30 minutes.
Just make time to sit and at least try and stay undistracted for that long,
and when a good settling fits, try and crank up the light on your personal experience of the moment and its transitionings.
With consistency and quality of meditation time, you are gradually making the conditions more and more perfect for something to happen.
Which is why we must totally discard the notion of expectation, and totally discard the notion of happening.  We are not investigating what will happen, we are investigating how everything is currently happening and therefore, ah i just adore the phrase, "turn to your experience."

probably a bit too practical for me without sitting with a teacher, thanks for the reply :)


text:
sense of achievement oriented behavior
I had a previous question on the need to feel proud of ourselves. I was neutrally observing my thoughts and feelings when I was feeling proud of myself or feeling ashamed of myself. This led to a discovery in me that it was because of the desire to achieve. I want to achieve God's grace, achieve a social status, achieve success in my career, achieve happiness and wisdom through meditation, achieve others approval and appreciation, achieve popularity and so on. I think 24/7 my thoughts and judgements are all about the need to achieve something. Is this okay?
If I get detached from this achievement desire, what will it lead to? And how can we overcome this achievement oriented obsession?

That’s the way it is in the beginning. Everyone wants to succeed. Who would not want to @ Ashwin Kumar? But as you are now working with it both in meditation and being neutral, you begin to notice that you can observe things in the mind you wouldn’t be able to observe any other way: how it changes its mind, how one intention can sneak up on you to sabotage a previous intention. If you’re careful, you can see these things. If you’re alert and mindful, you begin to notice the tricks the mind plays on itself.  As you get better and better at the meditation, you learn how to undo those tricks, work your way around them, find exactly what it is in the mind that wants to wander off anyhow.
You start entering into a dialogue with all your different skillful and unskillful ideas, your skillful and unskillful intentions. And you start converting more and more of your mind to the skillful side. That right there is an important achievement. Bit by bit you begin to figure out all the different ins and outs of the mind. You develop a greater sense of unity, not only in getting the mind to stay with the breath in a state of good strong concentration, but also in getting more and more of your mind on the side of wanting to do what is correct. That’s what right effort is all about, learning how to generate desire to do what’s skillful and to drop what’s unskillful.

The Buddha taught there are two kinds of desire:
(1) Ignorant desire (tanha): which seeks unwholesome & harmful things;
(2) Wise desire (samma sankappa; chanda iddhipada): which seeks wholesome & beneficial things.
The Buddha praised worldly achievements such as having a good reputation, good friends and vocational skill & learning. Refer to Maha-mangala Sutta & Sigalovada Sutta.
The Buddha taught you will succeed at what you want to achieve if you have four qualities, which are: (1) love & devotion (chanda); (2) energy & persistence (viriya); (3) mental focus (citta); & (4) analytical investigation (vimansa).

One who desires progress and success in life, be it in the field of
  education, occupation or livelihood, is advised to abide by the
  following principles:
A. The principles of growth: to practice according to the teachings
  that guide life to prosperity and eminence known as the four cakka
  (the conditions likened to the four wheels that carry a vehicle to its
  destination):
Patirupadesavasa: choosing a suitable environment; to choose a
  suitable location in which to live, study or work, where there are
  people and an environment conducive to learning and betterment in
  life, to the pursuit of the truth, virtue and knowledge, and the
  generation of goodness and prosperity.
Sappurisupassaya: associating with good people; to seek association or
  alliance with people who are learned and virtuous and who will support
  one's pursuit of the truth, virtue and knowledge, and one's
  advancement and growth in a rightful way.
Attasammapanidhi: establishing oneself rightly; to establish oneself
  firmly in virtue and a right way of life; to establish a clear and
  virtuous goal for one's life and work, and set oneself resolutely and
  firmly on the right path to that goal, not wavering or being
  negligent.
Pubbekatapunnata: having a good "capital foundation"; one portion of
  this capital foundation comprises innate qualities such as
  intelligence, aptitude and a healthy body; the other is, on the basis
  of that foundation, knowing how to rectify or improve oneself, to seek
  further knowledge, to strengthen good qualities and to train oneself
  in preparation for when these qualities are needed, to be ready to
  welcome success, to bring about welfare and happiness and to advance
  to even greater heights.
(A.II.32)
B. The principles of success: practicing according to the four
  conditions that lead to the success of any undertaking, known as the
  iddhipada (pathways to success):
Chanda: having a heart of zeal; to be keen to do something, and to do
  it for the love of it; to wish to bring an activity or task to its
  optimum fruition, not simply doing it to get it out of the way or
  merely for reward or material gain.
Viriya: doing with effort; to be diligent and apply oneself to a task
  with effort, fortitude, patience and perseverance, not abandoning it
  or becoming discouraged, but striving ever onward until success is
  attained.
Citta: committing oneself to the task; to establish one's attention on
  the task in hand and do it thoughtfully, not allowing the mind to
  wander; to apply one's thought to the matter regularly and
  consistently and do the task or action devotedly.
Vimamsa: using wise investigation; to diligently apply wise reflection
  to examine cause and effect within what one is doing and to reflect
  on, for example, its pros and cons, gains and shortcomings or
  obstructions. This can be achieved by experimenting, planning and
  evaluating results, and devising solutions and improvements in order
  to manage and carry out the activity in hand so as to achieve better
  results.
When applied to the work situation, for example, these four conditions
  may, in short, be remembered as love of work, tenacity, dedication and
  circumspection.
http://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/Part2_2.htm#9

mana (pride & conceit) is the 9. fetter. It does not only mean feeling superior than somebody else, but also feeling inferior or feeling equal.
These views are wrong, because they are not true in an absolute sense, since they are based on the illusion of self. Who is feeling proud? Who wants to achieve? I suggest to read those two very good articles about mana: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/bl014.html

Here are two methods to counteract conceit from the first article:

Recognize Conceit whenever he pops up and name him. This as readers will remember is the advise given by Nyanaponika Thera in his valuable articles in "Sangha." Mara, like Satan, hates to be recognized. This practice is doubly effective because it "keeps one on one's toes," and induces a real dislike of the tendency.

Get back to the first two "steps" of the Noble Eightfold Path (a) Right Understanding of the mental quality or capacity involved: to see according to reality "This (quality) is not mine; I am not this; there is no self in it"; (b) Right Aspiration towards the expunging of Conceit. In the Discourse on Expunging (Majjh. Nik. I.8) we read "Now I say that the arising of thoughts is very helpful in regard to skilled states of mind. Therefore the thought should arise 'Others may be harmful; as to this we will not be harmful' and so on for all our evil propensities. Others may be conceited; but we as to this will not be conceited.'"

Reflection on death can be useful: Would these thoughts, things I'm trying to achieve, trying to be really matter in the moment of death?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
All kammas have to be experienced or not?
It's said that some kammas are not to be experienced, some kammas have to be experienced. Not all kammas have to be experienced. For example Angulimala story, the bad vipaka of killing many people could not come into fruition because he had cut the cycle of birth and death.

Seeds ripen only if they meet the right conditions. But if they do not
meet the right conditions they remain as seeds; if they are destroyed
they can never ripen at all.

As mentioned here: Questions on Kamma
But in Karajakāyasutta, it says:

I do not say that there is making an end of suffering so long as one
has not experienced the results of volitional kamma that has been done
and accumulated.

Which one is the correct one, do they contradict each other?

Kamma means that what you are doing now will have consequences in the future, either in this life or in subsequent ones. If you perform good actions, such as protecting lives and providing food for animals, you will be rewarded for your virtuous deeds. Conversely, engaging in negative deeds like killing animals or deceiving people will result in negative consequences.
Until attaining 'nirvana,' we continue to accumulate kamma, and this kamma can lead to rebirth. Thus, until achieving nirvana, we are accountable for our past actions.
However, if you become a 'sowan' (the first step towards achieving nirvana), you will be spared from being reborn in hell or as an animal (Dughathi)

you get what you did.....kamma

only way to stop the cycle....nirvana..

Without any reference to scripture, Bhikkhu Bodhi said in his Questions on Kamma:

First of all, not all Kamma has to ripen as a matter of necessity.
Although it has the tendency to ripen, it does not ripen inevitably.
Kamma is like a seed. Seeds ripen only if they meet the right
conditions. But if they do not meet the right conditions they remain
as seeds.....
Similarly, it can be said of kamma that kamma pushes for an
opportunity to mature. It has a tendency to mature. If kamma finds the
opportunity then it will bring its results. If it does not meet the
right conditions it won't ripen.

However, in his footnote to MN 136, Bhikkhu Bodhi appeared to say the opposite, when he said:

This statement shows even if his evil kamma does not generate the mode
of rebirth, it will still mature for him in some other way either in
this life, in the next life or in some more distant future life.

In my view, the Karajakāyasutta may not be the ideal sutta to answer this question because the Karajakāyasutta is about the development of the Four Divine Abidings to at least the fruition of Non-Return. In other words, the Karajakāyasutta is about the "elimination" of past deeds & their results. It says:

Nāhaṁ, bhikkhave, sañcetanikānaṁ kammānaṁ katānaṁ upacitānaṁ
appaṭisaṁveditvā byantībhāvaṁ vadāmi
Mendicants, I don’t say that intentional deeds that have been
performed and accumulated are eliminated without being experienced.
tañca kho diṭṭheva dhamme upapajje vā apare vā pariyāye.
And that may be in the present reality, or in a following reality, or
in some other subsequent reality.

