text:
Mountain Monk Diets
When I read poems like this...

... I think of how long-lived such mountain monks tended to be on such a minimal diet (and of course whatever spiritual cultivation they gained) and focused they were on their own cultivation.
Are there any records of diets of these mountain monks? I know many of them practiced Taoist teachings in addition to core Buddhist teachings, like the many monks that wrote the poems on Cold Mountain.

They were almost always brought alms food, generally in the form of rice and other cultural staples.  They'd also go to the marketplace to beg.  Han Shan (i.e. Cold Mountain himself) and his buddy Shide would also mooch off some of the local monasteries when they got especially peckish - much to annoyance of some of the abbots who often gave Han Shan an ultimatum to formally ordain at their temple if he wanted to keep his meal ticket.  Check out Bill Porter's book Road to Heaven.  It profiles a number of contemporary Chinese recluses and charts their place in a lineage that has remained relatively consistent over at least a thousand years.  There's almost always a tension between their ethereal life in the mountains and the world of red dust that provided their meals.

Perhaps this answer will be too personal and seem unrelated to Buddhism, and my answers are a bit simple-minded, but...
I can tell you that the diets that do not add to your karma are those that take from that which gives itself freely.
That means:  grains, fruits, and nuts.  Water, air, and sunlight, of course, are free as well.  Anything else and you can't be sure that you are not taking from the path of those organisms and the contribution that they may contribute.
It should be said, that if you take from fruits and nuts and grains, you give back by planting their seeds, too.  With nuts, perhaps 10% of your harvest should go to planting new trees.
This is how I see living the dharma.

That's really quite a nice poem and not bad a translation... if I could find the original. Some effort.
This is interesting. I read about Ven. Xūyún (虛雲和尚 1840-1959CE), there were years he lived and ate only taros in his retreat. He planted once every year, then dug out one each day and ate; if that's bad that day, he didn't eat. It reported that a time he entered into Dhyana, later he emerged found his taro in the bowl got moldy, until then he realized he's in the Dhyana for months. It was until he broken a teacup, that moment he got enlightened - Míng xīn jiàn xìng (明心見性). Another record reported that there were many people died (war or famine?) in late Qing during reign of Dowager Cíxǐ, she begged Xūyún to do something so that the piled corpses wouldn't cause epidemic. He set the alter and abiding in Dharma for 7 days, then it snowed in the high summer of June, the snow covered the bodies. He was the most respectable monk in modern time, imo.
Then there's the Tibetan monk Milarepa (1052-1135CE), he ate only the nettle leaves when dwelling in the cave.
There's another monk he ate only fruit all his life. I'm in favour of this practice. The only food that could be the fair exchange and non-violent to eat is fruit. The plants made them to be eaten so that they got their seeds propagated. However, there comes in GMO, and seedless oranges, grapes...
And of course Prince Siddhartha was the most outstanding recluse living on one sesame each day for six years before enlightened to be the Buddha.
Rddhi power is an inevitable condition when one can abide in 3rd Dhyana truly, even the 2nd. Usually a recluse can have greatest achievement in this respectful search. Any endeavour one invested all his effort and life, fortune will smile back with the reward. It's a lost when one dedicated all life into monk-hood but lives just like an ordinary, even with bad health, what's the benefit? For oneself or the world? Can these monks teach the truth? They don't even have their "third-vision/ divine-eyes" opened, how could they know what is true? Except maybe parroting the Sutra/Sutta phrases, or pretending venerable, or being dogmatic scorning the world, or chorusing with the scholars being one of the "world famous" scholastic monk with essays/books cosplaying Buddha-Dhamma cited in equally "world famous" academic publications? The Dharma is not on the paper; none in the oral memorizing. The Buddha never condemned Rddhi power, but condemned those faking it, or showing off it or using for bad deed.
It is not uncommon to practice abstain from eating in Chinese tradition. Bìgǔ (辟谷) is very easy to achieve, means not eating at all, maybe only water, or slice of fruit. I knew a Dharma sister of 70+ she did it for 100+ days, only drinking a bit of mineral water. She had health problem with her excess weight. After she was much healthier, and lost those unwanted extras.
The traditional Chinese Taoist has this practice: Bìgǔ fúqì (辟谷服氣), means abstain from eating but consuming the Qi. It's very advance. However, the Buddhist has the ultimate. It is in the Surangama Sutra that the Buddha said eating what grown from the earth your feet can't leave the earth... Vimalakirti Sutra, in the Fragrant Pureland (香積佛國) food is scent, so the Dharma also transmitted in scent, no language used. In Agama Sutra it said the earliest Beings (ancestors of humans) falling down from the Realm of Sound Brilliance were living on bliss only (喜樂為食)... But these are all too advance for conventional practitioners to even contemplate, not to mention many of those lesser ones enjoy dental-drilling the higher teaching of the Buddha, defaming also disparaging the authentic Sutras but having low taste in favour of the minor inaccurate lineage. They don't have the capacity of mind nor deserve to hear.

Nice to hear about Milarepa and bigu practice which I always wanted to try... and some other stories I have not heard before. I wonder how your Dharma sister is now? I also wonder how compatible such practice is with layman life... mental work after all consumes a lot of energy and I don't know if I could survive on just a taro a day even if I abstain from working out... but that is a separate question. Definitely it has connections with longevity according to current scientific evidence on fasting. I have to read the Surangama sutra more, any good English translations?

This bigu practice has actually been a big fascination of mine ever since I read Master Nan and Bill Bodri's books mention them... The 10 classes of immortals, dissolving into chi, teleporting and soaring through the sky at will,  living on just breath alone, etc. Fantastic stuff! What monastary your sister practice at? Id love to see real life practitioners since even starting this practice has a dhyana prerequisite.

