text:
Did the Buddha ever mention or encounter Jews?
I understand that Siddhartha Gautama Buddha lived at the same time as the ancient Israelites (Jews) and that India knew of Israel and that ancient Israel knew of India and that the two nations traded with one another. I am also aware that at one time there were a small group of Buddhist staying in Jerusalem.
My question is, did Gautama Buddha ever mention Jews or did he ever encounter them? Or was he completely ignorant of their existence and nation all together?

In "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist" Batchelor does some cogent speculation that Gotama went to Taxila University (in modern day Pakistan), so would likely have been exposed to ideas from quite far away. (It appears that most of the people Gotama was friends with also went to Taxilla University). But I'd guess their quality of info was like Herodotus's, spotty and often wrong.

@Crab Bucket: hmm, with the re-wording of the subject (it is better now, in my opinion) it seems to me, that I could easily delete my dec.-answer because I had been focused by the old subject to something now a bit obscure. What do you think?

@gottfriedhelms honestly your answer seems perfectly relevant to me. Also I really don't want to invalidate perfectly good existing answers by editing the title. If I am then I think I'm doing the wrong thing

@Crab, ok then, let's leave it...

Well, the "ancient Israelites" lived quite a long time compared with the lifespan of a single individual like Siddharta Gotama, the Buddha. Their own history, taken from the religious tradition, was from Abraham up to 0 BCE (or today, don't know when "ancient" ended...), and this means at least something from 2000 BCE; Moses is estimated to 1200 BCE if I recall right. But we (and also the Jews themselves) have this all only in the form of myths. Back to 1000 BCE and earlier I don't know whether there are any other reliable sources (besides the Torah) with such specific stories like that Torah ones about the kings Saul, David, Salomo, Rehabeam, ... and which were the first kings which were also mentioned by other tribes or nations (for instance Babylonian, Persian, Egypt) in governmental letters and statements.
From the Buddha we have only discourses (from one lifespan of about 40 years of teaching)  with Brahmins as foreign religions and some remarks about contemporary ascets, like Mahavira (I think the patriarch of the Jains - which have also survived as a religious movement up to today), the "naked ascetics" and the "white robed ascetics", the followers of Kassapa from Uruvela and so on. As far as I have read in the Pali-canon (the corpus of german translations) there was no explicite remark about other, more remote tribe/gentile/religion (also not about hellenistic ideas of the same historic times - but which in my view does not say that he might have or didn't have heard about it. In the contrary: why should you involve your disciples in a discussion about greek philosophy -even if you'd heard about it- when every important ingredient of it you can discuss with local examples...)

You could run a search on the CSCD Pali to check me (but what word would you use?), but as far as I can recall there is no mention of Jews by Gotama or anyone else in the Suttas.
There are some who believe that Christ actually studied Buddhism with the Tibetans, but this is a controversial position.
See:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/index.htm#modern
scroll down to the bottom of the page to find titles on this subject.
(A great resource, by the way, for all matters scared.)

Answering as a practicing Hasidic Jew:
I'm not sure if the Buddha himself encountered Jews, but there is an interesting anecdote from Jewish commentary on the Torah, which suggests that Abraham sent his sons -- his children from Hagar, who were not "Jewish" -- "East" bearing "Gifts." Jewish mystical readings of the Torah interpret these gifts as spiritual gifts, specifically gifts to free the East from a tendency to worship idols.
Translation of the relevant commentary here: http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380365/jewish/Abrahams-Presents-to-the-East.htm
Whether or not you choose to view this commentary literally, it is, at least personally, interesting to consider how many surprising parallels I've found between Buddhist and Jewish spiritual concepts.

Thank you for the answer. I've posted a more general question and the intersection between Jewish and Buddhist thought - inspired by your answer - http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/7703/157. I wonder if you might be tempted to post an answer if you get the time

Simple answer is to your Question is NO

Its likely and its likely India was familiar with contemporary judaism due to Abraham's sons settling in the area and the later dispersion of the lost tribes, they had to go somewhere?
Buddha was a truth seeker and a reformer and disturbed by the suffering of people in his kingdom, he forsook all and set out to find answers
Israel was well known as news of the exodus spread wide and all the wilderness happenings, then the news of Babylonian captivity Nebuchadnezzar the statue, then the lions den, at that time many would have made the pilgrimage seeking truth ans wisdom, eg, Queen Sheba sought Solomans wisdom.
He forsook the ascetics of his land in search of truth and definitely Jerusalem would have attracted his enquirey like a magnet attracts steel

Not to mention the magi from the east entered Jerusalem to the terror of  King Herod, there was some kind of reformation worldwide going on at the time, a Jew was head Babylonian Magian at the time Danial.                      It could be the Indian Hindu Buddhist were part of the terrifying entourage

I can't imagine why the Buddha would mention Judaism, even if he knew of it. From a Buddhist perspective, the old Judaism of Moses is a religion based on morals & petty observances, which was not dissimilar to Brahmanism. Based on the Pali scriptures, Brahmanism does not appear as 'polytheistic' as the more recent Hinduism. Although other gods are mentioned, such as Indra or Prajapati, Brahma (the Creator & Father of All) is the primary god; thus close to monotheistic.
While Jews (Isaiah 49) have self-proclaimed themselves 'A Light to the Nations', Buddhism would offer little merit to this Israelite propaganda, written in a tribal scripture (Isaiah) that prophesies doom & destruction to most neighboring nations in the region.
Being merely about morals, Judaism would have been held as similar to many other mundane worldly religions of the Buddha's time; something not offering a path of spiritual liberation. Judaism would have been the kind of socially orientated religion that the homeless ascetics such as the Buddha were running away from.
A quick look at Wikipedia confirms suspicions that some of the more philosophical or eclectic books of the Old Testament are post-Buddhist, such as Ecclesiastes, Job & Jonah. Ecclesiastes is a weak attempt at Buddhist-like wisdom; Jonah speaks of the universal compassion of God (contrary to the previous tribal focus); and, in Job, Satan appears for the 1st time, behaving towards Job similar to Mara towards the Buddha. I would speculate these books, similar to Christianity, were probably influenced by Buddhism.
While Christianity is very close to Buddhism in many of its themes & terminology, such as a 'liberated kingdom not of this world', the very fact that Christianity is not as advanced as Buddhism yet declares itself more spiritually advanced than the ancient worldly moralistic ritualistic Judaism shows how philosophically distant the ancient nationalistic tribal Judaism would have been from Buddhism.

It is considers that "sunaparantha" is somewere in midlle east. following quats from pali thipitaka,
Saṃyutta Nikāya 35 -Connected Discourses on the Six Sense Bases - 88. Puṇṇa

“Now that you have received this brief exhortation from me, Puṇṇa, in
  which country will you dwell?”
“There is, venerable sir, a country named Sunaparanta. I will dwell
  there.”

In punnovada Sutta

Punna, I have advised you in short. Now in which state will you
  abide?”
“Venerable sir, now that I'm advised in short, I will abide in the
  Sunaparanta state.”

http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sunaparanta suggests it's on the West coast of modern India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopara and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aparanta

If "Mecca"/"maccama" has buddhist connections, it can be the "Mankulakarama" in sunaparantha. "Mankulaka-Aramaya " becomes Makulakaramaya.


text:
Is there a harmful side to mindfulness as it is practiced in Western materialistic/capitalistic cultures?
Is there a harmful side to mindfulness as it is practiced in Western materialistic/capitalistic cultures?
Clearly the modern mindfulness movement has been very successful, but I'm wondering if that's at the expense of losing its spiritual core. And it concerns me that what we are left with is just another kind of narcissistic solipsistic selfishness. Is there any validity in my concerns, or am I worrying about nothing?

I do see a "?" in there, but are you sure this is a question?

OK, cool. Your question is too long for me to attempt a rewrite without killing your intent. So I think there are two issues I could point at you could fix. First, your question is coming across as being rhetorical. You seem to think that there currently is a problem with mindfulness as displayed in the West. Second, the whole thing is just too long and, if I may, wordy and technical. (Are you a philosophy grad by any chance). I think it would read better if you put your question right at the top, and then gave at most a paragraph of explanation below it. I'll attempt it below your words.

The Mindfulness practice that is taught in a secular fashion in the West is based on the Buddhist Satipaṭṭāna-vipassanā practices, but it is a bit different. For one, in Buddhism, vipassnā is meant to be practiced within a certain framework of Buddhist thought and forms only a small part of the overall practice. Second, the "nonjudgemental awareness" you find in secular Mindfulness is something you won't find in the Buddhist Satipaṭṭāna practice. In the discourses the practitioner is instructed direct the mind away from unskillful states and direct the mind towards skillful mental states, so there's definitely an evaluation going on. See Bhikkhu Analayo's "Satipaṭṭāna: The Direct Path to Liberation" text for an in-depth discussion on this.
As a result of the above, the experiences of Mindfulness practitioners can only be loosely connected to what we find in the Buddhist texts. In the discourses, the awareness of impermanence is said to lead to this:
“Bhikkhus, when the perception of impermanence is developed and cultivated, it eliminates all sensual lust, it eliminates all lust for existence, it eliminates all ignorance, it uproots all conceit ‘I am.’" - SN22.102
Buddhist meditators who practice is within the traditional framework certainly experiences these things (it takes a good deal of concentration - i.e. calming of the mind - to get to this point), but do Mindfulness practitioners do as well? And if they do, is that really what they hoped to get out of it?
Most practitioners of Mindfulness do it with the expectation of receiving benefits for their everyday lives. But in Buddhism Satipaṭṭāna practice has usually been the domain of monks and nuns living an ascetic lifestyle. The texts never claim, to my knowledge, that it would make a person more ready to go through the hustle and bustle of a daily layperson's life.
According to Guy Armstrong, a meditation teacher at Spirit Rock, for a while he found that could not relate at all to the Buddhist texts with regard to this meditation practice. But later after his practice deepened and his emotions stabilized, he realized that he was practicing for "emotional healing" but the Buddhist texts were not aimed at that purpose.
So in summary, the secular Mindfulness practice taught in the West today, while having origins in Buddhism, is a 1)slightly different practice and 2)aimed at a different purpose.

