text:
Why is life so important?
When asking around, I've never heard anyone agree that a young, healthy person should end their life by suicide. But I also don't know what reason there is for that consensus.
Did Buddha teach anything regarding what makes life worth living?

Maybe this downloadable book might have something useful for you. "The Purpose of Life and Other Teachings" http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/en/displayimage.php?album=123&pid=1575#top_display_media  Be well.

Here is a video dhamma talk called "Understanding Suicide" by Ajahn Brahmavamso: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqPCMJH5Emk. It might be of some help to you. May you be well and happy.

I updated the question to be a bit more general since these feelings are somewhat common. I don't want to invalidate your question, however, so please let me know if I misinterpreted you.

@Robin111 i have completed reading two books available on that link. Thank you so much.

That's good to hear jitin. Best wishes with your study & practice.

The first book I read about Buddhism described the Sermon at Benares, i.e. the Dhammacakkappavattana, as explaining that the cause of suffering (the second noble truth) is,

... the craving to have what you don't have; the craving to keep what you can't keep; the craving to live; even the craving to die.

And here is the same quote from Access to Insight,

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.
"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

So I think that suicide must be missing the most important, fundamental truth of Buddhism.
Suicidal ideation is a risk factor: Suminda said, "You shouldn't even think about things like suicide".

Similarly, the "middle way" doctrine says not to afflict or self-mortify the body.
And, the doctrine of rebirth suggests that, although there are problems in life, these problems can't be escaped simply by dying. It was by 'unbinding' (not suicide) that in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta the Buddha said,

I reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'

According to the Vinaya even 'describing the advantages of dying' is wrong.

This, the third type of act covered by this
rule, can include [...] telling a
person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a
way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to
death. [...] Thus, the Commentary notes, a bhikkhu talking to a dying patient should be
very circumspect in how he chooses his words, focusing not on how to speed up
the dying process but on how to inspire the patient with the following thoughts:
“The attainment of the paths and fruitions is not out of the ordinary for a
virtuous person. So, having formed no attachment for such things as your
dwelling, and establishing mindfulness in the Buddha, Dhamma, Saºgha, or the
body, you should be heedful in your attention.” The Vinita-vatthu to Pr 4
contains a number of stories in which bhikkhus comfort a dying bhikkhu by
asking him to reflect on what he has attained through the practice, which was
apparently a common way of encouraging a dying bhikkhu to focus his
thoughts on the best object possible. The suttas also contain advice on how to
encourage patients facing death. See, for example, MN 143, SN 36.7, and AN 6.16.
In all of these cases, the advice is aimed not at precipitating death but at inspiring
calm and insight.

As for "what makes life worth living": Buddhism can even seem quite 'negative' ("life is suffering") ... and so I asked this question, How to explain what Buddhism is? ... and people's answers to that explain it in more 'positive' or constructive terms: morality; concentration; and wisdom.
My dad told me, when I was young, that suicide is painful for the friends and family who are left behind (i.e. it causes suffering for others): I thought, even that is enough reason to avoid suicide.
And, for example, I lived with a friend: who became relatively enlightened, especially during the last year of her life. So it was more perfect, for her and for others, that she lived as long as she did, instead of dying earlier.
Perhaps what makes life worth living is that it's an opportunity to "live the holy life".
Many Buddhist descriptions try to describe the experiences of one person (e.g. in meditation), or even of 'no self'.
But part of the "holy life" is in the relationships between people, for example,

As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."[1]
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life.

Perhaps you don't feel you have that (or are that) at the moment but there is every chance you might in future.

Unfortunately there are things which can make life seem unimportant: bad companions, "heedlessness", "restlessness", etc.
Instead, try to remember what Right intention is:

And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve.

Also, problems are fixable: problems, too, are 'conditioned' and therefore changeable.

Beautiful. I am thankful. First of all, i thank you.

Second i will do something good for my parents.

Good that things have worked out!!! Never think about this kind of things!

Splendid answer!

Have you been to see a doctor about this? Depression can cause life to lack appeal. Why is life worth living is one of those questions that cannot be answered in words, it's an inner feeling that doesn't need an explanation that most have felt at some point. It's a sign of good health to have a passion for life.
If whatever is causing you to feel that life is bleak changes, as it inevitably will, a passion for life can automatically emerge in you.
Life and death are two aspects of the same movement. By dying, the Buddhist would say, you don't really escape, for your return to life is guaranteed. Whether it is life as a human or not is another matter. So, what else is left if suicide doesn't improve things?
Given that life and death are one continuous movement, ever occurring, it makes sense to learn to live and learn to die.
Living in misery and dying in misery are common but not necessary.
Get tested for depression, and perhaps meditate with a good teacher in a monastery. The compassionate surroundings may trigger a change towards joie de vivre in you.

You shouldn't even think about things like suicide. Thoughts will be full of negative emotions and states that it will drag you to lower planes.
When you are doing the act you will have negative thoughts which would mean that your next life is bad.
You are also breaking the precept of not killing which is very grave.
Also it is best you see a doctor but until then practice Metta to your self and others.

The sutta doesn't say that the Buddha allowed him to commit suicide. When Mara reported this to the Buddha, venerable Godhika committed suicide. Then the Buddha saw what has happened and said that he has attained Nibbana.
According to Bhikkhu Vinaya, the only allowable act that comes close to committing suicide is rejecting medication, if you are suffering from a terminal illness and being a burden to everyone around you.

This Scientific American article describes some of the benefits of mindfulness:

As a remedy for depression and anxiety, mindfulness meditation may
  help patients let go of negative thoughts instead of obsessing over
  them. Training people to experience the present, rather than reviewing
  the past or contemplating the future, may help keep the mind out of a
  depressive or anxious loop.

If you have thoughts that are repeating in a loop, perhaps you are focusing on those thoughts, intentionally or unintentionally, and as suggested above mindfulness meditation may be a solution.
You may read A Guided Meditation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu to understand how to practise mindfulness meditation. If The Five Hindrances to practice disturb you, you can find the antidotes in this essay by Ajahn Brahmavamso.
What is the purpose of life? Well, the purpose of life is to experience true happiness. That's one way to look at it. From the Thanissaro essay:

Then bring your thoughts back to the present. If you want true
  happiness, you have to find it in the present, for the past is gone
  and the future is an uncertainty. So you have to dig down into the
  present. What do you have right here? You've got the body, sitting
  here and breathing. And you've got the mind, thinking and aware. So
  bring all these things together. Think about the breath and then be
  aware of the breath as it comes in and goes out. Keeping your thoughts
  directed to the breath: that's mindfulness. Being aware of the breath
  as it comes in and out: that's alertness. Keep those two aspects of
  the mind together. If you want, you can use a meditation word to
  strengthen your mindfulness. Try "Buddho," which means "awake." Think
  "bud-" with the in-breath, "dho" with the out.
Try to breathe as comfortably as possible. A very concrete way of
  learning how to provide for your own happiness in the immediate
  present — and at the same time, strengthening your alertness — is to
  let yourself breathe in a way that's comfortable.

And what to do when your negative thoughts come back over and over to disturb you? The essay continues:

If your mind wanders off, gently bring it right back. If it wanders
  off ten times, a hundred times, bring it back ten times, a hundred
  times. Don't give in. This quality is called ardency. In other words,
  as soon as you realize that the mind has slipped away, you bring it
  right back. You don't spend time aimlessly sniffing at the flowers,
  looking at the sky, or listening to the birds. You've got work to do:
  work in learning how to breathe comfortably, how to let the mind
  settle down in a good space here in the present moment.

The following only is relevant if you follow Buddhism\ the following are all from Shantideva's text:

"Upon finding the boat of human birth now, cross the great river of suffering. O fool, there is no time to sleep, for this boat is hard to catch again."
When shall I encounter the extremely rare appearance of the Tathagata, faith, human existence and the ability to practice virtue,
Health , daily sustenance, and lack of adversity? life is momentary and deceptive; and the body is as if on loan.
With such behavior on my part, a human state is certainly not obtained again. When a human state is not achieved, there is only vice. When a human state is not achieved, there is only vice and how could there be blessing?
If I do not perform virtue even when I am capable of it, what then shall I do when fully dazed by the sufferings of miserable states of existence
For one who does not perform virtue but accumulates sin, even the expression "favorable state of existence" will be lost for a thousand million eons.
Therefore, the Blessed One (Buddha) stated that human existence is extremely hard to obtain, like a turtle's head emerging into the ring of a yoke on a vast ocean.

The text goes on and on. Too lazy to type the rest. I'll leave you with one of my favorite lines:
"Enemies such as craving and hatred are without arms, legs and so on. They are neither courageous nor wise. How is it that they have enslaved me? "
-If you are a Buddhist and accept certain Buddhist ideas and thoughts then the above may help answer your question.


text:
What do Buddhists religious texts say about the environment?
My name is John and I am a grade 12 student living in Australia. I am currently in the process of doing research for a religion assignment.

What do you mean by the enviornment?

@tarzanbappa He's surely asking about Environmentalism and Environmental protection i.e. "a practice of protecting the natural environment on individual, organizational or governmental levels, for the benefit of both the natural environment and humans. Due to the pressures of population and technology, the biophysical environment is being degraded, sometimes permanently. etc."