She lives in Canada, not heard from her for a while; the most spirited and beautiful lady at her 70+. It's easy to try 7 days, if one is not with health issue; or 3 days. This will break up the habit: 3 meals a day. In fact it's not hunger, but the body trained to feel this way. 3 ways to induce it: 1. given by yourself, 2. induced by a teacher, 3. automatic when one's energy is prime. Example for 1, set 3 days, let yourself know that you don't need to eat, only some water, maybe bit of fruit (date is good, jujube no more than 7 per day, palm 3-5). Meditate to acquire energy, or...

... mantra chanting, connect to the "source", if you are good, may hv Dharma bliss (法喜) as food. A practitioner abiding in Dhyana he doesn't lose energy; fetter costs mental, work-out physical. A taro is good enough for masters. "10 classes of immortals...", nice, not recalling though I read a lot M. Nan. I met her in Bodhi Med. (puti.org), hv ctrs in US, [they need image revamp!!] If you are lucky to meet good teacher during session, Bigu could be induced. Everyone is different, so the experience... too complex to explain here. No idea of Eng. Su., too profound who can translate??

Their website looks good! They have a center near me in Los Angeles, I asked to visit them for their retreat. They seem very emphasizing on energy practices however and the video looked very hocus pocus.  I have experience with fasting. Longest I did was 5 days--I fast half the day every other day... need to get back to my 3 day fasts--I always felt very light and focused. Thanks for the reminders haha, you really know your stuff!

Where are you located btw? I'd like to chat with you more I appreciate your thoughts on this question! Oh and I was skimming the Surangama translations I have actually.. the subjects are covered really well in Bill's books--the current english translations give me a headache when I try to read it--it is really confusing and imprecise it is hard to read lol

what is hocus pocus? the founding "Guru" who had his own amazing story to arrive what he is capable trying to get those unusual stuff moderated to be accepted by scientific and ordinary minded, he termed it energy to explain certain psychic/Rddhi maybe... if one is good at, would be able to note his unusual/magnetic voice - a person who's Central Channel opened... there are some of his chanting in youtube, try "Jin Bodhi" if you are interested. it's rather complex, incomplete discussion may cause confusion or unfair blemish... hmmmm. For fasting (Bigu) it's best to do 7 days, 14, 21...

the multiples of 7. maybe not ideal to do "fast half the day every other day". i'm so happy to learn someone not Chinese but appreciate Surangama :))! it's the first Sutra to disappear in this Dharma declining time... M. Nan's commentary didn't tell much, just wording Classical Chi to daily Chi which i don't need. i would like to read Bill's if hv time, Western perspective is provoking though faults there too. unexpectedly i'm at other side of earth, a marginal earthling too?? maybe write to mishu@celestory.com if you like, sketching my website that's not quite well pulled together yet...

Important, if you do real fasting (Bigu) for days, once the session finished, should start with moderate meal, such as porridge cereal, warm. For the stomach and the digestive system after days not in working needs "warm-up" first.

Yeah all you have said are mentioned in Bill's books! I will email you How to Measure--you will really like it. It sounds like you know a lot of it already. Maybe through Master Nan's books? Do you live near the Taihu Great Learning Center?? Jin Bodhi does have a beautiful voice, must do lots of 9bottled winds. The base in my speakers was vibrating so much lol...

The fasting half day is very beneficial and do-able for the regular person--it is a bit difficult for me to do longer fasts due to livelihood and aromas around the house. stomach/tongue keeps calling after a whole day of work and then exercise... There is a lot of benefit from "intermittent fasting" as modern science shows. Buddhism also has this principle with the not eating past noon. I'm still trying to build to that as a regular habit... Not sure I could do even 3 day fast anymore except over weekend.

By the way, this is a subreddit with many students of master nan, I believe your commentary would be treasured here. https://www.reddit.com/r/genuinemeditation/

thanks the reddit link and all! i've not opened a reddit yet, but it's in my plan. these days i mostly read Sutras, Sutras in Classical Chinese are the only reliable source; and Buddha Shakyamuni is my teacher. all teachers in this world face their own Maras, as you know how Surangama warned about the downfalls. however, my gratitude to all respectful teachers who i've learnt from. i hope you benefiting from the fast (Bigu) and meditation, doing correctly could greatly enhance health, at least!

This doesn't answer your question but -- even if there are (written) records I guess it may be difficult to identify plants from written records: for example even if they record the common (local) name of the plant and where to find it, that historical information may not be useful in modern times.
So instead of historical Buddhist records, you might be interested modern scientific studies like (to pick one at random) Wild food plants and wild edible fungi in two valleys of the Qinling Mountains (Shaanxi, central China).

There are many ways how recluses of other sects might dwell isolated, how ever, the Buddha did not want his disciples to do such, and such rules not to cook, not to store food, not to pick up fruits from trees, not to damage plant live, not to live in improper dependency of some... do not allow such a kind of dwelling: isolated.
The poem does btw. not indicate such, since the teller used obiviously an alms bowl. Une finds very similar poems in the Theragatha. Being better, currently doing, such a dweller, as well as suggestions in the records: one should not stay much more fare then 2 or 3 km from settlements, longer distances for alms round are neither conductive for the practice nor for health.
There are people, recluses, even Monks ordained proper, who live isolated, have either relation to certain lay supporter, or store food, cook for themselves, even walk for gathering fruits, roots, mushrooms... but all that (mostly even accept money and use it, to manage their needs) is neither Buddhas wish nor in accordiance with the Dhamma-Vinaya, often connected with heavy offences.
From the view of personal benefit, one is reminded that one depends on others, every day and one is independent at the same time, not engaging in any kind of trade or unskilfull actions.
Furthermore, if monks would live isolated "independend" people would not come in touch, never be reminded on the fourth heavenly messenger, hardly ever hear teachings. Furthermore the tradition would be very fast extinguished. Not to speak that the world would be void to the great field of merits.
So if one seeks for the Dhamma and way of the Buddha, really no need to seach for remote recluses.
From experience, recluse on montains, living other the rightly, certain "independend, are for the most brahmanic colored, often seek to develop iddhis (special) powers, or simply make themselves more interesting for certain gains, and yes, there are also the angry ones, those who bear aversion torward other people an sociaty in an unhealthy way. For all this cases, at least one, not secure, is always very in need of correcting admirable friends, the Buddha did not encouraged to dwell in forests and isolated.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
Meditation's Effect on Strong Attachment
I have a straightforwards question: does meditation decrease attachments -- e.g. to alcohol or social media -- by increasing willpower, or by other mechanisms? I would think shamatha increases willpower in the long-term, but does it produce some other effects that decrease attachments?
Thank you.

