text:
Is there a way to "reset" all karmic conditions with immediate effect?
It is my basic understanding that certain actions such as killing one's parents or harming the Buddha has immediate karmic reactions. Are there actions that have immediate "wholesome" outcomes or ones that allow you to start with a clean slate?

There is a very famous simile in the Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal. An excerpt:

"There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.

The Buddha gives a simile of dropping a salt crystal into a cup and asking if the water was fit to drink and, of course, the answer is no. It would be too salty due to the small amount of water in the cup. The Buddha then asks if a salt crystal were to be dropped into the  Ganges River if it would be fit to drink and, or course, the answer is yes because of the large amount of water in the river.
So the same action does not necessarily lead to the same effect nor to the same length of time for the ripening of the effect. The Buddha then gave some very helpful details of what type of people may experience lessor effects of their bad karma.

Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual takes him to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in the body, 2 undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind [i.e., painful feelings can invade the mind and stay there], undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering.   A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in the body,[3] developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.

So while there may not be an immediate reset button to avoid the effects of past karmic actions, there is the idea of performing wholesome actions now and building merit to dilute "the salt" of past bad deeds and to become the type of person who experiences lessor effects of bad karma. Some people concentrate on building merit by giving offerings (dana), by practicing virtue (sila), and by practicing meditation (bhavana) in this effort.

Kamma is actually Fourfold. Take a look at the picture i have attached. It shows the four aspects of kamma, i.e. Function, Ripening, Time of Ripening and Place of Ripening.
Click on photos for full size

It will be too lengthy to treat all four aspects here so i would recommend the reading of the chapter about kamma. It can be found in the book "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, p. 200-220.
I no not know how to answer the "resetting-aspect" of the question so i will instead address the 3. aspect of kamma, i.e. the Time of Ripening of kamma and in here the "Immediately effective kamma".
First a definition of this type of kamma:

"Immediately effective (diμμhadhammavedan2ya) kamma is kamma which, if it is to ripen, must yield its results in the same existence in which it is performed; otherwise, if it does not meet the opportunity to ripen in the same existence, it becomes defunct. According to the Abhidhamma, of the seven javanas in a javana process, the first javana moment, being the weakest of all, generates immediately effective kamma"
Ibid.

Here are 2 examples of "Immediately Effective Kamma", p. 280-281:

"A husband and his wife possessed only one upper garment to wear when they went out-of-doors. One day the husband heard the Dhamma from the Buddha and was so pleased with the Doctrine that he wished to offer his only upper garment, but his innate greed would not permit him to do so. He com- batted with his mind and, ultimately overcoming his greed, offered the garment to the Buddha and exclaimed “I have won, I have won.” The king was delighted to hear his story and in appreciation of his generosity presented him thirty-two robes.
  The devout husband kept one for himself and another for his wife and offered the rest to the Buddha."
"A hunter who went hunting to the forest, followed by his dogs, met by the wayside a Bhikkhu who was proceed- ing on his alms round. As the hunter could not procure any game he thought it was due to the unfortunate meeting of the Bhikkhu. While returning home he met the same Bhikkhu and was deeply enraged at this second encounter. In spite of the entreaties of the innocent Bhikkhu the hunter set the dogs on him. Finding no escape therefrom, the Bhikkhu climbed a tree. The wicked hunter ran up to the tree, and pierced the soles of the Bhikkhu’s feet with the point of an arrow. The pain was so excruciating that the robe the Bhikkhu was wear- ing, fell upon the hunter completely covering him. The dogs, thinking that the Bhikkhu had fallen from the tree, devoured their own master."

Important note: The "Javana-process" of a thought-process is being mentioned. If you have questions about that i will try to explain it but if i do it here the post will be too lengthy and complex so maybe you could ask a new question about that or we could have a chat about it. Let me know if it becomes actuality.

Thanks Lanka. I will drop an email since it is very unclear to me.

Feel free to do that. Let's see if we can get it sorted out. Remember also to not get too involved or frustrated with the intellectual aspect of the teachings. They can be quite complex. The most important things can only be understood experientially, i.e. through the practice of insight meditation.

Ill try to get back to you soon as possible.

It's because your slate is dirty, that you have come into being in this very same body and are subjected to suffering.
By attaining Nirvana in this very same body, your slate is not cleaned - you just become unaffected by your dirty slate due to attainment of Nirvana.
When you become unaffected by your dirty slate, your dirty slate will have no effect, thus you will enjoy a happy life no matter what happens to you in this very same life.
When you become unaffected by your dirty slate, your dirty slate will have no effect, thus you will enjoy a happy death in this very same life no matter how you die.
When you become unaffected by your dirty slate, your dirty slate will have no effect, thus it will not perpetuate future births after your death and you will be what you truly are.
When you are what you truly are, the rest is extinct, even your slate.
As you can see, you don't need to clean your slate to enjoy a happy life. You just need to find a way leading to Nirvana, thus making your mind unaffected by your slate.
The dirtier your slate is, the harder it will be for you to find a way leading to Nirvana. The dirt will cloud your mind and you won't be able to realize the truth leading to Nirvana.
No matter how dirty a slate is, the more a being strives to live life as Buddha taught his followers, the more the slate will become cleaner.
Thus, following the teachings of the Buddha is the way to clean ones slate enough in order to attain Nirvana.

A complete reset? I'm afraid not, unless you can save the entire world. I might recommend the book "Instant Karma: 8,879 Ways to Give Yourself and Others Good Fortune Right Now" with instruction on starting the process with practical suggestions ranging from quick and easy to very involved. It's simple but not easy. Unlike some religions in which you simply swear an oath, good karma demands effort and hard work. That is what will change your world and your life.


text:
What is the attitude of Buddhists to "repulsive animals"?
I recently started watching a documentary about Buddhism and animals and am curious to understand how the relationship extends to often what we as humans consider "repulsive" e.g. rodents, cockroaches, etc. If the intention is to keep these at bay without harm, how does one achieve that?

I've amended your title so it summarises the content of the question. Please rollback if it is not an appropriate edit.

The most skillful way would be to ordain as a monk, foregoing the ownership of a house and not having to worry about it. Aside from that, the most you can probably hope to do is keep a clean house and don't let the conditions arise for  them to come to you.

Here's a good video on this issue: Ask A Monk: Dealing With Pests
This video includes advice that there are three Buddhist ways to deal with a problem:

Avoid the situation (e.g. shave head to avoid lice)
Find alternative non-violent solutions (e.g. repel ants using talcum powder or butter instead of poison; catch rats using humane traps; catch mosquitos in a cup and carry them outside)
Accept the situation and let go (mental well-being is more important than physical well-being; and mindfulness often leads to being able to resolve a situation)

That assumes that a monastery is not plagued by similar conditions or environments.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can someone be Buddhist and Christian at the same time?
Are there any  contradictions between the Catholic Christianity and Buddhism(main stream)? Can someone be a Christian and Buddhist at the same time?
I am looking for contradictions. Would you specify the inconsistencies between the two ideas? Do these ideas logically negate each other? And besides, Are there any ritual or ceremonies in one system that are opposed in another?

There are already dozens of older topics tagged [tag:christianity] and [tag:comparative-religion] in which such a question has already been asked, including Can a person live by the Dhamma and have another religion as well? and Mixing Buddhism with other religions. and many others. I think I ought to close this question as a duplicate (the question has already been asked), or "too broad" or "primarily opinion-based".

It would be a broad (too broad?) question if you were to ask for a specification of the "inconsistencies" just between different schools of Buddhism; let alone all Semitic religions too. Also there are a wide variety of Christians too, of whom some don't believe in God or in rituals.

@ChrisW I tried to make the question narrower. Hope that makes it conformimg to the rules

Thanks and welcome to the site. Someone opened a meta-topic now about this question, which I hope you'll be able to make sense of, and which other users too might post their opinion/answers in: How should this “re-open”-post be reviewed?

@ChrisW Thanks, I put some explanations there.

This is not a duplicate of the Orthodox Christianity and Buddhism question.  Plus, that has been closed.  It is sad when moderators have no regard for the truth.

@Tharpa If you want to discuss whether a question should be closed or reopened, please post a new topic on Meta -- see for example topics tagged [meta-tag:specific-question].

From my knowledge, it night be quite difficult to practice both, but still might be possible. The Buddha had a few quotes that contradict the teachings of Jesus.
The Buddha said:

‘There are some monks and priests who believe that whatever pleasant, painful or neutral experience someone has, all that is due to a supreme god. I approached them and asked if they believed this and they said they did. Then I said, “So according to you, if someone is a murderer, thief, adulterer or liar, a foul-mouth, greedy, hate-filled heretic, all that must be due to a supreme god.” When someone falls back on a supreme god as the answer, there (should logically be) no will to do, no desire to do, no necessity to do this or avoid that. Such a person is confused, vulnerable and cannot honestly call themselves a true monk or priest. This is my rightful refutation to those who believe such ideas, such views.’ -The Buddha (Tittha Sutta)

The other one I know about is the following:

‘Why does God not straighten out the world? If he really is the Controller, the Highest, Lord of All Beings, why is the whole world in such a mess? Why did he not make the world happy? If he really is the Controller, the Highest, Lord of All Beings, why is there so much deceit, lies, pride and unrighteousness? If he really is the Controller, the Highest, Lord of All Beings, then he must be unrighteous and cruel because it was he who made everything.’ -The Buddha (Ja. VI,208

In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha makes it clear of when a teaching should be accepted:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything just because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything  merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been passed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis. When you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." -The Buddha (Kalama Sutta)

Here the Buddha makes it clear that you must not believe in anything on faith, and Christianity takes a little faith, no? I am also sure that there are Bible verses, and denominations of Christianity that might not allow you to follow Christianity with other religions.
Now don't get me wrong. One could still follow the Eightfold Path that was taught by the Buddha while believing in Jesus Christ.