I appreciate OP's efforts at refining the question. However I think in this format it is a duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/2754/157 assuming he is asking about environment (green) issues which I think he is

John, this site (Buddhism.SE) doesn't have any specific policies on how to help with homework questions. There's a completely different site (named StackOverflow), which is for asking questions about software problems ... they put together these suggestions for how to ask and answer homework questions. You might find that interesting reading. Note some of the suggestions like, "attempt to solve the problem yourself first" and ...

... "ask about specific problems with your existing implementation". If you want to discuss how to best ask your questions, or discuss (help to define) this site's policy for homework questions, please feel free to post a new topic on our 'meta' site.

You could start by reading Buddhism and environmental issues (which I found, just by doing a Google search for Buddhism environment and which is intended as an educational resource).
I have read it and I mostly agree with it as a good beginning.
It mentions the "first precept" (i.e. avoid killing) and the "second precept" (i.e. avoid taking what's not given) -- those are from the five precepts, i.e. the more basic ethical rules for laypeople.
To that, I'd add that another place to look for ethical rules is in the Noble Eightfold Path, of which three (i.e. speech, action, and livelihood) are to do with ethics again.
There aren't many right livelihood rules but among them is "Business in poison: producing or trading in any kind of poison or a toxic product designed to kill". I guess that a narrow view of that 'rule' might be that everything is alright except producing chemical warfare agents and pesticides. A much, much broader view might be to minimize 'pollution' of all kinds.
I think there's some justification or precedent for 'interpreting' Buddhism's ethical rules. For example, one of the precepts is literally against "fermented drink that causes heedlessness" but Buddhists today usually understand that as including all "recreational drugs and intoxicating beverages". The earliest Buddhist literature is from 2,500 years ago, which is before various problems of the modern world existed.
Note the second paragraph of "Buddhism and environmental issues": it says, "So, it should certainly not come as a shock to practising Buddhists to discover what environmentalists are now telling us." That's saying that environmentalists know more about the environment, these days, than is taught in Buddhist literature.
So perhaps you can look to Buddhist literature for generalities, or for hints on what attitude to have. I think that's what the Dalai Lama is doing when he gives a speech like this one which includes,

Since I deeply believe that basically human beings are of a gentle nature so I think the human attitude towards our environment should be gentle. Therefore I believe that not only should we keep our relationship with our other fellow human beings very gentle and non-violent, but it is also very important to extend that kind of attitude to the natural environment. I think morally speaking we can think like that and we should all be concerned for our environment.

One of the central doctrines of Buddhism is that things are impermanent. I think it would be wrong, though, to interpret that as "nothing matters" ... to say for example, "Oh let's go ahead and kill on the elephants, what does it matter, everything is impermanent anyway" ... wrong because, as well as breaking the first precept (to avoid killing), there are other important Buddhist values including loving-kindness and compassion.
There are a few more things I think that maybe you could want to know.

The quantity of Buddhist literature is vast. So your question, "what do buddhists religious texts say about the environment?" is a little bit like asking, "What do English-language scientific texts say about the environment?", i.e. it's difficult to summarize
Most of Buddhist literature focuses on topics other than 'the environment'.
There are several schools of Buddhism (like there are many schools of Christianity). If you want to ask another question, one way to narrow it down would be to say whether you interested in the literature from a specific school, or from a specific time period: e.g. modern literature; medieval literature; or the earliest literature, the Pāli Canon which is from about 2000 years ago.
There are separate (and stricter or more numerous) rules of behaviour for Buddhist monks: which are called the Vinaya. There's a bit of a symbiotic relationship between Buddhist monks and laypeople, for example monks shouldn't work for a living (shouldn't handle money) and laypeople should support them with gifts of food and other essentials (basically just food, a robe to wear, medicine when needed, and maybe a place to live). Someone who is living a monk's life (and a lot of Buddhist literature is by and perhaps for monks) might be unlikely to have a huge, negative environmental impact. This explanation of the Vinaya rules on Harmlessness says,

Throughout its history Buddhism has been renowned for its tolerance and compassion towards all living beings and this is reflected in the Buddhist monks' Vinaya. Their rules cover situations of causing harm ranging from murder — which is universally accepted as a crime — to such things as destroying plant life.

Rules against destroying vegetation include even digging the ground...
When the historical Buddha lived and taught (2400 years ago) there were other religions ... which the Buddha probably learned before his enlightenment. One of these is called Jainism. I mention Jainism because it's practice of Amhisa (non-violence) is similar to or stricter than Buddhism's, even for laypeople; and because Jainism and Buddhism may have influenced each other, to some extent, historically.
You can also look for guidance from specific Buddhists, Buddhist teachers, modern-day Buddhist teachers, if not from Buddhism-in-general or "Buddhist religious texts". For example in this comment, Andrei said, "17th Karmapa is very vocal about ecological concerns, perhaps more than any other major Buddhist figurehead so far". And indeed a Google search for 17th Karmapa environment returns many results, including for example Buddhism and the Environment: Living in Harmony with the Planet from his own web site.

I hope that what I've written here is true, I hope it's not misleading. Two ways in which this isn't a good answer include,

It references vocabulary but don't quote texts
It talks about ethics in general rather than environmentalism specifically
Asking about the Buddhism and the environment might be a bit like asking, "What does your sister write about football?" ... when, she doesn't actually write about football very much at all.

In fact it seems to me that Buddhism writes more about people or 'the person' than it does about 'the environment'.
Some of the topics that are more central to Buddhism include the following -- perhaps you can see for yourself how these may be related to environmentalism:

The 'four noble truths', of which:

The first is that "Things are not satisfactory: you cannot get everything you might want, and you cannot keep everything you have."
The second is that "The dissatisfaction is caused by greed."

There's a 'middle way' which says that eternalism and annihilationism are, both, extremes
Being 'selfish' is problematic and unenlightened.

Each and every thing in the environment is consists of a basic structure called Suddashtaka.And that is the smallest structure in the universe and each and every thing in the environment. Which  1 Suddashtaka is consists of 8 items.
They are...

Patawi - like Hardness /solid
Aapoo - like water (like a liquid..it 'll flow)
Thejo - Hotness/Coldness
Waayo - air
Warna - Colour
Gandha - Smell
Rasa  - Taste
Ojah  - Some kind of energy

And by connecting millions of Suddashtaka it creates an object (Human,House,Tree..etc)
According to the percentage which these items are available the object shows its behavior.
eg: If Patawi (Solidness) percentage is high the object is solid.
And each and every objects in this universe is vanishing (dying) and recreating (changing) trillions and trillions times (can't measure) withing a second. So that's why Buddha said each and everything in this universe is changing.
And if you need to find the end of the universe you must look in to your body. From there you can find the ultimate universal truth.Because each and every thing in this universe is consists of the above mentioned 8 items(Suddashtaka)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there a Buddhist 'noninterference' concept?
There's a stub Wikipedia article which says only,

Noninterference (Buddhism)
Noninterference is a Buddhist concept and practice which relates to the idea that all things are impermanent, with a resignation to events beyond human control.[citation needed]

Is there such a concept in Buddhism? If so does this concept have other names?
Is it true that this Buddhist concept applies only to "events beyond human control"?
The question occurred to me when I was trying to answer the question about "what do buddhists religious texts say about the environment?"
I tried to look it up because I got the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that maybe Buddhists would agree it's better not to be greedy, but that even so they may not go out and campaign or lobby against greed, or argue in favour of preserving the environment, or indeed argue about anything else.
My guesses (my attempts to answer this question myself) were:

I suppose that 'right speech' might be an argument for non-interference: don't say something unless you think it will be welcome.

Maybe non-attachment too would tend towards non-interference: perhaps I cannot try to promote some political view, unless I am attached to it. Maybe the Buddhist practice is that if the world doesn't seem to be as I'd want it to be then I should change my own view and not try to change the world.

Maybe non-self might tend towards non-interference: "who am I to interfere?" ... or "why am I doing this, there are only two motives for doing something, i.e. greed and aversion, and both/either of these motives are wrong" etc.

If it's true that it applies only to "events beyond human control" that perhaps that means hoping that some 'higher powers' (devas or bodhisattvas) will act.

I didn't find "noninterference" at all in a search of accesstoinsight.org
Google suggests it might be a concept in Chinese Buddhism (so, Taoist-derived, perhaps?).

I'm sorry if this question feels like I'm trying to make you write a Wikipedia article. The reason I'm asking is that I did have a feeling that non-interference might be an established practice.
Conversely can you give some examples of when this 'noninterference concept' would be wrong?