I have been thinking a bit about this question and have come to the conclusion that practicing mindfulness in this way may lead to suffering. Why?
Because it seems to me that in the western way of practicing mindfulness one is doing it for a specific purpose, meaning that one has expectations to the practice. One expects a result. One thereby has craving. In the buddhist way of practicing mindfulness one learns about the 3 signs of existence and the 5 aggregates. With proper practice that leads one to understand that there is no such thing as an eternal, permanent Self.
If one practice mindfulness with another purpose than the aforementioned one then one will not reach the understanding of the false idea of Self. One will instead reinforce the belief in a Self which in turn leads to further suffering and attachment.
The buddhist practice of mindfulness is all about training to see phenomena clearly, as they really are and in that way it leads to the giving up of craving.
It seems to me that the western way is the opposite and thereby it might lead to further suffering and attachment.
Another point i want to make is that i think the practice of mindfulness becomes more ineffective when taken out of the true context which is the buddhist way as described by the Buddha. One cannot just take such a profound teaching and turn it into something else.
Its like having a puzzle with 1000 bricks and then taking out 5-10 bricks and trying to complete the puzzle with only them or like trying to drive a car without having a license.
I want to state that i have not tried the western way of mindfulness and i know noone who do it so i might be completely wrong about it.

Just for reference, not to make a point: Mindfullness is popular in the west at the moment for "treating" what we see here as low-level mental illness, ennui, and so on, which border on "our" idea of clinical. These ideas enter into the popular consciousness through magazine articles, government guidelines, and so on. This is a part of our society which is very prone to fad and fashion (like dieting) and a few years ago was CBT, before that SSRIs, etc. In a few years it will change again. Anything to avoid considering the underlying problems (self, greed, etc, as you mention elsewhere @Lanka).

(I think it's likely this question will be seen as prone to opinion-based answers, but I'm going to offer some thoughts anyway, since I want to balance my comments critiquing your question :-) )
I'd say the basic answer is "yes", mindfulness when approached in the way you describe could indeed cause harm. I see at least three forms that harm could take:

The "opportunity cost" incurred by a practitioner who spends a lot of time on the kind of denuded mindfulness you describe, thinking it's the Real McCoy, and as a result fails to ever find a truly fruitful complete practice.
Actual harm in the form of an increased narcissism in the practitioner
The kinds of mental trauma described by people like Daniel Ingram and Willoughby Britton (the so-called "Dark Night") which I think are arguably caused by people plunging too quickly and deeply into intensive (and unguided) vipassana-focused practice without a balancing practice in morality

All that said, I'd find it hard to impossible to say just how much of the above theoretically possible harm is experienced in practice. I'd guess (but based on my reading of Ingram, Britton, and also Shinzen Young and others) that the third point is rare.

An article about Britton's "Dark Night" project: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-dark-knight-of-the-souls/372766/?single_page=true

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it possible to learn sanskrit on your own?
I want to learn sanskrit so that I'll have an easier go at learning pali

I don't know, but Oppenheimer (the physicist) did it.

Introduction to Sanskrit, by Thomas Egenes, is a good place to start - for self-studying Sanskrit.

People say that Oppenheimer didn't study alone: What is definitely known is that he didn’t start studying Sanskrit seriously until 1933, when he started studying with the renown Sanskrit scholar Arthur W. Ryder while he was a professor at Berkeley.

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


text:
Can Buddhist marry non Buddhist?
I have relationship with non Buddhist, and we both thinking seriously about marriage. My family could not accept him because he is not Buddhist. But as I learned so far , Buddhism teach us to love and respect all religion. Can I  marry him?

Here may be helpful What is Buddhist law of marriage ? Is there any?

Or Maybe Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?

I can understand family, I'd say you may have to ask him to be a Buddhist. Can speak about Dhamma. This was happened to me.  But since it, my belief been stronger that I should marry a Buddhist girl  who is practicing Buddhism as well that not happen in India that's why.

No question if you can, you can marry him but when it's matter of family you can ask him to be a Buddhist. That I would do. May this way we can spread Buddhism. Thank you so much. "May Buddha bless you!'

What a Buddhist should do is:

Lead a moral life which is beneficial to others and to oneself.
Try to develop control over your mind rather than be a slave to it.
Try to develop an understanding of the true nature of phenomena and reality (cause and effect) with relation to the psychological impact which cause misery and use this understanding as a leverage to come out of misery.

So this question boils down to if a physiologist can marry a surgeon or engineer or some one who subscribes to a non-scientific dogma. There is no issue.
But again marriage comes with other responsibilities and issues afterwards. You have to think through how you can handle these before hand. Also evaluate the impact it might have on your personal development and meditation, and see if there are any personal "costs" involved, but again this is up to you.

I wonder if you're right about 'non-scientific dogma'. I suspect it would be a bad move to marry someone who subscribes to a dogma. It's a mind-set that will grate with a Buddhist and might easily become a problem. Just a thought.

Yes. There are no restrictions in marrying people of other belief systems.

Can a non-Buddhist marry a Buddhist? In the eyes of a non-Buddhist, yes or no, or maybe.
Can a Buddhist marry a non-Buddhist or would he / she refrain from marrying a non-Buddhist?
He / she would leave the decision to the non-Buddhist.
The end decision to him / her would be the same - sun rises from the east, settles at the west. Water flows, birds sing, etc.
All the same. Remains the same.

Marriage demands mutual understanding not only between the marrying couple but between the two families. One of the most important thing you should consider before marrying a non Buddhist is if you would be able to continue your practice even after marriage. If you and your future husband are going to live by yourself without his family, then atleast he should know about your practice. If you are going to live with his family then its better that the whole family knows about your practice and that you would like to continue it. The story of Vishakha - chief laywoman disciple of Buddha would likely provide inspiration and guidance.
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/appendixes/personalities/visakha_migaramata.htm


text:
What are the consequences of the 14th Dalai Lama being the last one?
The current (14th) Dalai Lama has recently indicated that he may be the last person to hold that title. Does this stance cause any theological issues for the Gelug branch of Tibetan Buddhism or more widely Tibetan Buddhism in general? Can a tulku stop reincarnating? Does this potential lack of reincarnation conflict with the Bodhisattva vow?
I understand that there is a political element to this but I'm trying to understand the consequences if any for the tradition, theology and philosophy of the religion.

If I remember correctly, a while back the Dalai Lama also said that he might choose the next Dalai Lama while he is still alive. But perhaps his views have changed on this matter.

I'm not a Gelug and definitely don't know anything about the "theology"(???) and philosophy of the tibetanians. But I expect a big impact for the followers of that path, for the people, that friends, even if only "contemporaries", of ours... I've happened to be member of the socialistic movement in the 70/80ies and have seen the impact of the collapse of the organized/nationalized socialistic world on my earlier friends (and not only on my friends but on the whole larger scene) with that desorientation, true desperation and demoralization. We, as friends of that followers of the tibetan (...)

(...) paths shall face a huge, huge task before us non-tibetanians to be helpful and to be real friends. And by this , theology/philosophy (being interdependent related to the real people) itself shall later face massive consequences. (But it's not the place here in the comment to speculate about such an evolution)

I think, as an overall, we must realize what is truly important, that is, the teaching will always be greater than the teacher. Even the Buddha is no comparison to the Dharma. Even on the Buddhas deathbed, when His disciples feared that the light-of-the-world was about to go-out, the Buddha reminded then of the power of the teaching. As long as the practices of the teachings continue, the light will always shine!!
The Buddha told Ananda that when the Dhamma has been completely forgotten a new fully enlightened Buddha will arise. He is called Maitreya. I'm here quoting Ven. Sri. Dhammananda when he says in his book What Buddhists Believe on page 76:

...The Buddha continued again: "I am not the first Buddha to come upon earth; nor shall I be the last. In due time, another Buddha will
arise in this world, a Holy One, a Supremely Enlightened One, endowed
with wisdom, in conduct auspicious, knowing the universe, an
incomparable leader of men, a master of devas and men. He will reveal
to you the same Eternal Truths which I have taught you. He will
proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure; such as I now
proclaim."
"How shall we know him?", asked Ananda.
The Buddha replied, "He will be known as Maitreya which means kindness or friendliness."