Right view
Right intention
Right action
Right speech
Right livelihood
Right effort
Right mindfulness
Right concentration

I would argue Christianity takes not a little faith, but is predicated upon faith, without reality as its basis. Buddhism takes reality and experience as its basis, and takes faith not as a necessity, but as a supporting condition that arises when the teaching becomes realized for oneself. And I also would not agree and cannot see how a Christian could follow the Noble Eightfold path. How would they be able to attain right view while trying to reconcile reality with the Bible?

Christianity holds that eternal salvation is achieved only through Jesus Christ being accepted into ones heart as a personal savior. Whereas right view in the Noble Eightfold Path holds the Four Noble Truths, which clearly state the path to the cessation of suffering to be other than Jesus Christ. Therefore, I cannot see how the two views can both be held.

@Ryan let me explain what I mean. A Christian could still follow the Noble Eightfold Path. They can still develop Right View. Right View is the opposite of Wrong View. The Buddha taught that there are 62 types of wrong view http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=62_kinds_of_wrong_view Just as long as a Christian does not believe in those kinds of wrong view, sees the truth of suffering, and path to ending suffering, then they have right view. They will; however, drop some of their Christian beliefs because of their meditation insight.

They accept Jesus Christ as a saviour because they want to go to heaven, not because they want to end suffering. So your second comment needs no further refutation. @Ryan

In Christianity, heaven is more or less synonymous with the cessation of suffering. Christians want to go to heaven, because the alternative is an eternity of damnation and suffering. In this way, as the alternative to heaven is hell, the acceptance of Jesus Christ IS the Christians cessation of suffering.

Also, from the list of 62 wrong views, there are at least some which cannot be reconciled with a Christian world view:

The one who recalls a past existence in a heavenly plane where he was subject to a more powerful deva and thus, thinks in this life that the more powerful deva is an eternal, all- powerful God. Such a person proclaims that deva to be the one-all-powerful God, creating or following a mono-theist religion, which is essentially wrong view.

#5 to say the least, in addition to the numerous views of the self after death

I see your point in your first comment. @Ryan however the aims of us is to end suffering in this life or future ones. In Christianity it is to end suffering in a place that is eternal. So they are different types of ending suffering addressed. So one can still follow both, unless one is a Christian who believes in one life.

The aim of the Noble Eightfold Path is the cessation of suffering. Not in this life, or the next, but in totality. And suffering is suffering. There isn't Buddhist suffering and Christian suffering. Only suffering.

Even though they have wrong view, they still may very well be both Christian and Buddhist, but in the end they will drop Christian beliefs because they've gotten rid of wrong view. I have said that in NT earlier comment in this phrasing: "…They will however drop some of their Christian beliefs because of their meditation."

Yes you are correct that we try to end suffering altogether, but we try to become Arahants in this life, or we at least try to become Sotapannas so we will live no more than seven lives until we attain Arahantship. That is what I meant when I said, "the aims of us is to end suffering in this life or future ones." @Ryan

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


text:
How is a Buddha able to do things beyond the laws of cause-and-effect?
A Buddha/Bodhisattva is one who has Awakened and is free from some basic laws of the universe such as karma, reincarnation, the fetters, and various other afflictions.
In the sutras, such as the Surangama Sutra and Diamond Sutra, such Ones are also able to manifest many other effects -- well beyond beyond cause-and-effect, able to shape shift, squeeze thousands of beings into a small house, etc.
This is understandable considering that a One is already beyond cause-and-effect and thus would be able to manifest such things skillfully and according to needs.
So my question is... how is this possible?
According to my teacher, it is the transformation of the aggregates including form and volition... it is still within realm of cause-and-effect... a Buddha is not free from all laws of cause-and-effect.
I'd like to know what others know about this rather unimportant topic.

That sounds like it might be one of the Four Unconjecturables.

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[ 1 ] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[ 2 ]
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
Notes
1.
  I.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha.
2.
  I.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana.

But that is an interesting question. :)

Thank you This is correct but i will wait for some Abhidharma answer before selecting this one..

(not @Robin111, but (at)Thanissaro Bhikkhu) That's wrong... How can a quote be opened but not closed ? That makes me uneased. There a no quote in the text from which it was translated http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sltp/AN_II_utf8.html#pts.080

@Danielson When to Use Closing Quotes and How should I use quotation marks in sections of multiline dialogue?

@ChrisW thanks for the reference! Obviously my brain is wrong - tough luck. I hope I can get over myself. Or change the English language in favour of my brains :p

A Buddha/Bodhisattva is one who has Awakened and is free from some basic laws of the universe such as karma

This is not the case. The reason a Buddha has to continue to live out the remainder of his human life despite being enlightened is due to the weight of his karma that brought about the final human existence.
As for how it is possible? It is possible because such is the power of a developed mind. Just as it is possible for a child that has learned to walk to be able to walk, as the body is capable of such, so is it possible for the mind to interact with reality in this way.
The Fruits of the Contemplative Life

Buddhas remain because of their 1st vow.. "I will save all beings and will not enter Nirvana until all beings are saved".. Also the other vows

thats my fault then, i failed to see the Mahayana tag on your question; disregard.

I actually didn't put the Mahayana tag and this might be a different question entirely but in Theravada is Buddhahood and Arhathood the same thing? Also, both supposedly go into some sort of extinction right, a 9th samadhi?

A Buddha in the Theravada is self enlightened and has unobstructed knowledge of whatever he wants to know. An Arahant becomes enlightened under the teaching of a Buddha. The 9th samadi is the cessation of feelings and perceptions.

Also, in the Theravada, upon death, the Buddha enters into parinirvana, an unconditioned state of being. In Mahayana the claim is made that a Buddha exists eternally.

authors: Евгений Моисеенко


text:
Can someone please guide me to theravada buddhist monastery in France or Netherland?
Looking for someone who could guide me to Theravada Buddhist monastery in France or Netherland on July

Is this or this what you were looking for, i.e. is that an answer to this question?

I just checked the link. Actually i don't have idea which monastery i should go. I will only two days in france and already have full schedule for city tour. I think I just have time night time. Are you from france @ChrisW ?

I just checked the link. Actually i don't have idea which monastery i should go. I will only two days in france and already have full schedule for city tour. I think I just have time night time. Are you from france @ChrisW

I am in France, but not near Paris. I can read French, if that's any help: if you want me to search for something specific on the internet. Two days with already a full schedule isn't very much time.

This page, Les Centres et les Temples Bouddhistes à Paris (75) says it lists Buddhist centres and temples in Paris. Almost all of them are either Zen or Tibetan.
This one is Theravada (Thai Forest):
18. Association Bouddhique Theravâda "Vivekârâma"
école : Theravâda (tradition des "moines de forêt" de Thaïlande)

lieu de pratique : 14 rue Philibert Lucot 75013 Paris

siège social : c/o Michel-Henri Dufour
22 rue de la Grange Aubel 71000 Sancé Tél. 03.85.20.14.42

Their web site is at http://vivekarama.fr/activites-3/activites-paris
which says they have 3-hour guided sessions every third Sunday, and free sessions once a month on Fridays (it's not a temple, they meet in a room somewhere).
They have a calendar here and they ask you to contact them (by email I suppose) first.
So that's not a monastery.

This search finds no Theravada in Paris.

There's a centre that's near Paris: http://centrebouddhique.fr/ It's near the "Le Bourget" airport. They have a calendar here.

There's a Pagoda in Vincennes which is virtually inside Paris (Vincennes are a wood or park, on the south east edge of Paris): it's not Theravada and not a monastery but is a multi-denominational Buddhist place (without a teacher) that might be within your reach if you have limited time in Paris.

If you're looking for Theravada monasteries, this map says it shows the Theravada monasteries in Europe.
The two which are near Paris have these web sites:

http://dhammayutta.free.fr/ (located 11 km from Paris, beware that the web site is 2012)
http://www.burmeseclassic.org/dir.php
U Kumara Association Bouddhiste Birmane
63 Avenue Maurice Thorez 94200 Ivry sur seine France.
Tel: 33 (0) 146717240, 33 (0) 677463943

In summary I don't know whether you'll be able to go to a Theravada Buddhist monastery in France.

If you have questions about travel rather than Buddhism there's a Travel.SE site which may be useful.

Thanks for your help @ChrisW.i had  checked all links you gave me.  Hopefully still have free time for me to go one of those monastery .

If you go to this website you will see a list of theravada monasteries in The Netherlands.
If you press one of them there is more information such as email, website and also google maps to easier find their location.