Buddhism having so many different schools and lineages this maybe open to interpretation.
But no there is no concept of non interference in Buddhism. General take on the matter regarding action is that you should act proactively than reactively, i.e., your actions should not be a reaction of clinging and craving towards sensations, and your actions should be devoid of delusion, agreed and aversion. Also you should be rightly motivated (non deluded state of mind, generous and comparisonate) when doing the action. You should not be attached to the outcome as you are not in absolute control over how it would materialise.
Also general tendency in taking action and interference is that you take sides where you have compassion towards one person and not the other. This should not be the case. If you see someone doing something wrong to another you have to have equal or more comparison to the offending party as he is creating bad Karma through ignorance. Your motivation should be able help the victim and save the would be offender from his Karma or at least help reduce it. In mediation this should be the right motivation.
Rather than non action or interference you should act with the right volition and state of mind without attachments to the results.
For further information see:

10 day Discourse Summaries by SN Goenka - http://www.vridhamma.org/The-Discourse-Summaries (Some parts of above adopted from this)
Mindful Mediation - a Handbook for Buddhist Peacemakers by John A McConnell

I think you already answer your own question by mentioning impermanence. Why act upon something that will slip away between your fingers anyway, without anyone having the slightest control. Phenomena both mental and physical are uncontrollable and ungovernable. Interfering with them will not bring anything good out of it. Interfering with phenomena will bring suffering in the end. When i use the word interfere here i mean after the 7th link in Dependent Origination where craving, attachment and becomming happens. That will only lead to suffering.
Instead non-interference is what one should practice meaning observing phenomena arising and passing away. The practice of insight meditation is your answer. As you mention yourself one should work on oneself and develop oneself instead of trying to change the world. Interfering with e.g. politics, environmental protection etc. will only treat symptoms since the root cause are Greed. Only that can be reduced by working on ourselves trying to develop the mind.
Let me try to give another example. One is sitting in insight meditation and observing phenomena. One is not mindful for a moment and the mind gets sucked into the maelstroem of e.g. a mental formation. Then when mindfulness returns one will see that suffering is gained through interfering with phenomena. When seeing that over and over the mind naturally begins to let go and just observe phenomena without interfering, engaging them.
I dont know if this answers your question. I think the term non-interference might not directly be found in the texts under that name but its a derivative from the practice of insight meditation or a result of the impermanent nature of phenomena.
By the way i think its good that you mentioned the doctrine of Anatta. Everything just becomes problematic when an I, Me of Self is added to the equation. This have also been discussed recently. Take a look at this question here. You might be able to take the same perspective here that when adding an experiencing, permanent entity or Self to the equation then suddently you have "someone" that interferes.
Lanka

Yes, "Why act upon something" and "one should work on oneself and develop oneself instead of trying to change the world" sounds like standard reasons ... but on the other hand, a story like this one or this one seems to advocate some mundane interaction with (interference into) the lives of others as well.

And I'm still puzzled by Ahmed's answer, that It's  not good to mix up actual daily living with meditation principles and practice because Its the difference between indifference and natural detachment/equanimity.

But anyway I think you answered my question: I think you're saying that non-interference is not a distinct/named concept but is a consequence of or derived from other views (impermanence) and practices (insight meditation).

Yes that was what i was trying to explain so luckely that got out right. I might not be right about this though. For me it was just natural to chain these things together when viewing it with basis in the texts and practice. I must say that i also do not understand why one should not mix daily living with meditation. I mean that is one of the purposes to work towards becomming more and more mindful in the everyday life. Without mindfulness how can one guard oneself?

There is also the Sutta in which a Venerable Monk becomes overly attached to the bhikkunis and protector of them and he easily gets upset when someone speaks harshly about them and the Buddha instructs him to be mindful and at ease even if someone were to beat them with a clod. Can someone tell me the name of this Sutta? Anyway these instructions are for a bhikku who is in training not for laypeople. Laypeople can make merit helping the ones in need and the weak as it is also exemplified in a sutta in which the Buddha relates to a Brahma the good deeds he did to be born in that realm.

@UrsulRosu. I believe you are looking for: MN: 21 - Kakacūpama Sutta - The Simile of the Saw. http://www.yellowrobe.com/component/content/article/120-majjhima-nikaya/353-mn-21-kakacpama-sutta-the-simile-of-the-saw.html

My attempts:
First of all on interference which means action:
"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'...
"A disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not the only one who is owner of my actions, …
Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.' When he/she often reflects on this, the [factors of the] path take birth. He/she sticks with that path, develops it, cultivates it. As he/she sticks with that path, develops it and cultivates it, the fetters are abandoned, the obsessions destroyed."
— AN 5.57
So non-interference arises through cultivating the path.
"And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.
"Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns kamma in this way, the cause by which kamma comes into play in this way, ...
.. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it has been said, and in reference to this was it said."
— AN 6.63
Non-interference comes through desiring cessation of contact to cessation of kamma. The most noble of all (actions)kamma is ending of kamma.
When then can there be inteference? When one is fully enlightened i.e. when ones actions do not lead to any further kamma, and those actions are performed from metta, karuna, mudita.
To interfere means that one has a view on things and when one can be sure that the view created, is not from ignorance, then one can interfere.
Needless to say acting out of compassion is skilful etc. but not the path of the noble disciples but path of the bodhisattva.
Any why is non-interference desirable? From following it an arahant may arise that would benefit multitudes.
That’s my take on it.

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


text:
What is Buddhism’s beliefs on humans living with the environment ?
was just wondering really how buddhists engage and see  the environment around them  and whether or not there are consequences if one does shows a disregard for the environment

Hi John. Could you define what you mean by "consequences"? Thank you.

when i say consequences i mean bad karma

Answering one of the questions from a Deva, Buddha gave a discourse on the merit gained by planting groves.

“Those who set up a park or a grove, the people who construct a
bridge, a place to drink and a well, Those who give a residence:
“For them merit always increases, Both by day and by night; Those are
the people going to heaven, Established in Dhamma, endowed with virtue.
Planters of Groves (SN 1.47)

Although there are no rules for lay people, there are several vinaya rules for monks for harming the environment such as cutting down trees, burning forests.
In one occasion, monks who were making some repairs, were cutting down trees and when Buddha heard about this he criticized them,

“How can you, foolish men, cut down trees and have them cut down? It
is not, foolish men, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …
And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:

and imposed a vinaya rule,

“For destruction of vegetable growth there is an offence of
expiation.”
Monks’ Expiation (Pācittiya) 11

In Aṅkurapetavatthu, it is mentioned that if one gets some benefit from a tree such as lying in the shade, he should not harm even a leaf of that tree.


text:
Is this a Buddhist poem?
Ryōkan Taigu is described as,

Ryōkan Taigu (良寛大愚?) (1758–1831) was a quiet and eccentric Sōtō Zen Buddhist monk who lived much of his life as a hermit. Ryōkan is remembered for his poetry and calligraphy, which present the essence of Zen life. He is also known by the name Ryokwan in English.

I'm reading this poem and am puzzled by it.
In A Dilapidated Three-Room Hut
In a dilapidated three-room hut
I’ve grown old and tired;
This winter cold is the
Worst I’ve ever suffered through.
I sip thin gruel, waiting for the
Freezing night to pass.
Can I last until spring finally arrives?
Unable to beg for rice,
How will I survive the chill?
Even meditation helps no longer;
Nothing left to do but compose poems
In memory of deceased friends.

One of the things that puzzles me is the last line ("memory of deceased friends").
I thought (I'm probably mistaken again :-) that Buddhists are advised to "live in the present" and to avoid living "in memory", and to deconstruct the self instead of thinking "I feel" and "I suffer" and "I last".
Can you say what Ryōkan's intention might have been in writing this poem?
Wikipedia says, of Sōtō,

The meditator strives to be aware of the stream of thoughts, allowing them to arise and pass away without interference.

Perhaps that's what this poem is doing: simply awareness of a stream of thoughts? What's the difference between that and, I don't know, any other ordinary unenlightened mode of thought or life?

Buddhists are people, they have memories. "Living in the present" (being mindful and aware of one's surroundings, and not getting carried away with one's thoughts and feelings) is important - but that doesn't mean we cannot pay attention to memories.
To answer your question: Given that this appears to be a poem written by a Zen Buddhist monk, I'd say yes - this is a Buddhist poem. And given that this is prose, written by a Zen Buddhist monk, which deals with his specific circumstance as a human being and not so much with the teachings of Buddhism - I'd say no, this is not a Buddhist poem. :-)

+1 for asking a question about my favorite poet!

IMHO, Ryokan isn't a really good example of a buddhist person. Take for instance, his liking of alcohol and being drunk.

@enenalan It's a great poem. sfaik a poem (even a tiny-sized haiku) is supposed to include within itself three elements: the time of day and/or season of the year; the place (location or landscape); and something of the observer (a reference to something heard or felt or remembered).

My heart goes out to him. I wish I could sit with him. There'd be no need to meditate. Maybe I could make him a cup of tea.

Hi Jasper and welcome to Buddhism.SE! We are looking for answers to questions. Something other than an actual answer may be posted as a comment. We've put together some useful information on getting started here: http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1502/i-am-a-new-user-here-at-buddhism-se-what-should-i-know-before-i-post?

My apologies. At the time I wrote this, I felt very strongly that it contained a quite precise answer to the question: 'Is This a Buddhist Poem?'.  But I do understand there have to be limits on the way these things are expressed, here.