I am in no position to speak for the Dalai Lama, though personally confident that he will  never abandon  Bodhichitta. But I think I can partly answer your question even so. Choosing not to be reborn as the Dalai Lama of Tibet says nothing about whether he might choose to reincarnate in some other form and position that is of greater benefit to beings, and in particular better serves the further development of Tibetan politics and culture. In other words, it certainly doesn't follow from HHDL's statement that he has foregone reincarnation altogether.


text:
Caught between two worlds
Hi my Name is Tobias and I am 31 years old. Of course there is a personal story behind my question and a lot of causes and conditions that led to my current situation but in brief the question goes somewhat like this:
What advice could you give someone who after a long period of looking deeply into buddhhism comes to the conclusion that there is actually nothing else to do in this life apart from practicing the dhamma (most preferably as a monk) but due to decisions earlier in his life this person is bound to live a worldly life (having two children to care for)?
The obvious answer would probably be to practise as a layperson and become a monk maybe in the next life :)
This sounds good in theory but I have come to realize that this is actually not easy to be done when you have no real interest in social interaction, seeing that most of the things people spend their time with are utterly useless.
So it is like being caught between two things where you can´t really focus on either one completely!
Thanks very much for your advice and opinion.

Related question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3717/strong-desire-to-serve-ordain

There is a lot you can do to make the best of your situation. I can tell you what's been helpful for me.
Social interaction regarding worldly things can seem like a ridiculous waste of time; but social interaction regarding the Buddha's teachings can be energizing. Reducing your old ways of social interaction and time spent on entertainment can give you time to find others, both online and locally, who share your interest in the Buddha's teachings.
A job can seem very dreary when the old ambitions you had no longer motivate you. But you can keep in mind that your job gives you the opportunity to give dana and support the Dhamma and that is really an honor, I think. Learning to live frugally so that you can give dana can be rewarding.
You can set a quiet, good example for everyone in your world by keeping the five precepts, following the noble 8 fold path, and letting it drop in casual conversation that you are Buddhist or that you meditate. You don't ever have to try to convince anyone about your beliefs. Just let your actions and demeanor speak for itself. Seeing positive changes in you may create interest in Buddhism or meditation in those around you.
You can join in a sort of spiritual solidarity with monastics by keeping the 8 precepts as often as possible. That's good for focusing on your practice too.
When monastics depend on laypeople for support and laypeople depend on monastics for spiritual support and teachings, a wonderful synergy is created. And both sides of the coin are important. I recommend a book called The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity at Home, at Work, and in the World. http://www.amazon.com/The-Buddhas-Teachings-Prosperity-World/dp/0861715470# It has many teachings directed at laypeople that you don't often hear and can help you understand the important of laypeople in Buddhism.
Best wishes in your journey.

What exactly are you practicing the dharma for? What exactly is the difference between your so called layman world and the "monk's world"?
The layman world which you speak of require you to "participate in social interaction", seeing and spending time on activities that are "utterly useless". But who defined that world?
Remember the Buddhist dharma is not bounded by the physical world, the boundary only exist in your mind. So do the worlds you speak of.
This first step I will say is to just start practicing. When you are eating, practice. When you are walking, practice. When you are working practice.
Just practice.Leave the the worldly problems aside.

"Remember the Buddhist dharma is not bounded by the physical world, the boundary only exists in your mind."  Beautifully put!

But be careful not to practice when you are practicing.

My advice is to use your life to practice dharma; after all, dharma can be practiced in any circumstances and its fruits are available now.  The challenges you face become fuel for practice. Your actions become the expression of practice.  Life's annoyances and pains (such as dealing with others) are a chance to explore self and attachment.  Your interactions are a chance to practice path elements such as mindfulness and especially right speech and compassion.
One need not be a monk to practice and benefit from Dharma.  Further, wanting to be a monk can be an attachment and thus a source of dukkha. Now, in addition to the usual challenges of the lay life, there's also the dukkha that comes from one more case of wanting things to be other than they are (e.g.: wanting to be a monk).  Dukkha doesn't change because the cause is "spiritual".
Also, monks have their own challenges.  Not all monks are spiritual or care about the Dharma.  Often, monks at the monastery are there for ulterior motives, and hence have no interest in dharma. Further, being a monk, it's all too easy to hide behind the orange robes and begging bowl; is one really practicing then?  Sure one is isolated, but what challenges is one facing?  Challenges are the fuel for practice.
Just because you are not a monk doesn't mean you're living a worldly life.  What makes your life worldly is how you live in the world.  There are many worldly monks and many spiritual laypeople.
Those who practice Dharma for a better rebirth as a monk (or anything else) are not fully practicing dharma because implicit in the practice is their clinging to monk-hood (or anything else) and a holding back, a belief that they really cannot reap the full fruits now. Such practice strikes me as half-hearted.  Practice should be done with the intent of liberation in the circumstances one is in. If one practices whole-heartedly and the rebirth doctrine is true, one enjoys a better life now and a better rebirth will occur.  If the rebirth doctrine is false, one still enjoys a better life now.

The first thing you need to do is to recognize that this is a weakness in yourself. You do not have the strength to confront the emotions involved in abandoning your family. Recognizing the situation in this way puts the scales into balance. You do not blame Buddhism for not being able to magically get you out of this situation, and you do not blame others for getting you into it. This is just 'where you are.' Seeing it that way you will get rid of unhelpful mental states like bashing yourself for not making the sort of progress you think you should be making.
Then confront the reality. You have a job to do. This is your kamma. There is nothing to do about that but knuckle down and do the best job of managing the situation that you can. This is your concentration object at this point. You make your life situation into your practice.
In this context you can take what free time you can manage to scrape up to meditate and study the Dhamma with the idea of using the benefits to better handle your situation. This situation. Not some, for you, abstract idea of ending rebirth completely.
Then I have a practical suggestion that I have given to a number of 'husbands' to good effect: If it is at all possible, get yourself a 'den'. This room you go to to restore your strength. No one may enter except in an emergency. It will make all the difference in the world.
I can also suggest that you do not make any efforts to bend your family to your higher purpose. Accept them as they are. This is the task of every Buddhist in the end anyway. You just have it in an intensified form.
Remember: nothing lasts.

There are many factors keeping you bound to the lay life. Having children is only one of them.  Prince Siddhartha had a son when he left. It's just that your Nekkhamma thoughts are still not strong enough to break the bonds of lay life. You don't really have any special problem apart from being subjected to the 1st noble truth. Keep doing good and cultivating the mind through meditation. When Nekkhamma Sankhappa overpowers clinging, you will leave the lay life.


text:
Do metta practices and anatta contradict each other?
When I was taught the Metta Bhavna meditation practice it was suggested that I repeat the following to myself

May I be well
  May I be happy
  May I be free

Then again repeating the same again to other people. As the practice goes on then this can be dropped for more subtle methods. But this formulation and the practice in general has always struck me as been at odds with the idea of no fixed self (Anatta). If I am wishing well to myself and others - who exactly am I wishing well to? Who is this 'I' that I am wishing well to?
In general do these kinds of metta practice conflict with the annatta doctrine. I am assuming that they don't conflict as they are both fairly central in Buddhism. Given that, how are the two practices reconciled?

This is a long book - but it might be of some help. Brahmavihara Dhamma - Mahasi Sayadaw http://buddhanet.net/brahmaviharas/index.htm

Metta Meditation is more of a samatha meditation practice leading to samatha-jhanas. So, clearly you are dealing with concepts in this form of meditation and should not confuse it with insight meditation (Mahasi Sayadaw explains it better - he says, if you regard a person as the five aggregates while cultivating Metta - you will be unlikely to succeed, and gives good reasons for it too)  .So, one should direct one's thoughts only in the direction of Metta to gain concentration. If the question you asked arises in meditation - it should be seen as the 5th hindrance(Doubt or vicikicchā).

This is where Mahasi Sayadaw speaks of Anatta with reference to Metta Meditation http://buddhanet.net/brahmaviharas/bvd063.htm

"In general do these kinds of metta practice conflict with the annatta doctrine. I am assuming that they don't conflict as they are both fairly central in Buddhism. Given that, how are the two practices reconciled?"
I think this is something of a linguistic issue mixed with prescription/description issues -- and often discussions about "conventional" and "absolute" terms come up, etc.
For example, I can see a conflict through an ordinary/abstract approach (eg. if one disregard all that is context sensitive and assume words and meanings are fixed across the texts). Thus, the following show conflict (disregarding translation traps):

May I be well
  May I be happy
  May I be free

And:

To an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person, touched by experience born of the contact of ignorance, there occur (the thoughts): 'I am,' 'I am thus,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' or 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient.'
-- SN 22.47:

This is a dead end. I think the issue is much like vaccine having the appearance of a contradiction: a person is cured by making her ill. The details that are important to make a better sense of it are implicit or words are too overloaded.
On a different approach, consider again an instruction to repeat the metta quote above:

If one repeats it without actively manifesting anything these words denote, one is probably exercising little more than memory by doing the repetitions.
On the other hand, if one directs the mind towards "giving" wellness, happiness and freedom, then a metta exercise is going on, in that it is expected the associated faculties to get stronger.
Now, if whatever is done while repeating, a reinforcement of a doctrine of "self" takes place, a reinforcement of wrong view happens, I guess this is the "contradiction".

So, even though the target of metta alluded to is "yourself", I believe it should be taken in the conventional sense (much as "you" and "I" are used by the Buddha), without reinforcing an illusory notion of "self". And it certainly is an important practice. For example, many struggle with self acceptance, remorse and lack of compassion towards oneself, which is not only a source of suffering but a crosscutting obstruction (may affect how one treats others, affects all kinds of things like health, humor, energy, obfuscate our views, makes it much harder to get into deeper meditation, or to jhana states, etc).

