text:
Are the formless jhanas without any consciouness of form at all?
I don't understand the formless jhanas.
Does this meditator completely lose consciousness of form, or are they meditating on something formless and, apart from that, as before?
I've read the abhidharmakosa bhashyam, of Vasubhadhu, and he says that a mediator of this sort will be later reborn into a realm without form, so that suggests that there are sentient beings without any of the sense consciousnesses. But I just find the idea impossible, to be honest.
Interesting, one of those books says that some Buddhists claim that there is a residue of visual consciousnesses there.
Can anyone describe to me what the formless jhana is like? I'm especially intrigued as to whether there is any sense of shade to it: if it seems darker or lighter than any given colour I've experienced.

vibhajavadins, iirc, claimed that

I don't know why someone downvoted this but it might be because the title isn't very good. Could you try to edit the title. to make it more closely reflect or summarize what you're asking in the body of the question?

Formless meditations exist. The eight attainments (atthasamapatti) in meditation (attaining Adhicitta) broadly has two parts - namely, the first four rupa jhanas and the four arupa jhanas. These last four are higher stages of mental concentration – the formless states - enable one to gain super-normal powers.
Even though we see the mind as normally inter-dependent with body, there are levels of existence where only mental phenomena exist, with nothing whatever of rupa.  The four 'formless' (arupa) meditative states are attainable from the fourth jhana onwards:
The sphere of infinite space (Akasanañcayatana);
This is attained by transcending any cognition of rupa, by abandoning the metal image that was previously the object of concentration, and seeing that space is infinite.
The sphere of infinite consciousness (Viññaaañcayatana);
In this second state, the focus is on the consciousness that had been aware of infinite space.
The sphere of nothingness (Akiñcaññayatana);
In the third, this object (Viññaaañcayatana) is dropped, and the focus is on the apparent nothingness remaining.
The sphere of neither-cognition-nor-non-cognition (Nevasaññanâsaññayatana).
In the fourth, this object (Akiñcaññayatana) is dropped and the mind is in an attenuated state where it is hardly functioning.
SD 24.11 _ Pathama Jhana Pañha Sutta or (Savitakka) Pathama Jhana Sutta. Progressing in the 1st dhyana.
SD24.12a _ Dutiya Jhana Pañha Sutta or (Avitakka) Dutiya Jhana Sutta. Progressing in 2nd dhyana.
SD 24.13 _ Tatiya Jhana Pañha Sutta or (Sukhena) Tatiya Jhana Sutta. Progressing in the 3rd dhyana.
SD 24.14 _ Catuttha Jhana Pañha Sutta or (Upekkhaka) Catuttha Jhana Sutta. How to progress in the 4th dhyana.
SD 24.15 _ Akasanañcayatana Pañha Sutta. Progressing in the sphere of infinite space.
SD 24.16 _ Viññaaañcayatana Pañha Sutta. Progressing in the sphere of infinite consciousness.
SD 24.17 _ Akiñcaññayatana Pañha Sutta. Progressing in the sphere of nothingness.
SD 24.18 _ Nevasaññanâsaññayatana Pañha Sutta. Progressing in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

when you say "nothing whatever of rupa", do you know if that is also the case in the mind only schools?

I guess words are not enough to describe experiences. I don't know if they exist or how it is to be in a formless jhana, but I can tell you for sure that you will only get frustrated by trying to understand any experience using words or thoughts. See for yourself!

I am not aware of an explanation in the original Pali scriptures of exactly why the terms 'rupa (form) jhana' & 'arupa (formless) jhana' are used.
However, I would guess the term 'rupa' jhana is related to the activity of the nervous system of the entire physical body ('rupa'). For example, just before entering into the 1st (rupa) jhana, the mental stress stored within the physical is completely calmed & the entire bodily nervous system starts to radiate with bliss. Although the physical body & breathing can no longer be felt in the 1st jhana (due to the strength of the rapture-bliss in the brain dominating conscious awareness), the bliss of the entire bodily nervous system is the basis of the bliss of the rupa jhanas. The Pali scriptures state:

He enters & remains in the first jhana...in the second jhana...There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture & pleasure...MN 119.

As rapture (piti) & then pleasure (sukha) subside, the mind becomes purified & completely clear in the 4th (rupa) jhana; without the sense objects (sensations) of rapture & pleasure capturing consciousness awareness. The scriptures state, in attaining the 4th jhana, whatever physical-breathing activity remains is totally calmed:

Having attained the fourth absorption, inhalation and exhalation have ceased. SN 36.11