I think you are confounding Buddhist principles with Japanese culture - of which veneration of the dead is an important part.  If there is one thing you can say about Buddhism, it's that it doesn't exist in a vacuum and often takes on the cultural customs of its practitioners.
Besides, it's a poem.  He's trying to capture a moment for an audience, not make a statement about the dharma.  ;-)

Even gaijin might remember deceased friends (though whether skillfully or unskillfully, that I don't know). But "to capture a moment", yes: that does sound like a characteristic/intention of Japanese poetry (e.g. haiku).

Still, I don't think it's helpful to investigate how Ryokan's poem lines up or doesn't with Buddhist ideals.  I think we tend to ascribe a certain intent to famous folks and are often confused when their actions or words don't line up with the monolithic caricature history has made of them.  I mean seriously.  The man used to dress up as a woman and sneak into town.  Are we supposed to view that as a statement on impermanence using gender fluidity as a medium??  The poem just is.  If there's any Zen in it, it's simply that.

I've read that Ryokan strived very hard to be identified neither as a poet, nor as a monk nor as anyone special. I wonder if an examination of his intentions isn't slipping away from this moment into judgment of the unknown. How can anyone know what he thought or meant - I can hardly comment on the intentions of people I meet everyday in my life, let alone of someone I've never met.
Sometimes I read things I wrote a few years ago, and I wonder to myself, what was I thinking, and I say, it doesn't really matter.
Does anyone stand up to an examination of all their utterances?

Where beauty is, then there is ugliness;
  where right is, also there is wrong.
  Knowledge and ignorance are interdependent;
  delusion and enlightenment condition each other.
  Since olden times it has been so.
  How could it be otherwise now?
  Wanting to get rid of one and grab the other
  is merely realizing a scene of stupidity.
  Even if you speak of the wonder of it all,
  how do you deal with each thing changing?
-Ryokan

I asked about intent because this article about Right Speech said, "Notice the focus on intent: this is where the practice of right speech intersects with the training of the mind." Wikipedia claims that, "his poetry and calligraphy present the essence of Zen life": so maybe his poetry is on-topic. I don't mean this is a criticism of him or his poem. It's that I don't even know enough about Zen (or Soto) to identify a difference between Zen and non-Zen: especially how his dharma might inform his "memory of deceased friends".

Even a professional cook will burn a dish from time to time. Nothing in the human experience is perfect or incapable of failure. Even someone inhabiting the no mind state may drift into thoughts but they won't be stuck in it, just like the pro cook knows burning one dish doesn't mean he's forgotten how to cook. It's no big deal, if thoughts of old friends arise, it has nothing to do with his attainment.

And let's keep in mind that enlightenment is not identical with callousness.  Recollecting deceased friends is perfectly human.  Turning your mind toward them once in a while doesn't mean you're any less of a monk.  It's when these thoughts become obsessive that they become problematic.

@Buddho - I feel very happy to read your answer. Perfectly reasoned. Thank you!


text:
The word Dhammanusati.
I received an email invite from a local Buddhist group that's holding a "Dhammanusati practice". In part it stated "Of the meditation practices, one of the most important practices is called Dhammanusati, the Contemplation of the Dharma". It was described as an ancient form of deep listening.
Dhammanusati looked to me like a typical Pali word and I thought I'd have no problem googling it and getting more information. But the only things that came up were a few blogs and videos and no results at all on the sites I usually rely on.
Is this a Pali word? Is it more commonly known by a different name? From the email I have a pretty good idea of what the practice involves. It's actually the word itself that is curious to me due to the lack of information online about it. Thanks for any information. :)

There's a word Anussati

Anussati
Anussati (f.) [Sk. anusmṛti, fr. anu + smṛ, cp. sati] remembrance, recollection, thinking of, mindfulness. A late list of subjects to be kept in mind comprises six anussati -- ṭṭhānāni, viz. Buddha˚, Dhamma˚, Sangha˚, sīla˚, cāga˚, devatā˚, i. e. proper attention to the Buddha, the Doctrines, the Church, to morality, charity, the gods. Thus at D iii.250, 280 (cp. A i.211); A iii.284, 312 sq., 452; v.329 sq.; Ps i.28. Expanded to 10 subjects (the above plus ānāpāna -- sati, maraṇa -- sati, kāyagatā -- sati, upasamânussati) at A i.30, 42 (cp. Lal. Vist 34). For other references see D i.81; S v.67 = It 107 (anussaraṇa at latter pass.); A iii.284, 325, 452. Ps i.48, 95, 186; Pug 25, 60; Dhs 14, 23, 1350 (anussati here to be corr. to asati, see Dhs. trsl. 351); Sdhp. 225, 231, 482. See also anuttariya (anussat -- ânuttariya)

Thank you Chris! It seems likely they meant dhamma anussati. It threw me off seeing it as one word as I wasn't familiar with anussati. Very helpful. :)

Apparently words are compounded as they are in German.

It took a bit to find because I started by looking for a word like "nusati" ... but the two a are ellided ... like, for example, they can't tell whether it's tatha-gata or tatha-agata.

I was looking for nusati too. I think they maybe  had a typo to drop one s? Here's the posting for it. https://bffct.org/bff/events/dhammanusati-contemplative-practice-2/

This document discusses the Practical Grammar of the Pali language. There's a section on compounded words.

@Robin111 I don't know whether it's a typo, given that it's a transcription from another alphabet, but it's true that there are at least as many Google search results for Dhammanussati as for Dhammanusati.

It should be a long ā... dhammānussati

Dhamma - one of the four foundations of mindfulness. Sati - mindfulness
So Dhammanusati probably means mindfulness of the dhamma. They probably mean dhammanupassana when using that word.


text:
How to be mindful while studying?
I am a science student at an university and I practise mindfulness in the Mahasi tradition. My question is, how can I be mindful while studying? This is a very important question for me since most of my time as a student is spent in studying.
Thank you very much.

I thing your best bet is to get the attention of Ven. yuttadhammo, bakmoon, anthony, sankha-kulathantille or lanka who I think are from your tradition.

Yes indeed, it would be great to get an answer from any of them (especially Ven. Yuttadhammo). I have heard him talk about mindfulness in the context of daily life but pretty sure that he hasn't discussed mindfulness in the context of student life.

Great and important question.
There isnt really anything different by being mindful while one is studying. Its not like the method or technique changes if one is studying or if one is e.g. doing the dishes. One is mindful of the 5 aggregates of clinging which are; material form, feelings, perception, mental formations and consciousness.
They take place all the time and are present in everything we do. When one is reading there is the awareness of the first aggregate of material form that is the eye-sense-base and its corresponding external object which is light and visible forms. There is also the feeling arising when contact happens i.e. when the mind contacts the object. Also there is perception and consciousness which work in tandem to cognize an object. And there is mental formations present i.e. the volition to see, to advert the mind to the object.
This is the same when one is studying. One can be aware of the reading, knowing that now reading is taking place. If one is studying in a chair or sofa one can be aware of the posture one uses. When one is turning the pages in a book one can be aware of the movement and note "turning, turning" or "moving, moving". Of course one has to always sent the mind out to the object in order to be in the present moment.
The important thing here is the noting/reminding as these phenomena arises, are present and when they cease. Its important to catch them and observe them thereby guarding the sense doors. Here is a quote from the book "Fundamentals Of Insight Meditation", chapter: The Right Method, p. 7-12:

"Every time you see, hear, touch, or perceive, you must try to see the mental and physical processes that enter through the six sense doors as they really
are. When you see, the seeing is real. This you must note as “seeing, seeing.”
In the same way, when you hear, note “hearing.” When you smell, note “smelling.” When you taste, note “tasting. ” When you touch, note “touching.”
Tiredness, hotness, aches, and such unpleasant or unbearable sensations
arise from contact too. Observe them: “tiredness,” “hot,” “pain,” and so on.
Thoughts and ideas may also occur. Note them as “thinking,” “imagining,” “pleasure,” “delight,” etc., as they arise."

There is also another great book by Ven. Yuttadhammo called "How To Meditate: A Beginner's Guide to Peace". This is a well written book with solid instructions and information about the technique. Here is a quote from Chapter Four: Fundamentals, p. 19:

"The first important principle is that meditation must be practiced in the present moment. During meditation, one's mind should be focused on the experience occurring at each moment, never dwelling in the past or skipping ahead to the future. One should avoid thoughts about how much time one has been sitting or how much time is left. One's mind should always be noting the objects as they arise in the present moment, not straying even one moment into the past or future.
When one is out of touch with the present moment, one is out of touch with reality. Each experience only lasts a single moment, so it is important to note experiences at the moment they occur, recognizing their arising, persisting, and ceasing, using the mantra to create a clear awareness of their essential nature. Only in this way can we come to understand the true nature of reality."

So as Ven. Yuttadhammo states, the practice of meditation must take place in the present moment and if one strays from the present moment i.e. when mindfulness is absent and the mind follows after an object and identifies with it, then one does not have reality as an object anymore meaning that insight knowledge into how reality functions, i.e. the 3 signs of existence, cannot arise.
Its all much better decribed in Ven. Yuttadhammo's book. I think it will give you all the answers you need. Here is a website where you can find the other books written and  here is a website that holds a categorized selection of the youtube videos made by Ven. Yuttadhammo. You could look in the meditation category for further information about your question.
You might find this video useful. Its called Fundamentals of Meditation Practice.
I hope this might be of some help to you. If you have any questions to what i wrote feel free to ask and i might be able to answer.
Lanka

@Bhante. You are most welcome. I say thank you too for providing us with all those teachings. Your hard work is well appreciated. I especially like the video-series of Dhammapada verses.