This is a very subtle matter and can easily be misunderstood, even with proper references.
The doctrine of anatta, not self, does not state that nothing exists. It's just that the idea of what you think it exists is completely mistaken. So the idea has no correspondence in reality and it is in that sense that the self doesn't exist. And this selfless, ever changing process we label "I", is capable of feeling.
But since this is a very subtle point, maybe you can practice with the sentences
May this be well
May this be happy
May this be free
May that be well
May that be happy
May that be free
where "this", or "that" is the selfless, but sentient process.

Buddhist view on Anatta is:

There is no solid core as everything in the physical and metal structure is changing and not permanent
There is noting that you can absolutely control
Hence there is nothing worthy of identifying as oneself

In contrary contemporary view was:

There was some small internal part which persists between lives
The 5 aggregates are self
Some or one of the aggregate is self
etc.

Regarding identity view, it is any perception or thoughts or view on self:

Result in misery when there is a negative / positive evaluation
Abandoning as opposed to clinging to the views and expectations result in you coming our of misery due to self related perceptions, thoughts and views

So when doing metta meditation you should look into the contact of the through with your mind sense door. Mere wishing some one does not cause you misery in most cases. Hence there is no issue with this perception.
Some times is you are giving metta to some on of the opposite sex who you consider beautiful then raga may arise. Sometimes if a loved one is in a bad situation then some negative feeling may arise with the craving to overcome the difficulty. Also when you bring up the perception of someone you hate to be well and happy.
Keep looking at the contact of the thought with the mind and the sensation it produces. If the thoughts, perceptions and views on oneself is creating unpleasant (based on aversion) / pleasant (based on craving) sensations then you are not doing the meditation the right way. (Also note neutral sensation can be based on perceptions and views also hence based on ignorance of reality but if they are not causing any thing other than neutral sensation then at least it is a start.) If you strengthening the perceptions (sanna) and views (ditti) then you are doing the meditation the wrong way. If it is lightening the perceptions and views then you are doing it the correct way. Your thoughts of metta should ideally proliferate to either karuan and / or mudita and then finally upekka. Every though should end in equanimity and understanding of its impermanence. Equanimity since you have no absolute control and any expectation are unsatisfactory hence strengthening your understanding Anatta and Sakaya.
Also this can be practice at three levels:

Physical level - by service, charity and action
Verbal fabrication level - You recite in terms of words or visualise
Mental fabrication level - by instilling the perception and view or metal concept sans words or visualisations (this is difficult at start unless you have some idea how perception and view work but can come to this later.)

At the last level you can progress to higher levels of concentration as you are just dealing with perception and sensations through as you progress you have to make this perception very subtle where there is hardly any perception (neither perception nor no perception).
Following two guides might also be very helpful:

Practical Bare-Bones guide to Metta Meditation by Ven. Bhante Vimalaramsi
The Sublime Attitudes: A Study Guide on the Brahmaviharas

In a way they seem to contradict each other since they are each others opposites. How is that?
Metta-Bhavana belongs to the practice of Samatha meditation. In samatha meditation one is only dealing with concepts in the sammuti-sacca, i.e. Conventional Reality. So its okay to wish good well being for oneself and other beings since we are here dealing with such concepts.
The anatta-doctrine deals with paramattha-sacca, i.e. Ultimate Reality. Here we have the 3 signs of existence and Anatta is one them. So here there exists no concepts such as I, Me, Self etc. in Ultimate Reality.
When viewed from the perspective of Conventional vs. Ultimate Reality then the difference becomes more clear. Another way to look at it is to see what the meditation object of the 2 methods are.
In Metta-Bhavana we have a concept as meditation object.
In Insight-Meditation we have reality as meditation object.
Hope this be of some help.
Lanka

The Short Essence of Eloquence
Tsongkhapa, the 13th century Buddhist Pandita

Who sees the inexorable causality of things
  Of both cyclic life and liberation
  And destroys any objectivity conviction
  Thus finds the path
  that pleases Victors
Appearance inevitably relative
  And voidness free from all assertions –
  As long as these are understood apart
  The victors intent is not known.
But when they coincide not alternating
  Mere sight of inevitable relativity
  Secures knowledge beyond objectivisms
  And investigation of the view is perfect
More, as experience dispels absolutism
  And voidness clears away nihilism
  You know voidness dawn as cause and effect
  No more will you be deprived by extremist views

Buddhist philosophy is very subtle non-dualism - one mustn't be caught in either position i.e. the self is empty, or the self is non-empty. One goes beyond (gate gate paragate, parasamgate Bodhi svaha).
Wisdom and love are dualities, but enlightenment is non-dual yet includes both positions.
The Prajnaparamita Sutra - especially the bit about "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" is this paradox [Coinciding not alternating Madhyamika interpretations of paramartha and samvrti satya ("ultimate" and "superficial reality")]. The entire spiritual path is a paradox, and enlightenment is being completely comfortable with this paradox.

The concept of anatta does not assert that there is no such thing as a self at all, but rather that whatever self is, it's not permanent, separate, etc. So in your own formulation, "no fixed self", the operative word is "fixed". Given that, there is no contradiction since clearly -- a la Descarte's cogito ergo sum -- the mere fact that you practice metta and wish for the wellbeing of yourself (and others) itself shows that you exist. I suppose one could say beatifico ergo sum :-) Anatta then simply points to the fact that "you" whatever you are, aren't what you (assuming you are unenlightened) think you are

No because anatta doesn't conclusively say that we do not exist.
We do not exist nor do we not not-exist.
(concept from Diamond Sutra)


text:
Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?
According to this article by Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero:

Majjhima Nikaya 55 ..... The Buddha denied this, adding “Jivaka, I
  say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten:
  when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been
  specifically slaughtered for oneself) … I say that there are three
  instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, heard, or
  suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for
  oneself).”

And another quote from the same source:

Anguttara Nikaya 8.12 ..... This is one of the discourses which clearly
  shows that the Buddha and his monks ate meat. Also, we see that meat
  from an animal that is already dead when it is purchased is allowed to
  be used, but not if the animal is alive.

In summary from the above and various sources:

It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals
It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat
It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you
It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (already dead before you arrived at the market)

My thought is that although the last case is not wrong due to an individual not being the direct cause of the killing of the specific animal, the individual is still contributing to the general demand that drives the meat market i.e. encouraging the supply of meat by butchers. If there is no demand, then there would be no supply. Unlike a tiger killing its prey, a butcher only slaughters the animal if there would be purchasers who would buy its meat.
So, why is this not considered wrong by Buddhists?
EDIT: Preferably, according to the Theravada tradition.

It seems to me thoroughly explained in the article which you referenced: do you want someone to summarize that article in point form? Or to reference a different opinion (other than that article which you referenced)? Or to explain their own personal opinion?

@ChrisW If you read the section of the article entitled Analogy of Serial Killer, you will find that the original author has an explanation but then the comments section contradicts it, saying "Surely, they bear some negative karma too. Every purchase of meat is continual demand for more killing to sustain one’s appetite – which pays for butchers to sustain their livelihoods as serial killers." So, surely there is room for opinions and debate on the matter.

Saying "surely there is room for opinions and debate on the matter" implies that you're asking for diverse, individual, personal opinions. But at the end you're asking, not "why is it considered wrong or not considered wrong by Buddhists", but, "why is this not considered wrong by the Buddha".

@ChrisW Changed to "So, why is this not considered wrong by Buddhists?". I mean that there is room for diverse opinions, but eventually only one best answer based on Buddhist philosophy.

This is not a real question, it is an opportunity to discuss a controversial topic. Anyhow, East Asian Mahayana is vegetarian and has a strong animal rights component. Theravada does not (you're quoting Pali texts). If an issue is unimportant for a sect, the quality of the justifications are irrelevant.

@MatthewMartin I know you don't like this topic because you found it controversial on other sites. Maybe that will be less of a problem on this site, whose focus is more (self-contained) answers than (back-and-forth) discussion. Is “opinion based” a reason for closing a question? on meta suggests that many topics on this site (except mere requests for references) will contain some introspection/subjectivity, and that's OK as long as the answer has "clear evidentiary background, even if that evidence is one person's individual experience."

Then it needs to be asked far more narrowly than this. This is only going to invite long threads of comments like you see on the question and top answer of people intent on changing peoples opinions rather than working out the facts of a matter.

If it helps, I can narrow down to the Theravada tradition.

Perhaps modern life with its huge networks and systems of supply and sales creates a different situation than 2500 years ago, where individual butchers provided product to the customers coming to them directly? Perhaps we collectively need to make different choices to affect the results of these huge systems than the sort of choices that individuals could make 2500 years ago? Perhaps 7 billion people cannot all individually procure food for themselves? Perhaps humanity needs to create food and consume resources differently now than formerly.

Related: Eating meat and buying meat

The issue with this question is that it assumes that vegetarian food production does not kill animals. Farming causes many deaths due to deforestation, pesticides, weedicides, electric fences and other animal traps. It can also contribute to landslides which even cause human deaths. So when you buy meat from the supermarket, if you are responsible for the animal who was slaughtered, you are also responsible for the animals killed in vegetarian food production, when you buy vegetarian food.