In other words, when the Four Divine Abidings are developed, it is inevitable any recollectable unwholesome past deeds will come to mind in the clarity of those Four Divine Abidings. Thus the Karajakāyasutta says:

That noble disciple is rid of desire, rid of ill will, unconfused,
aware, and mindful. They meditate spreading a heart full of love....
They understand: ‘Formerly my mind was limited and undeveloped.
Now it’s limitless and well developed. Whatever limited deeds I’ve
done don’t remain or persist there.’

However, other suttas that address this question include AN 6.63 and MN 136, which say:

Katamo ca, bhikkhave, kammānaṁ vipāko?
And what is the result/fruition of deeds?
Tividhāhaṁ, bhikkhave, kammānaṁ vipākaṁ vadāmi
The result/fruition of deeds is threefold, I say:
diṭṭheva dhamme, upapajje vā, apare vā pariyāye.
in this present reality, in a following reality, or at some other
later time.
Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, kammānaṁ vipāko.
This is called the result of deeds.
AN 6.63

Yañca kho so idha pāṇātipātī hoti adinnādāyī hoti …pe… micchādiṭṭhi
hoti tassa diṭṭheva dhamme vipākaṁ paṭisaṁvedeti upapajja vā apare vā
pariyāye.
And if anyone here who kills living creatures … and has wrong view
experiences the result of that in the present reality, or in a following reality next, or in some other subsequent reality.
MN 136

It follows the translation of MN 136 may need to be examined. Personally, I am not able to perform this task myself however Bhikkhu Thanissaro's translation is:

And as for the results of taking life... holding wrong view, he will
feel them either right here & now, or in the next [lifetime], or
following that.

If the above translation is adhered to, it may show the teaching is:

The results of kamma [when/if they ripen/mature] will be felt/experienced in the future.

In other words, this teaching may not say:

All kamma must produce results to be experience in the future.

yes...but you can reduce impact of bad karma by do lots of good karma...however karma not stop until you get NIRVANA.

It is incorrect to say that Angulimala did not suffer the bad karmic fruits of his killings. In Angulimala Sutta, he was physically assaulted even as an Arhant. Whether he, subsequently, exhausted the bad karma arising from his earlier killings is immaterial as he had attained Arhantship and by this definition had made an end to suffering. So, this contradicts the sayings in Karajakāyasutta about an end of suffering is not possible until one had exhausted one’s karma. In fact, that entire sentence contradicts the Buddha’s teachings as we know it. There are some who conjectured that Karajakāyasutta may be influenced by the Jains due to its similar claim to their teachings about exhausting one’s karma in order to reach Enlightenment or an end to suffering.
I am not sure of any sutras that mentioned about karmic seeds being destroyed and from what we read from the sutras even the Buddha and his Arhant disciples still suffer karmic effects from the past. The only sutra I came across that talk about minimizing the impact of bad karma is the Lonaphala sutta. Even in that sutra, it is not about cancellation of bad karma but its dilution to a point where it is hardly detectable.

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


text:
Kammas are imponderable?
Buddha says if one plants mango, he will reap only mango not something else. Short-lived and get killed are the result of killing living beings, poverty is the result of stealing, not trusted by others is the result of lying and so forth. Then why Buddha says the result of kamma is one of the four imponderables. Does it mean one who loves to kill living beings will experience poverty or not trusted by others which is the result of stealing and lying? How do we relate that with "sow apple seed, reap apple fruit?"

The kammas are imponderable because people tends to expect action 'A' resulting in the equal fruit 'A'. However as we know a single action 'A' is only one cause, there are many other conditions (other causes) which result in a fruit. Just as a cup of coffee implies the existent of coffee beans, but coffee beans by themselves do not necessarily result in a cup of coffee. There are so many other factors such as farmers, the sun, customers wanting to drink coffee for the outcome 'a cup of coffee' to result.
In my temple we like to say that the merit of a good deed is 'immeasurable'. Why is this? Because the outcome cannot be entirely predicted, a single good action, can lead to opportunities for further good actions to occur. For example, you help someone with a small task, and then that person gives you an opportunity to do more good, and eventually eventhough the original good action was only the beginning seed the final result is immense.
The only thing we know for sure is that good actions will result in good outcomes (if something consistently results in bad outcomes it is a bad action and you should stop doing it). So instead of trying to predict the final outcome, you should focus on the simple strategy of doing more good as opportunity allows.
Addendum regarding the comment
My understanding is that because the Four Imponderables can not be deduced logically therefore it is imponderable. For example a common stated effect of karma is said that killing leads to a shortened life span. There is no clear logical explanation why this is the case, you could argue it's through some kind of revenge, or perhaps susceptibility to illness caused by psychological damage, but it's only speculation.
Likewise, releasing animals doomed for butchering are said to be good karma for longevity, but once again there is no logical explanation why it would work.
Since speculations about the exact working of karma does nothing to lead to peace and end of suffering, the Buddha ask you to refrain from pondering about them and take it at face value.

I'm not trying to predicting anything but just want to get a little bit of picture to what extent we should understand the unconjecturable. You're saying there are many factors needed to produce a result but they (farmers, sun, etc.) are only supporting factors, right? The final result for killing doesn't change i.e. short life, that is known to us, so why it's imponderable?  Are you saying short life can be caused by killing and also can be caused by other causes. But poverty can never be the result of killing. Do I understand you correctly?

Not all Pali suttas are the words of the Buddha, which is why there are contradictions. In the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, this issue is addressed by the Four Great References. The scriptures also teach the teachings of the Buddha are to be verified by each wise person for themselves.
Personally, I am not willing to accept the Buddha spoke the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta because what is written in it is not true. For example, rich people are often rich due to greed & unethical business practises where as poor people are often poor due to political or social oppression or exploitation. It is not because of past kamma that children are abused, raped or murdered. It is not because of past kamma that millions of people were randomly murdered by communists in the Soviet Union or China.
As for the imponderables in the Acintita Sutta, I guess this might mean the 'exact' workings of kamma in minutiae detail. Kamma is a general rather than exact principle. Kamma is not ultimate truth, which is why in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta it is said good karma can also lead to a bad result & bad karma can also lead to a good result.

Note the Cula kammavibhanga never says that all rich people are so due to being givers -- which is very suspect indeed. It also never says that a rich person is so due to giving things in its current life. What it says is that, a person who is a giver now, when dying, if he or she reappears in human realm, he or she will find him/herself born rich -- a plausible reading would be being born in a rich family. The same applies for other qualities.

@Dhammadhatu So do you agree a person who loves to kill living beings will experience poverty, not trusted by others, etc., as the result of killing living beings?  From what I understand, good kamma will always lead to good result. Bad kamma will always lead to bad result. But when will it give the effect, we do not know. Regarding rich people, everyone has greed but not all greedy people are rich. Being born in a wealthy family, for example, is one of the "right condition" for the good kamma to take effect, the same thing as being poor and socially oppressed.

Kamma is not ultimate truth, as I posted from the suttas. MN 117 states the moral right view of kamma is tainted (defiled)by the burden (upadi) of self-view. I can do good karma by loving & raising a perfect successful family. But if my family die in an accident, I will suffer. This shows good karma does not always lead to a good result. I can do evil & learn this is harmful. From knowing clearly the harm of that evil action, I can shun evil & thus become enlightened. There is no absolute lawfulness of karma, as the scriptures state.

Lord Buddha himself said that karma is like a ripple effect.
Let's assume you killed the person A by firing a bullet through the forehead. So in direct terms, you should also be fired a bullet through your head. But it may and may not happen. Let me tell you why.
Now when you killed that person A. There is a chance that you caused these effects on him :

Caused him physical pain before death
Caused his family immense pain
Caused his friends pain

Now you have caused person A's family a lot of heart breaks. Imagine, because of that person A's death, his spouse and children have no way of earning money and gets mentally weakened. The children do not get proper education nor the guidance. So the children end up drug addicts. Now the children are addicted to drugs and they grow up and commit murders to find money for drugs. Person A's parents die in terrible sadness and shock because of their sons murder.
This is why the Karma is like the ripple effect, it follows a lot of things. Hence you ignored the consequences of your actions to the people around and you just shot person A in cold blood. Now the sins you pay will be determined by these things.

If you intended to kill person A
If you knew the person A had living parents
If you knew the person A had a spouse and had children

If all of the above is positive and committed the murder with the
intention of hurting the entire family, then you have committed a
massive sin and you will pay for it for a very longtime in hell.
If you only wanted to kill him out of anger but did not know he had
living parents or family. The effect will most likely be
less than the previous one but still you will pay for a very
longtime in hell.
If you didn't mean to kill him and it was totally some sort of an accident then probably there won't be any bad karma on you.

For the first two situations, the way you will pay for these may and may not happen like an mirror image of what you did. Mostly likely it won't. Because that is not the only Karma you have with you. You have previous good karma and bad karma. So the good and the bad karma will determine how you pay for each one.