Meditation can result in samatha (tranquility & joy) and vipassana (insight).
On a very basic or crude level, meditation can provide an intimate insight into how addictions & habits disturb, trouble & enslave the mind, which can help the mind develop a distaste or dispassion towards these more coarse/gross addictions & habits.
As for samatha, if well developed, it provides an alternate, more healthy & free source of pleasure.
All minds require 'pleasure' however some sources of pleasure are more healthy than others.

Is it valid, as mentioned in previous questions, that pleasure from shamatha arises mostly when one reaches jhana? Is there no pleasure previous to this?

Very few people on the internet are discussing real jhana. There are three levels of concentration in Buddhism, namely: (i) momentary/prepatory concentration; (ii) neighbourhood concentration & (iii) jhana. Neighbourhood concentration is sufficient for non-sensual pleasure. Stream-enterers, who have eradicated so much suffering (refer to SN 13.1), have only developed neighbourhood concentration. For example, the Anapanasati Sutta is about neighbourhood concentration. As long as the mind can continually stay with the breathing in a meditation session, samatha should develop adequately. Regards

Shamatha can be viewed as an off-shoot of the traditional Theravadin practice of mindfulness meditation. Its purpose is to establish “calm abiding” in which calm objectivity and common-sense understanding are extended to establish a meditative awareness of one’s state of mind, thoughts, and emotions. From a Theravadin point of view, the establishment of calm abiding is a good beginning but not an end in itself. Nonetheless, a calm and objective mind automatically corrects perceptions, feelings, beliefs, desires, and “attachments” that do not make sense to your common-sense mind. This is the mechanism that causes MBSR therapy to work. In this way, certain types of problematic sankhara (schemata) are revised. However, there are deeper and more problematic sankhara that cannot be corrected in this manner. The next level of mindfulness meditation consists of meditating on “the body in the body,” which is similar to the process of focusing developed by Eugene Gendlin. The more advanced levels of mindfulness meditation engage the Bodhicitta and require a lot more explanation. If you want to know more about these more advanced levels, you can read my book on how mindfulness meditation works.

When you concentrate out of alcohol, you are not attaching alcohol that time. The distance between you and alcohol will increase. This can be meditation, if your concentration concentrating samādhi object or vipassanā object continuously and  improvely. But, if not, it is  just a sīla, precept, if you just deny to drink an alcohol, because alcohol denying is just a precept in 5 precepts, so it is just meditation base, but it still not meditation.
Sīla-training stop whole physical attachment, not just alcohol. Sīla is base of meditation, but it is not meditation because mental attachment still able to arise. When any unwholesome mind, such as attaching mind arising, that time is not meditation, because the meditation is training  continuously and  improvely.
Samādhi-continuous-training stop whole present mental attachment.
Vipassanā-continuous-training extirpate whole future attachment.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Priority of Meditation
I'm wondering whether one would have much success quitting addictive behaviours BEFORE having a meditative practice. Is this just wasteful/pointless? Would meditation allow a much easier relinquishing of bad habits?
In sum, should meditation come first?
Thank you.

Bad physical habits are stopped by adhi-sīla, physical observe.
Then, bad mental habits are stopped by adhi-samādhi, concentration-meditation.
Then, whole, future, bad habit's root-causes, avijjā-root & taṇhā-root & dosa-root, are vanished by adhi-paññā, insight-meditation.

Does sila work without some degree of concentration-meditation?

Yes, before-step can do without after-step. Sīla can arise without adhi-samādhi, but adhi-samādhi cannot arise without adhi-sīla.

The Buddha did not generally teach meditation to lay people but the Buddha did extensively teach about the danger, harm & destructiveness of addiction to lay people. Therefore, it appears meditation is not a method in Buddhism for overcoming addiction. Instead, discerning with wisdom the harm, danger & destructiveness of addiction is probably sufficient. This said, meditation would probably help discern the harm of addiction because craving symptoms of addiction would arise more prominently in meditation.

I would think some addictive tendencies' destructiveness can only be established with definiteness (for more subtle addictions) with meditation or wisdom?

Sure. On a more subtle level of habit, I would agree with your comment.

I'm wondering whether one would have much success quitting addictive behaviours BEFORE having a meditative practice. Is this just wasteful/pointless? Would meditation allow a much easier relinquishing of bad habits?

You could try out all 3 options and see what works best for you, i.e.:

Quitting addictive behaviours before meditation practice
Undertaking meditation practice before quitting addictive behaviors
Attending a retreat where both external reality is limited (rules and regulations for the retreat, such as Noble Silence, Eating 1 time a day etc.) and meditation is practiced in tandem.