To gain a picture of what it means for the breathing to be completely calmed/ceased, MN 43 describes it is the same as a dead body (thus a medical doctor would think the body is dead due to no movement of the breathing despite the life-force of the body remaining alive).
~~~~
Therefore, the formless meditations (arupa jhana) are described as solely meditations upon consciousness & mentality, without any breathing & feeling sensations from the bodily nervous system being felt.
The features of the formless meditations are described in MN 111, as follows:

Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of infinitude of space...the dimension of infinitude of consciousness...the dimension of nothingness. Whatever qualities there are...singleness of mind, contact, (mental) feeling,
  perception, intention, consciousness, zeal, decision, persistence,
  mindfulness, equanimity & attention — he ferreted them out one after
  another.

In the 'dimension of neither perception nor non-perception' (4th formless meditation/8th jhana), the scriptures describe the mental sense objects listed above start to disappear/fade & in the 'cessation of feeling & perception' ('9th jhana') all mentality, including consciousness, completely disappears.
Consciousness disappears in the '9th jhana' because there is no more perception & feeling thus, as taught in the scriptures (MN 38; SN 22.53), consciousness cannot arise without any sense objects.
Note: The '9th jhana' (cessation of feeling & perception) is not Nibbana/Nirvana.
In summary, in Buddhism, there are six avenues of sense consciousness. In the formless meditations (as described in MN 111), mind sense consciousness remains (although eye, ear, nose, tongue & body sense consciousness do not operate).

Please let us know why Note: The '9th jhana' (cessation of feeling & perception) is not Nibbana/Nirvana.? I like to suggest The 9th jhana is 'Nirodha Samapaththi'. In Secluded it says  Having attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have ceased. In a taint-free monk greed has ceased, hatred has ceased, delusion has ceased......... greed has been stilled, hatred has been stilled, delusion has been stilled... .greed is quietened, hatred is quietened, delusion is quietened."

'Nirodha Samapaththi' ('9th jhana') is just a form of mental tranquility (samatha), to the degree the mind becomes unconsciousness. Where as an arahant abides in Nibbana including when consciousness, as defined at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-044

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


text:
Are there meditation practices that improve logical problem solving skills?
I meditate daily, for around 30 minutes or so, I have been on and off for the last few yew years. I only ever do a simple breathing meditation and I find it tends to make my mind smoother and more relaxed (compared to days I do not sit). I am also in the process of becoming a mathematician (hopefully completing my PhD in the next few months). Before embarking on my PhD I worked in IT as a developer/support manager, so my work has always been fairly cerebral. Given this context, I was wondering - are there particular types of meditation that specifically improve mental ability ? I know one of the obvious answers is that solving a problem in pure math is really a form of meditation, and I should probably just continue with the daily grind. I'm hoping for a bit more though. Thanks

See also Can following Buddhist practices help me in my studies? and Can meditation help me in my academics?

Hi Andre and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have also a Help Center with useful resources for new comers.

There is a practice called Analytical Meditation. In this type of meditation you make a problem, or something that you want a deeper understanding of, to become the object of your meditation.  You then shift the sensations of the breath to the background in your mind.
The method is very well described on pages 361-368 of "The Mind Illuminated" by Culadasa.   I think it is exactly what you are looking for. It is a component of the Mahayana vipaśyanā system called “The Union of Wisdom and Calm Abiding.”
The only caveat is that you must be able to sustain your focus on the object of your meditation, in your case the sensations of the breath.  If you do not have some degree of stability in your attention to the breath, Analytical Meditation will not yet be an effective practice for you.

I am not aware of any meditation practices that improve logical problem solving skills. However (although I am not an academic), I have found, in my experience, the more clear & calm the mind is, the better my logic & problem solving skills.

I've heard that when you sleep on a problem, you're mind thinks of a solution during the rest. That's kind of how meditation works, a sort of self-induced slumber (though its important not to fall asleep during meditation).
I'm not sure how exactly the mind works better after meditation and sleep but my personal theory is that it separates from the object of meditation gaining a clear overview of possible solution paths.
As long as you don't go too far during a session it's been proven that meditation relaxes you. Logical thinking, rationality, clarirty, etc, are necessary for a mathematical mind. However, I feel thats it is also necessary to have periods of fanciful and unplanned moments.
I think the type of meditatiom that would be good for math is samata as opposed to vipassana. Briefly, vipassana focuses on present moment awareness whereas samata is on an object of meditation such as a candle or burning incense.
I have a graduate degree in statistics and work as a statistical programmer and feel that meditation not only helps me solve problems but also be a better person. It may also give you a competetive edge when used in moderation. Best of luck on your journey.

I strongly agree with your answer, which is something that used to happen to me all the time when I had a very complex job. Meditation is certainly like sleep, in that whatever problem the mind has not fully answered will 'pop' up into awareness.

Yes, it's amazing how the mind works. I guess meditation is almost like changing the oil in your car.

"Learn no-self and there will be no problem":)(a quote I heard somewhere) Sorry, I probably should have explained.
OP is practicing anapana right?
What I meant was, how about Practicing   vipassana to let go of problems, anything and everyone? It gives practitioners wisdom for more appropriate decisions when dealing with problems...although, I'm not so sure about "logical problems" although.

In addition to the clarity and calm that samatha, that practice you do already, provides, I would suggest vipassana.
Dedicated vipassana practice I had found makes me more aware of my own thoughts and any chronic logical fallacies. I would suggest adding vipassana, aka cessation-contemplation, practice.

No but you can focus on your work better than before..

Maybe you could elaborate on how one will be able to focus better after meditation practice. As a Q&A-forum we are looking for the best answers possible.

I understand - meditating is about focusing on the present moment and not getting distracted by activities that waste time. It is certainly a necessary skill in logical problem solving.

You only have to keep the ultimate aim of enlightenment in mind when practicing meditation and living in the dhamma. Then everything else, like improved logical problem solving skills, is achieved. The good qualities that emerge and mature from the practice of Dhamma not only smooth the way for the journey to Nibbana; over time they have the effect of transforming the practitioner into a more generous, loving, compassionate, peaceful, and clear-headed member of society. The individual's sincere pursuit of Awakening is thus a priceless and timely gift to world.

Breath meditation is the best choice of mind's support. Because buddha said:

Bhikkhu! you should meditate samādhi. Because of samādhi, you will understand the truth - samādhiṃ, bhikkhave, bhāvetha; samāhito, bhikkhave, bhikkhu yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti, S iii.13 (truth = causes and effects = logic).

Another, you can also improve your brain by abhidhamma study @pa-auk monastery, too. Sāriputta asked questions moreover hundreds millions questions about causes and effects in paṭṭhāna, the hardest cannon in tipitaka,  for your brain.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to make sense of the Heart Sutra
I am very interested in the concept of emptiness and freeing myself of all attachments. Naturally I gravitated towards the heart sutra, the chant in particular is very moving. However I am completely baffled by the text itself. Could someone help me understand the meaning, or purpose behind the story?

The topic of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra in 100'000 verses is (1) emptiness and (2) the mind that realizes emptiness. The Heart Sutra is its condensed version. All the Perfection of Wisdom sutras are called “mother sutras” because one achieves any of the three types of enlightenment (that of a sravaka, a pratyekabuddha or a bodhisattva) is obtained in dependence upon realizing emptiness: it's the mother that gives birth to all of them.
While emptiness is the explicit topic of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, the mind realizing emptiness in the continuum of a Bodhisattva is the implicit topic. You will find that all Mahayana schools of tenets (i.e. Cittamatrin, Madhyamika-Svatantrika and Madhyamika-Prasangika) explain emptiness very differently.
There is a terminological division of the perfection of wisdom into four:

the resultant perfection of wisdom
the path perfection of wisdom
the scriptures perfection of wisdom
the nature of the perfection of wisdom.

The resultant refers to the omniscient mind of a buddha... the path refers to the exalted wisdom in the continuum of a bodhisattva superior... the scriptures refer to the Prajnaparamita Sutras... the nature refers to emptiness. Basically: The Perfection of Wisdom Sutras (scriptures) explain explicitly the nature perfection of wisdom (emptiness) and implicitly the path perfection of wisdom.
When the sutra says “Son and daughter of good lineage...” This does not merely refer to those who have the Mahayana lineage, but to those who have awakened the Mahayana linage. This shows the sutra is intended for disciples that are Mahayana in conduct.
When it says “those five aggregates also are empty”, this shows that it explains Mahayana tenets. Proponents of Mahayana tenets usually hold that so-called Hinayana tenets do not posit selflessness of phenomena but only that of person. Most proponents of so-called Hinayana tenets hold that Mahayana sutras are not the words of the Buddha, and so forth. (a kind of speech common on SE)
Although there is a lot to be said, I will jump to the essence of the explicit subject matter. What does “form is emptiness. Emptiness is form...” mean? My teacher commented on Tendar Lharampa, saying:

'Form is emptiness'. Although form is found by a conventional valid
  cognizer,  it is not the object found by a mind of ultimate analysis.
  'Emptiness is form', that emptiness is the emptiness of that form.
  'Emptiness is not other than form' in that it is not separate from
  form. This is because emptiness is posited on its basis. Emptiness is
  always emptiness of something with which it is one entity. 'Form is
  also not other than emptiness' in the sense that there is no other
  form than the form that is empty of inherent existence. Although form
  and its emptiness are two different isolates, and two different
  objects [of two different cognizers], they are of one entity. If form
  and its emptiness were one [object], then when the eye-consciousness
  of an ordinary being sees form, it would see emptiness. If form and
  its emptiness were two different entities, then they would be causally
  related. This is because two related phenomena are either causally
  related, or related in terms of [being one] entity. Therefore, the
  emptiness of form would not be the ultimate nature of form; it would
  not be anymore related to form than it is to feelings and so forth.

To learn about emptiness, it is better to study tenets, special insight chapters, and Maitreya/Asanga's Ornament (AA) than the Heart sutra.
I recommend these books on the sutra, though:

Essence of the Heart Sutra: The Dalai Lama's Heart of Wisdom Teachings.
The Heart Sutra: An Oral Teaching, by Geshe Sonam Rinchen.
The Heart Sutra: A Comprehensive Guide to the Classic of Mahayana Buddhism, by Kazuaki Tanahashi.
Tendar Lharampa's commentary on the Heart Sutra.

I found Master Shengyen's commentary more superficial and didn't enjoy it that much.

I've been practicing in a zen dôjô for the last year, and have been singing the haramita shingyo a lot of times without really understanding it. Your question made me look for a translation online, and I found this (for french readers only) whose introduction says,:

Ce texte, très court, qui se présente comme le "cœur" des sûtra bouddhistes indiens de la Perfection de Sagesse (prajñâ pâramitâ) est devenu en Chine, puis au Japon, une sorte de credo aux vertus magiques. Au nom de la vacuité, il met à mal les anciennes doctrines des quatre nobles vérités et de coproduction conditionnée.

(my translation):

This text, very short, which presents itself as the "heart" of the Indian Buddhist sutras of the perfection of wisom, has become in China and then in Japan a sort of credo (creed) with magical properties. In the name of voidness it breaks from the ancient doctrines of the four noble truths and of conditioned
  co-arising.

From what I've understood, this sutra is about putting the 4 noble truths in a vacuity perspective. Considering this, there is no Dukkha, Samudaya, Nirodha nor Magga as they are mental constructions themselves and, thus, you should free yourself from the 5 aggregates.
Here is a humble translation from French to English of the 5th paragraph that seems meaningful to me :

There is no ignorance and no cessation of ignorance and so forth there
  is no aging nor death and no cessation of aging and death.There
  is no suffering, origin, extinction nor path.There is no
  knowledge and no obtaining for there is nothing to obtain.

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


text:
Was Buddhism a rebellion against the Aryans?
I read and learned many areas in Buddhism, for example the Seven Arya Dhana (Saptharyadhana - The Sevenfold Noble Wealth), the Four Noble Truths (Chathurarya Sathya) and the Eightfold Path (arya ashtangika marga).
I sometimes feel in the time when Gautama was born, the Aryans had ultimate power because of the caste system. So Gautama needed to break that authority and misbehave and tell people that this is the way to be an Aryan (and not by family birth in the caste system).
I admit that the teaching of [how to live] life is the basis of Buddhism. But rather than that i feel that there are some other things.
(Sorry about the Sinhalese wordings. I don't know how to say it in English. Please correct if you know the exact English words).
This is not a theory or something. This is something i feel when I am learning the philosophy.
Thank you.

When Gautama left his family to become an ascetic or śramaṇa, he joined many other ascetics or wanderers who were separate from the Vedic-Brahmanism religion.
However, when Gautama left his family to become an ascetic, his goal was not political. The Pali scriptures describe when Gautama lived the life of a prince in his palaces, he was very unhappy & disenchanted & also saw how his rich relatives & associates suffered about worldly things, such as money, status, sex & sensuality, which brought little happiness & much trouble & suffering.
Therefore, Gautama became an ascetic for the sole purpose of finding a solution to suffering for himself & for the world. Gautama's sole purpose was a Noble Search for Nibbana.
Later, after enlightenment, when the Buddha became famous, the scriptures report many Brahmans ('Aryans') came to visit the Buddha to ask him questions about 'caste' or 'birth' ('jati').
Because the Buddha was an honest & ethical man, he spoke the truth to the Brahmans (for example, here, here and here.
In Singala: https://suttacentral.net/si/mn93 ~ https://suttacentral.net/si/mn95