Very thank you lanka

Your welcome. Good luck.

Since you mentioned elsewhere that you like Thich Nhat Hanh, you may want to visit his monastery, Plum Village, in Bordeauax, France - http://plumvillage.org
It is a beautiful monastery with very mature practitioners both lay and ordained.
Thich Nhat Hanh is Vietnamese Zen, not Theravada but a great practitioner and in my opinion a living Bodhisattva.
Edit: You say you only have 2 days. I don't know where in France you will be, but it is a big country, and getting to Bordeaux from Paris will take a 1-2 hour flight, and a bus or car from there to the monastery - about 100kms.

Yes. I agree with you. Thich nhat hanh is a living Bodhisattva. I always feel calm while listening his speech even still i can watch from youtube;) It's quite far to get that monastery I thought. Hopefully I still have free time to get there. Are you from France  @Buddho?

@sherly I used to live nearby, but no longer. If you can manage the time please consider a retreat there, it is life changing.

Sure. I also want to do retreat  if possible @buddho

@sherly excellent, may you get the time and opportunity.

Yes, If I lived in France or able to get a France visa I would definitely visit Plum Village and maybe become a monk there. That's a wonderful place but they take too much money even from the monk candidates

Paris International Buddhist Center ( paris vihara ) is one of the oldest and well-established Buddhist Temples in Europe.


text:
Choosing between wrong actions
Recently I found myself having a conversation about having to choose between wrong actions. It begun with the following scenario:

While walking through the forest a rabbit passes by your side, and you see the direction it goes. Seconds after that, a hunter arrives from the same direction the rabbit did, and asks you in which direction the rabit went. Everything points that the hunter wants to kill the rabbit. Would you lie to the hunter about the direction the rabbit went, in order to save the rabbit's life and the hunter's karma?

Here I see at least two limbs of the eightfold path that collide. On one hand, right speech tells me not to lie. On the other, right action and intention tells me not to kill nor be accomplice of killing by acting in such a way that will lead to that.
Since that I'd been thinking about it, and about whether it has sense to balance my beliefs, to calculate which precepts, paramis, limbs, etc. are more important, or more leading to illumination.
What I think right now is that it could be that sometimes the best option would be to break a rule I decided to live by, but I lack the wisdom to make that calculation. Also, if I see myself in a situation where I have to choose between which belief to betray, most probably I'm lacking the wisdom to see the third choice, since, I don't have to choose which tool (thinking of this beliefs as tools) leave.
I'd like to share it with you so new points of view and conclusions can arise and we can improve our understanding of our own paths.
PS: I tried to ask the question as clearly and neatly as I could, but I feel like it is a bit confusing. Please, feel free to change anything if you think that through that change it'll be clearer.

See also Enlightened Lies - Can lying be the correct action in certain situations?

You could choose to say the following:
"Yes i know which direction the rabbit went. I do however choose not to share that information since it will probably lead to the killing of the animal and the creation of unwholesome kamma for you (hunter)".
This way you are honest but choose not to give the information because you know what might happen. This way the rabbit might still be found and killed by the hunter but you did what you could to prevent both the killing and the hunter from performing unwholesome deeds.
How can the rabbit perform unwholesome kamma?
If the mind of the rabbit is not developed enough it might give rise to strong aversion when killed by a hunter. If the rabbit instead dies a natural death, e.g. of old age it might have less or no aversion to the experience thereby creating less unwholesome kamma. This might result in rebirth in a higher realm for the rabbit.
What is important here is your Volition and Intention. You have a wholesome intention that is based in one of the 3 wholesome roots (kusala-mula), namely non-hatred (adosa). Since the intention is not tainted or polluted by the 3 unwholesome roots the action will be beneficial for oneself and others.
Said in another way. If the source is not tainted the ones that drink from it risk no infection.

Just because someone asks for something, does not mean you're obligated to provide it. The third option is to ask the hunter why, and say "Not telling." if he's set out to kill the rabbit.

The option remains to simply say nothing. I find that to be an often-forgotten option in many, many circumstances.

You are stuck in a dilemma which is caused by your own suffering. If you lie to the hunter, you suffer. If you tell the truth to the hunter, you suffer.
It's because of your suffering that you have difficulties in choosing an appropriate action. It's because of your suffering your mind can't discern wrong action from right action, wrong view from right view, wrong doing from right doing.
In choosing between a set of actions and if one action from the set must be chosen, you should choose the one that creates lesser suffering to others. This is hard to do if you are not liberated from your own suffering. Your suffering would condition your decision, thus clouding your mind in discerning good from wrong.
Nonetheless, you should always act according to your right view. While acting according to your right view, new knowledge will be gained and your right view would probably become wrong view. When right view becomes wrong view, wrong view will be replaced with a new right view, and so on, until the attainment of freedom from suffering.
You already answered your question:

What I think right now is that it could be that sometimes the best option would be to break a rule I decided to live by, but I lack the wisdom to make that calculation. Also, if I see myself in a situation where I have to choose between which belief to betray, most probably I'm lacking the wisdom to see the third choice, since, I don't have to choose which tool (thinking of this beliefs as tools) leave.

You lack wisdom. Why? Because suffering has not yet been extinct within you.
Continue on your way towards illumination, strive as you're striving right now, new wisdom will be gained and sooner or later liberation from suffering will be reached and true wisdom attained.

Suppose you were able to tell the hunter,

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
(from the Dhammapada)

I'd guess that reply, that speech, would be neither lying nor being an accomplice.
I'm not sure whether that speech would be welcome (by the hunter) or timely, but that's a separate consideration.
most probably I'm lacking the wisdom to see the third choice
Yes I'm guessing that there is a third choice: if the question were "Should I choose 'this evil', or 'that evil'?" then the answer might be, ideally, "no" to both.

What rabbit?
The deep thinkers need to consider they are [likely] talking to an armed person.  This reduces the probability of unintended consequences for yourself and gives the rabbit a fighting chance.

You took the hypothetical anecdotal story so literally that your answer doesn't actually even touch the philosophical side of the question. OP is not in a forest IRL chasing a rabbit.....

Assuming you have to pick one and "not telling" is  too much of an easy way out, I would say be honest with the hunter.
The hunter is a hunter, has hunted plenty and if he fails to catch one rabbit, that is hardly going to, for want of better word, "save" him from an undesirable rebirth (because he still wants to kill it). He breaks a precept for a living, but if you're honest, at least he has a chance at making the right choice if you also try to appeal to his compassion.
If the rabbit is killed, then that isn't so bad for will it really be reborn as something lesser than a rabbit?
Just my two cents. Not sure how this option would affect you, the person that has to make the choice, karma-wise. You're indirectly responsible for killing, if that is what the hunter decides to do, but your intent is still good.

Not answering may be more evil than lying to the hunter, if the hunter is likely to find the rabbit anyway.  Lying may cause the hunter to actually lose the rabbit (through wasted search), so silence is not as neutral as some have portrayed it to be.
To make the situation even more interesting, what if the hunter appeared to be emaciated, and you knew that any edible plants in the forest were the property of a jealous landlord, who would surely punish someone who chose to eat them?  Then, not helping the hunter may, in fact, be the greater evil.
Or, what if there are only two obvious paths the rabbit could take, and the hunter asks: "Did you see the rabbit go to the left?  I will assume that any answer but an affirmative means that you saw it go to the right."  Now there is no such thing as a non-answer, because silence is explicitly taken as a response by the hunter, and if the answer is wrong, then you are surely lying (rather than merely witholding information).
In fact, you cannot know whether it is better to help or hinder the hunter.  Perhaps the hunter is a fugitive from the law who has harmed many people.  Then, even if he appears to be a victim of a ruthless landlord, it is perhaps better to let him starve.  Or perhaps, after feasting upon the rabbit, the hunter is later enlightened and sacrifices his life for the greater good, which would not have occurred had you deterred him.  Both the past and the future determine the goodness or suffering of any given action.  You cannot possibly know all the facts, so really, all actions are right.

Illustration of your logic in a nutshell: "You cannot possibly know all of your kids names, so really, all names are right."

You of course can  be silent or state that you cannot tell as you are a Buddhist opposed to killing. However the bigger issue is in most cultures including some Buddhist cultures killing animals for food is quite acceptable.  Should we not accept this as the way it is?


text:
Why the Buddha didn't originally allow ordination of women
Is it true that the Buddha didn't allow women in the Sangha? If this is true then why is that?

Interesting, this is the first question answered in this month's Buddhism.SE Book-of-the-Month Women in Buddhism - Questions & Answers.

It was the right time for Maha Pajapati (the Buddha's step mother) to consider following
  the teaching and the practice of the Buddha seriously. But
  when she approached and asked for permission the Buddha
  simply said, “Please do not ask so.” The Tripitaka, which
  is the most important primary source, did not provide any
  reason for not allowing women to join the Order.