I would like to ask the rebuttal question to this? Are we afraid of the consequence of our actions?
Yes karma will deal with us and the future. Possibly. But yes we will never know what exactly we have done and to what consequence. Because we have not reached that level of perception.
If we do much Sadhana, we may reach that level, but then again I am nobody to ask you to do that.
Having said that, let's try to be aware of every moment, mindful, and let's face what the future has for us.

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


text:
Did the Buddha say "There is no path to happiness.. "?
According to the teachings of lord Buddha, what can we say about this quote? Is it fake?

"There is no path to happiness. Happiness is the path"

I'm also reminded of Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya sūtra: « There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow »

Apparently it wasn't the Buddha - it was  A. J. Muste.

The American Dictionary of Quotations ascribes “There is no way to
  peace. Peace is the way” to a piece by Muste in the New York Times
  dated 16 November, 1967, although he definitely used the phrase well
  before that time.

Ref Fake Buddha Quotes
The more relevant Buddha quote is perhaps the fourth noble truth

There is a way leading to the end of suffering, the eight-fold path,
  which is to be practiced.

The path to the end of suffering - which isn't quite the same as happiness to be fair.

When the path is actually entered, this is stream-entry. It is essentially a path of happiness since there is very little suffering, even at this entry level (SN 13.1).
The word 'vossagga' (relinquishment; letting go) is similar to (yet less mature than) the word 'paṭinissagga', which is included as a quality of Nibbana as defined in the 3rd noble truth. In the meditation teachings, it is said the beginning path levels of meditation have the quality of 'vossagga'.
Therefore, while the Buddha did not speak the quote in the OP, he did teach similar to it.

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a noble disciple, making letting go (vossagga) the
  meditation object, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.
SN 48.10

~~~

There is the case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent
  on cessation, resulting in relinquishment (vossagga).
MN 118


text:
Are there things that one shouldn't be mindful of?
Just to move on from this answer in the question Is practising mindfulness ever a bad idea?
Are there particular things that it is a bad idea to be mindful of? Are there thoughts, feelings, emotions etc.. that one would be better advised not to apply mindfulness to? What are they? Or can every aspect of human existence be included productively in mindfulness.

the beginning of this video maybe answers your question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7favPrIWCz8  In Pali it's not just mindfulness, but right mindfulness (samma sati) or mindfulness in regards to the 4 foundations. So there exists wrong mindfulness.

I was going to post the same. the practise of Buddhist mindfulness is right mindfulness, which means keeping the factors of the noble path in mind & keeping out & removing unwholesome factors. read here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html

In Noble Eightfold Path, Right Mindfulness is a factor in the path. This implies that there are Wrong Mindfulness, things you shouldn't be mindful of.
Consider:

The definition (the four frames of reference)
"And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains
  focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains
  focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself...
  mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is
  called right mindfulness...
"This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the
  overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain &
  distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the
  realization of Unbinding — in other words, the four frames of
  reference."
— DN 22

As well as:

Abandoning the wrong factors of the path
"One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right
  view: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right
  resolve: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right
  speech: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right
  action: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in
  right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness..."
— MN 117
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-sati/

Essentially you need to be mindful of Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood, if you are not mindful of those things you are not practicing Right Mindfulness. If you are mindful of wrong views and wrong intentions for example, it is also not Right Mindfulness.

Yes there are. Being mindful of "signs" that turn the mind to anger (or lust etc.) is unwholesome. E.g. someone irritates you and you insist on attending (upaṭṭhāna) to that particular experience (a product of your mind!), instead of focusing on something more positive.
Mindfulness in and of itself is a neutral factor of feeding, the question is what you feed.


text:
practicing the brahma viharas in meditation
Is there clear instruction about how one should practice the brahma viharas in the teachings?

Should one go through each one in order [metta - karuna - mudita - upekkha] or is it possible to do i.e. only karuna (in a formal meditation sitting)
Why is it that (from my perspective) many meditation teacher only seem to focus on metta ('loving kindness') meditation (and not the other 3). Is there a particular benefit or is it important to practice it in order to get into the 'cycle' of the brahma viharas?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu said the other Brahma viharas are applications of Metta, and that is why Metta is the core focus in the practice.

Of these four emotions, goodwill (metta) is the most fundamental. It's
  the wish for true happiness, a wish you can direct to yourself or to
  others. Goodwill was the underlying motivation that led the Buddha to
  search for awakening and to teach the path to awakening to others
  after he had found it.
The next two emotions in the list are essentially applications of
  goodwill. Compassion (karuna) is what goodwill feels when it
  encounters suffering: It wants the suffering to stop. Empathetic joy
  (mudita) is what goodwill feels when it encounters happiness: It wants
  the happiness to continue. Equanimity (upekkha) is a different
  emotion, in that it acts as an aid to and a check on the other three.
  When you encounter suffering that you can't stop no matter how hard
  you try, you need equanimity to avoid creating additional suffering
  and to channel your energies to areas where you can be of help. In
  this way, equanimity isn't cold hearted or indifferent. It simply
  makes your goodwill more focused and effective.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/headandheart.html

The scriptures generally mention the practise of all four brahma vihara together.
As for your 2nd question, I suppose the brahma vihara are dependent upon metta. If there is no friendliness & goodwill towards others, the other brahma vihara cannot be cultivated.

In order to be able to practice Brahmavihara, First you need to get your Metta.
How to get Metta?
First you need to be happy, if you're not happy, you won't be able to give your happy feeling to others.
Think about Happy Feeling and send those feeling to a friend
[same gender / not family/ alive] .
Try to stay with object for at least 30 mins till an hour. Then you'll realized that you don't feel your body, can't stop smiling and there's something around your head.
Then you'll send to some friends then some families then some random peoples then all of your enemies. After this you'll get your metta and you can start radiating it to your surroundings.
Once you got your metta, send it to every directions. 6 Directions as described in the suttas. Then you'll realized that you're in a very big space, with metta and an infinite space, you'll experienced karuna.
Then it changed into Mudita then Uppekha then bla bla bla until Everything Ceased.
Brahmavihara is the easiest object that even an 8 years old kid could get into arupas.


text:
How should one practice Dhamma in order to overcome loneliness?
Loneliness is an obsession of a person when facing old age and death. How should one practice the teachings of the Supreme Buddha in order to overcome this obsession?

Samatha (tranquility) meditation using anapanasati (meditation with in & out breathing) can be used as a method to overcome loneliness & distress.

I tell you, monks, that this — the in-&-out breath — is classed as a body among bodies, which is why the monk on that occasion remains
  focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert & mindful —
  putting aside wanting & distress with reference to the world.
Anapanasati Sutta

~~~

So if a monk should wish: 'May neither my body be fatigued nor my eyes and may my mind, through lack of clinging, be released from
  fermentations,' then he should attend carefully to this same
  concentration through mindfulness with in-&-out breathing.
If a monk should wish: 'May my memories & resolves related to the household life be abandoned,' then he should attend carefully to this
  same concentration through mindfulness with in-&-out breathing.
Dipa Sutta

This is actually an interesting problem that is personal to me, how do you introduce the teaching of the Buddha to a person who has no inclination in practicing the Dharma. While a practitioner might recognize the power of meditation to alleviate distress, your average person has no clue what it is and no interest to learn it.
This is where the cultivation of Upaya skillful means comes in.
My own paternal grandmother for example, passed away after experiencing a lot of suffering in her final days. One of her regrets was not taking up a more vegetarian diet (my relatives consume a lot of meat) and believed it to be one of the cause of her pain. One of the things we did in her final days were to play recordings of Buddhist music, which seems to help calm her somewhat.
So one could suggest to the person to start a basic practice, for example chanting the name of a buddha or bodhisattva or mantra for a certain number of times.
Example:
Namo Amitabha
Namo Sakyamuni Buddha
(x100 every day)
You can couple this with buddhist prayer beads to aid counting.
If they find this too simple, you can add more challenging tasks such as longer dharani or even a short sutra.
Sukhavati Vyuha Dharani (往生咒)
Great Compassion Dharani (popularly known as Great Compassion Mantra)
These are highly effective form of meditation, and is a lot easier than telling someone to do sitting meditation.
Buddhist music are also easy and good gentle introduction cheer up lonely souls. In Chinese culture we actually have something called a 'chanting box', which is a music player with chanting installed. This is also great for someone who is sick.
Ideally you would want this person to participate socially at a community temple if possible.

I take care of elderly relatives too, and I find the main problem is they don't want to truly end suffering. They find their depressive cycles of thought very fascinating and identify with it, and turn to TV and sense entertainment when it gets too hard. Encouraging them to chant, or practice meditation is often of no avail. Truly suffering without end.