~ https://suttacentral.net/si/mn98
Because the Buddha & many of his enlightened disciples were not from the Brahman caste, the Buddha understood with right wisdom that the highest, most peaceful, wise, virtuous & free state of mind was not related to birth caste (read Brahmanavagga).
I would speculate that hundreds of years later, under King Ashoka, many new scriptures were written that were very prejudiced against Brahmans (such as here & here).
I say this because in many scriptures, the Buddha is very civil to Brahmans and encouraged them to follow their own religion in a better way. The Buddha did not try to convert anyone to Buddhism unless he knew Buddhism was the most suitable path for that person.

There's a book titled In the Buddha's Words which people recommend as an introductory text.
Anyway that book has, amongst other things, this to say,

Text IV,6(3), a long excerpt from the Assalayana Sutta, captures the Buddha in debate with a precocious brahmin pundit about the brahmins' claims on behalf of the caste system. In the Buddha's age the caste system was only beginning to take shape in northeast India and had not yet spawned the countless subdivisions and rigid regulations that were to manacle Indian society through the centuries. Society was divided into four broad social classes: the brahmins, who performed the priestly functions prescribed in the Vedas; the khattiyas, the nobles, warriors, and administrators; the vessas, the merchants and agriculturalists; and the suddas, the menials and serfs. There were also those outside the pale of the four main classes, who were regarded as even lower than the suddas. From the Nikayas it appears that the brahmins, while vested with authority in religious matters, had not yet attained the unchallengeable hegemony they were to gain after the appearance of such works as the Laws of Manu, which laid down the fixed rules of the caste system. They had, however, already embarked on their drive for domination over the rest of Indian society and did so by propagating the thesis that brahmins are the highest caste, the divinely blessed offspring of Brahma who are alone capable of purification.
Contrary to certain popular notions, the Buddha did not agitate for the abolition of the Indian class system and attempt to establish a classless society. Within the Sahgha, however, all caste distinctions were abrogated from the moment of ordination. People from any of the four social classes who went forth under the Buddha renounced their class titles and prerogatives, becoming known simply as disciples of the Sakyan son (that is, of the Buddha, who was from the Sakyan clan). Whenever the Buddha and his disciples confronted the brahmins' claim to superiority, they argued vigorously against them. As our text shows, the Buddha maintained that all such claims were groundless. Purification, he contended, was the result of conduct, not of birth, and was thus accessible to those of all four castes. The Buddha even stripped the term "brahmin" of its hereditary accretions, and hearkening back to its original connotation of holy man, defined the true brahmin as the arahant (see MN 98, not included in this anthology).

In summary:

There was a caste system in the Buddha's time and place, but the system maybe wasn't so fixed or codified as it became later
The Buddha said (in suttas and the in the Dhammapada) that it's how a person behaves etc., and not how they're born, that would make them a holy person
The Buddha didn't try to abolish the caste system in lay society
The Sangha however is "classless" e.g. the seniority between monks is based on how long they've been ordained, and not on how they were born.

You can find other people writing on this topic by doing a Google search for buddhism caste system. For example, this Glossary of Buddhist terms more-or-less agrees with the above, except that this text doesn't say, "Contrary to certain popular notions, the Buddha did not agitate for the abolition of the Indian class system and attempt to establish a classless society".

So Gautama needed to break that authority and misbehave
I don't know, maybe the question of authority and behavior is whether it's conducive to the goal.
A sutta like MN 26 suggests to me that he was willing to learn politely from the teachers of his day, but he assessed, evaluated, judged what he learned.
It's maybe not fair to say that he "misbehaved" in the sense of "behaved immorally" -- even in the Kalama Sutta where he tells people to not to base their decisions on "reports" nor on the thought that "This contemplative is our teacher", even so he recommends they do what's "blameless" and "praised by the wise".

If not known, you may want to read http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh208-u.html#48.TheSimileoftheOcean about when members of the four castes—nobles, brahmins, commoners and menials—go forth from home into the homeless life in this Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathāgata, they lose their former names and lineage and are reckoned only as ascetics following the Son of the Sakyans.

"Was Buddhism a rebellion against the Aryans?"
It is difficult for me to understand this question. Oxford Dictionary defines Buddhism thus: A widespread Asian religion or philosophy, founded by Siddartha Gautama in NE India in the 5th century bc.
Aryan is defined as: Relating to or denoting a people speaking an Indo-European language who invaded northern India in the 2nd millennium bc, displacing the Dravidian and other aboriginal peoples.
I am unable to see the connection between Buddhism and Aryans.
However, it is a fact that Pali Text Society, London, publishes a set of books it calls Tripitaka. In this set there are two Pitakas called Sutta and Vinaya Pitakas. These Pitakas attribute virtually all the saying in them to a person named Bhagava, meaning Lord. There are many other epithets by which he was known.
The Sutta Pitaka essentially contains the truths about all beings--humans, gods, animals and so on. This is the Dhamma pointed out by the Lord (Bhagavata Dhammo).
The Lord was the Leader of gods and men (Sattha Devamanussanam) and the Dhamma was for the welfare and happiness of all beings.
The word Ariya is found in the Dhamma. It has no racial connotations whatsoever in the Dhamma. There is no English equivalent for the word.
One of the guiding prinicples of the Dhamma, called Avihinsa is never to kill or hurt any living being under any circumstances.
Why talk about rebellion?
The Dhamma of the Lord, was verified by the Lord by seeing with his own eyes (Sacchikatva) before proclaiming to the world. They are absolute truths.


text:
Should I help an aggressive panhandler?
I recently encountered an aggressive panhandler. To be exact, he was a peddler who was selling a small good at a profitable price.
I didn't end up buying anything from him because I simply didn't need the small good he was selling; but now I'm conflicted as to whether I should've just bought the item to help him out.
On one hand, I recognize that he is making a tough living and I admire him for that. I could've easily spared a few dollars to buy the item and help him out. To be honest, I really wanted to buy the item out of pity but I couldn't reason why I should treat this man differently from any other salesman I come across. All beings are suffering, and material wealth is illusory and insignificant at the end of the day. I am confused as to whether not giving (through refusing to buy from the peddler) is just me being stingy, and this is my attempt to rationalise my actions, or indeed there is no point in saying 'yes' to every salesman I come across selling something I don't need just to help them out with their livelihood.
Just to clarify this man was clearly not a drug addict or alcoholic who would use the money to feed his addictions, probably just an honest man trying to make a living. I guess what I'm trying to ask in essence is from a Buddhist perspective, should we treat those who are poorer and 'worse off' better by accommodating them than we do to those who are presumably 'better off'?
I understand that we should give whenever we can, but if the act of giving is accompanied by the moral high ground I take by deeming this man as more deserving of my sympathy, is it really the way I want to give?
On another note, this man was also aggressively trying to guilt trip me by saying that I could just give him money and it wouldn't make a difference to me but I didn't think this was relevant because I'm sure he has his reasons for any malevolence. I'm more troubled by the fact that I could've helped him, but I didn't simply because I didn't feel I should judge him differently from other salesmen and I really didn't need the small items he was selling.

You may find the question Should one give to beggars? of interest as it covers a similar area.Best wishes

And that is ok. Suppose you would have helped him, would you have felt aversion towards yourself because you allowed yourself to be tricked and towards him because he tricked you? Would his life improve beyond imagination if you would have bought the item?
Is it possible that you are allowing a trifling matter inflict exagerated suffering upon yourself?
One can accept the past the way it is and let it go.

Good point. We cause our own suffering really.

Your case would actually more suitable for the philosophy community (possible dilemma situation), because in Buddhism the answer to your question is quite simple (at least as I see it).
From a Buddhist point of view an action is 'good', if the prior intention is wholesome. 'wholesome' means free from greed, anger and delusion.

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect. - AN 6.63

Therefore you shouldn't be so concerned with what you should do, but how you do it. If you have a pure mind that is free from defilements, the right action will come naturally.
If you don't buy something from such a person, you may feel guilty.
If you do buy something, you may feel betrayed. So there is no warranty for a wholesome mind by only looking at the action itself, in both cases it is possible to reinforce bad habits and conflict.
Whether you do buy something or not, there is in both cases the potential to develop loving-kindness, compassion, joy and equanimity towards this person.
Keep in mind that you're not responsible for the suffering of others. But if you really want to help, you should think about whether or not it would be more wise to give money to an organization that fights poverty than giving it to random individuals (I honestly don't know which one is more effective).

Throwing a coin to a beggar in order to get rid of him would be considered a defilement of giving. Just try and reflect on the lesson in this story - Do You Have Any Change?  - Ron Atchison
http://www.inspirationpeak.com/cgi-bin/stories.cgi?record=70

Several years ago I was at a train station in Amsterdam waiting in line to buy a ticket. As I stood there I saw a young homeless man asking people for money so he could buy breakfast. It was early in the morning and most of the travelers simply ignored the young man or gave him a dirty look. There was one exception though - an older, well-dressed businessman who looked as though he was from the middle-east. When approached by the panhandler, the gentleman looked straight into his eyes and quietly asked "How much will you need?" I couldn't hear what the young man said but watched as the older man pulled several bills from his wallet and calmly placed them in the young mans' hands.
I don't know if the young man actually used this money for breakfast or for some other purpose. What I do know is that I witnessed two completely different reactions to the same situation. I saw people who were either afraid or annoyed or distrustful. And then I saw this man who was not afraid and treated the homeless man as though he were a brother. I decided then and there that, even though we have to be careful in this world, I would rather be like him.

The other answers are true, you should not give out of pity. This defiles the very nature of giving.
Rather you can do the follow before you give this guy a dollar:

Have him tell you a joke/story that entertains you.
Ask him what he will do with this money. If you deem it is for good, then give him a buck.
Ask for his advice on a specific matter. Have him be your therapist for 5 minutes. :-)

The overall idea is that you should try to get a little something out of him. This has great mutualistic effects namely, you will feel better about giving and the beneficiary will also learn something about what is valuable to others (who knows he may eventually start a joke-selling business).
Be creative. Everyone is useful for something even a baby who has no life experience!
Do not respond to pressure tactics of panhandlers. Stare them straight in the eye and do not be fazed by such subtle violence. Otherwise we would be feeding this.

I'm not sure what difference it makes whether the panhandler is aggressive.
If they weren't agressive, if they were just begging instead, what then?
Here's a line from the novel Kim, when he (the child protagonist) meets a Tibetan Lama who has come into India on a pilgrimage:

'And whom didst thou worship within?' said Kim affably, squatting in
  the shade beside the lama.
'I worshipped none, child. I bowed before the Excellent Law.'
Kim accepted this new God without emotion. He knew already a few
  score.
'And what dost thou do?'
'I beg. I remember now it is long since I have eaten or drunk. What is
  the custom of charity in this town? In silence, as we do of Tibet, or
  speaking aloud?'
'Those who beg in silence starve in silence,' said Kim, quoting a
  native proverb. The lama tried to rise, but sank back again, sighing
  for his disciple, dead in far-away Kulu. Kim watched head to one side,
  considering and interested.
'Give me the bowl. I know the people of this city - all who are
  charitable. Give, and I will bring it back filled.'

I realize this is just a novel but I found it a memorable phrase: "Those who beg in silence starve in silence".
There might be some good reason to withhold charity. When my parents visited Mali they were advised to give any gifts to the village leaders and not to give to children, because tourists giving to children would encourage children to skip school.
If I remember times when I've been charitable I basically don't regret doing that. That might be a consequence of having done a good thing; the Kimattha Sutta (AN 11.1) begins with,

Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward.

You wrote,

I'm more troubled by the fact that I could've helped him, but I didn't simply because I didn't feel I should judge him differently from other salesmen and I really didn't need the small items he was selling.

... so if that troubles you, maybe try doing something different next time?
There's this video (actually an advertisement) from Thailand: Heartwarming Thai Commercial. It starts with,

What does he get in return, for doing this every day?

Here is a long article about "Dana: The Practice of Giving". Maybe the most relevant section of it from the point of view of this question is,

THE MOTIVATION FOR GIVING
The suttas record various motives for exercising generosity. The Anguttara Nikaya (A.iv,236) enumerates the following eight motives:

Asajja danam deti: one gives with annoyance, or as a way of offending the recipient, or with the idea of insulting him.[5]
Bhaya danam deti: fear also can motivate a person to make an offering.
Adasi me ti danam deti: one gives in return for a favor done to oneself in the past.
Dassati me ti danam deti one also may give with the hope of getting a similar favor for oneself in the future.
Sadhu danan ti danam deti: one gives because giving is considered good.
Aham pacami, ime ne pacanti, na arahami pacanto apacantanam adatun ti danam deti: "I cook, they do not cook. It is not proper for me who cooks not to give to those who do not cook." Some give urged by such altruistic motives.
Imam me danam dadato kalyano kittisaddo abbhuggacchati ti danam deti: some give alms to gain a good reputation.
Cittalankara-cittaparikkarattham danam deti: still others give alms to adorn and beautify the mind.