The practice of traditional Theravadin mindfulness meditation is designed to help you unlearn “bad habits” and acquire insights into the causes of “addictive behaviours.” The traditional answer to your question is to do both. Please allow me to explain why this is the case. The reality is that “addictive behaviours” have deep karmic roots. I suggest you find a very kind and very OLD meditation teacher who has had a lot of life experience. If you have a strong background in modern psychology, then you might consider reading my book on how mindfulness meditation works. The key to understanding Buddhadharma is to know that understanding causality (through insight acquired in meditation), as revealed in the concept of sankhara (schemata), is “the only way” to the cessation of suffering and to Enlightenment. For example, addictive behaviour is probably caused by how you adapted to threatening situations in early childhood. By recalling the actual decisions (karma, mental action) you had to make at that time, you get to see one of the causes of your addition and you get a chance to revise or correct that cause, thereby removing the unconscious cause of a specific emotional compulsion or emotional need. Hence, from the point of view of Theravadin Buddhism, the only way to really deal with your addictive behaviours is to acquire through mindfulness meditation the insight needed to understand and undo the sankhara that cause those behaviours. In other words, you need to do both so that meditation helps you quit your addictive behaviours.

Namaste
We are all addicts.
What difference does it make if you need power, fame or money to get high or you need drugs?
Yes, drugs destroy your body but desire, greed destroys your soul.
Meditation is a wonderful practice. It benefits all no matter of your status, age, health or religion (beliefs)
 I do it every night before going to sleep.
 Would you go to bed without brushing your teeth? What about your mind?
 Unfortunately a lot of people go to bed without cleaning the mental pollution of the day and meditation is just a good mental hygiene practice.
 Of course when you get into Buddhism meditation becomes more than that but for now don't worry about that, just start doing it

I mostly agree with your first statement, but I think it is important not to be dogmatic about it. Former wife used to get on my case about me drinking coffee (note the past tense). She said it made me 'dependent' on an external thing. I said I would for sure give it up if I didn't also need to eat, which I had no desire to do and found it annoying. So, if I was not already 'addicted' to sleep, food, water, air sunshine, and so on, then I would just do my nearly obsessive meditation practice instead. She had no reply to that. Middle Way.

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


text:
Orgasm and Virya
I am aware of Indian spirituality associating orgasm with a loss of energy. This conception is present in other cultures as well.
However, it is conspicuously absent from Western culture. Why isn't there more rigorous evidence of orgasm -- and sexuality in general -- and lack of enthusiasm and vigour? How can one perceive such an association if it exists?
Thank you.

There is e.g. Christian doctrine on that subject, though: perhaps it's not "conspicuously absent from Western culture" -- see Concupiscence for example.

Unless relatively deep/refined samadhi & tranquility have been developed, it is difficult to perceive the loss of energy & loss of mental clarity due to orgasm. Instead, to the undeveloped mind, the temporary relief of organism is something ordinary & normal. This is probably why the Western religious traditions probably don't comment much about orgasm because the true purpose & fruits of celibacy appears to have never been clearly articulated or understood in European Christianity.


text:
Balancing the Five Powers
I have a while ago seen a diagram or explanation on this forum. It was about the way in which the five powers interact in meditation. After reading a comment by ven. Yuttadhammo, I gathered there's such a thing as too much concentration (and in the case mentioned not enough effort). Can anyone explain the interactions of these five powers in daily life and meditation?
Thank you.

I think it is more accurate to refer to "wrong concentration" rather than "too much concentration" because right concentration is a factor of the path. Wrong concentration is pushing the mind with too much effort/craving. Where as right concentration is lead by right understanding (per MN 117).
Is like have some rocks near a cliff that need to be disposed of. Wrong concentration & wrong effort are taking a hammer & smashing up the rocks. Its hard work. Where as right effort is simply pushing the rocks off the cliff and right concentration is watching the rocks fall off the cliff.
Right effort is the effort to let go, which arises from right understanding of & faith in the four noble truths, which explain letting go is the way to end suffering. Right concentration is the clear stable aware mind arising from letting go. Of course, there must be the constant mindfulness (non-forgetfulness) to engage this path of letting go.
This is how the five faculties interact in noble path meditation. SN 48.10 states:

The noble practitioner develops concentration & attains jhana by making letting go (vossagga) the meditation object.

It is too easy to understand, but it is very hard to done.
The example in concentration meditation:

If you have too much trust to concentrate on focus, you will over
hurry to sit and to meditate. That hurrying maybe make you miss to
concern, smart & wisdom, the meditation's situation and environment,
such as it maybe too hot temperature to develop concentration
meditation. So, your meditation will not grow up.
If you have too much effort, you will too much concern the
meditation's situation and environment, then you loss the
meditation's focus. So, your meditation will not grow up.
If you have too much concentration on focus when you still being
bore, you will sleepy. But you will not decide to stand up and go to
do caṅkama, walk meditate, to avoid sleepy. Because you miss to
concern, smart & wisdom, the meditation's situation and environment.
So, your meditation will not grow up.
If you have too much smart and wisdom, you will too much concern the
meditation's situation and environment, then you loss the
meditation's focus. So, your meditation will not grow up.

Etc.
For more information, I recommend you read whole of path of purification especially in pathavīkasiṇa-niddesa and in maggāmaggañāṇadassaṇavisuddhi-niddesa. There are many explanation and many tools for the balancing inside there such as 7 sappāya, 10 appanākosala, etc.


text:
What means HRI above lotus and moon?
What does mean the syllable HRI above lotus and moon?
What does mean those visualised aspect separately and together?
What kind of inner feelings they should evoke?

You are probably referring to this:

It is a "seed syllable" used for meditative visualisation, notably in the Tibetan Chenrezig prayer/ritual. The incantation phrase of this ritual reads:
Hri Le P’hag Chog Chen re zig

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


text:
What was the reason why Buddha taught reincarnation?
Although Buddha (Siddhartha) taught that humans had no soul, nevertheless he taught that there is a reincarnation. My question is not how these two 'dogmas' are compatible but why he 'needed' reincarnation? His teaching are mostly very simple and  not really metaphysical. Was teaching the noble eightfold path not sufficient?

Another way to ask this might be, "Why did the Buddha teach that a belief that 'there is no next world' is wrong view?"