“Loneliness is the poverty of self, solitude is the richness of self.” May Sarton (1912-1995) “We seem so frightened today of being alone that we never let it happen. Even if family, friends, and the movies should fail, there is still the radio or television to fill up the void. We can do our housework with soap-opera heroes at our side. Now, instead of planting our solitude with our own dream blossoms, we choke the space with continuous music, chatter, and companionship to which we do not even listen. It is simply there to fill the vacuum. When the noise stops there is no inner music to take its place. We must re-learn to be alone.” - Anne Morrow Lindbergh
As Aristotle has rightly stated that man is a social animal, Men wish to live in society, enjoy companionship, and happy to be crowded by fellow beings. Brahmajala sutta maintains that the initial feeling the first being to reappear in the present age of world reformation felt was loneliness. He wanted company. So, according to the Buddhist story also, the need of company and consequential necessity of interpersonal relations is ingrained in living beings.
The Buddha’s practised (and, of course, made the followers also practice) seclusion only till they attained spiritual heights. After the attainments, they return to society to be in service for the benefit of many (bahujana). The Buddha once said “I, Udayi, sometimes, stay crowded by monks and nuns, lay disciples both men and women, by kings and chief ministers, by leaders and disciples of other sects.” (Majjhima Nikaya 11.8) According to Balakrishna Govinda Gokhale, the Buddha’s refusal of Devadatta’s five proposals is evidence to the fact that he did not want to make monks totally outside the social relationships.
Making those conditions compulsory would have meant a complete termination of all inter-personal relations even among the members of the Sangha.


text:
How open are current Zen Buddhism masters to teaching westerners?
Would it be acceptable to travel to Japan or China and seek out masters of Buddhism to learn from them? Would they accept the opportunity or is it expected of everyone to seek out their own truth on their own?

Thich Nhat Hanh is a world renowned Zen master who has monasteries in France, USA and several other countries. He teaches and ordains students and monks from all cultures and ethnicities.
His method of teaching is especially suited for the modern age, since Eastern or Western, cultures are increasingly all the same thanks to globalization.
I believe Western students will benefit most from working with such teachers, who understand both cultures. Firstly, there's no language barrier, secondly, the western manners and habits won't cause offense or impede progress, and thirdly, the teaching is especially suited for the intellectual Westernized person.
I believe Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh to be no less than a living Bodhisattva, a jewel among teachers. He doesn't teach anymore after an illness a couple of years ago, but his Plum Village tradition still carries on along the path he charted.
One could also travel to Japan or China, many do, but finding a good teacher there can be hit or miss without knowledge of the language, culture and traditions. Ultimately though it is not the teacher, but the student who plays the largest role in enlightenment.
There has been no one who has not been enlightened for want of a good teacher. When there is ardent desire to learn the Dharma, the Dharma will seek the seeker out.


text:
What is Lo Jong mind training?
A friend of mine recently mentioned Lo Jong mind training to me, when I asked my teacher he told me not to worry about it.
Would anyone be willing to explain what it is and what it is used for?

Could you please refine the scope of your question? What is it that you seek to know that can't be found from a web search, or from wikipedia? ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojong

But your teacher told you not to worry about it...

I am more than happy to answer your question since I received transmission of the practice, but it is to general for me to answer. Like Buddho, I would ask you to 'refine the scope of your question' and ask for something you can not find on wiki.

lo= mind, and jong=learn, train, purify. It is a combination of pithy instructions for training the mind on the Buddhist path, particularly for those who have taken bodhisattva vows, but can be used by any practitioner. It trains the mind to awaken compassion for self and others. Rather than dwelling on obstacles, crying mea culpa, one uses them to learn by taking on the suffering of self and others as a training exercise to improve the depth of ones compassion. The steps to mind training together with explanation are too extensive for this forum, however, Jamgon Kontrul's "The Great Path to Awakening" is a good place to find more in depth answers.

I'd like to encourage this type of answer, I think it's ideal/helpful: it includes an answer or summary in your own words, plus a reference for further reading.

Thanks,ChrisW. I firmly believe in simplicity without belittlement or the need for a PhD in Buddhist studies.


text:
Infidelity in marriage
If you are in a sexless marriage where your wife absolutely denys you any sex or intimacy no matter what, is it OK to cheat?  What is the Buddhist rules on that?  I understand that my wife's behavior can be considered sexual abuse.  What she does for me is actually not good for my health and well being.

You don't need to have sex to be healthy and well. Otherwise, most Buddhist monks should be sick. Cheating breaks the 3rd precept. That is bad Karma for you.
Whether your wife agrees or not, associating with prostitutes has many bad consequences. You and your family's reputation can be tarnished. Higher risk of catching diseases. Your wealth will decrease. You could be cheated in many ways as you have very little idea about the character of the other person. You could be blackmailed by those who get to know about your habit. Most of all, your lust will increase. After sometime, you will start developing unnatural sexual cravings. There's no end to it, if you crawl down that pit.
Nevertheless, sexual pleasures are not forbidden for lay people. So, as a Buddhist layman, you have several decent options available:

Try different socially acceptable methods like being romantic, changing the environment, buying presents etc. and see if she changes according to your liking.
Talk to her, let her know that you are not happy and take a decision on the future of your relationship, if she doesn't change.
Restrain yourself and try to focus on your spiritual development as having sex doesn't bring you true happiness.

I found your post about the dangers of prostitutes to be excellent & I fully agree with it. In my post, I was just pointing out 'the rules'. In countries like Thailand, these things are more common, less dangerous & less expensive (than they would be in the West). I suppose my answer was a typical 'Thai' answer since the 'motherhood' emphasis remains strong there so it is common for mutual 'arrangements' there. That said, I fully agree with your post since I personally do not believe in prostitution nor would personally encourage it.

Thanks, but Thai people might find your comment offensive. :)

Not that I disagree but are you sure that it's considered as breaking the 3rd precept, i.e. that it's considered to be "sexual misconduct"? Could someone argue that it's alright except if the extra-marital affair is with a woman who is supposed to be being "protected" by someone else?

@ChrisW I was talking about a married man cheating on his wife.

I guess that if the social contract (a.k.a. promise) of marriage implies fidelity as opposed to cheating, then cheating would break the 4th precept.

Breaking a promise does not break the 4th precept. The 4th precept is broken if and when you had the intention of not keeping to it when you made the promise

My comment is not offensive since indigenous prostitution is a norm & open in Thailand. In Thailand, provincial hotels with prostitutes also have restaurants where families eat. Forms of de facto polygyny are still very common, including among the urban middle-class. In summary, having sex with prostitutes is not considered to be skilful behaviour in the suttas however it does not fall within the definition of 'sexual misconduct'. It is another kind of misconduct, a potential 'road to ruin', as found in the Sigalovada Sutta. It depends on the situation. You need to learn more about Thailand

@Dhammadhatu All the bad consequences of associating with prostitutes still apply even if it is cheaper and more common in a certain location compared to another. It's like saying that it's ok to smoke, if you can get the cigars cheap. :)  Also, I don't believe suggesting prostitution to a married man as you have done in your answer is inline with Buddhism.

Interesting to see the various cultural influences. As a Sri Lankan I naturally sided with Sankha's answer, but reading Dhammadhatu's answer did broaden my vision of the world. +1 for your answers.

I think prostitution is one of those things that are both tolerated but also (perhaps hypocritically) frown upon in polite society in Thailand. You could debate the technicality but the fact is that people generally do not agree that it is a 'good and acceptable thing', but they are also tolerant of it as a human vice. Even though it is 'open' as in being common it is usually labeled under many euphemism such as 'massage parlor' or 'spa', so it is something that people do but avoid talking about.

To make it complex, what if the prostitute also have a boyfriend or relationship out of their work. Would that be a violation of the third precept?

Its not OK to 'cheat'. Buddhism states a husband should be faithful (DN 31) & honest (SN 10.12) to his wife. However, you can & should honestly discuss your feelings & concerns with your wife.
It is not officially sexual misconduct in Buddhism to have sex with a person that is not in another relationship. This is because, in ancient times, wealthy men often had concubines (mistresses for sexual pleasure) & wives often primarily focused on having children & motherhood.
Often women, even today, grow out of sex. Essentially, Buddhism teaches what is 'natural', which means sex primarily exists for reproduction. Thus women can grow out of sex. It is not virtuous or warranted to put pressure on a woman to have sex.
Buddhism holds to spiritual evolution, which for many, results in growing out of sex & seeking inner peace. This is why Buddhism is a monastic tradition. Thus Buddhism would not overly sympathize with a husband wanting sex but it does understand most people need to have sex.
Thus, if a wife gives her husband permission to have sex with a 'mistress' or 'prostitute' then I suppose it is OK (i.e., if it is economically affordable) since the rules for lay people do not explicitly forbid it.
Women can be problematic for men since women can grow out of sex but still want a husband since most women (much more than men) struggle to live alone.
Thus Buddhism would encourage you to be compassionate towards your wife. Generally, particularly in the West, husbands & wives take vows: "For better or for worse, etc".
Best to discuss these issues with your wife or have some marriage counselling. In Buddhism, a wife not being sexual is not a ground to leave her.

Sexual activity in a marriage is a predictor about how a relationship is working out and how close and connected the partners feel. The fact that your wife is denying sex and intimacy is a sign of an unhealthy relationship. There could be various reasons for this, which only she may know or even not be aware of.
However, you are abused not by your wife, but by the lustful tendencies within
you.
Couples, who have unsatisfied sex lives also find it difficult to talk openly and honestly about their physical needs and desires with their spouses. As the months and years go by it gets more and more difficult to open up. When that is the case, counselling or the involvement of a 3rd party might be needed as a catalyst, to either see if a.) the barriers to communication can be broken and intimacy restored or b.) if the relationship can be saved at all.
Having said that the 3rd precept is about having sex with people who are 'protected or defenseless' (i.e. young/defenseless/prisoners/servants), 'committed (sexually) to others', or entails a punishment (public shame, a divorce proceeding where the partner who had an extra-marital relationship would lose everything, etc).
The main purpose of moral codes are

To prevent the arising of remorse, which is mentally taxing and damaging, and hence clouds the path.
To safe guard people and society, which is inherently relationship based (parent-child, teacher-student, etc).