Favoritism (chanda), ill will (dosa) and delusion (moha) are also listed as motives for giving. Sometimes alms are given for the sake of maintaining a long-standing family tradition. Desire to be reborn in heaven after death is another dominant motive. Giving pleases some and they give with the idea of winning a happy frame of mind (A.iv, 236).
But it is maintained in the suttas (A.iv,62) that alms should be given without any expectations (na sapekho danam deti). Nor should alms be given with attachment to the recipient. If one gives with the idea of accumulating things for later use, that is an inferior act of giving. If one gives with the hope of enjoying the result thereof after death, that is also an inferior act of giving. The only valid motive for giving should be the motive of adorning the mind, to rid the mind of the ugliness of greed and selfishness.

To be honest there are Buddhist scripture which would be interpreted as recommending your being generous towards the Sangha more than towards agressive pan-handlers.
It may be surprising how much money (dollars per hour) some beggars can make, conversely it might also be surprising how poor some people can be. It's hard to assess others' needs.
Look at this story for example: Where is the story of the non-returner who “sold” pots on the side of the road?
I admire the sutta on Stinginess (SN 1.32).


text:
What does love means?
Buddhism teach to love , but when we love someone it's lead to craving , we wanted they must love us too but when things get worse it lead to sorrow. Another thing is we can love ourselves but does it selfishness ? Dose love , kindness , affection lead to sorrow ?

I think that "What does love mean?" is probably a duplicate of e.g. Relationships : What is Love? or What is “love” to a lay person?

Possible duplicate of Do buddhists fall in love?

Thank you @-}--  I got it. Love is dukkha so we have to protect ourself to being unhappy with unsatisfying or craving. But if we would self love which is egoistic it's way to heal. It's enough to have kindness and affection (Karuna)  for someone. And we must kind for animals. This is not religion , this is way to live life happily. I'm on the way to survive. I saw the shore. Sorry I'm being emotional. Thank you all of you @-}--

The love that Buddhism teaches is Maitriya. It means that one would not do any harm to another from one’s mind, body, and words. The Supreme Buddha once told that, if you have kindness, love, and compassion toward the human beings, you should make their minds be pleased about the Supreme Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. Spreading loving-kindness towards others means to be compassionate, loving, and kind toward others’ well-being.
Love of the sensual kind in its extreme form turns to lust. It is said that there is no fire like lust. It is towards the eradication of passion, lust, and desire that we practice Dhamma. In Dhamma we look at things that used to set off our lust, and we do it in a way so that they don’t set us off. One way is to see the unattractive side of the human body. We do it with the understanding that lusting after the human body is what will keep us from this Noble Eightfold Path.
But being affectionate is another thing. This is the positive side of love, as in an affectionate Teacher, an affectionate parent. But being affectionate too lead to sorrow. Think about the story of Kisā Gōtami. She lost her one and only son. This affectionate mother cried in pain when she lost her beloved child. Kisā Gōtami took her child on to her hands and walked in each street looking for a cure for her child. The Supreme Buddha made her see the truth of life. She too became a Bhikkhuni and became an Arahant by practicing the Dhamma well.

Buddhism explains there are at least three kinds of love:

raga: lust
pema: affection
metta-karuna: unconditional love and compassion.

The first and second kinds of love lead to sorrow, but not the third kind of love.
Some readings are:

Piyajatika Sutta: From One Who Is Dear (MN 87), which starts with:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time a certain householder's dear & beloved little son, his only child, had died. Because of his death, the father had no desire to work or to eat. He kept going to the cemetery and crying out, "Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you gone, my only little child?"

Piyavagga: Affection (from the Dhammapada), which starts with,

Giving himself to things to be shunned and not exerting where exertion is needed, a seeker after pleasures, having given up his true welfare, envies those intent upon theirs.
Seek no intimacy with the beloved and also not with the unloved, for not to see the beloved and to see the unloved, both are painful.

Karaniya Metta Sutta: The Buddha's Words on Loving-Kindness (SN 1.8)
Brahmavihara Sutta: The Sublime Attitudes (AN 10.208)


text:
Origin of the Thai letter ฑ (tho montho)
How did the character Montho from Ramayana make it into the name of the Thai letter ฑ (tho montho) of the Thai alphabet. Where is the relationship and in what year was this connection established?

This question seems to be unrelated to Buddhism.

This seems to be pretty much straightforward:
King Ram Khamhaeng (c. 1237/1247 – 1298) is credited with both the creation of the Thai alphabet and the firm establishment of Theravada Buddhism as the state religion of the Kingdom.
As mentioned in other answers, the writing system was built in the way so that original Pali/Sanskrit sacral texts underwent minimal change. However, the spoken language lacked many consonants that present in Pali script and in spoken Sanskrit.
Since all wide variety of Pali consonants was preserved (in written form), this led to duplicate consonants, e.g., several written consonants mapped to the same phone in a spoken language. For example, there are whopping six Pali consonants mapping to [tʰ].
To mitigate this, Thai consonants have a "guiding word",
just like if English had A - Apple, B - Box, etc.
So if one tells you, "write a tho consonant", you would wonder, "which one? — ah, tho montho, not tho than, not tho thahan, I understood".
There are other Thai consonants having its "guiding words" related to Buddhism.
Consider พ พาน /pho phan/ (a decorated tray with a pedestal, used in Buddhist ceremonies)
or ณ เณร /no nen/ (young monk).

Young monks in Thailand, image courtesy of

Unusual question for a Buddhist forum. However, if this question is asking: "How did a Hindu letter find its way into a Buddhist culture?", the answer to this question is Thailand has never been exclusively a Buddhist culture.
The original religious beliefs of Thai people, which are still upheld today, were animistic, such as spirit & ancestor worship.
Later, Brahmanism (Hinduism) was a predominant religion in Thailand and other South East Asian lands, such as Indonesia. This is why there are old Hindu temples in Java, why Bali is a Hindu culture and why the king of Thailand is considered a reincarnation of Vishnu & why the Thai royal family still has Brahmanistic ceremonies.
At a later time, Buddhism came to Thailand (and Indonesia, as demonstrated by the Borobudur temple in Java). Although Thailand abounds with many thousands of Buddhist monks, the animist & Hindu beliefs remain strong in Thailand.
At a later time, Islam came to Thailand (which included Malaysia) & Indonesia.

Thai is one of the most complicated written languages in the world..  (not saying most efficient).  One of the rules is if a word is from foreign language, a new alphabet and a written structure is invented so that it would be distinguishable between original thai and foreign languages, which mainly Pali or Sanskrit.
To give an example of a word "nirvana"  since it is not English, there would be a need to invent a new letter that produces "n" sound and new structure on how to put letters together so the goal is to communicate to readers that "nirvana" isnt English origin.  Lets say "&^" is a new "n" sound, nirvana would spell "&^ervanah*".  For that, now "n" sounds has two representations in Thai Language "n" and "&^"  and every time "&^" is used it cant be used with "i"  etc.   Most of foreign languages in thailand at the time of beginning of written system were Pali and Sanskit around 700-1000 years ago.  So my guess is, ฑ (tho montho) is younger than 1000 years old.
I dont think religious beliefs were not as strong driving force as the idea of separating foreign languages to original Thai.
tho montho produces "T" sounds but not of Thai Origin.  If word is originally Thai, "t" sound, would use "tho thahan ท"
this guy put a video explaining thai written system.
thai written language explained
PS. Dont try to pronounce island of Phuket in Thailand, with an F.

word with PH but pronounces like regular "p" is to tell English readers that "Phuket" is not English or latin origin.

So what is the origin of words that start with tho montho if not Thai? Is it Sanskrit, Pali, or another origin? Also, is the letter imported from a language from a place where Buddhism was practiced, and is that part of the reason why the name of the letter is tho montho? Thanks.

Interesting video though.

that's correct..  if a word contains  tho montho, then it is not thai.  Hard to tell if it was pali and Sanskrit.  notice the form of orginal thai that produces t sound, ท and ฑ.  There is little dent on top of the circle.  it is hard to tell if forms or art work of each letter was inspired by other languages.  It could be a copy espiecially if they have similarity.  Since knowledge from foriegn lands was mainly thru religious scriptures, then it could be from Buddist Sutta or even Ramyana.  If i have to guess, it's from Pali.

How did you manage to make your guess that it is from Pali?

I don't have the text but I take your word for it. You seem to know what you're talking about.

Cambodia was Hindu and taught the Thais the way Native Americans taught the first European pioneers how to do things.

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


text:
Are the thirty-one planes of existence real places or just metaphors?
And How the buddha know all of these things. I suppose he knew from meditation until enlighten? So it is possible that just by mediation alone one can know about other realm of existence.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Here's my personal interpretation.
A belief in hell, devas, and rebirth preceded (existed before) Buddhism and the Buddha. So when the Buddha was born, lived, and taught, people (non-Buddhists) already had a belief in hell, devas, rebirth, etc.
According to the page you referenced (see also Wikipedia's Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school) there isn't any one source e.g. a single sutta which identifies the 31 planes ... instead commentators have collected the 31 planes from several sources.
For example one of the suttas, which mentions the arupa-loka, is the Saleyyaka Sutta (MN 41). This starts as follows:

The brahman householders of Sala went to the Blessed One; etc.

When they were seated, they said to the Blessed One: "Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell; and what is the reason, what is the condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world?"

In other words, the brahman householders open the discussion by asking, "Why are some people reborn in hell and some in heaven?"
Note that the question assumes/presumes the existence of heaven and hell.
In reply, the Buddha teaches them Dhamma: he defines or gives examples of good and bad bodily conduct, verbal conduct, mental conduct.
Incidentally, the sutta's message ends by saying that "deliverance here and now" is also possible (and is implicitly better than a heavenly rebirth):

"If a householder who observes conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct, should wish: 'Oh, that by realization myself with direct knowledge, I may here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of the heart and the deliverance by wisdom that are taint-free with exhaustion of taints!' it is possible that, by realization himself with direct knowledge, he may here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of the heart and the deliverance by wisdom that are taint-free with exhaustion of taints. Why is that? Because he observes conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct."

My personal opinion is that the purpose or intent of this sutta, is not to teach us about the various kinds of Gods (though it does list various kinds), rather it is to teach examples of good and bad conduct, and teach that each person's future (destination) depends on their conduct. Whether or not that's really the "sutta's intent", that's what I get out of it when I read it using my personal set of biases.
I see it as being similar to verse 393 of the Dhammapada, i.e. the Buddha uses the existing belief and vocubulary (e.g. the word "brahmin"), he redefines those words, and he reuses their language and belief-system to speak to people (who have pre-existing beliefs).
In other words I think that people of his day believed in rebirth, heaven, and hell, and he used that as a "hook" to tell them about good conduct, e.g. to say that their destination depended on their own behaviour.
I think you can see other examples where the Buddha selects his message to match the audience. When talking to a lay audience, for example, he talked about the six directions; when talking to monks, he talked about renunciation -- different messages to suit different audiences.

I think that a belief in or a doctrine of rebirth is tightly integrated into the Pali canon, for example a literal interpretation of the Four stages of enlightenment including "once-returner" and "non-returner" presume rebirth and rebirth in heaven.
IMO trying to remove a belief in "planes of existence" from Theravada might be like trying to remove a belief in "heaven" from Christianity i.e. it's not easy or a natural way to interpret the scripture.

One way to answer this is to say that, inline with the reasoning I gave in this answer, it might be useful to behave as if the realms exist, i.e. behave as if our conduct has future consequence.

Also, so far as I know, an orthodox answer from a Theravadin (i.e. a type of answer that I have seen from other users on this site) might be that you should practice to perfect yourself and your spiritual abilities until you can know/see the truth for yourself.

Are the planes of existence real or metaphor? They are both.

Maybe you could elaborate a bit on why they are both.

There is a major principle in original Buddhism that the Dhamma (true reality) is experienced in the here-&-now (sanditthiko); has immediate results (akaliko); invites inspection (ehipassiko); leads to peace (opanayiko); & verified by the observant for themselves (paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi).
MN 38 states disciples of the Buddha should not even believe what the Buddha has spoken but to only believe what is experienced for oneself.

"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Teacher is our
  respected mentor. We speak thus out of respect for the Teacher'?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Contemplative says
  this. We speak thus in line with the Contemplative's words'?"
"No, lord."
"Is it the case that you speak simply in line with what you have
  known, seen, & understood for yourselves?"
"Yes, lord."
"Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be
  seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be
  realized by the observant for themselves".
MN 38

There are scriptures where the planes of existence are metaphors so you need to decide for yourself whether 'heaven', 'hell', 'animal behaviour', 'hungry ghosts' & 'humane beings' are metaphors or not.
Below are quotes that use the term 'animal' obviously as a metaphor:

Monks, these two bright qualities guard the world. Which two?
  Conscience & concern. If these two bright qualities did not guard the
  world, there would be no recognition of 'mother' here, no recognition
  of 'mother's sister,' 'uncle's wife,' 'teacher's wife,' or 'wife of
  those who deserve respect.' The world would be immersed in
  promiscuity, like rams with goats, roosters with pigs, or dogs with
  jackals. But because these two bright qualities guard the world, there
  is recognition of 'mother,' 'mother's sister,' 'uncle's wife,'
  'teacher's wife' & 'wife of those who deserve respect.'
Lokapala Sutta