I think that some vegetarians hope that fewer animals (not "no animals") are killed; and that they do not kill animals deliberately (i.e. only by accident). Some vegetarians have reported that they feel less guilty and more friendly towards live animals, than they would if they knew that they wanted such animals to be killed and caused animals to be killed for their meat.

Some people (although this is not, apparently, an especially Buddhist view of ethics) accept that they contribute to (if they pay for) any harm caused by economic activities such as farming: and so they are interested in "organic" food because they hope that type of farming might be "better for the environment" (deforestation, pesticides, etc.).

Buddhist view on ethics is based on perception and view which we evaluate any input we get from the external world, motivating thoughts which are input to the mind and the sensations it produce. If holding the view is unsatisfactory we should let go. If volitional thoughts are unsatisfactory we should let go. If your perception / view is overly polarised we have to use an antidote which are generally conducive perceptions / views. (For perception - Girimananda Sutta gives 10, For view there appear else where). These perception / views are a tool to calm the fabrications and not the end itself.

If you are moral and ethical it is well and good. Buddhist morality is not a fashion, custom, right or ritual, vow, etc but aimed at calming the fabrications. It is at a deeper level understanding of the elements, contact, conciousness, sensation (main cause of unsatisfactory due to the 3 characteristics of the elements and sensation itself), perception and views.

Also guilty feelings are due to attachment to view and your perception / conditioned response kicking in.

In a country where every single citizen is a committed Buddhist, everyone would surely be vegetarian, because no one would want to work as a butcher, due to Right Livelihood, and no one would want to kill their own meal due to Right Action.

This is a very hypothetical thing. Again creating a web of views and perception. At a deeper level right action / livelihood is the fabrication process and the balance of the mind.

If you are in the meat industry you are creating a lot of unwholesome fabrications and may not be able to keep a balanced mind. It is a individual choice. If a person cannot be restrained enough not to get into such and industry by the lure of money it is had to imagine how he can develop a higher mind to make use of the teaching.

Also another aspect is if Buddha enforced vegetarianism on the request of Devadatta then Buddhism would not have spread to surrounding countries which the main staples diet was not agrarian. And since Buddhism died in India so would have ended the Sasana. The Buddha was very much foresighted in this aspect. The Dhamma is for those who can put it to use which is a very few.

Also Buddhist focus is inward. So by taking this food what fabrications am I creating it the question. What are the sensation that you experience by wanting something. The foundations for the 8 fold path and 4 noble truth is the level of sensation. Your morality becomes automatic when you see how fabrications result from sensations. So it boils down what sensation you experience when the through to eat and through to kill contacts your mind sense door.

Discussing any aspect of the 8 fold path, 4 Noble truths outside the context of dependent origination, sense faculties, 5 aggregates and sensations is miss quoting or miss application of the concept though many publication currently do this.

To my non Buddhist friends I've recommenced that they buy a local, grass fed cow from a trusted farmer and thank the cow for her sacrifice. One cow, done correctly, can last a family a year if used sparingly. When you have that meat you'll feel much more compassion for it than if purchased in a supermarket and only one animal died with little damage to the land. If you're going to eat animals eat as few as possible, like one a year, and make sure they've been treated humanly. I really like your answer.

Right and wrong in Buddhism are identified according to the Karmic values of the actions. It has nothing to do with whether the people or a God will hold you responsible or not.
If a certain action is wholesome Karma, it is right! If a certain action produces no Karma, it is right! If a certain action produces unwholesome Karma, it is wrong!

Because buddhist morality is not about regulations and punishments for bad deeds. It's about the effect actions have on your well being, and others' well being. It's "medicinal morality", rather than "legalist morality". And what is bad for the mind's health is to act with malicious intentions.
This perspective on morality is completely different from our western morality which is still influenced by a christian view of exterior punishment for bad deeds. The punishment comes from you alone and is thus rooted in your intentions behind the deeds.
In this case, this is just one more instance of how suffering in the world is innevitable. It's not that being vegetarian is irrelevant. It is obviously a wholesome thing to do. But there are far more important things to worry about regarding what is good and what is bad for the mind, because when you buy meat you don't have the intention to kill animals. Just like when you walk the street you have no intention to kill bugs, even though that is completely innevitable in the long run.

I like this answer, yet once one becomes aware that harm is occurring, it is difficult to simply keep insisting that it was not one's intent. Responsibility means that we have to alter behavior for unintended results also, otherwise there would be no point in learning anything.

Reading the article, the first half of it is directed to monks:

Monks accept charity
Monks don't pay for food (so they don't "contribute to the market")
Monks shouldn't refuse meat (if lay people choose/prefer to give them meat) because that (monks expressing a dietary preference and refusing) would make the monks more difficult to support

As for the message to lay people (not monks), the article seems to summarize as:

Being vegetarian isn't sufficient to liberate people from suffering (so instead of teaching vegetarianism, the Buddha teaches the 4 noble truths, the 8-fold path, etc.)
Being vegetarian isn't sufficient to prevent people from participating in indirect killing (e.g. clearing land for housing, for vegetarian crops, for driving, results in animals' being dying or killed)
Being vegetarian isn't sufficient to prevent animals from dying (animals would die and/or kill each other even if all humans were vegetarian)

I personally agree with the article's "commentary" more than with the article itself.
As a lay person who has some choice about how to spend "my" money, I find the "market demand" argument persuasive. My personal preference is to be vegetarian but not to criticize the choices that others make.
I also know some people (non-Buddhists) who raise, slaughter, and eat their own animals: and I don't see these people as less ethical than those who buy meat ready-killed and butchered from a supermarket.
The Dhammapada says,

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

The Buddha is quoted in the article as saying,

I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)

I choose to interpret "paying a butcher" as being the same as, "causing another to kill", as well as, "the living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself"; but I understand that this is a 'non-canonical', view which not every Buddhist will or must agree with.
In summary, if you want to think or if you actually think that it (eating and/or buying meat) is wrong, and if you want to choose to be vegetarian, then I think there's some scripture which allows you to do that ... but there's not enough in the scripture to let you 'split the Sangha' and to argue that other Buddhists (who aren't vegetarian) are wrong.
why is this not considered wrong by Buddhists?
I think that Buddhists consider a lot of things wrong: and that "this is considered wrong" is an example of the first noble truth! What good is there in criticizing what other people choose to do?
In Buddhism, the views on vegetarianism vary between different schools of thought.
The commentary to the article you posted is written by a venerable who "was first ordained in the
Chinese Mahayana tradition. In 1986 he was re-ordained in
the Therāvada tradition in Thailand."

Eating meat is bad karma. So what if it's an intellectual or conceptual argument? When buying meat, you don't have volition to kill but you have volition to eat the flesh of an animal killed for you the end consumer. A monk would be breaking the monastic code if they were out there shopping for pork chops. Are the first five precepts not  conceptual, as well?
Conceptual reality is a reality too :)

The key here is volition > fabrications.
In Buddhism this one one of the main points to be focused on. Though demand means that animals will get killed to supply the demand, for the person consuming there is not volition to kill. If any body wants to take a step further and become vegetarian / vegan then it is up to the individual.
Here volition to feast should not be mistaken with volition to kill. If you have to complete the karma of killing:

it should be directed at the animal rooted in either aversion (e.g. pests), carving (e.g. to have a good dinner), ignorance (e.g. ritual)
you should know this is alive
you should have a method to kill it
you should follow through with the method
as a result the animal should get killed

In the case of chicken dinner:

we crave for taste
we device a plan too shopping and then cook or go to a restaurant or something else

this can involve butchering the animal or hunting in which case this is equivalent to killing

we follow through with it
as a result our craving is momentarily stratified

Through both creates fabrication much of the it is differently motivated. One has the animal as the subject the other has mere eating as the subject. If you are thinking to eat a particular animal then it will be volition to kill.

If you look at this more deeply. Also only two things Buddha taught is unsatisfactory nature of existance and how to come out of it. Buddhism basis of morality is no exception and is very objective in what it is supposed to achieve. That is to train yourself come out of misery. Buddhist morality is not a right or ritual, a vow, philosophy, custom, fashion, personal value system, belief or ideal you adhere to, etc. (At some point you will understand morality predicated on this basis will not take you to the final Buddhist goal. But until some time you have to do it as a personal value system or principle.) This is a tool or a step in the process which you train yourself to come out of misery and means to create the best contritions for concentration and wisdom.
You need to dissolve all your fabrications. Any through which is contrary to morals will manifest as an unpleasant sensation. Unpleasant sensation means new negative fabrication are created. The goal of the Buddhist teaching it to identify the psychological root of suffering and eliminate it. Any volition which results in solidifies / gross sensation should be let go of. (Initially a person practising will  practice morality as a vow, custom, personal belief, etc. but later will become automatic when one sees the fabrication process.) The moral basis of Buddhism is that you do not create any fabrication.
If you hold on to a view that eating meat is bad this contributes to your misery as it adds to your base of perceptions or conditioned responses of the mind. Thoughts proliferating will create sensation and reaction will further create fabrications. The view on the matter will feed in to ignorance as you have an expectation and yard stick against which you evaluate the events in the world. E.g. your mental reaction if you see a monk eating meat. This is just contributing to the notion of control and identity. Control - you have a clinging that thinks are ordered in a certain way but it is not ordered in the way you wish. Identity - you are holding into a view and a yardstick as your view or take on the matter. Also morality as a vow, ritual, ritual, or belief - basis on morality is ignorance but not the process of identifying the creating of fabrication.
Basis of basis of Buddhist morality is volition and fabrication and the way to stop fabrication a means to get out of misery, than philosophical ideal to which every one should adhere to. Also morality is a tool in the process that the end itself. At a more micro level is thought > mind sense door > contact > register > evaluate > sensation > craving > clinging. You have to make sure any ideas are ones which do not give unpleasant sensations. Cultivate things will give you blissful or neutral / comfortable / relaxing sensations. Craving for food does have it downside but sensation mark different when you are motivated to kill. Also holding into a dietary / lifestyle ideal may have more decremental than a food craving at the level of fabrication as well as perception and view accumulation. To get out of misery you have to get out of the process of fabrication.