The Buddha didn't need it so much as he explained that was just how things work. Just as water has the quality that's labeled "wet". Life has a quality (among many) that is labeled Death and Death has the quality labeled rebirth/Life.
Also, reincarnation and rebirth seem to be different in that the former implies a continuous soul and the latter simply the result of conditions.

The Buddha didn't teach reincarnation. The Buddha taught rebirth and you don't have to physically die to experience rebirth.
Maybe this pseudocode will help:

one="The 5 aggregates that includes not-self"
goto=rebirth
"A day" {

sumofdays=sumofdays+1
This is day #sumofdays
The 5 aggregates that includes not-self are “reborn” every morning, >bringing the “karmic resultants” of yesterday. As the day unfolds one >makes karma until one  eventually “dies” again with one's head on a >pillow.
Goto "A day"

}

The reason the Buddha taught rebirth was because it is a useful process to understand if we want to find the bugs in our karma.

The Buddha didn't teach reincarnation. The Buddha taught rebirth and physical death is not required to experience rebirth. Every time a mind attaches & clings to something as "I", "me" or "mine" (and also as "you", "him", "her", "us" & "them"), this is "re-birth".

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
  has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form, feeling,
  perception, fabrication &/or consciousness to be a 'self'. That
  assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the
  origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of
  that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched
  by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises.
  That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant,
  fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling...
  That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently
  co-arisen.
SN 22.81

As for the mundane (rather than enlightenment) re-birth teachings about good & bad kamma, which most Buddhists infer mean 'reincarnation', the Buddha taught these to promote morality  (non-harming), as follows:

And what is the right view with effluents (impurities), siding with merit (morality),
  resulting in acquisitions (attachment)? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
  what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
  There is this world & the other world. There is mother & father. There
  are spontaneously born (arisen) beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
  who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
  other after having directly known & realized it for themselves.
MN 117


text:
Which consciousness/es are involved in meta-congnition (thinking about thinking)?
Which consciousness/es are involved in meta-congnition (thinking about thinking)? And can the skandhas exist without them?
I'm asking because I'm interested in whether animals without metacognition have skandhas.

1. mana-āyatana is 7 viññāṇa-dhātu (7 mana-āyatana) that is dvāra of mano-viññāṇa
In tipitaka of theravāda-buddhism, viññāṇa in mano-dvāra are called thinking.
Viññāṇa generally translated as "consciousness" in english-tradition. This is a terrible translation, because when we compare viññāṇa with english in sense article, viññāṇa is not just the consciousness, but consciousness is the part of viññāṇa. There seem to be:

Six viññāṇa, such as seeing, etc. = Six sense, not just
consciousness, however consciousness is included  in the part of
sixth viññāṇa, too.
Six dvāra, such as eye, etc. = Six sense-organ.
Six object, such as color, etc. = Six sense-data.

The sixth dvāra called mano, that is enumerated to 7 viññāṇa/mano in 18 dhātu, such as cakkhu-viññāṇa/mano, etc. for describe mano in 12 āyatna. A cakkhu-viññāṇa arises at eye-dvāra to see a color-object. But when mano-viññāṇa will arise to think about that color-object, which was saw by that vanished cakkhu-viññāṇa, mano-viññāṇa will not arise at the eye-dvāra. Because the dvāra of mano-viññāṇa is not the cakkhu-dvāra, but the pāli said that mano is  dvāra of mano-viññāṇa. So, when mano-viññāṇa thinking about a color-object, it thinking at cakkhu-mano, cakkhu-viññāṇa. So, first viññāṇa at mano-dvāra is called mano-dvāra-āvajjana. And so, mano-viññāṇa is called "mano"-viññāṇa. Therefore,  Mano-viññāna is a thinking about a saw color, a heard sound, a smelled smell, a tasted taste, a touched touching, and a thought thinking.
So, in abhidhamma said that mano, viññāṇa, manoviññāṇa are the synonym. But they are used by buddha in difference function in each pali context, for avoiding the  confusion of homograph and for briefing the word, such as 7 viññāna-āyatana brief to mano-āyatana, to make new word "mano-viññāṇa-dhātu", buddha is very intelligence!
Another, there is someone maybe teach consciousness is not thinking, because he has a weak pāli skill and never listen anyone around him. Especially, he never recite tipitaka, follow buddha's order, in A.N. Pañcakanipāta, to recite the teaching. This case often happen with the western professor, because they have a superego in their mind, so they always close their ear and their mind to learn the others' views. So, he never notice this pali's relationship. And he just always told that consciousness is not thinking, although consciousness is one part of mano-viññāna.
However, this case also happen to thai tipitaka translation, too. So, I often remind everyone to recite tipitaka in pāli, especially before teaching something.  Especially when you listening the translate version of tipitaka, especially, from the western professor.
2. Asaññā-satta an nirodha-samāpatti-attaining-person can live without any viññāṇa.

"Asaññā-satta an nirodha-samāpatti-attaining-person can live without any viññāṇa" Sure? What's required for life?

In Buddhism, consciousness does not think. However, mind-consciousness (mano-vinanna) is required for 'thinking about thinking' because the mind must 1st be conscious of a thought before it can think about that thought.
This said, Buddhism does not teach the other khandhas exist dependent on consciousness but teaches the opposite, namely, the arising of consciousness is dependent upon the other aggregates (SN 22.53; MN 38; etc).

what do you mean "consciousness does not think"?

can you explain? :)

When the mind sees or hears something, this seeing & hearing is not "thinking". Similarly, when mind when the mind is conscious of a thought, this is not "thinking".