~~~

I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anāthapiṇḍika in Jeta's grove in Sāvatthi.
Then a certain monk approached the Blessed One, worshipped, and sat on a side.
Sitting, that monk said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, how is it that a certain serpent [snake], born from a womb, observing the full moon
  observances, would even give up his body?”
“Here, monk, to a certain serpent born from a womb it occurs: `Earlier we acted in two ways by body, speech, and mind, and after
  death were born with the serpents born from a womb.'
“`Today we develop the right conduct by body, speech, and mind. In this manner we go to a good state, go to heaven after death.'
“`Therefore at this time we develop the right conduct by body speech and mind.'
“Monk, this is the reason that a certain serpent, born from a womb, observing the full moon observances, would even give up his body.”

Nāga Saṃyutta

~~~

So too, bhikkhus, those beings are few who, when they pass away from
  the animal realm, are reborn among human beings. But those beings are
  more numerous who, when they pass away from the animal realm, are
  reborn in hell.
For what reason? Because bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble
  Truths. What four? The noble truth of suffering, the noble truth of
  the origin of suffering, the noble truth of the cessation of
  suffering, the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of
  suffering.
SN 56.121 (no link)

~~~

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in
  Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time
  a large number of monks, after the meal, on returning from their alms
  round, had gathered at the meeting hall and were engaged in many kinds
  of animal topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers,
  & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink;
  clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles;
  villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip
  of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the
  creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or
  not.

AN
    10.70

Watching this whole video carefully about how Angulimala becomes an animal (murderer) then become a human being again (after being reformed by the Buddha) may also help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBkprM2JJQk

For the 'heavenly realms', MN 1 is useful. MN 1 describes the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th meditative absorptions (jhana) as various heavenly or godly states.

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed
  run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men
  of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma —
  perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives
  [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives
  [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he
  delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I
  tell you.
"He perceives water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind ...
  beings as beings... gods as gods...Pajapati as Pajapati...Brahma as
  Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent
  glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the
  gods of abundant fruit... the Conqueror as the Conqueror ... the
  dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the
  infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of
  consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness...
  the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the
  dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception ... the seen as the seen... the
  heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the
  cognized ... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity
  ... the All as the All ...
"He perceives Nibbana as Nibbana. Perceiving Nibbana as Nibbana, he
  conceives things about Nibbana, he conceives things in Nibbana, he
  conceives things coming out of Nibbana, he conceives Nibbanaas 'mine,'
  he delights in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended
  it, I tell you.

In MN 79, the jhanas are also described as a "world" ("loka") of pleasant feelings. Here, the word "world" is used to described a mental state, similar to many suttas such as SN 12.44 & AN 4.45, which refer to the "world of suffering".

Kiṃ panudāyi, atthi ekantasukho loko, atthi ākāravatī paṭipadā
  ekantasukhassa lokassa sacchikiriyāyā
Udayi, is there a world of only pleasantness? Is there a course of
  actions to realise that world of only pleasantness?
Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of
  demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processs and the mind in one point internally appeased, without
  thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with
  equanimuity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too,
  abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in
  pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions,
  for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa
  lokassa).