@yuttadhmmo but wouldn't this noting interfere with reading or studying ? it is not like walking , we can not keep noting as "reading , reading ". What would be the right practice ?

I am not sure if this fits your tradition, but perhaps it might be a value addition to you or perhaps another reader.
The best source to find out on how to be mindful is to get the information from the Maha Satipatthana Sutta. Here it mentioned that the awareness should be on the 4 foundations of mindfulness (these relate to the aggregates). In doing this you should pay particular attention to arising and passing of phenomena. You have to divide and dissect the foundation that you are looking at - e.g. if you look at body you should divide and dissect until you come to the level of Kalapa (sub atomic particles). You have to look piecing and penetratingly looking inside and out - e.g. if you take the body look at phenomena on the surface and also inside like in the organs. What ever part of the body or if you look at the whole body you should be sensitive to seeing phenomena arising and passing. You should try to actively or passively calm the fabrications.
Now coming back to studying there will be a lot of mental activities. Some of this can be mental or verbal fabrications. You cannot avoid this. But any mental activity creates a sensation. You can keep looking at these sensations with out reaction. Pleasant sensation can be used to eradicate craving, stressful sensation to eradicate aversion and neutral sensations to eradicate delusion (see A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma for the technicalities). Also try keeping your mind focused on the studying. If it goes to something else bring back your mind to the breath for a short while and continue studying keeping your thinking limited to studying. When taking a break whatever object your mind is on keep dividing and dissecting and look at it piercing and penetratingly. Also look at your breathing if you feel agitated or restless when studying for long hours. If you feel sleepy scan your body part by part staying on one place until you can feel something; if your body is already sensitive scan in rapid space. What ever the case keep your mind equanimous (devoid of craving and clinging) towards any sensation you experience.
Hope this is helpful. If you need anymore clarification please comment or post another question.

Thanks but I would like advice from more users, particularly those who practise in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition.

Sure. It can be an alternative approach. Though it might not be in line with the tradition you mention. Perhaps someone else can add another answer.

This is a tricky one. I have my method, and hopefully you will find it useful.
During study the mind is actively engaged in understanding the subject at hand. So it is strenuous and perhaps pointless or even detrimental to try to understand the subject and penetrating deeply into the reality of the mental phenomena at play. To me, there is a very good compromise between the two goals.
One of the main characteristics of vipassana is to see things exactly as they are. There are many methods to acomplish this, among them the Mahasi Vipassana Technique. The famous instructions the Buddha gave to Bahya apply here, in my opinion. Namely "In the seen, just the seen; in the sensed, just the sensed; in the cognised, just the cognised". Therefore, I usualy try to study with the aim of understanding the ideas without adding defilements to the ideas. During study you may not be directly concerned with deep insight, so you are not directing your mind to that purpose. But you will be more dispassionate, peaceful, alert and with more mental clarity. This is useful for vipassana, much like samatha is useful for vipassana.

A Brahmin disciple approached Buddha and told
"I've learnt many things in my life. But I really can't remember them"
Buddha answered that the reason for forgetting what you learn are Pancha Nivarana(Five Mental Hindrances). They are

Desire
Ill Will/Anger
sloth and torpor(Tiredness/Sleepiness)
Excitement and Worry
Perplexity

The solution to avoid this is practicing meditation.
Source
http://www.maithri.com/links/articles/mind5hindrn.htm


text:
Being bored :anapanasati meditation
How to overcome feeling bored while doing anapanasati meditation ? I get this feeling after setting sati at the end of the nose and body is calmed .

Boredom is a sign of restlessness. If you're bored, you want to try to do something else. You're not contented with the present moment. Please read this essay on the five hindrances to meditation by Ajahn Brahmavamso.
However, if you're falling asleep or cannot focus, then that's sloth and torpor (quoted below from essay). Since you have already commented that sloth and torpor is the likely cause, we will focus on that.

Sloth and torpor refers to that heaviness of body and dullness of mind
  which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression. The
  Lord Buddha compared it to being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell,
  unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside. In meditation,
  it causes weak and intermittent mindfulness which can even lead to
  falling asleep in meditation without even realising it!
Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always
  available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were. Setting
  a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate
  energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at hand. A
  young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy, because its
  world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's life, or
  one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see ever new angles
  and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from sloth and torpor,
  alive and energetic.

You can use another essay entitled A Guided Meditation (quoted below) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu to help you with this problem.
From the above essay, you know that you must set a goal to generate energy that is, by generating interest. In the following quote, the author suggests to explore sensations in other parts of the body (otherwise you will doze off). Please read the whole essay to get the whole picture.

If your mind wanders off, gently bring it right back. If it wanders
  off ten times, a hundred times, bring it back ten times, a hundred
  times. Don't give in. This quality is called ardency. In other words,
  as soon as you realize that the mind has slipped away, you bring it
  right back. You don't spend time aimlessly sniffing at the flowers,
  looking at the sky, or listening to the birds. You've got work to do:
  work in learning how to breathe comfortably, how to let the mind
  settle down in a good space here in the present moment.
When the breath starts feeling comfortable, you can start exploring it
  in other areas of the body. If you simply stay with the comfortable
  breath in a narrow range, you'll tend to doze off. So consciously
  expand your awareness. A good place to focus first is right around the
  navel. Locate that part of the body in your awareness: where is it
  right now? Then notice: how does it feel there as you breathe in? How
  does it feel when you breathe out? Watch it for a couple of breaths,
  and notice if there's any sense of tension or tightness in that part
  of the body, either with the in-breath or with the out-breath. Is it
  tensing up as you breathe in? Are you holding onto the tension as you
  breathe out? Are you putting too much force on the out-breath? If you
  catch yourself doing any of these things, just relax. Think of that
  tension dissolving away in the sensation of the in-breath, the
  sensation of the out-breath. If you want, you can think of the breath
  energy coming into the body right there at the navel, working through
  any tension or tightness that you might feel there ...

My experience sounds like "sloth and Toper" . I found clear understanding about cause of that in the article you have mentioned . But are there any practical tricks to overcome that ? How to generate energy to keep "knowing"

I'll modify my answer shortly. The answer is in this essay

Answer updated.

When meditating you have to balance Seven Factors of Enlightenment

Joy or rapture (pīti)
Investigation (dhamma vicaya)
Energy (viriya)

Mindfulness (sati)

Relaxation (passaddhi)
Concentration (samādhi)
Equanimity (upekkha)

... and also 5 Indriya

faith or conviction or belief (saddhā)
energy or persistence or perseverance (viriya)
mindfulness or memory (sati)
concentration or focus (samādhi)
wisdom or understanding or comprehension (pañña).

In some cases where you get concentration unbalanced with efforts. The strategy to over come this is:

1st is realise it
if you body is not sensitive then you investigate about the Dhamma by taking large parts, dividing and into smaller areas and looking to see arising and passing in the area. If your insight is not deep enough to see arising and passing look for a sensation or qualities of the elements
if your body is sensitive sweep the body from head to foot and foot to head as this will stir up Piti. Also there are places like the upper lip which are very sensitive and concentration of arising and passing in this spot will stir up Piti. Also you mind is directed from one object to another when you scan.
Like wise you can do mental chanting or contemplative meditation as this tend to also stir up Piti
Take extra efforts to be equanimous and devoid of craving and clinging

More details can be found in the Wikipedia entry on five hindrances.

Just to ensure my understanding, to overcome my hindering experience more "energy" is required , and using a strategy that bring  Piti would be the remedy ? Can I move back to "chasing" breath to achieve this ?

Look at the sensation at you chosen spot (ideally upper lip and below the nose) than giving importance to the breath dividing and dissecting the are to see the Arising and Passing or the Elements. This kind of investigation generally stirs up Piti and also you are making an active effort to investigate the Dhamma as well as maintain your mind at this task in sustained manner brining it back if it wonders away. Coupled with equanimity or effort to equanimous this also will stir energy.

Thank you .if you have a book recommendation that address five hindrances and enlightenment  factors relation to meditation practice , could you please add to the answer to help beginners like me

Try: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/index.html

Also see: http://www.dhammatalks.net/, http://www.dhammatalks.org/, http://dharmafarer.org/, http://www.dhammasukha.org/, http://www.buddhanet.net/, etc, for free books.

Also see: http://store.pariyatti.org/Comprehensive-Manual-of-Abhidhamma-A--PDF-eBook_p_4362.html if you want to connect the dots,

This might be also an interesting book: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/printguna.pdf

Ven. Thanisaro and Ven. Gunarathne's books above will have information about it. I don't know of any books exclusively on the subject.