From MN 18: Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about...... Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html

so what is thought? i find it strange to translate 'perception' as the ground (?) of thought, as i link that word to sensation much more strongly, i suppose you could be right

It's the sphere of a-rupa, where mind get's only entertained by mind. No touch, better attention, to the five "material" sense, that mind nurishes on minds objects. Yet, such as objects are still subtile present, like if throwing out the water of a glass, one might say that it is empty of water. Now still, taking a towel, one would see it's still wet.
So it should not be mixed with the "consciousness without surface", or the seventh one.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
Instability of Mood
I noticed that when I am in a good mood, namely when I have enthusiasm, I am likely to practice meditation and avoid unwholesome behaviours. When I am in a bad mood, with low enthusiasm, I almost always succumb to some kind of unwholesome behaviour.
How would Buddhism go about remedying such emotional volatility? It doesn't seem like these moods are actually caused, but merely arise in a fluctuating way.
Thank you.

Very good question, one of the key ones.
At the student level:
According to my teacher, emotional volatility comes from relying on other people and on random ideas for your confirmation, for your system of values. As opposed to relying on one teacher and one dharma. When you have one dharma, all your actions and circumstances are evaluated against single set of rules, which gives stability.
At the enlightened level:
When you completely internalize Emptiness, when you clearly see and know there is no absolute reference point whatsoever, and when you stop clinging to emotional security of an absolute reference point, you enter suchness (tathata), the true nature of enlightenment. In suchness, there is not only no mismatch between external "is" and "should" due to the absence of clinging, there is also no mismatch between "I am forced to be such" and "I wish I could be such instead" - due to the cessation of maintenance of ego. Your actions are spontaneous and free of inner conflict.
So that's the twofold answer to your question: emotional stability is achieved 1) by taking refuge in one consistent Dharma as one's highest authority vs letting other peoples' opinions sway your mood by their judgements and 2) by eventually taking refuge in Emptiness, the ultimate insecurity of tathata.

Part 1 is great advice, I really appreciate it, but part 2 makes me wonder: even if behaviour is ego-less, there are things to be done. Stability is necessary for these goals. Isn't ACTUAL stability nevertheless desirable?

In enlightenment, as things change/evolve, one stays in sync with how things are at any given point. One does not fall behind (=clings to past), one does not run ahead (=wishes), things are as they are, as you go towards your goal - whether you fail or succeed, you do what needs to be done at any given point, given how situation evolves, but you don't cling to your ideas or someone else's ideas - this is emotional stability by accepting ultimate insecurity.

There is always a cause. Moods are often caused by something physical. Unrestful sleep, toxins circulating in the brain, lack of certain hormones/nutrients etc. You can eat healthy, exercise, meditate, but ultimately these moods will come and go.
You succumb to unwholesome behaviours, because of the force of habitual tendencies, reacting a certain way towards these moods. Since there is no ''controller, persona, immutable self'' we cannot simply make them go away at will.
In this case ''a bad mood'' will lead to ''grief'' if not observed objectively. Patiently enduring the mood, not trying to push it away, not reacting towards it. To rest with things as they are, regardless of conditions.
''Ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world.''
As confidence in the practice grows, so will ardency.

According to Theravadin Buddhist psychology, moods are caused by sankhara and there is no such thing as an uncaused event of any kind. One remedy for dealing with “emotional volatility” is the development of calm through the development of full samadhi. Such calm allows a person to stay with the state of upacara samadhi, a state in which a person retains their full intelligence before moving into full samadhi. Unlike full samadhi, upacara samadhi is conducive to acquiring psychological insight, including insight into the causes of mood.


text:
Vinaya non-offence complications?
From suttacentral Parajika rules:

"Non-offenses - There is no offense: if it is unintentional; if he
  does not know; if he is not aiming at death; if he is insane; if he
  is the first offender." PJ 3

What happens to unintentional second offenders? The ignorant/under-informed? If one kills unintentionally, but aware of the offence of killing, where does one stand?

The Patimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, on pages 49 through 50, uses the word "or" (not "and"):

Blanket exemptions. In addition to bhikkhus who do not know they are
  being assaulted or do not give their consent when they do know, the Vibhanga
  states that there are four special categories of bhikkhus exempted from a penalty
  under this rule: any bhikkhu who is insane, possessed by spirits, delirious with
  pain, or the first offender(s) (in this case, Ven. Sudinna and the bhikkhu with the
  monkey) whose actions prompted the Buddha to formulate the rule. The
  Commentary defines as insane anyone who “goes about in an unseemly way,
  with deranged perceptions, having cast away all sense of shame and
  50
  compunction, not knowing whether he has transgressed major or minor training
  rules.” It recognizes this as a medical condition, which it blames on the bile. A
  bhikkhu under the influence of a severe psychosis-inducing drug would
  apparently fall under this exemption, but one under the influence of a more
  common intoxicant would not. As for spirit possession, the Commentary says
  that this can happen either when spirits frighten one or when, by distracting one
  with sensory images, they insert their hands into one’s heart by way of one’s
  mouth (!). Whatever the cause, it notes that insane and possessed bhikkhus are
  exempt from penalties they incur only when their perceptions are deranged
  (“when their mindfulness is entirely forgotten and they don’t know what fire,
  gold, excrement, and sandalwood are”) and not from any they incur during their
  lucid moments. As for a bhikkhu delirious with pain, he is exempt from penalties
  he incurs only during periods when the pain is so great that he does not know
  what he is doing.
These four categories are exempted from penalties under nearly all of the
  rules, although the first offender for each rule is exempted only for the one time
  he acted in such a way as to provoke the Buddha into formulating the rule. I will
  only rarely mention these categories again, and—except where expressly stated
  otherwise—the reader should bear them in mind as exempt in every case.

So I read that as saying that any one of the conditions is reason for it's being a non-offence; and that the only condition for exemption that's only applicable once is being a first offender.
On page 29 it says,

If any of these factors is missing, the penalty changes. For instance, object: If
  the bhikkhu kills a dog, the penalty is a pacittiya. Perception: If he cremates a
  friend, thinking that the friend is dead, then even if the friend is actually alive but
  severely comatose, the bhikkhu incurs no penalty. Intention: If he accidentally
  drops a rock on a person standing below him, he incurs no penalty even if the
  person dies. Effort: If he sees a person fall into the river but makes no effort to
  save the person, he incurs no penalty even if the person drowns. Result: If he
  tries to kill a person, but only succeeds in injuring him, he incurs a thullaccaya.