Buddhism does not prescribe monogamy, although it is the preferred option.
Some things to consider:

Speak to your wife and explain your situation.
Together meet with a counselor
See if you and your wife have common ground other than sex, (couples who are equally spiritually also have wonderful relationships. The basic premise is that couples who do things together usually stay together happily.)
A mutually agreed separation (this could be a divorce or only a sexual separation)
Have a  extra-marital relationship. You may receive some sexual relief but be prepared to suffer the consequences, mental guilt, STDs, blackmail, to public shame once exposed.
Understand that sex/lust at the end causes suffering, and practice to destroy even the latent tendencies of lust.

Your wife's disinterest in sex may be a positive thing, allowing you the
freedom to fully commit to this practice of eliminating lust.
Sankha and Dhammadatu have provided very good answers answers which should be considered. What you will not get is a blanket 'go ahead' to have sex outside marriage.

"What do you think? When lust arises in a person, does it
  arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm."
"And this lustful person, overcome by lust, his mind possessed by
  lust, harms living beings, takes what is not given, goes after
  another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise,
  all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."

paraphrased from the Kalama Sutta AN 3.65 "lust" replacing "greed" (Pali: Loba)

In most cases, cheating comes from craving. Where there's craving, there's identification with the I. Thus, in most cases, it is not ok to cheat.
In most cases, relationships come from craving. Where there's craving, there's identification with the I. Thus, in most cases, relationships are not needed.
If ignorance is completely removed, identification with the I would no longer be, thus craving would never arise, thus, in most cases, cheating would not happen ... relationships would not happen.
In your case, if ignorance would be completely removed, compassion towards your wife would arise and most probably you would never cheat on her. But, would you stay with her in the relationship? That depends on many other circumstances, which only you know.
There isn't an absolute "right" or "wrong". It depends on the individual. But there is certainly the best "right" action for each individual. Even though I don't know anything about your situation, I can tell you with certainty: don't cheat.

If you believe that your wife needs to give you sex then you would benefit from studying the teachings of the Buddha which are to retain from sexual misconduct in all times or else you will not be born again into the life you want to but will be stuck forever in the cycle of birth and death and all suffering. If you cheat on your wife you will be cast into the hells for many culpas for your transgressions and this is Karma. If you are tempted think of this and you will be able to resist but you must know it is wrong because if you hurt your wife in this way she will not forgive you.

All percepts are interpretations of Buddha. Sexual misconduct was never defined for householders by Buddha. I am yet to come across a man who does not cheat. The moment a beautiful girl crosses by all men invariably stare at her. The momemt you look at a girl its cheating because staring implies looking for possible mating opportunity. Sex drops only after enlightenment. If someone is asking you not to have it has not understood it completely or he is carrying hypocracy commonly found in Asian men. Body heat cannot be controlled only transcended. Ofcourse sexual activity varies from person to person but only impotent men can refrain but potent men just cannot. One cannot and should not fight nature. It is because of this fight very few enlightened beings are produced. It does not matter which religion you belong to sex is something which is not easily handled. The reason of failure of all religions is primarily sex.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html

sexual misconduct is only when one forces himself or herself upon the other for pure sensual pleasure. Sex without love is what Buddha was against. If there is love sexual requirement goes down in an automatic fashion. When one is in love one is in a natural state.


text:
I saw a cat killing a mouse. Could have stopped it, but didn't
I saw a cat chasing a mouse outside of my house and kill it. I could have chased the cat away and saved the mouse's life but I just watched and didn't do anything. Not that I was enjoying what I saw but this made me think whether what I did was a sin or not. I just think I would have interfered with nature had I stopped the cat from killing. One side there is the food chain and on the other karma. I am confused. Is it a sin to not stop a predator from catching its prey?

Is there a specific question you'd like to ask? You might notice there's no question mark in what you posted.

@ChrisW I added the question

"Chethanaham Bikkhawe Kammam Wadami" - volition is Karma

Did you not prevent it because mice are usually an annoyance and 1 less mouse makes your life better? If so, it's bad Karma. Later you may make up an excuse like "not wanting to interfere with nature". But what matters is the intention at the time.  If you were wishing for the mouse to escape, it is good Karma. If you actually saved the mouse, it's more good Karma. If you were neutral based on Upekkha(contemplating on Karma and Vipaka), it's good Karma. If you were neutral based on indifference born of ignorance, it is bad Karma.

Say I have a cat and I stop it eating any living thing which is a good thing. But the cat would starve to death assuming it doesn't eat vegetables. There's no better outcome either way. Why can't we let nature just run it's course

You are not responsible for the cat's actions whether you feed it or not

IMO there's a similar concern with people: outside my house I see people raising farm animals, in order to kill them for food. What should I do about that? Try to chase the people away?
I think, probably not, even if only because I think that's likely to be ineffective (i.e. that kind of tactic on my part wouldn't stop people from killing).

I suppose that the Buddhist equivalent of a "sin" is klesha or kilesa. I suppose or it feels to me as if it probably is a sin, several sins: torpor (not doing something about it), ignorance (not knowing what to do about it), conceit (thinking that you could do something about it), hatred (not liking what you see)...
Technically it's not breaking a precept: you're responsible for what you do, not for what other people do. But it's probably also right to find it questionable, if someone could have saved someone but didn't.

If one sees a judge passing death sentence to a criminal, can one stop it? One can only pray that both the judge and the criminal will not go to the lower realms, but one is not sure, and perhaps both judge and criminal can go higher realms- one is never sure of samsara! It really depends on motivations, karma etc which one who is not enlightened will never tell...
Thus focus on one's own enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, for now one cant judge activities of mouse and cats, predators and prey.

There is a disanalogy though since the OP said he could have stopped it.

If you had small children (babies) in your home, would it be good karma to allow pests to accumulate in your home (like mice, rats, cockroaches, fleas, ticks, gadflies, etc) that might bite your children?
I lived in a forest monastery once where (in the past) there used to be tigers & mice that chewed the dhamma books. So dogs were introduced so the tigers would attack/eat the dogs rather than the novice (child) monks and cats were introduced to eat the mice.
To make oneself paranoid or worrisome about cats & mice is bad karma but to not stop a cat eating a mouse is not bad karma (just as 'cleaning' your house of dirty pests in not bad karma).
The teachings of karma are for the purpose of keeping people free from trouble (rather than for imprisoning people).
In the strict monks rules, a monk that kills a human being for any reason is expelled from the order. However, a monk that intentionally kills an animal must only confess the action. As for allowing or wanting a cat to kill a mouse, there is no offence.
For a monk to empty a water jar with mosquito larvae in it is an offense. However, for a monk to place a cloth over a water jar to prevent mosquito larvae is not an offense. What is what here?

There were tigers inside the monastery?

Sacrificing dogs to make your life safe is bad Karma. Karma is a law of nature. It doesn't depend on whether you find it convenient or not.

Karma is certainly a law of nature. That is why nature makes it lawful to perform certain acts of karma that involve 'killing'. In meditation, how karmic law impacts the mind can be known. Clinging to karma in the wrong way does not lead to liberation. That is why in MN 117 it is explained karma accords to a defiled (impure) right view.

The 'monastery' was comprised of huts & small buildings in a wild rainforest. Yes, there were tigers (before they recently became extinct).

Neither MN 117 nor any other Sutta supports your claim that sacrificing others' lives has no Karmic consequences. Are you sure you follow Theravada Buddhism? :)

I do not follow 'Theravada' or 'Sri Lankan Mahavihara', which is a sect that has an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Pali suttas. I follow the Pali suttas. Sīlabbata-parāmāsa is a fetter. Egoistic obsession with karma is sīlabbata-parāmāsa, Hinduism, Jainism & puthujjana. The Lord Buddha taught the karma that ends karma, namely, anatta. Reality is only elements (dhatu); emptiness (sunnata).  Human beings must eat food & perform other activities that involve killing. Even if you eat vegetables, insects, worms, etc, are killed with farming the earth. Buddha wants the karma that ends dukkha.

Lets agree to disagree since you choose to give your own personal interpretations to the Suttas and certain terms.

Everything is perfect as it is. Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya sūtra: « There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow » Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, after enlightenment, chop wood carry water.

@Sankha Kulathantille The Puttamansa Sutta may provide a dose of reality.

@Dhammadhatu It is just an analogy given in the Puttamansa sutta on how physical food should be regarded. You seem to have taken it literally.

It is not an analogy. It is a reflection on the reality of life. Each day when YOU eat food there is killing involved in that food you eat. From the Puttamansa Sutta comes the daily reflection on requisites that monks do. It is the law of nature that beings consume other beings for food.