Anapanasati meditation is not for everyone. This meditation needs to be developed and pursued ardently with thorough understanding and awareness. One should realize how strong and enormous the mental effort and patience need to be, in order to bring about mental purity and perfection. You can take something from Supreme Buddha's advice to his son, Rahula, on this.
Not everyone can develop anapanasati bhavana immediately. Once, Venerable Rahula, as a young novice, approached Arahant Sariputta, and was advised to develop and pursue anapanasati. At the time, Venerable Rahula did not know the way to develop anapanasati, and so, he went to the Blessed One and asked, “Would the Blessed One teach me about anapanasati?”
The Blessed One, when exhorting the novice Venerable Rahula, first gave detailed instructions on vipassana – a method to investigate with insight, by analyzing aggregates, material elements, sense spheres, etc…, and then finally instructed him on the practice of anapanasati meditation. The reason is that the Blessed One recognized Venerable Rahula’s temperament and what would be most suitable for him. Could we all be cured from our various illnesses by using one type of medicine? No, we could not. Different medicines are being prescribed for different types of ailments, depending on each individual’s physical condition. Likewise, as temperaments differ, so do the objects of meditation.
Supreme Buddha taught many ways to meditate. The Blessed One taught anapanasati to those with the ability to keep mindfulness well. The Supreme Buddha was emphatic on the importance of practicing anapanasati, and described it as peaceful, sublime, and perfects the four foundations of mindfulness. However, if one continually tries but cannot establish mindfulness on breathing, then he can practice other kinds of meditation for the time being.


text:
Is intention the result of rational or logical thinking or some other?
According to one of many sources, the definition of intention is described as Right intention is the intention and resolve to give up the causes of suffering, to give up ill-will and to adopt harmlessness. It contrasts with wrong intention, which involves craving for worldly things (wealth, sex, power) and the wish to harm.
What is unclear is whether intention is an act or thought that precedes or follows rational thought?
My understanding is that intention plays a critical role in one karma. If my thought is the result of anger however i do not have intent to harm is that not the result of rational thought?
If i do act irrationally, to save or protect a life, is that not intention without thought?
EDIT
To add to ChrisW's question on clarification, when i say that if my thought is of anger e.g. how this person would disappear or no longer be around, but this is not followed by action because rationally i do not wish to cause harm.
The second example of irrational thought is that when caught in the spur of the moment, i may say or do things however this is to protect a child.

I hope I understood the question in the second paragraph, i.e. "precedes or follows?"; but I don't think I understood the last two paragraphs. I don't know, maybe adding a for-example would help to illustrate the last two paragraphs.

@ChrisW - Apologies. I have now added examples. Hopefully that provides further context. Let me know if it still unclear and i will endeavor to update it further.

Lets take 2 examples where the action are the same:

A surgeon takes a knife and cuts through a person's stomach to save his life
A robber takes a knife and cuts through a person's stomach kill him and take his belongings

In both cases the action is the same but what differs is the intentions. Hence it is the intention that counts.
Now lets take another example.
A baby squirrel falls into the sea and is washed away. The mother squirrel dips her tail into the sea and runs to the shaking off water with the intention of drying water of the whole sea.
The intention is good but irrational. Regardless of rationality the Karmic effects would nevertheless good as the intention is good.

Sirinath Salpitiko - Thanks. What about thoughts? Thoughts come and go and from what i have gathered so far is that one has no control over them. So what happens when you have a thought that is unpleasant or brings to surface bad memories?

I have covered thoughts in many of my other answers. Perhaps you can scan through them.

Dependant origination(DO): depending on contact feeling arise, depending on feeling craving arise, ..craving..clinging, ..clinging..becoming, ..becoming.. there is birth. etc..
From contact until the point of birth there is no kamma (to be precise it's becoming).
Birth of what?
Birth of another thought, of a person committing an action good or bad.
Feeling of anger leads to birth of angry thoughts. If the thought is hold onto and contact (bringing to mind of that thought), then feelings arise again( it may again be anger or sympathy depending on the thought) and the whole chain of DO repeats.
Through mindfulness of feeling we let it ceased before it goes to craving(or aversion).
When there is craving we let it go before it becomes clinging.
When there is clinging we let it go before it progresses to becoming.
When becoming, we let it go before the birth of another thought or action.
Intention comes after becoming and when mindfulness is strong there is some space to reflect before the birth of acting. That's how I understand DO to operate.

@Samadhi - Isn't it the thoughts that lead to the emotions and not the other way around?

It always starts with contact followed by feelings, but most don't see it because it went that fast and they are aware only of the thoughts, which then generate further feelings. Suppose there is someone you hate/love when you see him/her which comes first thoughts or feelings. There are times when we like or hate a particular viewpoint then it is mental object (thought) which is the object, the mind contacts. Then feeling arise from contacting that viewpoint..

Enlightened beings hold no view as views are a conditioning from the past which will lead to discord.

When you think rationally, you may not have the intention to harm others. But in a moment of anger when you are not thinking rationally, you might suddenly have the intention followed by the action to cause harm.
Harm caused by anger to one who is angry is described in the Kodhana Sutta, that I quote here:
An angry person is ugly & sleeps poorly.
Gaining a profit, he turns it into a loss,
having done damage with word & deed.
A person overwhelmed with anger
    destroys his wealth.
Maddened with anger,
    he destroys his status.
Relatives, friends, & colleagues avoid him.
    Anger brings loss.
    Anger inflames the mind.
He doesn't realize
that his danger is born from within.
    An angry person doesn't know his own benefit.
    An angry person doesn't see the Dhamma.
A man conquered by anger is in a mass of darkness.
He takes pleasure in bad deeds as if they were good,
but later, when his anger is gone,
he suffers as if burned with fire.
He is spoiled, blotted out,
like fire enveloped in smoke.

When anger spreads,
when a man becomes angry,
he has no shame, no fear of evil,
is not respectful in speech.
For a person overcome with anger,
nothing gives light.

"According to one of many sources, the definition of intention is described as 'Right intention [...]"
Notice that the source you link to is not defining "intention" (aka "volition" from pali cetanā, or the related "volitional formations", "kamma formations" or "formations" from pali saṅkhāra), the psychological aspect of the mind associated to kamma, but "Right Intention" (also translated as "right thought", "right aspiration", "right resolve" from pali sammā sankappa) which describes instructions to develop oneself in the path, not an element of the psychological framework.
"If my thought is the result of anger however i do not have intent to harm is that not the result of rational thought?"
Just to contextualize:

[The Buddha:] "What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?"
[Rahula:] "For reflection, sir."
[The Buddha:] "In the same way, Rahula, bodily acts, verbal acts, and mental acts are to be done with repeated reflection.
"Whenever you want to perform a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I want to perform — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' [...]
"If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it."
-- MN 61

If we understand a thought as an (volitional) act of angry thinking with intention to harm, and upon seeing the danger in such thinking, one abandons the intention to harm, you could call this reflection a "rational thought". Afterwards, while still angry, if one has another thought, a non-harming thought, this is another act of thinking with another intention behind it.
I guess you could say this second intention is the "result of a rational thought", but only to the extent you're explaning that this previous reflection influenced it.
But to the extent that "result" means a much closer relationship, I think it would risk hiding important details:

"Intention [cetanā], I tell you, is kamma.
  Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.
-- AN 6.63
"And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? With ignorance as condition, volitional formations [saṅkhārā] come to be; [...]
-- SN 12.2

"If i do act irrationally, to save or protect a life, is that not intention without thought?"
If one acts "irrationally to save a life", I'd say he is acting conscious and deliberately, not irrationally: that's his intention after all, "to save" (*). If he saves "by accident", then I'd say it was an unreflected, unaware act (with regards to that specific outcome, at least), with no intention to save, but with intention to, say, obtain something else (which, by accident, resulted in saving).
From my understanding of Theravada point of view, (and grossly speaking) intention is always behind an (bodily, verbal, mental) act. Intentions, however, are subject to be reshaped by one's own will.
Finally, intentions may be succeeded by careful reflection, or not. They may be shaped by previous introspection, just by deep habits, etc. or any combination of it.

(*) He may be "irrational" in his method, not in absense of intention or thought.

Do you mean to say that intention is both thought and act? So if i have a thought of anger however this is not followed through with an act, what does this refer to? If i am angry or unhappy however have not ill intent with thought or act, what does this refer to?

No [to the first question], but a thought is an act -- and a body action, or verbalization is another act. Theravada understands the sutta above as it says: kamma is done through body, speech and mind. One's thought of anger not followed by any bodily action to harm, is still an act of thought of anger, and it is kamma. Of course, thinking about doing harm is karmically different than bodily doing harm. But both of these (thinking and doing) are considered harmful -- both make you subject to experience the result of these kamma.

If you are (feel?) angry or unhappy with no intent to harm, I don't see how this would refer to an act or intention. But if you think angry and unhappy thoughts, these are considered acts. The angry and unhappy feelings might be better explained by the chain of vijñāna, contact, vedanā, sañña, ....

If thought is an act and if act is linked to karmic accountability, i fail to see how you can avoid it. Every literature i have read so far suggests that thoughts come and go. You can't stop it and avoid it. All you can do is be the observer. Not to participate in unhealthy thoughts be it anger, sadness, etc.