Pages 76 though 78 (which I won't quote here in full) discuss intention w.r.t. killing; briefly:

The non-offense clauses state that there is no offense for a bhikkhu who acts
  unintentionally, not knowing, or without aiming at death. In the Vinita-vatthu,
  unintentionally is used to describe cases in which a bhikkhu acts accidentally, such
  as dropping a poorly held stone, brick, or adze; removing a pestle from a shelf
  and accidentally knocking off another one. Not knowing is used in cases in which
  the bhikkhu deliberately does an action but without knowing that his action
  could cause death. An example would be giving food to a friend not knowing
  that it is poisoned. Not aiming at death is used in cases where the bhikkhu
  deliberately does an action but does not intend that action to result in death.
  Relevant examples include trying to help a bhikkhu who is choking on food by
  slapping him on the back and inadvertently causing his death; telling a bhikkhu
  to stand on a piece of scaffolding while helping with construction work, only to
  see the scaffolding collapse; describing the joys of heaven to an audience, only to
  have a member of the audience decide to commit suicide in hopes of going there.
Thus, to fulfill the factor of intention here, a bhikkhu must be acting
  intentionally, knowingly, and aiming at death.

Page 78 suggests that acting when aware of danger might or might not count as intentional:

In discussing the topic of pitfalls, the Commentary also treats the issue of
  how much of an intention counts when setting up a situation that might cause
  death. Specifically, it asks whether—while one is digging a hole for another
  purpose—a passing thought that “this hole could kill anyone who fell into it”
  would fulfil the factor of intention under this rule, or whether this factor would
  be fulfilled only if the original purpose for digging the hole was to cause death.
  The Commentary notes that opinions are divided on this point, but it sides with
  the latter position.

if it is unintentional = no physical effort;
if he does not know = such as sleeping;
if he is not aiming at death = very hard painful suffering, he can't realize anything else;
if he is insane = schizophrenia;
if he is the first offender = just sudinna-bhikkhu, the first bhikkhu who have a sex, then buddha use his case as the cause to create the pathamaparajika-sikkhapada.


text:
What is Dharma-Body of the Buddha?

And then I remembered a passage I had read in one of Suzuki's essays. "What is the Dharma-Body of the Buddha?" ('"the Dharma-Body of the Buddha" is another way of saying Mind, Suchness, the Void, the Godhead.) The question is asked in a Zen monastery by an earnest and bewildered novice. And with the prompt irrelevance of one of the Marx Brothers, the Master answers, "The hedge at the bottom of the garden." "And the man who realizes this truth," the novice dubiously inquires, '"what, may I ask, is he?" Groucho gives him a whack over the shoulders with his staff and answers, "A golden-haired lion."

This story is quoted from Huxley's The Doors of Perception. What is the meaning of the story?

The meaning of the story is that spiritual and mundane, mind and matter, information and media - are two sides of the same coin. Our nature from primordial times is pure and not different from Buddha nature.
We think there's some truth or escape to be found outside of this world, but the truth is, this world is only an interpretation we make, the escape then is to be free from the interpretation. The one who gets this is the one who loses all but still has the guts to laugh. We call this, the Golden-haired Lion.

Body = The organs' center.
Dhamma-body = The buddha's dhammas' center.
What is the buddha's dhammas' center?
The best wholsome mind developments are buddha's dhamma center, such as 4 satipaṭṭhāna, 4 sammappadhāna, 4 iddhipāda, 5 indriya, 5 bala, 7 bojjhaṅga, etc. Buddha is the center, the body, the summary of the best wholsome mind developments. So, dhamma is his body.


text:
Questions About Pleasure in Visual Senses
I'm wondering if Buddhism has any notion of visual defilement. What I mean is that in Christianity, there are notions of one's purity or person corrupted by pornography, lustful gazing, etc.
Is there an equivalent in Buddhism? Also, if a person perceives pornography or gazes lustfully, is this sufficient to be a kind of attachment if there is no action or consequence?
I.e. What is the consequence of visual pleasure without further action? What is the consequence of perceiving a pleasurable sight without intention, e.g. mindfully?
Thank you.
PS: What is the scope of such pleasure compared to say orgasm or eating? Is there a pleasure specific to vision, e.g. one becomes accustomed and insensitive to visual pleasure specifically with overuse? (But not, say, other sensory pleasures)

In Buddhism, there are three types of kamma (action), namely: (i) bodily; (ii) verbal; and (iii) mental; each of which have results. Therefore, habitually merely visually observing pleasurable objects will making craving, addiction & the resultant restlessness grow. Thus, the Jesus teaching is similar to Buddhism; because viewing a woman with sexual objectification both grows craving, enslavement & is an error of moral-view (lacking of compassion & not considering harmful consequences).

Buddhism is the path to get Nirwana (End the cycle of life). According to my knowledge Buddhism is not restricting any activity but teaching how it will affect to the path of Nirwana. If someone obligate with something which make affection to life, Buddhism describe it as not to do. For an example lust will make affection to this life cycle. So if someone has lust for someone or something, he/she will not able to understand the impermanence of life.


text:
Please Recommend Pure Land / Other Power Buddhism Books
I have gradually become a Pure Land Buddhist. I chant as I cycle. But I would also like to read, in English or Japanese. Recently I read the book below (Not generally available I am afraid) and it made me feel good. Please would members recommend some other power Buddhism books.
別府信空上人（2015）『現物者の喜び』法然寺

Have you read the Pure Land sutras already?