Maha Pajapati and 500 other women shaved their heads, donned yellow robes, and walked to where the Buddha was. Ananda went to the Buddha on their behalf to ask for their permission to join the sangha, but the Buddha's response was "“Ananda, please do not ask so.”.
Some of the considerations and concerns that might have been present include the fact that:

According to
  Indian social mores, to lead a religious life is not the path
  for women. ibid

There may also have been practical concerns as these women had lived in comfort before and the reality of living a reclusive life outdoors might be difficult. The current sangha did not have enough teachers who would have been suitable to teach this large group of women. There could have been criticism that having women join the sangha was breaking up families. These may have been some of the reasons behind the Buddha's hesitation to allow women to join the sangha.
When Ananda asked the Buddha if women were capable of attaining spiritual enlightenment; the Buddha's answer was yes. The book notes:

We have to mark this statement, as this is the first time
  in the history of religion that a religious leader declared
  openly that men and women are equal on spiritual grounds.
  Previously in the Hindu context, the Vedas, the most sacred
  religious texts, were available only to men. Buddhism has
  transcended race, nation, caste and gender differences to
  declare that the highest spiritual achievement transcends
  obstacles or discrimination of gender. With this important
  reason, the Buddha allowed women to join his Order. ibid

So while women weren't allowed to join the sangha immediately, eventually they were.

Thank you for this answer. This is a very important part of Buddhism.

And of course we have to assume his omniscience is correct and he knew things about cultural evolution we didn't.. After Ananada insisted several times, Gautama Buddha finally capitulated and allowed women... he also said "Because of this fine thing you have done Ananada, Buddhism will last 500 years less.."

This also shows that the Buddha was not rigid in handling such sensitive matters. He was willing to consider requests of the community. It's a sign of a true leader. Another example is when king Suddhodana requested not to ordain kids without the parents' consent.

@Ahmed, the full text is "In spite of this, the Exalted One declared that because of the founding of the Order of Nuns the dispensation would last only five hundred instead of a thousand years.[30]" Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel273.html#section-5       However the footnote [30] is very significant. tbc...

"In the Vinaya (monk's discipline) the Buddha is represented as saying this, but such a prophecy involving time is found only here. There is not other mention anywhere in the whole of the Vinaya (discipline) and the Suttas (discourses). This makes it suspect as an intrusion. The Commentaries, as well as many other later Buddhist writings; have much to say about the decline of the Buddha's Dispensation in five-hundred-year periods, but none of this is the word of the Buddha and only represents the view of later teachers." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel273.html#fn-30

Maybe it wasnt an intrusion. Right Speech requires that things that are true yet not beneficial to hear not be said. Buddhism definitely benefitted in many ways from the inclusion of women but to repeat and explicate benefits of female exclusion could cause more sects. The restriction of women from the spiritual order is common in other zealous spiritual tradition including Islam. Woman is too beautiful to not cause at least subconscious distraction and detraction from the Goal. Who knows how many more men would Awaken if Man had no idea of Woman in the Sangha?

I didn't get why the author mentions Vedas. Vedas do not say that only 'Brahmin' men can attain spiritual enlightenment. Brahmins were the Gurus (much like buddhist monks) and keepers of Vedic knowledge and, had to follow certain way of life which would have been difficult for women and ordinary people. The point is, gender or based discrimination is not the original Vedic thought, but man-made customs to protect the mostly oral knowledge from corruption and misinterpretation.The author has unnecessarily tried to demean Vedas and Hinduism in general.

Corruption of original ideas happened in every religion, in fact much worse than in Hinduism. In case of Vedic thought we must remember that we are talking about 5000 B.C.

As far as I can tell, the Buddha didn't really offer clear reasons for his reluctance to ordain women, yet being the Buddha, he must have given it a lot of consideration. He didn't think women were less capable, this much he makes clear, but he must have had his reasons.

“Lord Buddha, can women attain enlightenment?” The Buddha said to
  him, “Ananda, yes of course they can.” He said, “If they can, why
  don’t you allow them to join the Sangha, learning and practicing
  directly, especially your foster mother who looked after you when you
  were young.” In fact, the Buddha at first denied Gotami the chance to
  ordain so as to make them sure that this is what they wanted to do.

source: Female monks in Buddhism, Bhikkhuni Dhammcaro
There are obvious practical reasons one can guess,

safety of the women in the forests,
safety of the monks and nuns from temptations, mental pollutants and false accusations,
safety of the order from corruption and schisms over the issue,
safety of the laity.

The Buddha makes clear in the vinaya that he would like to make the true Dharma last as long as possible this time round, unlike previous times when some Buddhas didn't regulate the order. This may have also played on his mind.

After the disappearance of these Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, and their
  immediate disciples (buddhanubuddha), those last disciples of various
  names, of various clans, of various births, who had gone forth from
  various families, the holy life too disappeared. It is as if,
  Sāriputta, various flowers lying loose on a piece of wood are
  scattered about and blown about by the wind. (V 3:8)

There are some statements attributed to the Buddha that the admission of women in the order would shorten the lifespan of the Dhamma. However, this isn't universally accepted as having been said by the Buddha. Anyway, the dharma is now 2500 years old, so it hasn't come to pass.

If, Ananda, women had not obtained the going forth, the holy life,
  Ananda, would have lasted long, the True Teaching would have endured
  for a thousand years. But, Ananda, since women have gone forth, the
  holy life now would not last, the True Dharma would endure only for
  500 years. 10  (Vinaya Cullavagga 10.1.6/V 2:255; A 4:278; Miln
  4.1.55-61)

source: Dharma ending age, Piya Tan
Finally, we must learn to accept what has come to pass. Neither can we ever truly understand the responsibilities and complexities the Buddha had to balance to spread the dharma, nor can we rely on historical accounts to be accurate. There are historians (Williams, Liz 2000 'A Whisper in the Silence: Nuns before Maha-paja-patı-?' Buddhist Studies Review) who have spent time trying to conjecture that there were nuns before Mahapajapati Gotami, which is well and good for a historian, but a waste of time for a practitioner.

At one time the Blessed One was staying at Kosambii in Simsapaa Grove.
  Then the Blessed One, taking a few Simsapaa leaves in his
  hand, said to the monks: "What do you think, monks? Which are the more
  numerous, the few leaves I have here in my hand, or those up in the
  trees of the grove?"
"Lord, the Blessed One is holding only a few leaves: those up in the
  trees are far more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, there are many more things that I have found
  out, but not revealed to you. What I have revealed to you is only a
  little. And why, monks, have I not revealed it?
"Because, monks, it is not related to the goal, it is not fundamental
  to the holy life, does not conduce to disenchantment, dispassion,
  cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment or Nibbaana.
  That is why I have not revealed it.

source: Simsappa Sutta

"The commentary on the Abhidhamma text, Dhammasaṅgaṇī, says that when the First Buddhist Council convened by Ven. Mahā-Kassapa rehearsed the Pāḷi Canon, this made it possible for the Sāsana to endure for five thousand years. "  , as opposed to the 500 years resulting from the creation of the Bhikkhuni order

I think it's important to understand that the Buddha was very much a product of his culture.  It's a bit silly to judge him by current social mores and standards.  Initially, the Buddha believed that women were too important to the household to allow for their ordination.  I'm fairly sure that there were other reasons as well - not the least of which was the danger women might face wandering alone around ancient India, the sexual "threat" they might be to other monks, etc.
There are a couple of quotes from the Vinaya cited in these to articles if you care to read more -

Female Monks In Buddhism
Focus on Full Ordination for Buddhist Women

I don't know what its reason is for saying this, but this footnote says,

It seems that the Buddha did not absolutely refuse Maha-Pajapati Gotami, but perhaps wished to test her determination. It would have been a very difficult thing for aristocratic ladies in those days to do — to become nuns and live a hard life in the forest, subsisting on almsfood. Ladies then had no experience in looking after themselves or organizing anything, as their social scope under Brahmanism was very much restricted.

Note that alhough it's true to say (i.e. it agrees with the suttas to say) that the Buddha "didn't originally allow", it's not true to say that "he didn't allow",

Ananda saw the Buddha's step-mother with swollen feet, covered with dust, eyes full of tears at the gate of the monastery of Vesali. When he asked her compassionately for the reason of her sorrow, she replied that the Master had three times rejected her request for the establishment of an order of nuns.
Thereupon Ananda rephrased his request [...] Ananda here brought two arguments to bear. [...] In response to these arguments the Buddha agreed to the establishment of an order of nuns, provided certain cautions and rules were followed.

Some people "blame" Ven.Ananda for initiating the Bhikkhuni Sasana.  However, if the Buddha did not want to establish the Bhikkhuni Sasana, no matter how much anyone pleaded he would have said no. Yet the Buddha did establish it, not Ven. Ananda, although Ven. Ananda was essential for this.
Ven. Ananda absorbed the brunt of this drastic social change the Buddha created. Ven. Ananda deflected the criticism from the Buddha; He voiced the valid reasons why women should be allowed to be ordained,  instead of the Buddha having to voice them by his own initiative. Imagine had the Buddha initiated the Bhikkhuni order unprompted like he did the Bhikkhu order? Ven. Ananda was the catalyst in an event, that I think was going to happen anyway.
Finding out why the Buddha was initially hesitant to establish the Bhikkhuni order is academic now. Anyone who intentionally discourages women or hinders them thinking that Bhikkhuni are bad for the sasana in my opinion goes against the Buddha. What matters is how can we collectively as the four fold sasana attain a sure footing on the path.
Whether the path will last in the future or not depends not on whether women are allowed to be ordained or not, but whether men and women strive to learn the dhamma, ponder upon it, memorize it, practice it themselves  and teach others.