My understanding is that acts originated in a mind with delusion, greed or ill will are "bound to samsara" and are seeds for kamma fruits. But Thoughts and any other action from an emancipated mind are distinct in this regard. So im not suggesting thoughts are something to get rid of, as the ultimate goal, nor that thoughts are "bad" by their own nature

Apologies. I am confused now. How are act originating in the mind different to thoughts?

Sorry, I keep chopping off words to respect the limits of 500 characters  and I'm not fully versed in these concepts myself. An idea here to get you some better clarifications would be asking further questions in the site. Something like you've just asked, or perhaps, something more encompassing of what we've been discussing (e.g. what is regarded as intention, action, and thought and how these are the same or different and how they relate to karma)?


text:
Teaching Buddhist concepts to a child
The post here specifically refers to introducing Buddhism to a child as well as meditation and recitals.
The question i am seeking to answer though is the introduction of concepts such as clinging, letting go, intent, self, no-self and the like.
Being surrounded by children under the age of 4, i can observe that certain behaviors are starting to take root e.g. clinging. If a particular toy is lost or not available, the child senses a deep loss which results in emotional and physical distress.
The kids also identify with themselves with the things they are surrounded by e.g. friends, physical objects, etc

This could be a good question for Parenting.SE ... not about Buddhism, specifically, but concepts such as clinging. I think that in parenting (and teaching) one of the concepts for teachers is called "redirection" ... e.g. if the child is clinging to something that's become unavailable then you redirect them towards something else instead.

But although redirection is common-place, maybe it's not very Buddhist: maybe it encourages the pursuit of sense-objects; maybe it teaches "you always need an object, it doesn't matter what".

Hi Motivated. When you say "surrounded by children" are you referring to your own children or children at a Buddhist center that you are interested in teaching about the Buddha and his teachings or do you mean children in a public group or school that you are interested in teaching useful Buddhist concepts but without calling it Buddhism?

@ChrisW - The purpose of teaching these concepts is so that the kids have tools to deal with life as they mature. I agree that the it to provide them with the view that objects such as toys.

@Robin111 - Both our own and others. It is to introduce them the concepts without referring to any specific belief system since it can be easily misconstrued.

Try the videos under the section of Children on this website.
There are some ebooks for children here.
There's a simplified introduction to Buddhism for kids here.
There are websites on Jataka Tales for children here, here and here.
I think a great way of teaching Buddhist concepts to children is through stories. Stories are entertaining to young children who need their creativity and imagination stimulated, in order to learn things happily and efficiently.
Instead of trying to teach very young children concepts like anatta which may be too difficult for them, it might be better to teach them virtues and good moral values, which are available through the Jataka Tales and some Dhammapada stories. This is the foundation to inculcating sila.

My 2 year old toddler isn't ready for sunyata yet, I'm trying to teach him to be nice to the cat (not pull it's tail etc) because the cat feels pain-- as contrasted with, don't do that because I said so.
The concept of change is pretty straight forward. In moments of pain, you can remind kids that the pain doesn't last for long-- nothing last for long. In times where everything is going fine, or is fun, the Buddhist thing to do is to remember that nothing lasts for long and the fun of the moment will pass. In moments of tranquility, remind kids that peaceful tranquility doesn't involve pain, nor peaks of happiness, and it's a good state to be in.
I'll report back in two years about if it works.

Awesome. Be very interested in the progress.


text:
Can you be aware but not conscious?
According to Buddhist teaching (of any school) is it possible to be aware but not conscious?
I'm reading the book Seeing that Frees at the moment and Rob Burbea hints that although in the book he is going to use consciousness and awareness interchangeably, there is a sense that they are not the same. I'm hoping that answers to this question might help me dig into this a bit more.

Can you elaborate on how you would distinguish being aware from being conscious? Perhaps an example where one is present but not the other?

To give some pointers, manasikāra, sampajañña, sati, viññāṇa (and sañña in the proximity) are, to varying degrees, associated to some form of [western understandings of] awareness or consciousness. And it's possible that, at some point, some of these may be present while others may be not.

@ThiagoSilva it's possible that what Rob Burbea is alluding to. I'm sure that the concepts of awareness and consciousness don't map to the Pali (Buddhist) concepts - why would they. Strangely I can more imagine a situation the other way around when one is conscious but not aware. I might imagine that I am conscious most of the time to some degree but I am not aware of certain things (actually I don't necessarily subscribe to that view). There is the famous experiment where people where shown a basketball game when a man in a gorilla costume ran across the court. .................

... Most people didn't notice the gorilla. Were they conscious but not aware?? (I have no sources for this so it could be apocryphal)

pretty sure this is a duplicate of a question i asked hahh a!

http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/8591/can-we-be-sensously-aware-without-consciousness

In descriptions of the five skandhas the fifth, Vijñāna, is described/translated as "consciousness" and "awareness": as if they're interchangeable.
But maybe there are other types of awareness. Ibid. says,

This type of awareness appears to be more refined and introspective than that associated with the aggregate of perception (saññā) which the Buddha describes in the same discourse as follows [etc.]

And,

Similarly, in the traditionally venerated 5th-century CE commentary, the Visuddhimagga, there is an extended analogy about a child, an adult villager and an expert "money-changer" seeing a heap of coins; in this analogy, the child's experience is likened to perception, the villager's experience to consciousness, and the money-changer's experience to true understanding (paňňā).[15] Thus, in this context, "consciousness" denotes more than the irreducible subjective experience of sense data suggested in the discourses of "the All" (see prior section); here, "consciousness" additionally entails a depth of awareness reflecting a degree of memory and recognition.

So maybe "awareness" is also used for sense-impressions (e.g. visual sight), which "consciousness" then reifies into a chariot, and/or "consciousness" is also used in the sense of "wisdom" (one word for which is 'higher consciousness')

I don't know about Buddhist teaching but it's reminding me of one time when my Tai Chi master pretended to attack me and I moved to block without thinking about it: so my action was aware (of what I saw) but unconscious.
Similarly when driving a car: when I was a student driver I had to consciously think about everything ... changing gear, other cars, road signs, stationary objects, indicators, the driving instructor, etc.  Now that I have more-or-less mastered driving it's sufficient to be aware of what I see around me, and to some extent being less conscious implies greater capacity for awareness.
Maybe I developed neural circuitry to handle the sense-input-signals from driving...

When you start meditation, your conscious is weak but it becomes stronger when you practice and your perception becomes weaker. Your perceptions and mental habits generally cloud your awareness. Generally many things comes to our consciousness but we are not aware at the surface level of the mind to start with but our awareness increases through more practice of meditation we become aware of what every that comes to our consciousness.
If you take an analogy from modern psychology we have the conscious mind and sub conscious mind. As we meditate your conscious mind expands to include our sub conscious mind.
At one stage our whole body is sensitive to what every that comes to the consciousness hence our conscious mind has expanded to the extent there is not sub conscious mind. What ever that comes to our conciousness we are aware.
In a nutshell generally it is the opposite for a non mediator. You can, at times, not be aware, as your consciousness has not made an strong imprint, but nevertheless conscious without the surface of you mind knowing. In developing awareness it should be done such that it does not get clouded by perception, i.e., should be rooted in phenomena when meditating.


text:
Buddhism and the surrounding environment
EDIT
At the request of yuttadhammo and Lanka, i am attempting to focus the question. Please let me know if it still remains unclear.
The environment is full of daily encounters through the physical, visual, auditory, mental and emotional faculties. Some of these interactions are positive in that they help promote the well being of one-self and other whilst others are negative.
It seems all is an illusion especially when some of these interactions out-weigh the other e.g. positive vs negative and vice versa. Often this feels like a battle to bring more positive in light of the negative. The emotional and mental effort required to keep forging ahead seems futile. Repeatedly i am told that meditation is the path however i fail to see how when it seems that it is intended more for me than for me and others.
I feel like a battered and wounded lion or soldier. I feel lost. Concepts are unedifying since they further cloud the situation e.g. where truth end and lies start, where right and wrong are right and wrong, etc
What does one do?
Original Question
The definition of environment in the context of the question is to do with the daily encounters one has with the world be it through physical interaction, auditory, visual, emotional or mental. Each day, these interactions are positive or negative. An example of positive may be someone assists another in need of help. An example of negative may be when someone is not conducive to the problem or issue at hand or a war stricken land.
Sometimes the positive outweigh the negative and vice versa. Sometimes it feels like a battle to bring positive possibilities as you are attempting to shine light in a large area of darkness.

How does one approach this?
How does one remain motivated?
How does one help another through their suffering?
How does one trust another?

I may be wrong in my understanding however meditation appears to be an activity for oneself. It does not encompass the wider world. If all is interdependent and interrelated, is this not futile?

Hi Motivated. I think those are some good and important questions you ask. Although there are a lot of them within one question making it difficult for other users to give an "best-answer". Could you summarize them a bit so that it will be easier for other users to answer your question and so that you can get an answer you can use? I will refer you to this meta-post about "questions with lot of parts in them": http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1531/are-questions-with-lots-of-parts-on-topic

Yeah, it isn't really clear what you are asking... better to try to stick with one question and make it clear what that question is. If your last sentence is the question, I think that should be more clearly expressed and the meaning behind your question explained.

@Lanka - Thanks. I have attempted to offer a concise question.