I find that begs the question: why is "paying a butcher" not the same as "volition to kill"?

Or why is "paying a butcher" not the same as "volition to cause future killing"?

If you pay to get that particular animal killed then it is killing.

So, the craving for the taste of meat and the volition to experience it, is different from the volition to kill.

Not necessarily. If it is directed to a particular living animal it is volition to kill. Point to a live duck and saying I want this bird.

I practice mahasi sayadaw -  and from my personal understanding its best not to eat meat cause its wholesome  - its hard for me to explain all the ways it is wholesome but i think it helps in compassion and in self control like another extra precepts that can help  the practice even though its not a must
i also found this text but not of theravada which talks about meat eating :
Many of the Bodhisattva precepts are about not harming, either oneself or others, or animals.  The first major precept is to ‘Refrain from taking life’.  It points out in great details that one should not kill oneself, nor cause someone else to do it, nor do it in a roundabout way, nor create the cause or conditions, nor the means to kill.  It is an exhaustive list that makes us reflect on the many ways by which we might cause harm.  We might not kill other people or any living creatures but do we cause them harm in any other way.  And if we cause them harm, how do we do it?  Do we do it in a round about way so we do not feel responsible for it?   Do we create the causes and conditions for causing harm needlessly?  These precepts show us that wisdom and compassion help us to reflect on our actions and intentions.  Then the precept explains why we should not kill and that is because the duty of a Bodhisattva is to be always compassionate and to lead others to liberation.
There are several precepts that investigate what it means to be non-harming due to a compassionate attitude.  The third major precepts, which encourages proper sexual behaviour, states that the reason for doing so is that otherwise perverted, indecent, indiscriminate sexual behaviour would cause compassion to disappear.  When one is in the power of lustful thoughts or feelings, can one reflect on what would be the compassionate things to do for all involved in that moment?  This precept  reminds us: “It is the duty of a bodhisattva to always present a state of mind which conforms to the Buddha-nature and to lead others to liberation by teaching them the pure Dharma.”
The third secondary precept encourages vegetarianism on the ground that if someone were to eat the flesh of animals he would destroy great compassion and great kindness and the seed of the Buddha-nature.  To this day monasteries and nunneries in China and Korean are completely vegetarian.  Since it seemed more difficult for laypeople to be fully vegetarian then six specified fasting or vegetarian days a month were created as well as three special months of abstinence, i.e. times when one avoids animal food.
taken from :
https://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index.php/en/compassion-in-action

When I think it through, I come to the conclusion that humans must somehow create a situation such that their actions do not cause any harm, like a space ship. We would have to synthesize all foods chemically and neither take from the environment, nor put anything in to it. Perhaps some day Artificial Intelligences will subsist only on solar energy panels? Is that really the only way to do things properly?

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


text:
Where does the Buddha say 'you will be punished by your anger'?
I've heard this quote attributed to the Buddha

You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your
  anger

Does anyone know where the quote comes from? Also the The notion of punishment seems a bit non standard to me. Does anyone know the orginal term (Pali etc...) translated here as punishment and if this is an accurate translation. I do like the quote though hence the question.

The fakebuddhaquotes web site attributes it as follows:

Going back to 1993, we hit pay dirt! In To Love Is to Know Me: The Bhagavad Gita for Daily Living (Volume 3), author Eknath Easwaran says the following:

Even more intriguing to me is the karma of our health. Again, let me illustrate one or two kinds of connection. For one, the Buddha says that we are not punished for our anger, we are punished by our anger. In other words, anger is its own karma.

Note the absence of quotation marks. Eknath is not quoting the Buddha, but paraphrasing his teachings on anger and karma.


text:
Meditation and being aware in your sleep while dreaming
I noticed a reply Andrei made on a post on the results of meditating, that you become aware in your sleep while dreaming, so that your mind knows it's a dream:

Mindfulness during sleep
Do Arhats sleep?

This is a major confirmation sign of correct practice in Ancient Daoism (which i've been reading for years now, not knowing which is correct practice) -- and i would like Andrei's advice (and whoever else would like to share their insight) on practice technique and how you have managed to get to this advanced level.

At the bottom of the question there are four button, labelled 'share', 'edit', 'close', and 'flag'. To the right of those buttons (under the centre of the question) is some text which says how long ago that text was edited (e.g. "edited 1 day ago"). That piece of text is also a clickable hyperlink, and if you click on that piece of text, it will show you the edit history: so you can see who made what edits and when.

Although there are connections between Taoism and Buddhism, I am not sure if discussion of the Tao is within the scope of possible questions.

Anlaf, I can't be sure (since I'm not the editor) but I reckon the edits were done simply to make your question more generally useful to a wider readership. As it stood, it looked a bit like a very personal request for advice from you to Andrei. The edits have simply opened it up a little so that it will be easier for other people to benefit from any answers. StackExchange tends to see questions and answers more as "community property" and open to improvement by anyone. That's in contrast to traditional forums where questions "belong" to the original poster.

Can we have a link to Andrei's original reply, to which this question is referring? That would help other members of the community provide answers.

My guess would be that while experiencing lucid dreaming may be a sign of good practice it is not a useful practice in itself until one has reached a quite skilled stage in ones other practices.

This is Lucid Dreaming and (AFAIK) it isn't typical practice in most schools of Buddhism, nor should it be used as a gauge for how your meditation practice is going.
With that said, there are some connections.

Dream Yoga.  A set of practices in Tibetan Buddhism for using dreaming (including Lucid Dreaming) to further the path.
Using your improved concentration (thanks to meditation) to enter the hypnagonic state intentionally and from there initiate a Lucid Dream.

Tibetan Buddhism is mainline if you are in the right location in the world.

Good point.  I was thinking of the Sutras people were likely to encounter, all else remaining equal, but didn't articulate it properly.  I'll reword the answer.  Thanks!

I just attended a meditation retreat with Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche where he discussed sleep meditation.  First, meditation while in lucid dreams is absolutely possible.  For this first pursue normal techniques for lucid dreams and separately for meditation.  Then in a lucid dream state, meditate.
Second, and more surprisingly, you can enter sleep in a state of open awareness and you can maintain awareness in a dreamless sleep.  Honestly I didn't believe him until I managed to do it myself the other night.  It's really odd to be aware of sleep paralysis, but the meditation state is amazingly clear and open.

I've been experimenting with Buddhist meditations and sleep for about ten years now.
This post could easily stretch into a few thousand words long containing my ideas, experiences, insights, and guidance.
I'll try to answer your question about the overall point in regards to dream practice in Buddhism as well as Taoism first, then I'll talk about practice.
In Buddhism, once you have penetrated throught the conception skandha you are always aware in your dreams. "Penetrated through the conception skandha" means you have achieved initial enlightenment. It means you have attained a stable state of emptiness understanding, seeing the heart of reality.

"Buddha says that someone who has freed themselves from the form and
  sensation skandhas, but still operating within the conception skandha,
  can be compared to someone talking in their sleep. When you are
  talking in your sleep you are still operating with thought. Bystanders
  sitting by your side can understand what you are saying and doing, but
  you are not the complete master of your state since you do not
  actually know what is going on. Although you are at an advanced stage
  of attainment, you still are not in control of the situation like a
  master! If you can break free of the conception skandha, your
  dreamlike thoughts will dissolve, and your mind will remain the same
  whether you are awake or asleep. Thus, we sometimes describe this
  stage by saying you will know no crudities in your mind when you
  sleep. You cannot accurately say that ìdreams will disappearî at this
  stage, which is what you often hear. Rather, it is more proper to say
  that whether you are asleep or awake, your mental realm will always
  remain the same. If you dream you will still remain so clear that you
  can even make decisions. A Chinese saying runs, ìSages have no dreams,
  and dullards have no dreams,î and the phrase that ìsages have no
  dreamsî refers to the fact that there mind is always clear even during
  the state of sleep."

--from Conception Skandha part of Chapter 5 of William Bodri's book "How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization"
In Taoism, this is equivalent to the state where your shen is full and you will no longer be able to sleep. Many practitioners at this stage (Buddhist, Taoist, or Christian) when they achieve this level of "mental clarity" (a little bit of shen) cannot sleep for days and wonder if they are going crazy. (The solution to this common issue, which happened to me last night, is to just use that special time to do calming meditation some more. Don't worry too much about worldly sleep [unless you are experiencing Zen sickness, which is a similar phenomenon that is best faced by taking some sleep medicine to forgo brain damage through over-creativity].)