"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not
  come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my Bhikkhunis have come
  to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned,
  preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by
  the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are
  able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it,
  explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions
  arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to
  preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.'
  -- Mahaparinibbana Sutta DN 16

The Buddha reluctantly allowed women to join only after Ananda begged him to because he knew that allowing women in would cause the dhamma to disappear more quickly, resulting in fewer arahants.

"If, Ananda, women had not received permission to go out from the
  household life and enter the homeless state, under the doctrine and
  discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata(Buddha), then would the pure
  dhamma, Ananda, have lasted long, the good law would have stood fast
  for a thousand years. But since, Ananda, women have now received that
  permission, the pure Dhamma(path), Ananda, will not now last so long,
  the good law will now stand fast for only five hundred years." -
  Chulavagga 10.1

We see that what The Buddha predicted seems to be true, the pure dhamma does not exist today, it only existed for around five hundred years.
The earliest Buddhist scriptures (both Theravada and Mahayana) date to around 500 years after the death of The Buddha matching into the prediction.
They were written down based on oral traditions and memory.
You can clearly see that exact details are missing in the scriptures, as if something very important was lost.
What survived now in modern times are vague teachings that only certain beings would be able to comprehend and understand in a useful way, not exact precise instructions.
The Buddha's original teachings are lost!
[EDIT]
Many look at this as misogynistic but I don't think so.
It is not that women cannot achieve arahantship (equal to the Buddha) it is that ordaining women and allowing women in causes the pure dhamma to disappear more quickly.
The Buddha said:

"Dhammadinna the nun is wise, Visakha, a woman of great discernment.
  If you had asked me those things, I would have answered you in the
  same way she did. That is the meaning of those things. That is how you
  should remember it." - Culavedalla Sutta, MN 44

It is clear that women can achieve arahantship equal to the Buddha and other male arahants, the question is why did The Buddha not want to have nuns until Ananda begged him to?
I think I know why:

"Furthermore, in the course of the future there will be monks who will
  live in close association with nuns, female probationers, and female
  novices. As they interact with nuns, female probationers, and female
  novices, they can be expected either to lead the holy life
  dissatisfied or to fall into one of the grosser offenses, leaving the
  training, returning to a lower way of life.
"This, monks, is the fourth future danger, unarisen at present, that
  will arise in the future. Be alert to it and, being alert, work to get
  rid of it." - AN 5.80, Anagata-bhayani Sutta

Of course it will be harder to achieve arahantship when you have men and women integrated together or living closely side-by-side.
Because of human nature whenever men and women are integrated there will always be sex and issues caused by the desire for sex pleasure.
Ananda, a non-arahant, hadn't seen these dangers, out of compassion he thought there was no harm.
If The Buddha hadn't allowed women in, the dhamma would've lasted longer, obviously.
The Buddha also says:

“Monks, I do not know of any touch that takes hold of a man’s mind
  like the touch of a woman. A woman’s touch, monks, takes hold of a
  man’s mind like no other touch.”
...
“Monks, I do not know of any touch that takes hold of a woman’s mind
  like the touch of a man. A man’s touch, monks, takes hold of a woman’s
  mind like no other touch.” - AN 1.1 Rūpādivaggo

Many look at this as statements against women but I look at it as just stating the facts about human nature.
[/EDIT]
Ananda was also the same one who refused to ask The Buddha to stay on Earth for an entire world-period:

And the Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and
  brought to perfection the four constituents of iddhi power could, if
  he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of
  it. The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata
  could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the
  end of it."
But the Venerable Ananda was unable to grasp the plain suggestion, the significant prompting, given by the Blessed One. As though his
  mind was influenced by Mara, he did not beseech the Blessed One:
  "May the Blessed One remain, O Lord!. May the Happy One remain, O
  Lord, throughout the world-period, for the welfare and happiness of
  the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well
  being, and happiness of gods and men!"
And when for a second and a third time the Blessed One repeated his words, the Venerable Ananda remained silent.
Then the Blessed One said to the Venerable Ananda: "Go now, Ananda, and do as seems fit to you."

...

"Then, Ananda, the fault is yours. Herein have you failed, inasmuch as you were unable to grasp the plain suggestion, the
  significant prompting given by the Tathagata, and you did not then
  entreat the Tathagata to remain. For if you had done so, Ananda, twice
  the Tathagata might have declined, but the third time he would have
  consented. Therefore, Ananda, the fault is yours; herein have you
  failed. - Maha-parinibbana Sutta, DN 16

If it wasn't for Ananda The Buddha would still be alive today on Earth!

FYI there's an opposing opinion here which suggests that the story of Pajpati is, itself, a later (and mysogynistic) addition.

I am not sure if that is accurate. What are the conflicting stories in the Vinaya? It is clear that first there were monks only, then nuns afterwards.
I don't think it is misogynistic, how is it?


text:
Quick-overview lists of Dhammas within Buddhism
This community wiki post is about gathering lists that serve as a quick-overview of the different Dhammas in Buddhism. We are looking for dhamma-lists from all traditions.
If you have found a list and want to post it please follow the same formating style.

Theravada Buddhism
Dhamma List that contains an overview of the most essential dhammas in theravada buddhism. They are ordered and downloadable in PDF-format.
In here you will find the different theravada dhammas, pali-to-english translation of most used words and a quick-guide to the Tipitaka.


text:
Help with a weekend slump in meditation practice
On work days (5 days a week), I'm normally able to get in around 4-4.5 hours of meditation a day, normally walking and sitting for 45 minutes each and then some Anapana meditation usually at the start and end of each day. On the weekends, I usually am able to do the same sort of practice but around 8-10 hours worth. Curiously though, on the weekends, it seems like my practice takes something of a slump, if it is even that. Towards the end of the day on weekends the pain that normally arises in my leg and I am normally able to be mindful of becomes exceptionally more intense, to the point that I'm sometimes only able to sit for 30 minutes. I know the length you sit isn't so much important as how mindful you're able to be; I guess what I'm trying to ask is, how should I reflect on this, and also how should I judge the "progress" of my personal practice in general? Thank you

You might find some info in this question "How to judge progress in vipassana?". Ven. Yuttadhammo has also made video of "The Stages of Insight" that address the progression on this path.

I've edited the title to better reflect the content of the question. Please roll back if the title isn't suitable.Metta

Because of the longer sits you are likely graduating to the higher Visuddhiñanas, such as Visuddhiñana #3: sammasana-ñana

Seeing how each object, even while being noticed, comes to destruction
  and disappearance, the meditator comprehends it as impermanent in the
  sense of undergoing destruction. He further comprehends it as
  suffering (painful) in the sense of breaking up after each arising.
  Having seen how various painful feelings arise in continuous
  succession — how if one painful feeling ceases, another arises, and
  when that has ceased, again another arises — having seen that, he
  comprehends the respective objects as just a conglomeration of
  suffering. Further, he comprehends the object as consisting of mere
  impersonal phenomena without a master, in the sense of not arising of
  (or by) themselves, but arising subject to conditions and then
  breaking up.
This comprehension of an object noticed, as being impermanent,
  painful, and without a self (impersonal), through knowing its nature
  of impermanency, etc., by means of simply noticing, without reflecting
  and reasoning, is called "knowledge by comprehension through direct
  experience."

source: Progress of Insight, Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw
The solution is to intensify the observation of the sensations, and break down the pain into smaller component parts. Notice that even the most solidified pain has impermanence - it occurs in pulses and waves - the pain is not uniform from moment to moment.
When you see the pain as not a solid mass but also born of the cycle of birth and death the pain should dissipate. Don't decommission your knee or joints by overdoing it, be gentle on your body and mindfully change positions if you can't bear it. Buddhism needn't be masochism :)
The next ñana (knowledge) Arising and Passing away is important. Good luck, your dedication is admirable.

Are the different knowledges I see in the preface the 16 stages of knowledge? I've heard Ven. Yuttadhammo say it can be counter-productive to read of these before actually having experienced them?

Yes, there's a possibility for some to over intellectualize it and assume they've reached certain stages before it happens. One might also waste time trying to identify stages instead of meditating.

However, more and more people are practicing without a direct teacher, relying solely on texts and manuals. For the more mature and capable of these people such manuals are very useful, for out of ignorance they may lose a lot of time by not handling situations that arise in meditation correctly. Use responsibly.

Are the different knowledges I see in the preface the 16 stages of knowledge? Yes. There are detailed explanations in the Visuddhimagga / Vimuktimagga, which are available online.

Actually, the length of your sitting sessions is important.  It's kind of like running.  If you are bailing when things start to get unbearable, you aren't going to make any further progress.  It's only when we are confronted by obstacles and overcome them that we move forward.
My advice would be to start using a meditation timer if you aren't already doing so.  Try to make it to the end of those painful sits without giving up.  I'm not going to sugar coat it.  This will be difficult at first.  The best thing you can do to help alleviate your suffering is to follow your breath as closely as you can.  Try to let your attention ride your exhalation all the way to the end.  Keep it applied during the space between breaths and try to not lose it when you inhale.  As your concentration develops, the pain in your legs will be less of an immediate concern.  In fact, it usually vanishes entirely and can even be replaced by joy.
You and your pain are not different.  It's only when you see pain as something "interfering" with your meditation and blissful concentration that it becomes problematic.  Accept it as it arises.  The more you sit with your discomfort, the more it will bring you into immediacy and loosen your heart.