In MN 75, is discussed the Buddha's former life in the palace before he was monk. Here, the words "divine sensual pleasures" are used to describe the luxurious sensual pleasures of the rich & wealthy. Obviously, the heaven mentioned here (which was also understood by the non-Buddhist questioner) is not a heaven gained from doing good charitable deeds but a heaven of luxurious sensual pleasures:

Māgandiya, formerly when I lived the home life, I enjoyed myself,
  provided and endowed with the five cords of sensual pleasure: with
  forms cognizable by the eye…with sounds cognizable by the ear…with
  odours cognizable by the nose…with flavours cognizable by the
  tongue…with tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for,
  desired, agreeable, and likeable, connected with sensual desire and
  provocative of lust. I had three palaces, one for the rainy season,
  one for the winter, and one for the summer. I lived in the rains’
  palace for the four months of the rainy season, enjoying myself with
  musicians, none of whom were men, and I did not go down to the lower
  palace.
“On a later occasion, having understood as they actually are the
  origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the
  escape in the case of sensual pleasures, I abandoned craving for
  sensual pleasures, I removed fever for sensual pleasures, and I abide
  without thirst, with a mind inwardly at peace. I see other beings who
  are not free from lust for sensual pleasures being devoured by craving
  for sensual pleasures, burning with fever for sensual pleasures,
  indulging in sensual pleasures, and I do not envy them, nor do I
  delight therein. Why is that? Because there is, Māgandiya, a delight [i.e. meditative jhana]
  apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, which
  surpasses even divine bliss. Since I take delight in that, I do not
  envy what is inferior, nor do I delight therein.
“Suppose, Māgandiya, a householder or a householder’s son was rich,
  with great wealth and property, and being provided and endowed with
  the five cords of sensual pleasure, he might enjoy himself with forms
  cognizable by the eye…with sounds cognizable by the ear…with odours
  cognizable by the nose…with flavours cognizable by the tongue…with
  tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for, desired,
  agreeable, and likeable, connected with sensual desire and provocative
  of lust. Having conducted himself well in body, speech, and mind, on
  the dissolution of the body, after death, he might reappear in a happy
  destination, in the heavenly world in the retinue of the gods of the
  Thirty-three; and there, surrounded by a group of nymphs in the
  Nandana Grove, he would enjoy himself, provided and endowed with the
  five cords of divine sensual pleasure. Suppose he saw a householder or
  a householder’s son enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the
  five cords of human sensual pleasure. What do you think, Māgandiya?
  Would that young god surrounded by the group of nymphs in the Nandana
  Grove, enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the five cords of
  divine sensual pleasure, envy the householder or the householder’s son
  for the five cords of human sensual pleasure or would he be enticed by
  human sensual pleasures?”
“No, Master Gotama. Why not? Because divine sensual pleasures are more
  excellent and sublime than human sensual pleasures.”

In MN 37, Sakka, ruler of the Gods, lives in an actual palace, with rooms & many young sexy young women. If the godly realm here was a literal 'heaven' (in the clouds), why would there be a palace, with rooms?

Good sir Moggallana, it once happened that war broke our between the
  gods and the titans. In that war the gods won and the titans were
  defeated. When I had won that war and returned from it as a conqueror,
  I had the Vejayanta Palace Built. Good sir Moggallana, the Vejayanta
  Palace has a hundred towers, and each tower has seven hundred upper
  chambers, and each tower has seven nymphs and each nymph has seven
  maids. Would you like to see the loveliness of the Vejayanta Palace,
  good sir Moggallana?"

In SN 11.5, the 'democrat' gods (deva) & 'totalitarian' titans (asura) have a debate about how to rule people. The gods suggest patience & the titans suggest punishment. If gods is a heavenly place & the titans is hellish state of deprivation, how could the gods & titans have a debate with eachother about ruling the world of ordinary people?
Obviously, the 'gods' here refers to benevolent rulers & the 'titans' refer to tyrannical rulers of the human world who engaged in ideological & often military battle with eachother.

In summary, the word 'human' ('manussa') in Pali literally means to be 'high minded'. Therefore, it does not refer to 'people' ('puggalo') but to a state of mind.
When the scripture states: "there is this world & the other worlds", the term "this world" refers to the high virtuous human state of mind when having an audience with a Buddha or noble being. (It does not refer to the planet Earth).
MN 12 distinguishes between types of physical birth & forms of spontaneous mental birth:

"Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born
  generation and spontaneous generation.
"What is egg-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out of the shell of an egg; this is called egg-born
  generation. What is womb-born generation? There are these beings born
  by breaking out from the caul; this is called womb-born generation.
  What is moisture-born generation? There are these beings born in a
  rotten fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten dough, in a cesspit, or in
  a sewer; this is called moisture-born generation. What is spontaneous
  generation? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human
  beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous
  generation. These are the four kinds of generation.

I believe you have misinterpreted MN 38. The meaning of the passage is that, for one who has seen the truth of something for oneself, one need not rely on or point to another as their source of knowledge. There seems to be no implication that disciples shouldn't believe what a Buddha says.

You wrote, "There are scriptures where the planes of existence are metaphors"; but this could be a better answer if you were able to expand on that phrase. Which are the scriptures where the planes of existence are metaphors, and how do we know that they're metaphors in those scriptures? Is it only that animals are sometimes used as metaphors, that there are some animals-as--metaphor in some scriptures? Is there any evidence for whether heaven, hell, devas, etc., are "real" or "metaphorical"?

Thank you Chris but I am not exactly sure what you are asking? In AN 10.70, the term 'animal talk' is literally used to describe the worldly behaviour of monks. In SN 56.121, it is literally said an animal can 'realise' the 4 noble truths therefore this would be ludicrous if a dog, chicken, fish or worm could realise the 4 noble truth to gain a human rebirth. The Nāga Saṃyutta states a 'snake' is observing the Buddhist Uposatha & aspiring to do good karma. These suttas cannot be more self-evident & straightforward that the word 'animal' refers to conscienceless & immoral behaviour of people.

I guess I was asking, because: a) metaphors involving animals are not uncommon b) but that might not prove that the "realm" is a metaphor c) and maybe the "animal realm", for one, is real -- i.e. there really are animals? I guess I was asking: are the planes metaphors? All the planes, including heaven and hell? Saying "There are scriptures where the planes are metaphors" is a strong claim, I hoped you would identify at least one of those scriptures. You later added a reference to MN 1, so thanks! With that example (of a scripture) it's easier to understand the claim (that there are metaphors).

Adamokkha. I have not misinterpreted anything. The Buddha is only a guide. His words are to be initially trusted, investigated & realised. If any words in any scripture cannot be realised, they can be rejected. .

Thanks Chris but how it can ever be "proved" that a realm is NOT a metaphor? All that can be "proved" is a realm IS a metaphor. To assert non-metaphorical claims must be disproven is similar to the view that that existence of God must be accepted unless disproven. In MN 95, those that assert unproven things to exist are censured.

Dhammadhatu are you an annihilationist? The Buddha said that not believing karma or other realms is wrong view. No wonder why the Buddha said that if the counterfeit dharma arises then the true dharma will disappear. I don't remember which sutta but the Budda if someone says that there is no other realms or next world then they are engaging in false speech.

How do you know that these other realms are fake if you have never developed powers in the fourth jhana to see it? It seems like you are misinterpreting the words of the Buddha

This is like asking: "how do you know is God fake?"

There are six worlds, in it-self it makes one, then you have seven worlds...
Those six worlds are combined in three different ways*:

One and Two and Three | Four and Five and Six
One and Two | Three and Four | Five and Six
One and Four| Two and Five   | Three and Six

We now have fifteen "worlds", which can be either male or female: So we double and get thirty
The whole of it together makes one more.
*According to the I Ching scholars.

Here is how I see this:
First off let's not forget the definition of 'World/Loka'. Refer to Rohitassa Sutta or Loka Sutta

"I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.....

In short, 'world' is relative to one's six sense experience. And six sense(Salayathana) bases are made out of past karma(cause) and the experience based on those senses are vipaka(effect).
So the 31 planes of existence is nothing but 31 levels of sense base experiences.
This is can be further explained if we analyze the availability of senses in Kama Loka, Rupa Loka and Arupa Loka:
Loka     Senses
Kama     Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body, Mind
Rupa     Eye, Ear, Mind
Arupa    Mind

Also, this is evident as attaining to Rupa Jhana will result a birth in Rupa  Bhrama world and attaining Arupa Jhana will result a birth in Arupa worlds. So 31 planes of existence is 31 levels of deceived karmic experience. For example, If a being is deceived to the 6 sense bases; that's called Kama loka.


text:
How much faith do you need to become a buddhist?
Faith in hell and heaven, Karma, rebirth, other realms etc. because all of them can't be proved via scientific method. If you say that you can see them by yourself, how do you know that it is not an illusion like when we have a lucid dream. Thanks

There isn't one answer to this question.
For a start, there's more than one school of Buddhism: which have different doctrines, which you may find easier or harder to believe or understand.
Also,

It is said there are 84,000 dharma gates, or sometimes dharma doors, which is a fancy way of saying that people come to Buddhism in countless different ways.

One of the (many) variants of Buddhism in the West is apparently called Secular Buddhism, i.e.:

Secular Buddhists interpret the teachings of the Buddha and the Buddhist texts in a rationalist and often evidentialist manner, considering the historical and cultural contexts of the times in which the Buddha lived and the various suttas, sutras and tantras were written.
Within the framework of secular Buddhism, Buddhist doctrine may be stripped of any unspecified combination of various traditional beliefs that could be considered superstitious, or that can't be tested through empirical research, namely: supernatural beings (such as devas, bodhisattvas, nāgas, pretas, Buddhas, etc.), merit and its transference, rebirth, Buddhist cosmology (including the existence of pure lands and hells), etc.