From this point of view, people say that you no longer dream anymore;
  everything will seem clear whether you are awake or asleep. While this
  is not a perfect match of realms, we can begin to understand that
  Chuang Tzu also knew of this stage of cultivation, for he wrote: He
  does not dream while asleep, does not worry while awake, does not take
  satisfaction in eating, and his breathing is deep.

The above is from William Bodri's book again same chapter about clarity in dreams due to breaking the conception skandha. Please see Tao & Longevity by Master Huai-Chin Nan if you want to understand the energetic connection. Master Nan himself was a Taoist Buddhist Esoteric and Zen Buddhist master and he said that for our generation of analytical people, no less is sufficient for our information-addicted minds to be cautious and self-aware along the path..
From these passages, I hope people can be alerted to the importance of dream awareness.
In Tibetan Buddhist books, it is also exclaimed that if you cultivate within your dreams, your power of cultivation is tenfold!
This is a loud fact that was emphasized very much whenever I managed to succeed in meditating during my lucid dreams (3 times I can clearly remember over the past years but probably more I cannot). Each time, I felt fundamentally transformed, mainly because I made it so (long explanation).
People that master the ability to be clear in their dreams, thus should not waste such opportunities.
And people that are not yet aware, should train themselves to be so! Lucid dreams are emotionally healing and having them is not only a means of cultivation but a sign of proper cultivation as the book I excerpted indicates and Buddha's Surangama Sutra also indicates!
I highly reccommend the book I excerpted, you will find ample answers to satisfy your questions about the Tao, cultivation, dreaming, and how it all still falls under/works with Buddhism.
So what techniques do I reccommend to achieve lucid dreams (LD)?
Honestly, I'm still conflicted between causing them through cultivation.
Nonetheless, LDs positive effects are undisputed (in the scientific community at large now as well)[google it].
It's easy to be practicing awareness meditation like a dog and then fall asleep like a dog, waking up not even remember a dream.
It takes finesse, gentleness... and outcome detachment to succeed.
Out of the many techniques I'm going to end my post here with I would reccommend the WILD technique. I would also reccommend combining all the other techniques but not too many. I have taken them from many different traditions and these are the best out of the many I have experimented with in the past 10-15 years.

WILD: go to sleep for at least 3 hours. Wake up and meditate for 20 minutes using one meditation technique (try either breathing or something below) and the go to sleep again. you will enter REM for a longer time and it will be easier
affirmation: before you go to sleep affirm your intention. I reccommend binaural assistance for this, especially during a WILD session.
Tibetan Buddhism: imagine a green light in your right hand, put it over your heart. Imagine a white light over your left hand, put it on your throat. Fall asleep being clearly aware, imagining yourself as your deity. All of these can be done simultaneously but they were taught as separate practices.
breathing meditation: for some reason I had a lot of spontaneous LDs just watching my breath
vipssana: i had a few LDs just watching my thought. Two where I was really tired physically due to PE and long school day but aware due to meditation practice, fell asleep, and I went through hypnogogia into dream state.
Toltec hand watching: intend to yourself, i will watch my hands. this is extremely powerful. at least 10 LDs like this in 2014. see Carlos Castaneda.
reality testing: ask yourself every hour "am i dreaming?"
reality testing Tibetan Buddhist edition: realize you ARE dreaming. You ARE always in a dream. What kind of dream is this one? test. once you master lucid dreaming manipulation you will be able to master all realities similarly. (no jumping off buildings now!)
dream incubation: this worked only when it was gentle and not pushed. even with fantasies of girls, I would have a pleasant, easy-going  dream relationship of that girl when i had a light or gentle fantasy. if it was a very erotic fantasy, the dream sometimes about her or some other girl with element of violence.
mantra meditation: my favorite mantra (see if you can guess from my picture)... i've had countless healing dreams when i fell asleep to this, blissful and full of light. sometimes when i needed it the most, 2 times spontaneously healed of injuries and fatigue from a 20min mantra nap.
most effective if you have faith in that Buddha and are not doing it out of greed/fear/delusion. it will fail if you are doing it for the result.
polyphasic sleeping: almost forgot this one. trick: the smaller your "core sleep" the more awesome your short naps will be! please don't do this if you are below 24. you don't want to mess up your growth spurt like i did -_-'

have fun researching!

This is an answer directed at the following part of your question:

how you have managed to get to this advanced level

Short answer:
Go to bed, sleep for ~5 hours. Wake up. Meditate with focus only on your body. Get your mind out of the stories every time it wonders. Know that this cycle of focus on body, detach from story is the practice you are meditating for. Meditate for 15 minutes or so, go to sleep.
Long answer:
First I would abstain from the weight you add to this state of mind: advanced level. This is not advanced, nor a level, it is more a different state of mind. Just like being happy and frustrated are different states of minds producing different experiences. Neither of them is more advanced than the other, or on a higher level. You could say that being happy is a state of a more advanced level. But consider that you feel happy while you are trying to do get something done which is failing for the 40th time already. It would be unhealthy to just feel happy and no frustration, as otherwise the stimuli to change your approach is absent. It is more healthy that you feel frustrated after many attempts, which motivates you to do something else, or do it different.
Now on the topic of getting in this state:
You can get in the state of being wakeful while dreaming when asleep by getting into a state of mind of self-reflection and detaching from stories that you are creating with your mind. You can get into this state of mind in like 15 minutes or so doing the following:

Only focus on your bodily feeling, and your bodily feeling alone.

Accept that you will wonder, be attentive to notice it, and let the story in your mind go. Label it as not important and bring your attention back to your bodily feeling.
The repetition of these transitions (from focus on the body, into story, out of story into focus on the body) will start to gain momentum on its own. And your mind will automatically do it, some time later again, without your effort.
Just like when you are interested in race cars, you will notice them earlier when they come by. Personally I am more interested in bikes, so my mind is more focused on spotting bikes. With the exercise mentioned earlier, you mind will become focused on noticing you lost focus on your body and became part of a story.
Do this after 5 hours or sleep or so, and when you still have 3 hours left to sleep. Your mind is prepped to notice when you find yourself in a story, and there you go, you are in a dream.
Everything is chance, it is not a guarantee. The more you could get yourself out of the stories everything that your mind created while you were focusing on the body, the higher the chance will be you become self aware during a dream.
A good hallmark that you have had an efficient meditation is the following. Imagine you did this meditation during the day, and you then after move on with your daily business. Suddenly you will find yourself realizing you were lost in a story in your mind, regained self awareness, just like you did in meditation. But this time, you did not intend it to happen, it just happened. This means you prepped your mind and the pattern got momentum of its own.

If you want to learn about Buddhist techniques, this forum is a resource for all sincerely interested parties. It is also confusing to me when edits are done but I can understand the need for some of them.
This simple exercise can serve as a guide to increase awareness.
Breathing exercise - use normal breathing - do not force.
If you are feeling emotions rising up, want to focus awareness, or just want to calm down, you can try a breathing exercise that takes the attention away from the focus on the personal self with a simple tool of counting breaths.
Find a comfortable position seated or laying down. Begin to relax your breathing. Silently count 1 on the inhale, and two on the exhale. Then silently count 3 on the inhale and 4 on the exhale. Continue up to 10 or until you lose the count then return to one. No judgement. I sometimes end up at 18 then smile and return to 1. The idea is to focus on the breath and the counting and not get sucked into the anxiety or anger trigger. Also works to quiet the mind.
This exercise is designed to increase awareness in this moment of what is here besides the noise of the world.
Another way to learn is to study the teachings of a master. Shunryu Suzuki is an American master of Zen that teaches students to get back to what is already here, beginner's mind. This might be the state that you have pointed to in your question. It is not specific to any sect or religion but is here universally, whether one is aware of it or not. Here is a link to a book by Roshi Suzuki.
www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf


text:
Who sings Om mani padme hum mantra?
I love the tone of this song, although not understand the meaning.
Om Mani Padme Hum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FODfgCrSaw
What's her name ? Why do people venerate the bow ?

From google translate: Liuzizhenyan Chung kyabje Sambo (Mongolian Edition) "by Mongolian Orchestra

:)
Om; denoted as first complete word in the mankind! JUH

You will probably not find a better explanation than that of the Dalai Lama.
It is very good to recite the mantra OM MANI PADME HUM, but while you are doing it, you should be thinking on its meaning, for the meaning of the six syllables is great and vast. The first, OM, is composed of three pure letters, A, U, and M. These symbolize the practitioner's impure body, speech, and mind; they also symbolize the pure exalted body, speech and mind of a Buddha.
The entire talk can be found here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/omph.htm
Thus the six syllables, OM MANI PADME HUM, mean that in dependence on the practice which is in indivisible union of method and wisdom, you can transform your impure body, speech and mind into the pure body, speech, and mind of a Buddha. It is said that you should not seek for Buddhahood outside of yourself; the substances for the achievement of Buddhahood are within. As Maitreya says in his SUBLIME CONTINUUM OF GREAT VEHICLE (UTTARA TANTRA) all beings naturally have the Buddha nature in their own continuum. We have within us the seed of purity, the essence of a One Gone Thus (TATHAGATAGARBHA), that is to be transformed and full developed into Buddhahood. (From a lecture given by His Holiness The Dalai Lama of Tibet at the Kalmuck Mongolian Buddhist Center, New Jersey.)