Therefore, please stop posting & harassing with what I regard as superstitious & fundamentalist comments. The comments section is not for on-going debate. As I informed, imo, your comments are sīlabbata-parāmāsa or wrong understanding of sila. There is no magical vipaka (karmic consequence) in the future for killing a mosquito or allowing a cat to kill a mouse. Vipaka is what affects the heart.

I asked you to stop harassing. It is not Buddhist to harass others. This is not a debate forum. I have posted my opinion. Respect it. That said, the Buddha exhorted lay people to take refuge in him. Yet the Buddha also accepted meat from his lay followers. If the UNNATURAL ideas you are clinging tenaciously to were true, the Buddha, having compassion for the welfare of his lay followers, would have, like the Jains, made it explicitly clear lay people are not to kill for food or for their safety.  Now please stop proselytizing, like a Christian, with lokiya superstition. Thank you.

According to your thinking, killing is ok as long as you kill for food. This is a Christian/Islamic belief that has no basis in Buddhism. This is the danger of trying to interpret the Suttas to fit your personal world view. :)

There's a difference between accepting meat and killing. Sorry to hear that you find the comments offensive.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

No thanks. Let the matter go. We each have different views. With metta.

Next time around, try to stop the cat from killing the mouse, and then give the cat some food to eat. That'd cover all grounds: saving the mouse's life without the expense of the cat going hungry.

It is the mouse's karma to die, and the cat's karma to kill the mouse. We recognize that animals live in the realm where they cannot comprehend and benefit from the dharma. You could have saved that mouse, maybe, but it would not change the fact that some animal would most likely kill it. We can only direct our own karma, not the karma of others. You can save a cow from slaughter only to have it killed in pasture by a wolf. Do that which is compassionate, engaging in altruistic loving kindness and generousity. Do not beat yourself up because you cannot or did not save a single creature.


text:
Does the Buddha specifically said about saving environment?
Does the Buddha specifically mentioned anything about saving environment or planet in His teachings?
If yes, what He said?
If no, then Buddhist organizations need not to concern about environment?

Possible duplicate of Are ecological concerns supported explicitly in Buddhism?


text:
Death according to various schools of buddism
How is death perceived in various schools of Buddhism? Are they all same ? What is death according to Buddhist monk and lay Buddhist? Are there references / materials by monks on death bed about death?

In the ancient Pali scriptures, the word 'death' has two meanings: (i) conventional; & (ii) ultimate. In the language of ultimate truth, 'death' refers to the psychological idea that "I" or a "person" or a "being" ("satta") dies (SN 12.2).
The Buddha taught a 'self', 'person' or 'being' ('satta') is only a mental state of craving & attachment (SN 23.2); that in reality, there is no 'being' ('satta') to be found (SN 5.10).
'Death' only happens when there is unenlightened 'self-view'. This is why the Buddha called enlightened selfless nirvana: 'The Deathless'.

He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow.
  And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a
  sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said?
  'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a
  construing. 'I shall not be'is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing
  is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing,
  he is said to be a sage at peace.
A sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die,
  is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he
  would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die?
  Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he
  long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been
  stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the
  currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.'
Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta

In enlightenment, all that occurs at what is conventionally regarded as 'death' is the five aggregates come to an end, that is all.

Form is impermanent... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications...
  Consciousness is impermanent. That which is impermanent is
  unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to
  its end.
Very good, my friend Yamaka, very good.
Yamaka Sutta

My rep not enough for comment, So this is not an good answer because I've no reference for you.
Everything that have soul are the same. Animals, people, human, monk, angel etc.
However, The basic precept for every human to close the hell was 5 percepts because these percept make you not exploit other's and your's life.
But for monk there where 227 percepts, This make lay buddhist and others can worship them.
Monk are so much much bigger chance to go to hell. But also much bigger merit for him if he was good.

There's no death.
Beings wander from life to life.
By experience they learn.
By knowledge they destine themselves to future lives.
Until enough knowledge is attained.
Wander no more.

All life is suffering. The transition to death is an escape from the sufferings we bear when we are in life. This is the teachings which the Buddha made about life and we should not have any attachments to this. There are many precepts which teach about these things and death comes when we have had enough experience.

You might know this already, but I'll mention it in case it's helpful.
I wonder if "All life is suffering" is a misunderstanding of "All conditioned phenomena are unsatisfactory (dukkha)". That only means that nothing gives a lasting satisfaction, they change and stop being satisfactory.
The "escape from suffering" is not death. Death only leads to another life. The end of suffering is full enlightenment (Arahant) and is Nibbana.
Hope to keep seeing you around here.


text:
measuring spiritual growth
We are living in a world where everything and anything is/can be measured. My daily grind goes like this -
have a goal
take action
measure the result
fine tune / control the deviation.
and Do it every day. This got me thinking , how do i measure my spiritual growth?
What do i measure ? How do i know i have reached my goal or deviated from the Path? What are the units of measurement? Can spirituality be measured?

I think the word measurement really is the wrong term, because the spiritual path lies beyond the world and gain is literally a worldly concern.
There are 8 wordly dhammas

gain and loss
acclaim and slander
status and loss of status
happiness and suffering

The Buddha gave this simile about progress in the practice:

Just as when a carpenter or carpenter's apprentice sees the marks of his fingers or thumb on the handle of his adze but does not know, 'Today my adze handle wore down this much, or yesterday it wore down that much, or the day before yesterday it wore down this much,' still he knows it is worn through when it is worn through. In the same way, when a monk dwells devoting himself to development, he does not know, 'Today my effluents wore down this much, or yesterday they wore down that much, or the day before yesterday they wore down this much,' still he knows they are worn through when they are worn through. - SN 22.101

Also keep in mind that it's not important how "much growth" you have in the practice, because you cannot change your past which conditions this. Your only concern should be to practice now and keep your practice on the path. There is a good explanation by Ajahn Brahmali about how you know that your practice is going in the right direction: in summary, it's going in the right direction if good states (peacefulness, mindfulness, gentleness inside, virtue, morality, kindness, understanding of the dhamma, all these things come together) are increasing and bad qualities (restlessness and desires) are declining, within the span of one meditation session or more powerfully over months and years.

Read "how to measure and deepen your spiritual realization"... it's the best book to answer this question as well almost all spiritual questions. Some would say it is somewhat too extraordinary but it has kept me motivated throughout my youth.
Here is an excerpt.
With that recommendation in mind, here you go:
Important Buddhist measuring sticks (most of them analyzed in-depth in the 700 page manual mentioned above):

The 5 skandhas and how liberated one is from them. See Surangama Sutra's last chapter.
The Stages of Insight as a direct correlation towards Awakening.
The 37 Wings of Awakening.
The Mahayana paramitas.
The level of achievement of the Trikaya: dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, nirmanakaya
The 8/9 samadhis
One's chi/chakra purification status (this is a very low form of correlation though as the real brilliant students of dharma attain the formless attainments before the much slower form/desire-based achievements--the former of which are superior anyhow).

You spiritual growth can be measure by the power you have acquired in your life as your cycles of past and future lives come to bear on yourself and those around you. You will find that when you do as you should you will find wealth and position as befits your new understandings. This is the meaning of the parable of the treasure tower, which is one of the teachings of the Buddha.

I think that most users of this site are from traditions which aren't familiar with "the parable of the treasure tower". Also, the idea that spiritual growth correlates with wealth and position sounds to me like an unusual (i.e. possibly mistaken) belief or statement. On this site (and on every Stack Exchange site), good answers are usually either based on personal experience, or they're referenced. So I recommend or ask you, to add references to your answers, to demonstrate or explain what Buddhist teaching[s] or teachers they're based on.


text:
Why can't the Dalai Lama be a vegetarian?
In this answer to 'Are all Buddhists vegetarian?' the poster says

[the Dalai Lama] has a medical condition that disallows
  him to be a strict vegetarian.

I've heard this before and never questioned it. But thinking about it - what kind of medical condition would preclude the Dalai Lama from being a vegetarian. Suddenly I feel very skeptical that there is any such condition. Is that unfair?

Less known factor is that, Tibetan Tantra practice has required meat as supplement: Five Meats, from different animals. The Maha-meat is the only one not from animal, if human is not classified as animal. D. Lama was well known travelling in the Western Countries administrating Kala Chakra Empowerment, in the high level for the exclusive disciples it required his Bodhicitta - hmmm... the sacred spring water from his holy body, he will need a lot of supplements to help him generate it...!

There is also the problem, mentioned by HHDL,that when living on the Tibetan plateau eating meat was usually necessary for survival.

According to this article, Is the Dalai Lama a vegetarian? on a web site named "Reasonable Vegan",

When the Dalai Lama fled Tibet in 1959 he took residence in India, the birthplace of the Buddha and a region with a rich tradition of vegetarianism. Here he adopted a vegetarian diet which he has described as being rich in milk and cream[2]. After 20 months of vegetarianism he succumbed to a Hepatitis B infection [3] and was encouraged by his doctors to resume consumption of meat to aid his recovery.