Thank you for your response! I think the confusion here is my fault, I didn't add the Vipassana tag and it seems you think I'm doing Samatha? Either way this is good advice, though.

Ah, I suppose that would change things just a tad bit.  I was going off you mentioning Anapanasati.


text:
Buddhavamsa Translations?
Do any english translations exist online for the Buddhavamsa ? I cannot find one.

I do not know about any translations but there is this book called "The Great Chronicles of Buddhas". It's a book only about the different Buddhas and the life of them.
It's a very interesting book with lots of material on them such as daily life, teachings, characteristics etc.

The Wikipedia article lists several translations, of which (at least) the last exists as a PDF online, i.e.

The great chronicle of Buddhas, Volume One, Part Two (PDF) (1st ed.).

Buddhavamsa by most venerable Mingun Sayadaw Bhaddanta Vicittasarabhivamsa.
He is best known for his memory skills and his role in the Sixth Buddhist Council. The late Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw was appointed to ask the required questions about the Dhamma to the Ven. Bhadanta Vicittasarabhivamsa, who answered them.


text:
Was the doctrine of 'Anatta', accepted as doctrine by modern Buddhism, actually taught by the Buddha?
Understanding of 'Anatta' is key to so much Buddhist meditation practice and philosophy that I've been exposed to but (call me conservative) I gain great confidence when the Buddha himself had something direct to say about the term / concept. There seems to be common consensus that 'anatta' means there is no abiding self / Self. Christopher Titmuss in his list of what the Buddha did not teach says:

No-Self. The Buddha remained in noble silence when asked whether there was a self or no self. He simply stated that body, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, including thoughts, and consciousness were not oneself and did not belong to self. he taught not self as vehicle for liberation from misperception. Anatta literally means ‘not-self’; if the buddha had meant ‘no self’ he would have said ‘na-atta’. What the Buddha did not teach

Having studied Avaita Vedanta for some years, I recognise Buddha's early approach as pure self-inquiry i.e. recognising that the self is not in any of the skandhas, that we normally identify with, which leads to directly to the real Self.
Is it true that there no support in Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas for the commonly held doctrine?
I feel this is an important question as this view has implications for the commonly held view that Buddhism is humanist, nihilistic, compatible with atheism, secular etc., when the Buddha himself held no such position.

"Was the doctrine of 'Anatta', accepted as doctrine by modern Buddhism, actually taught by the Buddha?"
Anatta -- "not self" -- is a doctrine broadly present in the discourses preserved and currently available.
"Is it true that there no support in Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas for the commonly held doctrine?"
There's no reasonable support for any doctrine of self in the collections above (and, just for completeness, there's no declaration "there is no self" in them as well, but more on that below).
The episode Christopher Titmuss refers to is probably the following:

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
"Then is there no self?"
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
-- SN 44.10

The Buddha then proceeds to explain why he did not answer (another explanation is given in SN 44.7):

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
— "No, lord."
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

This knowledge ("that all phenomena are not-self") is famously repeated in the tilakkhaṇa formula:

all conditioned phenomea are impermanent (sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā'ti)
  all conditioned phenomena are suffering (sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā'ti)
  all phenomena are non-self (sabbe dhammā anattā'ti.)
-- AN 3.136 (Bodhi, trans)

Commenting on it, Richard Gombrich -- an Indologist -- writes:

The third hallmark is very often mistranslated (sometimes by me too, in the past) as 'not having a self or essence'. That is indeed how later Buddhists came to interpret it, but that was not its original meaning -- in fact, it is doubly misleading. Both Pali grammar and a comparison with the Vedānta show that the word means 'is not ātman' rather than 'does not have ātman'. However, as time went by the term was taken as a possessive compound and also taken to refer to everything, so that it became the one-word expression of Buddha's anti-essentialism.
-- What The Buddha Taught, pg 70

Then, some people find themselves understanding that the Buddha advocated annihilationism (because of anatta), or eternalism (as some sort of occult teaching of a real Self behind his words). But the most obvious answer to these understandings is his own words, since he explicitly rejected both.
Among his many self-doctrine refutations, my favorite is this:

"Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?"
  —"No, venerable sir."
  —"Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it."
-- MN 22

The Buddha in the Suttas taught not-self, not no self. In the Maha-Nidana Sutta, the Buddha speaks of not-self.
Here is what he says about people who say feelings are the Self:

"Now, one who says, 'Feeling is my self,' should be addressed as follows: 'There are these three feelings, my friend — feelings of pleasure, feelings of pain, and feelings of neither pleasure nor pain. Which of these three feelings do you assume to be the self?' At a moment when a feeling of pleasure is sensed, no feeling of pain or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pleasure is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pain is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of pain is sensed. Only a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed at that moment."

And here's what the Buddha said who assume that there is no self:

"As for the person who says, 'Feeling is not the self: My self is oblivious [to feeling],' he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend, where nothing whatsoever is sensed (experienced) at all, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"

So if you're not feeling any feelings in the present moment, then does that mean you are experiencing a self? No of course not, the lack of feelings does not mean that the lack of feelings is the Self, or that you experience a Self when there is no feeling.
In the Khandha-samyutta you will find numerous suttas talking on the nature of not-self.
The Maha-Nidana Sutta

What I find in the suttas is that the skandhas are not the self: Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic -- this sutta says e.g. "form is not self" and doesn't say "self is not eternal".

What I find in the Pali dictionary is that there's no dictionary entry for anattā ... instead there's a dictionary entry for Attan, and anattā is described as part of that. The dictionary entry for Attan says,

Meanings. 1. The soul as postulated in the animistic theories held in N India in the 6th and 7th cent. B. C. It is described in the Upanishads as a small creature, in shape like a man, dwelling in ordinary times in the heart. It escapes from the body in sleep or trance; when it returns to the body life and motion reappear. It escapes from the body at death, then continues to carry on an everlasting life of its own. For numerous other details see Rh. D. Theory of Soul in the Upanishads J R A S 1899. Bt. India 251 -- 255. Buddhism repudiated all such theories, thus differing from other religions. Sixteen such theories about the soul D i.31. Seven other theories D i.34. Three others D i.186/7. A ʻ soul ʼ according to general belief was some thing permanent, unchangeable, not affected by sorrow S iv.54 = Kvu 67; Vin i.14; M i.138. See also M i.233; iii.265, 271; S ii.17, 109; iii.135; A i.284; ii.164, 171; v.188; S iv.400. Cp. ātuman, tuma, puggala, jīva, satta, pāṇa and nāma -- rūpa.
anattā (n. and predicative adj.) not a soul, without a soul.

So I suppose that anattā wasn't denying the "self", but was denying the "soul" which was taught by the Upanishads. It's interesting that ...

"A ʻ soul ʼ according to general belief was some thing permanent, unchangeable, not affected by sorrow"

... because maybe that's more or less the opposite of the dukkha anattā anicca taught by Buddhism.

See also "identity view".
The Sabbasava Sutta describes various views about self (but also the opposites of those views) as an asava, for example,

"That person considers improperly thus: 'Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? Who was I in the past? How was I in the past?[15] In the past, who had been I and who was I [in the subsequent existence]? Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? Who will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? In the future, having been who, who will I be?'
"Also as regards the present, uncertainty arises in him thus: 'Do I exist? Do I not exist? Who am I? How am I ? From where has this soul come? Where will this soul go?'
"In a person who thus considers improperly there arises one of the six [wrong] views. The view 'I have self'[16] arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I have no self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive self through self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive non-self[17] through self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive self through non-self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, he has the view thus: 'That self of mine speaks, knows and experiences the results of wholesome and unwholesome actions.[18] That self of mine is permanent, stable, durable, incorruptible and will be eternal like all things permanent.'
"Bhikkhus! This wrong view is called a false belief, a jungle of false beliefs, a desert of false beliefs, a thorny spike of false beliefs, an agitation of false beliefs and a fetter of false beliefs. Bhikkhus! The ignorant worldling who is bound up with the fetter of false beliefs cannot escape rebirth, ageing, death, grief, lamentation, pain, distress and despair. I declare that he cannot escape dukkha.[19]

In this sutta, "self" and "non-self" are translations of attā and anatta.