@yuttadhammo - Thanks. I have attempted to hone in on the question.

A technique which can help ensure that a question has a single topic is the title: include one of the interrogative words in the title, phrase it so that it has a question mark at the end, and make it grammatical with (at least) a noun and a verb. I don't always do that myself, but it (phrasing the title as a question) is a technique to consider if the overall subject or unified theme of the topic is in doubt.

I think it could still use some tightening up.... As it stand, it reads more like a cry for help than an inquiry into a specific problem. I think there is a very reasonable question in there, but it seems like rather than simply asking it, you are engaging in a therapy session. While that can certainly be useful, it's not really what this site is for. I'm not trying to be cruel, just trying to help you get an answer. I feel like your question could be asked more clearly in just a few lines of text.

You have to 1st have a shift of paradigm in your thinking. This might help. The paradigm shift you need to experience is that anything external cannot really hurt you unless you hurt your self in reaction to and external input. What hurts you happen from within.
In addition to this keep in mind the environment for sensory input in conditioned by past fabrications and our natural tendency is that we consider this positive and negative. A source of misery is this classification by our perception in the 1st place.
Let's loot at the process where you actually get hurt.

A wanted thing has not happen
An unwanted thing has happen

1st you recognise and perceive such thing has append. Then there is a mental reaction to such mental imprint. This causes a sensation either pleasant or unpleasant. Do cut off this experience of pleasantness or unpleasantness may be a bit far off but there is a nearer solution.
When you experience the initial sensation this brings up more memories and thoughts which compound either to intensify or reduce the intensity of the sensation. Initially you can address this issue.
How to address this is that 1st you experience a sensation you react with craving and aversion. Try your best to keep your mind equanimous. This will gradually reduce the potential proliferation with practice. Then you can look at distracting yourself from the cause. Generally it would be a good idea to look at your breath. You will see that it has become hard. Wait till it to become normal. If it is aversion do some Metta, if it is lustful imagine if body parts were separate will you still perceive the person as beautiful, etc.
To drive out ignorance which is the root cause of misery, look at the sensation closely. Where is it the most intense, when you start from a bounty of the sensation what direction, it is intense, try dividing the areas of the sensation into smaller parts and look at the smaller areas. Look at changes in it and how its looses intensity and pass away. As you practice you should try to see it as more finer and finer levels until you see this at the level or arising and passing of Kalapa. Also also try to realise how it originates, i.e., some contact of the other. Be mindful of all contacts without reaction or craving and clinging being absolutely mindful or arising and passing of phenomena within the framework of the 4 foundations of mindfulness.
At the utmost level how this happens if when you get any sense input from the environment you piece together a picture to which you react. Once you see, hear or scene something, this alone causes a mild sensation. Piecing together the picture and reacting causes a larger sensation. With practice you can cut off the second reaction.
Last but not least, you can work yourself to cut out future unpleasant experiences from within and the environment. Even experiences we call pleasant are not that satisfactory as they do not last and we cannot control them. Your environment is created by fabrication of the past. At this moment by reacting you are creating fabrication for the future. There are 2 things you have to do. 1) Drive out ignorance (glossed over before) and understand the 4 Noble Truths and Dependent Origination 2) Stop putting more fuel experience future unpleasantness. The strategy to do this is in the light of sensations:

Pleasant sensations -  this is because of past fabrication of clinging and craving. The dander is that you will cling and crave for the pleasant sensations. Be equanimous with absolutely not clinging or craving. Look at the arising and passing of the elements and Kalapas which make the sensation to dispel any possible taint of ignorance at the particular time. If you cannot see arising and passing just look at the sensation analysing is breaking it into small areas and looking at the intensity and change of the sensation and eventual passing away of it keeping in mind at what every you experience will eventually pass away. Being eqaunimous towards pleasant sensation you are not creating new fabrication or future environment to experience unsatisfactory sensation of the same type and also depleting you old stock of fabrication created by clinging. Through in the future you may experience some pleasantness this will always result in disappointment due to the 3 marks of existance (Impermanence and change, un satisfactoriness, no absolute control).
Painful sensation - these are result of past aversion. Use this to deplete your old stock of fabrication of painful sensation hence you will not experience painful experiences in the future
Neutral sensation - similarly for neutral sensation. Use this to deplete fabrication due to ignorance. This has some more dangers than pleasantness. There is a chance you might think you have reached the final goal when you experience neutral sensation. You have to look closely and then you still will see things are arising and passing. Also there is a danger this can bake you restless in which case best is to practice concentration. Also there is a chance you might get sloth and toper. Then it is best to practice investigation and practice which have some metal movement (like scanning the body) or mental chattering (like Metta, or in some cases chanting). These practices may make you fall back to Piti if you are experiencing Passaddhi.

I think you will end up getting better answers to your question. But I'll answer what I can. :)
It truly is exhausting to be in a mind state of continually judging every experience and every facet of life as positive or negative and trying to continually change things to be as you would have them. One of the reasons people come to mediation is because they realize they can't change the world and they want to learn to live in the world in a way that causes less suffering for themselves and others.
Meditation is something an individual does but because of the way it changes the individual; it also changes things in the individual's world. Spending time in meditation can help a meditator to become very aware of things they are doing which are causing suffering for themselves and others. It can help one to realize that suffering comes internally by identifying things as me and mine and trying desperately to prop up that fragile ego of me and mine.
The relief of learning to loosen the grip of needing to have everything under your control and everything to your liking is tremendous. I don't think it can be properly explained; it's something that needs to be experienced.
If you are concerned that meditating will make you indifferent to the needs of others, I can only say that because you are, examining your own mind when you meditate, you really can't hide anything from yourself. So if you are doing something that causes suffering to others, it'll be clear and you won't want to continue.

Thanks Robin111. I understand that meditation offers the opportunity to learn more about yourself as well as look at your practices, views and the like. I attempt to do this outside of meditation on a daily basis however am always challenged with the way of the world. I attempt to step back and observe the experiences, not to place any judgement and to see it for what it is.

There are times i sense that the path of a certain experience is not what it should be. I will discuss this with those around me and often this is disregarded since it may involve more time, money, effort, etc to do things right. It may also involve people putting their egos aside.

"To be aware of a single shortcoming within oneself is more useful than to be aware of a thousand in someone else." Tweeted by the Dalai Lama https://twitter.com/dalailama/status/12567837881 ♥


text:
Unable to sustain mindfulness on subtle breath
I noticed in my practice that I was unable to sustain my attention on breath when it became relatively subtle . Is this because my mindfulness is not mature enough to hold on to subtle objects of meditation? What sort of action could help me to overcome this?

Is this an issue with mindfulness or concentration?  When you focus on the breath, what aspects are you focusing on?  For instance, if you focus on the belly rising, have you tried focusing on a more subtle part (like the breath as it enters the nostrils)?  A tighter focus could be helpful for more concentration...

it's an interesting question - when i follow breaths i have at least the sensations of my nose and of the count to focus on. so even if my breath is very calm - even unnoticed, there are other aspects of following the breath which are still present

There is nothing wrong with losing your focus of the breath, as long as wherever the mind goes, you are aware of that moment. That is, in my view, perfect practice. You are not restricting yourself to the breath or anything. Which is correct! Wherever the mind goes, it goes... you can't control it. So by simply watching where the attention of the mind falls upon, you are fully focused in the moment. Just like watching a butterfly gently landing onto different flowers, being carried by the wind. We have no idea how strong the wind will blow nor do will know in which direction... but, you can still watch the butterfly attentively, as it lands.
But that's just my view. My understanding of correct practice.
Metta.

That was a great answer. I like the butterfly-landing-on-flower simile. +1.

When should I use " right effort " ? Is there whey I can bring back attention to "breath" or is it not necessary ?

You should use right-effort all the time, otherwise ignorance will appear in some form, resulting in pain and suffering. Using the breath is a very good starting point to increase focus, because it's always there. I would say it is necessary for a beginner to train the mind on the breath, but... if your mind does wander and you notice it moving to something else, then don't use the breath, just stay with the new sensation, whether that is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching or thinking. However, once the sensation has gone, which it will do, then return to the breath.

What you have to do is:

realise your mind has wandered away and bring it back. In doing this not the sensations caused by the your attention has gone to. Sensations arising from thought polifration. Apply efforts not to react with craving and clinging maintaining perfect equanimity. Investigate the Dhamma to see arising and passing, i.e., start of sensations, peaking and passing also dividing and dissecting it until you see what it is made of at the level of Kalapas (subatomic particles)
until there is breathing there is some more opportunity to calm down the fabrications. Keep looking at it applying sustained and continuous effort. After each in breath reviews if you were with the breath for part breath had stopped (initially a small time like a blink of an eye) and the part that you breathed in. Likewise for the out breath.
you have to prepare your self to look at sensations. So focus on touch and bodily sensations on the chosen spot. (Step 5 to 8, 2nd triad.)
Also you have to make your self sensitive to all bodies, in order to see subtlest realities pertaining to phenomena at the level of Kalapa. So exercise of looking at the subtlest breath can help increase your sensitivity. Sustained and continuous effort to maintain the focus can help increase concentration.