The web site's opinion is that meat-eating isn't necessary (which contradicts his doctors' advice):

It’s quite possible that doctors advised this change in diet, but it is unnecessary advice since usually acute hepatitis B infection in adults is overcome by the patients own immune system. If the Dalai Lama’s infection was severe (which from his description it sounds like it was, jaundice causing yellowing of the skin is seen in patients suffering severe hepatitis B) he may have required antiviral treatment. Some studies have been published assessing the potential effects of nutritional supplements or adjustments on Hepatitis B patients none of which suggest consuming meat as either a remedy or therapy[5]. Eating healthily is advised for all patients especially those with liver inflammation so perhaps the advice to change his diet was appropriate ‘lay off the cream’ but returning to regular consumption of meat is unlikely to have had any effect on his recovery.
Since recovering from his illness the Dalai Lama has remained convinced that he is unable to be vegetarian, let alone vegan. It is hard to understand how he can maintain this belief when brief research into hepatitis B or the nutritional adequacy of a well balanced vegetarian or vegan diet reveals etc.

Also FYI, here's a different article which may give some background information or insight into the prescriptions of Tibetan doctors: Medical advice from the Dalai Lama's doctor.

Interview with HHDL on July 4, 2010 by New Delhi TV, in which His holiness answers the vegetarian question:

Then about taking meat, there are some contradictions but in vinaya no prohibition in eating meat, so monks in Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, they take both veg and non veg food. One time I asked, discussed this subject with a monk from Sri Lanka about 40 years ago, he said Buddhist monks are neither veg nor non veg... he should accept whatever he gets, so that's the principle. But vinaya clearly mentions that meat which was purposely killed for you was not to be eaten but in general was not prohibited, some books like langaavatarasutra prohibited any kind of meat, including fish etc but some other texts not prohibiting, so different case, I think practically in northern part of Tibet, no vegetables. Very difficult. So that's practical reason. However, my age, about 13, 14, all Tibetan official festival, offered a  lot of meat - I changed all to vegetarian food. Then, in 59 come to India. Around 65, I became a vegetarian.
NDTV: Why?
The Dalai Lama: Better. Philosophical reason. 20 months I remained strict vegetarian. At that time I took advice from some of my Indian friends about the substitutes of meat. Lot of milk, cream and ...then in 67 I developed gall bladder, hepatitis. So my whole body became yellow. So at that time I become like living Buddha. Whole body yellow. Nails also yellow. It remained I think for about 3 weeks. So Tibetan physician, as well as allopathic physician advised me to take meat. So back to original diet. Meantime, all our monasteries in south India, also Namgyal monastery, common kitchen, serve only vegetarian food. In south India monasteries, population 300-400, all vegetarian food. Also in foreign countries when I visit Buddhist centers I always ask them. Now it is up to the individual. But as a society, as a institution, when they give some sort of a festival, it must be vegetarian. That business started the gall bladder trouble. Finally, surgery. So that's the background. So my own case, meat once or twice a week, otherwise vegetarian. So I tried to become a vegetarian but still difficult. I think it's useful to know the whole background.

There are conditions which prevent the body from absorbing vital nutrients from plant sources. One is pernicious anemia, which is likely a condition he has, or something similar. You can understand given his importance why specific details of his health may not have been released to the public. Besides, the Dalai Llama is a person with a right to his own privacy.

Why should he? Buddhists in Mongolia eat meat, given that scarcity of other foods than horses milk products. I've seen one break a sheeps neck by cutting the upper part of its neck and then breaking the upper spine - it was the most humane slaughter ever. Lasted a second. In fact, the choice of diet was governed by necessities of existence, not by religious factors. Tying Buddhism with vegeterianism is a Western idea.

It could be that he understands the use of food (Puttamansa Sutta: Eines Sohnes Fleisch), and that there is nothing wrong in eating meet,ss long an animals is not seen, heard or assumes to have been killed for a monk, which is of course not easy to maintain if not walking for alms but living like a "king".

"One should not knowingly consume meat killed on purpose (for a bhikkhu). Whoever should consume it: an offense of wrong doing. I allow fish and meat that is pure in three respects: One has not seen, heard, or suspected (that it was killed on purpose for a bhikkhu)." — Mv.VI.31.14

That fact that eating meet it self is nothing wrong, is of course also an excuse for many monks to simply maintain their sensual pleasue with it, agrguing with health if approached about such tendency, accumulating much demerits not only for themselves but for the Sangh and the other gems reputy as well.

one should not consume meat without having reflected on it (on what it is). Whoever should do so: an offense of wrong doing." — Mv.VI.23.9

It is clear on the other side that teaching to abstaining from eating meat, is the Dhamma of Devadatta, the opposer of the Buddha, and just a means to win the favor of uninformed for gain.
To wish after meat, even for health purpose, has not been allowed by the Buddha, as far as my person knows, since such would open the door for the above mentioned usual situation and involve monks of the Buddha in worlds ways of killing for ones benefit, how ever, one may in certain cases as medicin use "meat broth (which again, the Commentary says, is just the broth without any meat)"
And at least, food is like people, clima... a matter of upanissayapaccayena (strong condition cause), which if we think that a person as he is a country bound reincanation, seems to be the most reasonable, thought that Tibetans are for sure most meat-eater.
There are less people having gone beyound desire for certain physical food, at least it would mean that one has gained No-returner and a attribute of first hollyness is to stick to Vinaya and in no cases let it appear as relative and not so importand, meaning confessing and being hardly ashamed about ones incapibility.
So one thing is: Vegan or Vegeterian is talk by the Devadattas, is not a requirement and eating meat (not taled about the gain) is nothing wrong.
And: There are less monks who stick and have faith into Dhamma-Vinaya and many who for the sake of their belly to householders a favor following popular things get involved in views and take side, even misinterpret the Buddha knowingly.
At least the Dali Lama is not a person with secure faith in Dhamma- Vinaya, but seek after advices and also for favor, outside the three gems and the Buddhas and Noble ones way. If he could stand doing Vegitarian or even Vegan, he would stand that for winning favor under laypeople and for politic, but even here he has his limits, to weak.


text:
What do you think would be a good way to explain death to a child, from a Buddhist perspective?
When a young child hears that someone died, it's natural for him to wonder whether he'll die too, or whether those who are most dear to him too die quite unexpectedly. So what kind of a response should one give in keeping with a Theravada Buddhist Perspective?

Use a tree as an example. Show the various stages of a tree from seed to plant to fully grown tree to an old leafless tree and explain the ageing and impermanence. Then show a decayed/dead tree that is on the ground to make him understand that everything that begins must end. You can use pictures for this. Then explain the life of an animal in the same way. And then explain how humans are the same way.
Finally, show a seed of the dead tree and show how a new plant comes from it. Use that to explain rebirth.

Is this an answer from personal experience rather than from a reference-able scripture?

There's no scripture reference. It's a suggestion which is inline with Theravada Buddhism

Sankha, I am looking for an answer more in line with that of an untimely death of a dearly beloved one.

You can use the same analogies to explain the inevitability of the death of loved one

When you come across a situation where a friend is in pain or suffering, in mental distress, and dying you often can’t reach that person. They’re in their own private world, suffering their own private pains and torments. And especially at death, there comes a point where even before the actual moment of death, you realize that the person is beyond you. You can’t reach in and help, no matter how much you might want to. Such a situation is all-the-more harder if you are a child. A child's capacity to understand death and dying — and your approach to discussing it — will vary according to the child's age. Each child is unique, but as a practicing Buddhist who holds dear the five precepts, one needs to be honest.
No matter how difficult it is one must be honest with kids and encourage questions. This can be hard because you may not have all of the answers. But it's important to create an atmosphere of comfort and openness, and send the message that there's no one right or wrong way to feel. This is the moment to share any spiritual beliefs you have about death.
So we have to be ready for such moments in our lives. We have to learn how to observe from within what kind of thinking is skillful, what kind of acting, what kind of speaking is skillful, and what kind is not. Until kids are about 5 or 6 years old, their view of the world is very literal. So it is best to explain the death in basic and concrete terms. If the loved one was ill or elderly, for example, you might explain in one way. If someone dies suddenly, like in an accident, you might explain what happened — and reflect through dhamma. You may have to explain that "dying" or "dead" means as per the scriptures.
Death could come at any time: your death, the death of your family, the death of other people. It’s there just waiting to happen. Kids this young often have a hard time understanding that all people and living things die sooner or later, and that it's final and they won't come back. So even after you've explained this, kids may continue to ask where the loved one is or when the person is returning. As frustrating as this can be, continue to calmly reiterate that the person has died and can't come back. Avoid saying such things as the loved one "went away" or "went to sleep" or even that your family "lost" the person. This may also be a time to share what is said in the Dhamma about an afterlife or heaven. Kids from the ages of about 6 to 10 start to grasp the finality of death, even if they don't understand that it will happen to every living thing one day. Remember that kids deal best with death when given accurate, simple, clear, and honest explanations about what happened.
Teens tend to search more for meaning in the death of someone close to them. A teen who asks why someone had to die probably isn't looking for literal answers, but starting to explore the idea of the meaning of life. It is important that we contemplate death. Then the answers are right there when you need them, when aging comes, when illness comes, when death comes. This knowledge will help you at time of need.


text:
How can we view the statement that “life must be understood backwards but must be lived forwards" from a Buddhist perspective?
Soren Kierkegaard once wrote,

Det er ganske sandt, hvad Philosophien siger, at Livet maa forstaaes baglænds. Men derover glemmer man den anden Sætning, at det maa leves forlænds.