Just like there are seven syllables to the mantra, we have seven chakras. There is a correlation.
I chant this mantra at the end of my other chakra-specific mantra+yoga+taichi practice because of the it's full-chakra connection. A google search on its interdisciplinary connections can be very rewarding.

I think the question was, "who was the singer who sang it in the soundtrack of the referenced movie?"


text:
Seeing things for what they are
I'd like to ask a few questions, if I may. I am having some trouble seeing meanings or attributes being assigned to some things in Buddhism.

The yellow robe worn by monks is an emblem and reminder of the Triple Gem, as is the Buddha Statue. Therefore one is really bowing to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, not to some person or statue.

I've also heard that one bows to show respect for the monk/nun/Buddha image. What is the actual meaning of bowing? I don't think that it makes the respect I already have for people any different. I can't seem to understand if it is right to assign a meaning to such simple act. Shouldn't we be seeing this just for what it is? (Bending the body, moving)
Another example that I could use is the general idea of beauty. I know it results from the personal interpretation of the things that surround us, and we should set ourselves free from any kind of personal point of view. Yet, i've seen people (monks) talking about the beauty of the nature, and at the same time I disagree with such thing, I can only see nature as a beautiful thing. How do I deal with that?
Different people find different things pleasant. Therefore, pleasure is something personal and results from our personal interpretation of reality (an example of this is humor). The buddhist teachings tell us that there's no problem on feeling pleasant sensations, yet one can't cling to them. But if we should see things for what they truly are, finding something pleasant is not right, is it?

Thank you in advance,
Nicolas

Hi. Welcome to Buddhism SE. To be honest this looks like 3 different questions one for each bullet point. Would you consider splitting them and asking 3 questions or maybe editing this one down to one point. Many thanks

On bowing, this could simply be culture.  Buddhism is strong in cultures where bowing is a form of respect, and many (outside those cultures) who adopt Buddhism also adopt the outward forms.  There's no need to think there's anything more to it than that.  Even the opportunities for practice that come from the discomfort of bowing can be had in any uncomfortable situation (and applies in reverse -- an opportunity to practice by making people who bow stop bowing and show respect in another way).

First off, you can't "see things for what they are", because "things" not "are" in any single way. The way things are is always context dependent. As much as we may want to see things from  superhuman objective perspective, we can't escape a point of view. Now, if we understand that there is no truly objective point of view then we may get close to seeing things as they are, which means accepting our necessary limited perspective as part of "how things are" -- but not being fooled by it!
IMO, your assuming that you currently see things as they are is conceit and delusion.
Now, individual points:
The symbolism of bowing is making yourself vulnerable to the person you're bowing to. This is like handshake in which you show you have no weapon, but taken to the next level. Basically, by bowing you're saying "my life is in your hands". It would seem like it makes no difference if you already have respect for the person, but you have no idea how deep the egoistic resistance runs its roots. Try laughing authentically in front of a group of people you don't know and you will see what I mean. Similarly, bowing sincerely requires breaking through our false pride. And if you don't have pride anymore, bowing becomes expression of your understanding of the significance of Dharma and how it is manifested by Sangha, along with your gratitude to the Buddha. Again, it's like you are saying: "Thank you Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha -- I'm glad to have you be the force that guides my life, and I would like to keep this connection alive"
Regarding beauty and pleasure, Buddha taught us to train to see pleasant in non-pleasant and non-pleasant in pleasant. Only then can we be free from the dictate of "things as they are". You will not hear monks finding beauty in what most people consider beautiful. Back in the day when nature was prevalent, and people praised castles and statues, monks praised a bird flying off a branch. This was expression of their ability to find beauty anywhere. These days the beauty of nature has been romanticized and became popular, which is why it seems like monks were simply indulging, but they were not.
To summarize, it is not about seeing things as they are, it's seeing things in a useful way.

I am very grateful for your answer. This was bothering me for quite a while now. I still don't understand why do symbolism exist. Why do we attach meanings to things? I mean, I do recognize the genuine bowing, wich is made by the mind. Yet, why do we connect this to the act of "bending"?

Please upvote answers you like and post new questions for follow-up questions.

Bowing

This has 2 functions:

Help reduce conceit
Be grateful to have found (so much effort and pain by the Buddha to find the solution for unsatisfactory), preserved (by linage of teachers) and taught (your meditation teacher) you the technique. The chances as you would have not found this on your own. If the Buddha has not taught or the linage of teachers had not preserved it and for some reason your teacher did not take up teaching then you still would have got the teaching. So a lot of respect is due.

Beauty

There is nothing wrong with enjoying beauty. What you should remember is that when you enjoy you get a feeling then there is a chance to get attached to this sensation. Also conditional reaction of you mind creates proliferation of reaction to beauty. This is what you have to put right. Be pro active than reactive to situations than dancing to the carrot and stick input  from your sense door.

Finding something pleasant

Once contact arises you will get some sensation. This can be pleasant or unpleasant. You have no control over this. Only thing you can do is not react to the sensation that follow. You cannot stop sensation. As your perception becomes less then your reaction will be less.

Thank you so much for your reply. This was bugging me for quite a while now.


text:
Does samatha practice always come before vipassana practice?
In my tradition (Triratna) there is a big emphasis of a lot of samatha practice before any vipassana practice. This has always made sense to me. However is this universal in all Buddhist schools? Are there any Buddhist schools that do minimal or even no samatha practice? Does anyone jump straight into vipassana?

Yes - there are quite a few teachers in the Theravada Tradition who teach Vipassana with little/no samatha - for example, the Mahasi Sayadaw lineage of teachers, S.N. Goenka, etc.

Even in S N Goenka's tradition (during the 10 day retreat for beginners), there are 3 days devoted to Anapanasati which is considered as Samata practice

While different traditions might emphasize one over the other, they all need a certain level of development for both:

"These two qualities have a share in clear knowing. Which two? Tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana).
  "When tranquillity is developed, what purpose does it serve? The mind is developed. And when the mind is developed, what purpose does it serve? Passion is abandoned.
  "When insight is developed, what purpose does it serve? Discernment is developed. And when discernment is developed, what purpose does it serve? Ignorance is abandoned.
  "Defiled by passion, the mind is not released. Defiled by ignorance, discernment does not develop. Thus from the fading of passion is there awareness-release. From the fading of ignorance is there discernment-release." AN 2.30

About the order of development, it could be in any order:

"There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquillity...Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight...Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight" AN 4.170

Often mediators will get stuck in Samatha thinking that they have become permanently enlightened. Samatha takes away all the defilments but it's only temporary. Also mediators could get addicted to the bliss and calm that samatha brings. So, yes there is vipassana only approaches called "dry insight meditation" like in the Mahasi tradition that is perfect for laypeople and monastics.

Its a much needed warning about the sweet nectar of Samatha meditation. Its a 2-edged sword if not practiced correctly.

Developing concentration is not a problem but beneficial as long as it is the right type. You should have reality as the basis of development than imagination. It should be based on arising and passing away of sensations without imaginations, visualisation and verbalisations. (Creates fabrications and feed into perception / views / notion.)

You should not have an emphasis on which should develop fist but let it take its natural course. Both are important as wisdoms has concentration as the base and concentration has morality as the base. Like a roof over your head cannot exist without walls and a foundation.

I like this answer, but I do have a question for you Suminda. You say to let the development take its natural course - but do we not exercise volition as to which we are practicing at any given time? In other words, should I not set out in a given sitting to improve concentration, or to improve insight? Or should we be more dynamic and 'go with the flow' - focusing on concentration until something arises which needs noting or investigation, doing that, then returning to the concentration?

Take the long form Nibbida formula. Insight road: pamojja +  dhamma vicaya -> Piti, Piti +  dhamma vicaya -> passaddhi, passaddhi + dhamma vicaya -> Sukha, Sukha + dhamma vicaya -> Samadhi. So if you can develop Samadhi fast by all means do it or go the insight root above or a mix of both. You have to choose what is easy and natural for you. Also see: Bojjhangas – Another View by James Peel which might be interesting

It is difficult to give more explanation in a comment as the character length and format issues.

For more on the Jhana approach see; The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation by Henepola Gunaratana

Well, according to AN 9.44 PannaVimutta Sutta
Doing Samatha-Vipassana at the same time is the best way to Obtain and realizing Wisdom.
Without getting into Jhana, it would be hard to grab the true meaning of dhamma.
As you get deeper in Jhana, your level of understanding will help you to understand the true meaning of dhamma.
As for AN 4.170 Yuganaddha Sutta, You need to read from AN 4.162-169 to understand more about the differences between each methods.
The best way for the human in this era is Samatha-Vipassana.

Jhana is not the mark of a stream-enterer. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote a clear study about this here: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha267.htm . The true meaning of Dhamma is known by the stream-enterer, who only requires neighbourhood concentration (rather than jhana).

You're right, jhana is not the mark of a stream-enterer. You're a stream-enterer when you realized the way and see the way to end all suffering yourself.

Without any previous concentration exercises or Samatha training, no Insight is possible. How can you register the different sensations which arise and pass away so fast without a sharpened concentration? Anapanasati as a concentration exercise is just one of many. Walking, being aware of the movements of the feet is concentration. The Mahasi method of labeling the stretching of an arm is concentration.If you enter for a while into a deep jhana, nothing wrong. Enjoy it.
Later it turns into a sober concentration and becomes normal. Very naturally one slips into Insight meditation.