Having studied Avaita Vedanta for some years, I recognise Buddha's early approach as pure self-inquiry i.e. recognising that the self is not in any of the skandhas, that we normally identify with, which leads to directly to the real Self.
Are you thinking along the lines of "neti neti"?
You might be interested in this discussion, reportedly between B. Alan Wallace and Bikkhu Bodhi,

BB: Dear BAW, The relationship between nibbāna and consciousness was a topic of heated discussion among us Western monks in Sri Lanka, and our position in relation to this problem divided us into opposing camps. Though I have pondered the issue for long years, I have to admit I don’t have a clear solution to the problem. Perhaps the source of perplexity lies in Western modes of thinking. But maybe not. My teacher, Ven. Balangoda Ananda Maitreya, used to tell me how his own interpretation of nibbāna came close to the Advaita Vedantin understanding of brahman (with some differences), and in this respect, he said, he disagreed with those Sri Lankan scholar-monks who considered nibbāna to be mere cessation.
BAW: I was told that when Ven. Balangoda Ananda Maitreya visited the Vedanta Temple in Montecito (adjacent to Santa Barbara, where I live), he was asked whether he thought the realization of nibbāna was identical to the Advaita Vedantin realization of ātman-brahman, and he allegedly replied that it was too close to call. As you may recall, I had the great privilege of training under his guidance for some months during 1980–81 at his home temple in Udumulla; and I regard him as my principal Theravāda mentor.
BB: If I remember rightly, what Ven. Ananda Maitreya said is that unlike the Advaita Vedantin brahman, nibbāna does not have any cosmological function (in the way that brahman is the substrate of the manifest universe) nor does it give rise to a creator God (the saguṇa brahman) who periodically creates, sustains, and demolishes the apparent universe. But the descriptions of
  nirguṇa brahman and nibbāna share many similarities.

If views of "self" and/or "not-self" are considered asava (in the Sabbasava Sutta) then you might want the answer to this question: which characterizes "views that incorporate dualities" as effluent.

It is very hard to state definitively and lastingly

"having no such position".

As I read the quotes in these answers, I see that the Buddha was not asserting anything, and not denying anything. This is difficult to perceive. The mind craves an object, but here, there is no object, which is not to say that it does not exist! For that would be another object.
By not saying one thing, or its opposite, the Buddha was trying to "shout": there is nothing to talk about here. It is difficult to make that stand, or make people accept it on its face. It rather reminds me of the Flower Sermon.


text:
Why focus below your bellybutton in meditation?
My roshi tells me to focus here. Before practicing, I spent most of my waking hours thinking, analyzing, living in my head. With practice, it has gotten easier to think when thought has a purpose, and to listen to my body and environment otherwise.
The book that introduced me to zen said to picture your breathing below your bellybutton. A friend said to focus your energy there.
As I build focus here, it is easier to let go of distraction and delusion. But why is this place significant? Why not focus on my chest of elbow or toes?

Hi Brian and welcome to Buddhism SE.

Many types of meditation focus on the breath entering and leaving the body or moving through the body as a main object of meditation.
In the tradition of meditation which I practice, (Mahasi Sayadaw style), we focus on the rising and falling of the abdomen as a way of being mindful of the breath, but without focusing on the nostril area, which is considered to be more soothing. Focusing on the rising and fall of the abdomen is not soothing and works well as a meditation object which will keep us mindful of the three characteristics of impermanence, dissatisfaction, and uncontrollability/anatta which is useful in Vipassana meditation.
But you mentioned zen, so your roshi's reason may be quite different and it would likely be best to ask your roshi directly. But if you cannot, here is a quote from Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh's book "be free where you are".
(In this chapter Thich Nhat Hanh is talking to prisoners about how to handle feeling overwhelmed by a strong emotion.)

So when you notice that an emotion is beginning to come up, it is very important that you put yourself in a stable sitting position, or you lie down, which is also a very stable position. Then focus your attention on your belly. Your head is like the top of a tree in a storm. I would not stay there. Bring your attention down to the trunk of the tree, where there is stability.
When you have focused on your belly, bring your attention down to the level just below the naval and begin to practice mindful breathing. Breathing in and breathing out deeply, be aware of the rise and fall of the abdomen. After practicing like this for 10, 15, or 20 minutes you will see that you are strong - strong enough to withstand the storm. (page 38)

So while both styles of meditation focus on the abdomen, the reason is a quite different. In one, the rise and fall of the abdomen is considered somewhat unstable as we notice slight irregularities in breathing. In the other, the abdomen is considered the stable part of the body as a tree trunk is to a tree.
Due to the many differences in interpretation, best to ask your own teacher if possible. But something to think about until you get the chance.
Welcome to Buddhism.SE and glad to hear of the benefits meditation is bringing to you. :)

Tree in a storm. Great image!

That's your hara!  If you look at any chart of energy centers in the body - be they Vedic, Chinese, Taoist, etc. - they identify a major energy center right around that area.  Breathing into your hara serves two purposes.  On the more mundane level, it gets you breathing more deeply.  Most of the time, people tend to breath into the upper chest.  This can lead to tightness.  Belly breathing leads deeper breathing and in turn, greater calm in both body and mind.  At a second, more traditional level (and whether you accept this to be true isn't really of much importance), abdominal breathing helps cultivate qi.


text:
What is the truth that you deny?
I have heard that there is a Tibetan word that roughly translates to "The truth that we deny" and sounded close to the English word "gotcha."
I however cannot locate this word or a source of it. Can anyone provide a source?
It is possible that it translates to either "The truth that I deny" or "The truth that you deny."
I am not sure if "we" was the right pronoun.
I think it might have been used in debates within the monasteries.

Is it Tibetan Buddhism or does it figure in Tibetan culture or in other Tibetan religions like Bön?

@Buddho I just know that the word or phrase is Tibetan. I am not sure of origin. I originally heard about it through a talk on Tibetan Buddhism.

Can yu please elaborate your question in a better way/words ? Like what is your curiousity for this phrase in actual !

@jitin I just want to know if the word/phrase meaning indeed exists in the Tibetan language, and if it does indeed sound like the English word gotcha when pronounced correctly. Also it would be cool if it was paired with the Tibetan alphabet character(s) that signify it. I heard about it from a secondary source, I'd like a Primary source.

The word, as spelled in english, is "gak-cha," and it refers to the object whose existence we deny.
The idea is that things, including our selves, do not exist "out there, independently," or "from their own side."  Such a thing, according to Mahayana buddhism, could never exist.  When we catch our mind falling prey to relating to some thing (including our "self") as if it really existed independently from our perceiving mind, then we have located the "gak-cha."
There's a transcription of a talk by Lama Yeshe that goes into some depth:
Lama Yeshe Archive

Thanks, any chance you know where to find the Tibetan characters for it? Finally have a primary source though. =)

Took me a bit to track this down, but I found it online.  The Tibetan for "Gakja" is shown on the last page (page 8) of the following pdf from the Asian Classics Institute: http://www.acidharma.org/aci/online/_media/text/course1/C01Tibetan.pdf

Pron.: gakja
Wil.: dgag bya
Unicode: དགག་བྱ།
Usually translated by Jeffrey Hopkins as 'object of negation'. Although the object of negation is twofold: (1) the objective aspect (true existence) and (2) the subjective aspect (ignorance), 'object of negation' usually refers to true existence.

It is explained at length in the 'Special Insight' chapter of the Lam Rim:

Third volume of Tsongkhapa's the Lam Rim Chen Mo
5th chapter of Tsongkhapa's Middle-Length Lam Rim

It is also explained at length in the following:

Tsongkhapa's Final Exposition of Wisdom
Khedrup Je's A dose of Emptiness

The object of negation is a 'truth to be denied' or a 'concealer truth'. It is true existence, or inherent existence according to Prasangika-Madhyamika.
Since true existence appears as if existing but is actually utterly non-existent, why do we call it a truth? What is the meaning of 'truth' in 'truth for a concealer'? It is called a [concealer] truth because although it is not a truth (since it doesn't exist the way it appears) it is true in relation to ignorance.

This is explained in the Explanation of Candrakīrti’s Commentary on
the ‘Middle Way’ as well:

That which appears truly existent and inherently
  separate due to a concealer while not existing inherently is true for
  a worldly, mistaken concealer.

Strictly speaking, a truth is an object that exists the way it appears (its mode of existence is concordant with its mode of existence). Example: emptiness is an [ultimate] truth, and is an actual truth, because it exists the way it appears to the mind directly realizing it. However, a conventional truth is a truth only in relation to ignorance. A concealer truth is also a truth only in relation to ignorance: it is not an actual truth.

"The truth that we deny"
According to Buddhist concepts "All are in illusion".(pali:Avijja)-"Fault view".
That is "I' or "My Self" or "Mine" like concepts.
So your Word 'gotcha' may relate those ideas.
Another area may be
 The "Word is" is another concept.(The matter exists)
Based on permenent( opposite- Annichcha), good(op- Dukka), Arthma(op -anathma).
Better Try with similar words.
hay it may be Avidyā (Sanskrit; Pāli: avijjā; Tibetan phonetic: ma rigpa)


text:
Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya Sūtra in Sanskrit with English translation
Is there any book or internet resource which has Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya Sūtra in Sanskrit and word to word English translation? I am not exactly looking for commentaries(though I don't mind commentaries accompanying word to word translations).
The ones I found so far are only in English.