It is perfectly true, as the philosophers say, that life must be understood backwards. But they forget the other proposition, that it must be lived forwards.
Journals IV A 164 (1843)
See Phenomenology: Critical Concepts in Philosophy, by Dermot Moran (2002)
Variants:

We live forward, but we understand backward.
Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.

How can we view this statement from a Buddhist Perspective?

I'm not sure that this question is on-topic for this site.

To give you a hint, this is related to Kamma, a thing that you and I have no control of. Think through Kamma  aspect.

I feel that the answer that is most akin to Buddhism comes from the Buddha's instruction to his son to determine what caused the action by reflecting back, and then take responsibility for the action as one moves forward, stated as follows:

The Buddha: How do you construe this, Rahula: What is a mirror for?
Rahula: For reflection, sir.
The Buddha: In the same way, Rahula, bodily acts, verbal acts, and
  mental acts are to be done with repeated reflection.
Whenever you want to perform a bodily act, you should reflect on it:
  'This bodily act I want to perform-would it lead to self-affliction,
  to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily
  act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection,
  you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of
  others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily act with painful
  consequences, painful results, then any bodily act of that sort is
  absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it
  would not cause affliction...it would be a skillful bodily act with
  happy consequences, happy results, then any bodily act of that sort is
  fit for you to do.   (Similarly with verbal acts and mental acts.)
While you are performing a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This
  bodily act I am doing-is it leading to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with
  painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know
  that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or
  both...you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is
  not...you may continue with it.   (Similarly with verbal acts and
  mental acts.)
Having performed a bodily act, you should reflect on it....If, on
  reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction
  of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily act with painful
  consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it,
  lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy
  life. Having confessed it...you should exercise restraint in the
  future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to
  affliction...it was a skillful bodily act with happy consequences,
  happy results, then you should stay mentally refreshed and joyful,
  training day and night in skillful mental qualities.   (Similarly with
  verbal acts.)
Having performed a mental act, you should reflect on it....If, on
  reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction
  of others, or to both; it was an unskillful mental act with painful
  consequences, painful results, then you should feel horrified,
  humiliated, and disgusted with it. Feeling horrified... you should
  exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that
  it did not lead to affliction...it was a skillful mental act with
  happy consequences, happy results, then you should stay mentally
  refreshed and joyful, training day and night in skillful mental
  qualities.
Rahula, all the priests and contemplatives in the course of the past
  who purified their bodily acts, verbal acts, and mental acts, did it
  through repeated reflection on their bodily acts, verbal acts, and
  mental acts in just this way.
All the priests and contemplatives in the course of the future...All
  the priests and contemplatives at present who purify their bodily
  acts, verbal acts, and mental acts, do it through repeated reflection
  on their bodily acts, verbal acts, and mental acts in just this way.
  Therefore, Rahula, you should train yourself: 'I will purify my bodily
  acts through repeated reflection. I will purify my verbal acts through
  repeated reflection. I will purify my mental acts through repeated
  reflection.' Thus you should train yourself.   That is what the
  Blessed One said. Pleased, Ven. Rahula delighted in the Blessed One's
  words.

M.61

We live forward
This is equatable to Right Effort because Right Effort is related to exertion to decrease evil and increase good in the here and now ("forward").
but we understand backward.
This is equatable to Right View because one's Right View is greatly enhanced by thinking about one's past karma, chain of causation, and marks of existence.
As with all verbiage, Kierkegaard is 90% right in his statement.
There are things your past that you must take "action" for through hypnotherapy. You have to relive your past and try to find out why this-and-that happened and can unwind that behavior. After you do this you will actually become free of that behavior and can finally get your swag back.
Conversely, there are things in the future that you must understand before you can live it.

Obviously, most (learned) wisdom comes from past experience (including meditation experience). However, wisdom also comes from looking forward (such as contemplation of death). Wisdom of past & future crystallize as living in the (passing) 'present'.

There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.
Dhammapada 6

We walk the path, do practice trusting that things will connect in our future. But when it leads you off, you reflect. Think on this line.

I reflected on your line and found it of no value. Kind regards.

I will answer this question tomorrow, Dhammadhatu (from what I have learnt from my teachers). It is a bit late now and I just finished putting together another answer. Meth sithin...

There is a very important word in Dhamma called “Pratyaveksha”. Sadly I have never come across any explanation of the meaning of this word in english. In Soren Kierkegaard’s saying  “life must be understood backwards but must be lived forwards" if you substitute the word “Life” with “our experience of volitional actions”, it gives the closest meaning to the word “Pratyaveksha”.  So in re-phrasing Soren Kierkegaard’s saying  “our experience of volitional actions must be understood backwards but must be lived forwards”, the saying becomes one of Dhamma. Kierkegaard would quietly bring his readers into a position where the truth of their life was available for their own individual realization, though ultimately it was up to them whether or not to embrace that realization. This is the same in Dhamma. Only the few Dhamma Farers that do “Pratyaveksha” will get to go further in this Noble Eightfold Path in this short lifespan of theirs. In this Dhamma path too we are faced with reflection and action simultaneously.
If one is to reflect on the two qualities “Ehipassiko” and “Opanayiko” of Dhamma,  Ehi-passiko means inviting any wise person to come and see. Ehipassiko (Sanskrit: Ehipaśyika "which you can come and see" -- from the phrase ehi, paśya "come, see!"). The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test by applying it to their own lives and seeing its effects. Then the term “Opanayiko” means each person must practice the teachings and realize their value within one's own experience. Opanayiko (Sanskrit: Avapraṇayika "leading one close to"). The Dhamma is capable of being entered upon and therefore it is worthy to be followed as a part of one's life. So just as Soren Kierkegaard’s saying  dhamma confronts each and every individual, independently for him or her self.  It's truth is between the individual and his or hers meditative self, and cannot be mediated by thought or society.
Another way to see Soren Kierkegaard’s saying  is through Kamma. It is this doctrine of Kamma that can explain the problem of suffering, the mystery of so-called fate or predestination of other religions, and above all the inequality of mankind. As some Westerners prefer to say Kamma is "action-influence." We reap what we have sown. What we sow we reap somewhere or some when. In one sense we are the result of what we were; we will be the result of what we are. In another sense, we are not totally the result of what we were and we will not absolutely be the result of what we are. For instance, a criminal today may be a saint tomorrow. So even if we live forwards righteously and with purpose and dedication, the results that we reap may not be in keeping with our expected results.
Only the ones who believe in Kamma will see another side to this saying. Even in life they will have a different perspective to life.  They will sympathise with each other and see that all human beings are of equal value, they find it easy to be forgiving and to live with one another in peace. They don’t despise one another for belonging to this or that class or for having only this or that much wealth – all of which are simply a matter of each person’s kamma. After all, no one wants to be poor or stupid. Everyone wants to be intelligent, wealthy, and highly respected. But when it isn’t possible, we have to leave it to the truth that living beings differ in their kamma. Whatever past kamma you have, you experience it and make use of it in line with what you’ve got. If we can forgive each other, with the thought that each living being has his or her own kamma, we can live together in peace. If we believe in the Dhamma, we have to believe in kamma and not in the defilements that make us arrogant and proud.
This saying can also be seen through “Sanskara”. The terms Mental Formation and Volition are used together because each of these terms represents one half of the meaning of sanskara – mental formation represents the half that comes from the past, and volition represents the half that functions here and now.


text:
A few quetions on metta
I was practicing metta meditation today and the thought came up: "What if your wish for happiness for one person (Person A) causes another to suffer indirectly (person B)?"
My understanding of the problem: the wish of metta is conditional, that is, it is for person A. Since metta is meant to be an unconditional love, how can we wish metta for individuals? Doesn't metta only make sense if it is wished for all beings?
How can we wish metta and have that wish be moral without understanding the consequences of what that wish may cause. Is metta not meant to be a literal wish? I have a feeling that I am not fully understanding metta properly, so I'd like to hear where I am falling short in my understanding.
Kind wishes.

Yes, your understanding of Metta is wrong.
ex: If you are doing Metta towards a person who wishes to rob a bank, you don't wish the robbery to succeed. You simply wish happiness to arise in his mind so he does not need to rob. If Person-A wants to beat Person-B, you don't wish for that to happen. You simply wish for Person-A's anger to subside.
Metta does not mean wishing for beings to give in to their defilements.

loving-kindness is characterized as promoting the aspect of
  welfare. Its function is to prefer welfare. It is manifested as the
  removal of annoyance. Its proximate cause is seeing lovableness in
  beings. It succeeds when it makes ill will subside, and it fails when
  it produces (selfish) affection.  -Visuddhimagga

As I understand things: Metta-meditation is not "magic", not something like "positive voodoo". In the first instance it is a training for you and your ability for loving kindness.
Based on this it is also a stepwise training: you start with simple ones (loving kindness with yourself, your mama, your spouse, your best friend). After you have some fluent experience you change the subject to more neutral persons, and then even to some people you dislike (or you think they dislike you), or to rivals.
The effect of the training - if successful for you : then your new way of impulses might have effects to the world...

You don't have to understand metta. Metta is an emotion, not a thought. You focus on people you like in order to give rise to this emotion and then develop it further and further. You can't start with loving all beings right away.