Or, re. the traditional schools, the answers to What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? list many doctrines, none of which actually includes "faith in hell and heaven, Karma, rebirth, other realms". Maybe they were omitted by mistake, maybe they're not a doctrine that all schools share, or maybe they're just not important enough to mention.
IOW I think you can "become a buddhist" without much belief in, without faith in, and/or without much understanding of these doctrines.
I guess my introduction to Buddhism was the four noble truths -- and I'm not sure that took any faith at all. The first two truths seem self-evident to me (or matches my experience), the third would stand to reason as a logical corollary of the second, and the fourth therefore seems worth investigating further.
I agree with your question though. In my first question on this site I commented that a doctrine of "rebirth" might be "a reason why some people might reject the Buddhist teachings entirely without close examination".

For the sake of answering this question more completely, you might want to read more about what "faith" means in Buddhism. For example, according to one school (quoting from The Jewel Ornament Of Liberation):

In that case, what does “faith” mean? There are three kinds of faith: trusting, longing, and clear.
III. TRUSTING FAITH
Understand that this faith depends on the topic “cause and result”—the Truth of Suffering which comes from the Truth of Causation. Furthermore, it comes from trusting that happiness in the desire world is the fruit of virtuous causes. Trust that the suffering of the desire world is the result of nonvirtuous action. Trust that the happiness of the two higher realms is the result of unshakable causes. Trust that by engaging in the nonvirtuous actions of body, speech, and afflicting emotions, which are called the Truth of Causation, one obtains the five afflicted skandas, which are called the Truth of Suffering
IV. LONGING FAITH
Understanding the extraordinary nature of unsurpassable enlightenment, one follows the path with respect and reverence in order to obtain it.
V. CLEAR FAITH
Clear faith arises in one’s mind by depending on the Three Jewels. Develop devotion for and interest in the Buddha as the teacher who shows the path, the Dharma which becomes the path, and the Sangha which guides one in order to accomplish the path.

To the extent that there is faith, it maybe doesn't mean "belief in phenomena which can't be observed." Even if you can't observe "the two higher realms", you can observe the "afflicted skandhas" (or conversely, something like "lack of remorse" after virtuous behaviour).
Admittedly that's expecting to observe phenomena such as happiness, desire, virtue, and affliction -- maybe it's difficult to observe those "scientifically" (though, speaking of "scientific observation", people have begun to use an MRI to test monks' ability to use meditation to affect their own happiness), but it is a kind of thing you can evaluate for yourself.
One of Buddhism's own summaries of Buddhism (i.e. Buddhist Dhamma) is that the teaching doesn't require a lot of faith -- i.e. it doesn't say about itself, "Buddhism is ineffable, mysterious, the chief virtue is faith, and it can only be understood through faith." Instead here is an example of what it does say:

The Dhamma is well declared by the Blessed One: visible here and now (a.k.a. actual, belonging to this life), immediate (or maybe timeless), inviting to come and see, effective, to be individually (by oneself) ascertained (known) by the wise (intelligent).

You arrive at this right view by the practice of insight meditation guided by a correct conceptual understanding of the Dhamma.

In hardcore ('supramundane') Buddhism, it is taught the cause for the generation of faith is your personal experience of suffering or dissatisfaction with ordinary worldly life. To quote:

Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for
faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.
Upanisa Sutta

~

And what is the noble search? There is the case where a person, himself being subject to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeks
the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Nibbana. Himself being
subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing
the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement,
seeks the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, undefiled,
unexcelled rest from the yoke: Nibbana. This is the noble search.
Ariyapariyesana Sutta

In addition, the scriptures explain hearing the True Teaching is a cause of faith.

Faith, too, has its nutriment; it is not without a nutriment. And what is the nutriment of faith? 'Listening to the True Teaching,'
should be the answer.
AN 10.61

The hardcore scriptures explain individual people are drawn to eachother due to the individual genetic (dhatu) composition of their bio-psychology (nama-rupa). For certain individuals, hearing about unknowable things in Buddhism will turn them away from Buddhism therefore the purpose of Buddhism will never be achieved by anyone on the planet Earth (since craving for future lives, similar to how many Christians are interested in living forever, is contrary to the path to Nibbana).
Therefore, on the hardcore level, faith in external hells and heavens, karmic-rebirth, other realms etc, is not required, which is why in the 1st three sermons attributed to the Buddha, which gave rise to many enlightened beings, these things were not mentioned at all.
If you say that you can see them by yourself, yes, in hardcore Buddhism, this is considered to be an illusion like when we have a lucid dream. To quote:

Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There
he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height.
He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop
off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer
skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to
say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it,
observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing
it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void,
without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree?
In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any
mental fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external;
blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing
them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would
appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there
be in fabrications?
"Now suppose that a magician or magician's
apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and
a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately
examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately
examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for
what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a
monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that
is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle;
common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, &
appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without
substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?
Phena Sutta

In conclusion, if the mind can see clearly the illusionary nature of all mental phenomena & sense objects of consciousness, it should be already enlightened (therefore does not require to ask questions about faith in Buddhism).

Need I say, very well put. The answer speaks for itself.

you haven't actually quoted anything which says you can be on the supramundane path without belief in cause and effect. illusion doesn't mean nihilism

The noble truths are cause & effect. Kamma-vipaka is cause & effect. The supramundane path includes cause & effect. Seeiing the 3 characteristics resulting in dispassion is cause & effect. Where did I infer supramundane does not include cause & effect? As for 'nihilism', it is a 'self-view'. Nihilism does not mean impermanence at the end of life. Nihilism is the self-view that a 'self' ends at death. Read DN 1, Iti 49 & SN 12.17 about the meaning of 'nihilism'.

you don't need faith to become a Buddhist. Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance to a supernatural being.
No saviour concept in Buddhism. A Buddha is not a saviour who saves others by his personal salvation. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha as his incomparable guide who indicates the path of purity, he makes no servile surrender. A Buddhist does not think that he can gain purity merely by seeking refuge in the Buddha or by mere faith in Him. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others

Every Buddhist tradition claims that the agent of a (karmic) act experiences its result, even though the two are not the same. There is continuity.
I can't say for every tradition, but right view, which is the 1st link on the noble 8-fold path of Theravada, is often said to include belief in this cause and effect. You can read about right view here.
More generally, there's no need for any belief to consider yourself a non practicing Buddhist. And  I've read monks suggesting you practice zen without belief in karma.

The disciples of the Supreme Buddha are divided into two main categories: laity and clergy (Bhikkhus). These disciples only take refuge in the Triple Gem. They do not possess the weakness of taking refuge in various other views. That is called faith or Saddha. This faith has to be genuine and unflinching.
The Buddha’s disciples are genuinely faithful towards the Triple Gem. They are also wise, brave, and dignified. The disciples of the Buddha do not bow in front of other false views. They do not share the false pretense of grasping every belief as true and slip away from the truth.
Sadly in the present day and age there are many so-called-Buddhists that bear misguided and false views harming themselves and many around them.  In Sri Lanka specially, the country of my birth,  there are many who carry false beliefs while taking refuge in auspicious times according to asterism, auspicious signs, horoscopes, planetary objects, and the twelve houses of astrology. None of these have anything to do with Buddha’s teachings.
A disciple who has developed the powers of a Noble learner such as faith, virtue, learning, liberality and wisdom, has the qualities to receive a rebirth in those Deva Worlds (being born in the heavens). Such a disciple with the powers of a Noble learner could contemplate: "Devas too have noble qualities that I possess. After my death in this world, I can receive rebirth among the Devas". Thus the disciple with the powers of a Noble learner does the meditation called 'Contemplation of the Devas.' . In the Doctrine, there is a meditation called the 'Contemplation of Devas'. In it the Buddha spoke about The World of the Four, The World of the Thirty Three, Yama, Tusita, Nimmanarati, and Paramimmita Vasavarti. These are all Deva Worlds.
If one cannot lead a life of virtue and Dhamma in the worlds of Devas, The Buddha would not have taught His disciples how to meditate on the 'Contemplation of the Devas'. Another thing we know is that when the Buddha preached 'The Motion of the Wheel of Truth' (Dhamma Cakka Pavattana Sutta) only one person in the world of human beings reached fruition of the path, while Devas in twenty two worlds of Devas reached fruition of the path. This is mentioned in this same sutta.
In Samyukta Nikaya there are discourses called Devata Samyukta and Devaduta Samyukta. When these discourses were spoken by the Buddha, there were many beings from the world of Devas who reached the fruition of the Path. Sakkapanha Sutta in Digha Nikaya (collection of long discourses) shows that Sakra, the Lord of the Deva world of the Thirty Three had reached fruition of the Path. So does one need any more evidence than that?

With respect, it seems to me question-begging to say that the scriptures mention that beings in other worlds exist. Perhaps it is a matter of faith to trust those scriptures, and that is what you meant - I am not sure I understood the point - but it is at best circular. The Triple Gem is something nearly verifiable, whereas scriptures could be true or false, and ordinary people have no means to verify. Perhaps this is why the Buddha said to trust one's own experience? I would say that only the most elementary knowledge of the tenets is needed to become Buddhist, and no faith at all.

Buddhist philosophy is built on facts and not on faith. Once you studied facts carefully and question your self and practice the teaching you will see it through yourself.

It depends on individual. Some starts with small faith ends with big faith. Some starts with big faith ends with little faith.
An accomplished Buddhist practitioner has unwavering faith no matter what happens.


text:
Is preparing eggs for a meal considered as sinful in Buddhism?
When preparing a meal with eggs, If a person cracks a egg will it be bad karma? Because, It is considered that farm chicken eggs are not fertile or doesn't have chicks growing inside. Therefore will it give bad karma for making eggs?