The prajnaparamita canon is quite ancient going back to 1-2 BCE. It's not clear if the original set of sutras were composed in Sanskrit or Gandhari first and subsequently translated to Sanskrit. (Source: Wikipedia)
However the heart (Hṛdaya) sutra, said to be part of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra canon, and most famous certainly, is in the view of modern historians and scholars almost certainly not part of the original Indian compositions. It was likely composed in Chinese and later rendered in Sanskrit.
Source: Jan Nattier. 1992. The Heart Sūtra : a Chinese apocryphal text? Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. Vol. 15 (2), p.153-223.
This is a text that has caused a lot of confusion among students because it attempts to lay down the highest of realized truths using the inadequate vehicle of conventional language. Despite several attempts at translating it to be less obscure, it is a text that needs to be meditated upon, and not merely understood through the intellect reading it - (i.e. the language it is read in doesn't really matter as long as the translation is correct).
Here are some side by side Sanskrit-English translations:

Heart Sutra Chanted in Sanskrit
Prajna Paramita Heart Sutra in Sanskrit

... and one can find more of them using Google, but it is impossible to find the authentic original Sanskrit you're looking for (because there is none?).

Thanks! Those 2 links with the sutra in Sanskrit(in Roman font) was helpful. I'm not a Sanskrit expert but I wanted to read the Sanskrit version and come up with my own interpretation since usually lots of meaning is lost in translation.

Then you'll need to read the Chinese version :-) Of course, in my view the language of the text doesn't matter - reading it doesn't teach anyone - it only confuses people. Meditating and realizing the same truth however is useful. Then one understands - ah, this is what the sutra means. Good luck, may wisdom arise from the reading.

The simple answer is that Edward Conze published a little book with his Diamond Sutra and Heart Sutra translations, and included the Sanskrit text of the Heart Sutra

Conze, Edward. (1975). Buddhist Wisdom Books : Containing the Diamond Sūtra and the Heart Sūtra. 2nd Ed. London : George Allen & Unwin. First Ed. 1957.

The book seems to be in print still and is moderately priced.
One little note however is that the Sanskrit contains a mistake. I discovered this in 2012 and finally published my explanation of the mistake and suggested correction earlier this year. It's quite minor, but important in how the text is interpreted.

Attwood, Jayarava (2015) Heart Murmurs: Some Problems with Conze’s Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya. Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies. Vol 8, 2015. Paid Access until 2016.

I've produced a less technical and free summary of this article primarily for the Triratna community, but suitable for everyone.
I've also written a number of informal essays about the Sanskrit text, some of which are based on my study of the surviving manuscripts and some on the early Prajñāpāramitā tradition or the Chinese versions. A list of these essays can be found here.

Check this video out. It has the Sanskrit version of the Sutra chanted in some 'Indian accent' and is easier to follow if you understand Sanskrit. The description has the sutra written in the Devanāgarī script and the caption has English and Tibetan translations.

Hello Pisto and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have some guidelines for new users that you might find useful.

This (in Romanised Sanskrit & English) should be of great help :
Prajna Paramita Heart Sutra in Sanskrit (prepared by: Dr. Michael E. Moriarty)

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


text:
What would Buddhists do to get rid of the feeling of insecurity in relationships?
Sometimes I feel insecure and worry about my current relationship. I try to live with mindfulness each day, but it seems very hard because I still cannot forget my bad past experience. What should I do ?

Is your bad past experiences with your partner or from someone/something else?

Insecurity is caused by wanting permanence, is it not? We feel fear and insecurity when we are anxious about the root anchors of our life being unstable.
In truth, one who understands anicca knows nothing is permanent. At a very deep level we must see that resting on inherently unstable emotional platforms and expecting stability is folly.
There is no easy cure for this. We must  at the very least learn to dissociate our identity and sense of self from worldly factors such as a job, a relationship, a degree, a house, a bank balance etc. This can be done through any of the several forms of vipassana.
In the end, we must lose all sense of self by seeing its illusory nature.
What helps me is to take time out to go on a retreat and try to solve a sticky problem in my life through better understanding of anicca, anatta and dukkha.
ULTIMATELY, there can be no perfect relationship where no one hurts the other, or misunderstands. If there were such perfection possible, then that would replace the dhamma, and everyone would aspire for the perfect parent or partner. These imperfections in relationships are our teachers, helping us realize the futility of chasing happiness in relatives and family. Every pleasure carries with it a tragedy - pleasure and pain cannot be separated. One can only go beyond both.
Update: (This was part of my original answer but because of a bug in the mobile client of StackExchange it didn't get posted.)
Here is a short meditation mindfulness exercise by Thich Nhat Hanh to deal with anxiety in the immediate moment.

Sit comfortably. Close your eyes if possible. Gently focus your
  attention on your breathing. Don’t worry about deepening or
  controlling it in any way…just notice.
As your breathe in, say to yourself “I am breathing in.”
As you breathe out, say to yourself “I am breathing out.”
Continue for one minute.
The effects are cumulative, so the more often you do it, the faster
  your overall level of calm increases.
“Breathing in, I calm body and mind. Breathing out, I smile. Dwelling
  in the present moment I know this is the only moment.” – Thich Nhat
  Hanh

Yes, you're right. I feel insecure because i want permanence and wish my partner become consistent person.

I try to understand the meaning of anicca but still in difficulty while practicing this. My family expect too much about my current relationship. It's makes me more afraid if I lose him.

Ultimately, our happiness and peace rests with us, we must take personal responsibility and not wait on external factors. While others (partner and family) can be understanding sometimes, they often will not be so, and we have no control over them, so we must stop trying to control such factors. We must imagine the worst scenario and make peace with it. Accepting the present moment as it is, without wanting different, we rid ourselves of misery - whether we accept or not, the present won't change, so it is better if we accept.

Developing compassion is easier for some than realizing anicca. This is a  Mahayana approach (from your other questions I gather that you are Theravada) - where we look at the suffering of the partner that causes his inconsistency, and the suffering of the family that causes their expectations, and the resulting compassion can dissolve our sense of self hurt. It can deliver results quicker in this case. Instead of being angry, we must sit down with them and tell them that their suffering is real, but so is our suffering. http://www.brainpickings.org/2015/03/31/how-to-love-thich-nhat-hanh/

I was checked that link and i will try to practice it now. I love Thich nhat hanh too. He always teach about  compassion and contentment.  Thank you Buddho. You just open my mind.

You're welcome @sherly - may you be happy and free.

May you be happy and free too @Buddho ☺

Suffering comes from insecurity.
Insecurity comes from fear.
Fear comes from beliefs.
Beliefs come from knowledge.
Knowledge comes from good and bad.
Good and bad come from desire.

Thus, there are 4 ways to remove fear:
1
Identify the beliefs that are causing you fear. Change those beliefs. Fear will vanish.
How to change your beliefs?
Realize that all your beliefs which are the cause of your fear are based on future assumptions. Thus, your beliefs have no weight in the present moment.
Realize that most beliefs are not rational. If you had a few bad experiences in the past, it does not mean that all similar experiences will end badly.
Test your beliefs to reject their validity. If you're afraid of something, and you are sure that your fear is irrational, face your fear and realize nothing bad will happen.
There are many many ways to change your beliefs. That's why psychologists exist.
2
Gain new knowledge. Specifically about your situation in the relationship. Remember, knowledge is rational, not emotional. Use your rational mind. Be a scientist. Read books about your situation. Read about relationships. Speak with people who had similar problems and have solved them.
3
Eliminate "good and bad" thinking. How to eliminate "good and bad" thinking?
Realize there is no good and bad. How? By realizing: "What one person thinks is good, another person thinks it's bad. What I think is good, another person thinks it's bad". Thus, something that is good can be at the same time good and bad. Something that is bad can be at the same time bad and good. If something can be black and white at the same time, which color is it? Think about it. Which color is it?
4
This is what Buddhist would do.
"Eliminate" desire. How to eliminate desire?
Follow the four noble truths: Realize that desire is the cause of suffering. Realize that putting an end to desire, suffering no longer arises. Find the path leading to the elimination of desire.

Very detail answer.  Thank you a lot @beginner. I will try to practice this.

Mindfulness is a great tool to withdraw information through your senses but will not be enough to remove your insecurity and worry about your current relationship. The only way you can do this is by doing lots of reflecting (usually during mediation) and 'proper' communication with your partner.
Have you asked if your partner too has had some bad passed experiences with their exs? If so, don't panic because this can actually be a good thing. It will help you guys find something in common and therefore heal together. If not, that's ok too, it just means that you have to warn this person that you have had trouble in the passed.
The best way (I think) to build security in a relationship and reduce worry is to find common interests. Avoid clinging to the person like their everything because when you realize they are not, you could be in a world of hurt. This teaching is very prevalent in the Buddha's teaching and relates to attachment. The reason why finding common interests, ie. soccer, running, yoga, gardening etc. (aim for positive ones of course) is  good is because you can not only enjoy the person's company, but together you guys can build as individuals too. This is so good, because even if you do break up at least you will have skills you can use on your own.
I think therefore that most of your security, worry issues arise from too much attachment to this person and also possibly too much expectation of what they 'should' do. People are powerful and so its best to improve yourself and people around you and if your partner 'chooses' to join in than great, there's the cherry on top! :D But remember to take care of your entire cake too :P (life too)
Hope this helps :)

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. Could you edit your answer and insert a couple of paragraphs. This way it will be easier for other users to read it. Thank you. We also have some guidelines for new users that you might find useful.

Very Thanks @user5286 sure your answer will really help me :)

@User. There are also a lot of features that one cannot know in the beginning. Don't worry. It will come in time. I think your answer looks much better now.