I see over 99% of eggs as 'not alive' eggs (unfertilized eggs) and therefore is OK to eat.
Often eggs obtained from a farmers market have the potential to be fertile. So it is good to avoid them.  Also it is advisable to avoid eating crabs, lobsters as they are always cooked while alive. It is because these two come within the three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself).
I came accross this Dhammapada story that may be of interest to you..

Once there lived a woman in a village near Savatthi. She kept a hen and every time it laid an egg, the woman would break it up. The hen was very angry and as a result, she was reborn as a cat and the woman was reborn as a hen in the same house. The cat ate up the eggs of the hen. In their next existence, the hen became a leopard and the cat became a deer. The leopard ate up the deer as well as its offspring. Thus their feud continued for several existences. At the time of the Buddha, one of them was born as a woman and the other as an ogress.
On one occasion, the woman was returning from the house of her parents to her own house near Savatthi. Her husband and her young son were also with her. While they were resting near the pond by the roadside, her husband went to have a bath in the pond. At that moment, the woman saw the ogress who appeared in human form and she recognised her as her old enemy. Taking her child, she fled from the spirit straight to the monastery where the Buddha was expounding the Dhamma and put her child at his feet. The ogress who was in hot pursuit of the woman was prevented from entering the monastery. Summoning the ogress to his presence, the Buddha admonished both of them for their long bitter feud, 'If you two had not come to me today, your enmity would have continued endlessly. Enmity cannot be appeased by enmity; it can only be appeased by loving-kindness.' Reflecting on the admonition, both realised the futility of their hatred, both admitted their mistakes and resolved not to continue with their senseless feud.

http://suttanta.tripod.com/khuddhaka/dhammapada/dha214.html

I think the idea of sinful or not doesn't apply to Buddhism. There are only wholesome/skillful actions and unwholesome/unskillful actions.  Karma = intention.
As long as you are mindful of what you're doing and your intention is to prepare a meal for nourishment, instead of causing harm in any way, cracking an egg during the meal preparation doesn't seem to be a cause for bad karma.

Yes its a Sin. the Buddha said if you like to eat, eat but it is a Sin.
Exa: when Devadaththa, He requested the Buddha to make it compulsory for monks to follow five extra rules:
(i) Dwell all their lives in the forest
(ii) Live only on alms obtained by begging
(iii) Wear robes made from rags collected from the dust heaps and cemeteries
(iv) Live at the foot of trees
(v) Refrain from eating fish or meat throughout their lives.

But Buddha refused these Rules. so as u can see last rule request is Refrain from eating fish or meat throughout their lives Buddha refuse this Rule with Other rules. Buddha said if you like to eat meat or fish its your decision.


text:
Prohibitions against eating certain animals?
I sometimes see rules suggesting that monks (at least Theravadan) should not eat various animals. The lists vary, but includes to varying degree: elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, hyenas, slugs, cows, and humans.
When I try to find something authoritative about this, I've come up short. Can anyone shed light on: (1) is there a list of animals that monks are prohibited from eating, and if so, (2) where does this appear in the canon, and (3) how/why were the particular animals listed?

Page 308 of The Patimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

The Mahavagga (Mv.VI.23.9-15) forbids ten kinds of flesh: that of human
  beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas.
To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; to eat any of the other unallowable
  types, a dukkata. Human beings, horses, and elephants were regarded as too
  noble to be used as food. The other types of meat were forbidden either on
  grounds that they were repulsive (“People criticized and complained and spread
  it about, ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks eat dog meat? Dogs are loathsome,
  disgusting’”) or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion’s flesh, went into the
  jungle; the lions there, instead of criticizing or complaining, attacked them).
The Commentary adds three comments here: (a) These prohibitions cover
  not only the meat of these animals but also their blood, bones, skin, and hide
  (the layer of tissue just under the skin—see AN 4.113). (b) The prohibition
  against dog flesh does not include wild dogs, such as wolves and foxes, (but
  many teachers—including the Thai translator of the Commentary—question this
  point). The flesh of a half-dog half-wolf mixture, however, would be forbidden.
  (c) The prohibition against snake flesh covers the flesh of all long, footless beings.
  Thus eels would not be allowed.

"the lions there, instead of criticizing or complaining, attacked them". Idk why I laughed out loud about this, but very true.

According to Vinaya Pitaka -> Mahavagga pali-> Bhesajjakkanda; following 10 meats are prohibited for ordained monks.

Human
Elephant
Horse
Dog
Snake
Lion
Tiger
Leopard
Bear
Hyena

The following are prohibited for ordained monastics in the Theravada tradition
Bear
Dog
Elephant
Horse
Human
Hyena
Lion
Leopard
Snake
Tiger
It was considered that the odours emitted from a human being who has eaten the flesh of these animals would cause them to be seen as a threat by the same. This perhaps would particularly apply to forest dwelling monastics as they may be likely to come into contact with the listed animals.


text:
Problem solving attitude
While I could clearly improve my awareness and intuition through meditation, I want to improve my problem solving skills, not giving up attitude, analytical skills and interpersonal skills. Can meditation help me in this and how should I go about meditating for this?

Possible duplicate of Are there meditation practices that improve logical problem solving skills?

Wanting to improve and having expectations is in Buddhism seen as the cause of suffering. Meditation can't help you to gain your goals, but you learn how to be content with the way things already are. As a side effect you become a better person and have a better attitude, but this is not the goal of meditation. The goal of (Buddhist) meditation is insight.

There is something that you and I can learn from Buddha when it comes to inter-personal dynamics. Whenever Buddha, welcomed questions, he was also open to any queries of argumental nature and debates. He viewed the questioner as one who was intent on learning, even if the exchange of words was heated, and therefore led to a positive result.  Even those listening to such debates learnt from it.
So meditation alone will not help you achieve all of those lofty goals that you have set for yourself, but if you study the Dhamma found in the scriptures and apply them to your life you will achieve all of your aims and more.
In Supreme Buddha’s dispensation, until we become Stream Entrants (Sotha-Aapanna), we have to be in the company of others.  Even after they attained spiritual heights, Buddha advised the monks to return to society to be in service for the benefit of others. This is another reason for Buddha to refuse  Devadatta’s five proposals as he did not want to make monks lead totally secluded lives.
In the Parabhava Sutta and Vasala Suttas for instance show how to perform one’s duties and responsibilities to others and maintain positive social relationships. Practicing these principles helps one to realize one’s self-worth that is necessary for all positive social relationships.
There’s a series of meditations called guardian meditations, which are very helpful in using skillful perceptions to get the mind in the right mood, in the right attitude, with the right understanding, as you come into the present moment.
In order to love others one ought to love oneself first. That is why the Loving Kindness meditation starts with oneself.  One wants to be happy, safe and live long as much as others. So in Loving Kindness meditation one meditates thinking “May I be free from suffering... free from ill will... free from anger… may I be happy…  free from hostility and trouble and live happily.” Thereafter, one can meditate thinking “May those who are known to me, those who need my assistance, those who are indifferent to me, those who hate me, also be happy, free from sorrow and suffering.” A person who is unhappy, jealous and stressed will never make positive relationships with others, but one who cultivates the four brahma‐viharas, develop healthy inter-personal dynamics.
When the Buddha talked about goodwill in the brahma‐viharas, it wasn’t ordinary, everyday goodwill. It was goodwill all around, without limit. A person who cultivates social emotions like love (metta), compassion (karuna), joy (mudita) and equanimity (upekkha) will find the defiling emotions like ill-will and hatred cease to exist. In their turn compassion or Karuna, will make one active and happy since it means attending to the needs of others.
In Singalovada Sutta, the Buddha was told by Sigala that one should worships six directions. Six directions according to the Buddha were, as he advised Singala…
East Parents (when one is a son or daughter); South Teachers (when one is a pupil); West wife (When one is a husband); North friends (When one is also a friend); Up Clergy (When one is lay person); and Down Employer (When one is an employee).
Then in order to not get upset from the eight vicissitudes of life, you can practice Equanimity meditation (Upēkshā Bhāvanā). One who practices equanimity will not mourn when sufferings and troubles come. Upekkhā meditation can be cultivated in Mahaggata Chētō Vimukkti and Appamānha Chētō Vimukkti methods similar to the Mettā and Mudita meditations.
One can cultivate Muditā meditation [Altruistic-joy meditation (Muditā Bhāvanā)] to get rid of discontent about wholesome actions. The happiness we feel about others’ progress/wellbeing is Muditā. One can thrive with money, lands, vehicles, and so on by earnest and righteous livelihoods. If we can be happy by seeing such development of others without getting angry about it, it is Muditā.
Benefits of practicing the loving-kindness meditation are clearly shown in the Mettānisansa Sutta in Anguttara Nikāya. Those benefits are:  Sleeps well;  Wakes up well;  Does not dream nightmares;   Becomes likable to humans; Becomes likable to ghost beings; Gets protected by divine beings;  Does not come any harm from poisons or weapons;  Can attain concentration quickly;  Gets his/her body colorful/bright;  Dies consciously; Will be born higher plains.
Then lastly you can apply the same method that Buddha wanted us to use when learning Dhamma, when doing other studies. Learning is a gradual process. The Supreme Buddha said that his method is gradual training, gradual action and gradual practice. Methodology of learning:
It starts with careful listening with full attention (Suthaa).
Then what he has heard has to be registered in the mind (dhathaa).
The next step is to familiarize himself with what has learned by reciting (vacasa paricita).
Then it has to be internalized with pondering over it, contemplating the meaning by applying it to yourself.  (Manasaanupekkhitha)
The next step is practicing what one has learned to become a real know-er of the teaching - The realization. It is the result of the above 4 actions.  (Ditthiya Suppatividdha)