I'm not sure if you would like some academic literature but here goes:
T’an-luan’s Theory of Two Kinds of Dharma-body as Found in Shinran’s Wago Writings has a detailed description and great diagrams on this topic.
The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land Buddhist Doctrine: Ching-ying Hui-yuan's Commentary on the Visualization Sutra

The Promise of Amida Buddha: Honen's Path to Bliss
It is a collection of Honen's teachings and writings if you are interested in a Japanese Pure Land Buddhism and what later become Shin (True) Pure Land Buddhism via his disciple, Shinran.


text:
What is the meaning of the word Uncreate?
This link mentions that there is an existence of uncreate state of self(opposite of created state of self..correct me if I am wrong..).

The man who is without blind faith, who knows the Uncreated, who has
  severed all links, destroyed all causes (for karma, good and evil),
  and thrown out all desires — he, truly, is the most excellent of men.

My questions are :
What is the meaning of the word Uncreate?
Is Uncreate state a noun or a verb?

In this case, uncreated means, non-contrived, natural, something that does not require an effort to maintain.
I once heard a myth, not sure how real, that New York City has a massive underground flooding problem - but because the city infrastructure situation is so insanely complicated, no-one can even dream of fixing the leaks - instead they just have a system of pumps running 24/7 pumping the water. The city can only exist thanks to the pumps, if the pumps were to stop even for an hour, the city would get flooded and the rest of the infrastructure would collapse. This is how the story goes anyway.
Samsara is like that. It requires continuous maintenance. We are not normally aware of this, but we do put tremendous effort 24/7 to maintain Samsara. We do it ourselves.
Our Ego (image of self) is contrived, and requires constant effort to maintain.
Our idea of the world is contrived as well.
Our idea of how the world should be is also contrived.
The pumps that maintain these systems are our narratives that we keep telling ourselves again and again.
The whole mass of suffering is based on these pumps.
Similarly, mere intellectual understanding of Dharma, of Anatta, of Emptiness etc. is equally contrived. Because it is contrived, it does not hold under pressure of real-life circumstances.
The uncreated, the natural, is always there, like the clear sky above the clouds, we just have to stop the pumps in order to see it. Direct experience belongs to this category, and so will hold under any pressure.
This is the meaning of "uncreated" here, not in the active sense as in "deconstruct". Although come to think of it, certain amount of deconstruction (of ego, of habitual illusions) is sometimes necessary too.

But there is a limit to this analogy. Suppose the pumps start again then the uncreate state would vanish again. But in actuality uncreate state can not lead to any creation any further once it is attained. Uncreate does not vanish once attained. Uncreate does not depend on conditions. It is an eternal state.

Different Buddhist schools have different opinions on whether arahants (arhats) are fallible. Some say, they can still regress. The sun is always there but the clouds can come back. The weather is impermanent, after all.

There are no Arahants to fall back. Once you have merged into the big fire there is no coming back. There is no way to identify which flame was you. It is the Uncreate state. There is no information of what was lost. It was always eternally present.

That sounds like state of Brahma, unity with All. Nibbana/nirvana is not merging with All, it's letting go of all attachments,  prajna-paramita.

I did not say merging with All. I said merging with the state of Nibbana.  You can not merge without letting go of all the attachments!!

The English word "uncreated" is an adjective which, here, is used as a noun (or is used to imply a noun, or used without a noun): i.e. "the uncreated [something]" (where [something] is an implicit noun, for example "state"). Using an adjective without a noun, like this, is a slightly unusual form of English.
Its meaning is similar to "unconditioned". It literally means "not created".
There's another translation of the Dhammapada here, which I like because:

It includes the original Pali
I think it's a careful translation (approved by a committee)
It also includes an "origin story" for each verse.

As it happens, this translation clarifies that it's talking about Nibbana:

He who is not credulous, who has realized the Unconditioned (Nibbana), who has cut off the links of the round of rebirths, who has destroyed all consequences of good and bad deeds, who has discarded all craving, is indeed the noblest of all men (i.e., an arahat).

See also this answer, which lists 33 synonyms for (or attributes of, nouns used as names for, and/or adjectives which describe) Nibbana.

As for the Pali, the word in question here is Akataññū.
According to https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=27280 or (similarly) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ebC4xQmlg apparently that verse is difficult to translate without the commentary: and I think they're saying that Akataññū is some kind of play on words: i.e. it usually means something like, "not knowing what's created for one's benefit (therefore ungrateful)"; and here, it means, "knowing what's not created (i.e. Nibbana)".

Have you heard the song "unbreak my heart" ...?"unbreak" means  undo the act of breaking. Similarly uncreate is undo of the act of creation. It is like you create an animal on a slate  then you restore the slate to exactly same position as it was previously before the creation of animal thus doing the uncreate...

To complement the answers here, something created (saṅkhāra, "put together", a "heap") is always unstable, impermanent: it "becomes otherwise", "it ceases", "it dies", etc. Something created  is subject to these outcomes due to being conditioned. Conditioned by those things that were "put together" that gave rise to it, that created it. As is the case in samsara, the things that made it are also "created", conditioned, recursively.
Then, uncreated is the very opposite. It's not "made" or "put together" from other things (as is the case with saṅkhāra). Because it wasn't "put together" or "constructed", it's not conditioned by what, otherwise, constructs it. No change can be observed, therefore, it is stable.

(see also Is there is anything which is not a phenomena?)

Uncreated to me in a Buddhist context is a adjective. Also, generally means not a mental, thought, or social, familial belief or orientation.

Namaste
 Brahman, the ultimate reality, the One, the non-duality - source of all creation.
From the One all forms of consciousness, from the lowest to the highest, are born in the duality (material) world.
 At birth, we rise like the waves rise from the ocean and return to the ocean when our journey is over.
 All that is born in the material world has the Brahman nature.
 But only the ones that attain enlightenment return to the source as buddhas.
 P.S. Words are labels not truths. They only point to the truth.
Like "APPLE" - that is a word, not an apple. Only an apple is an apple.
 "Uncreated" is a word not a truth. It has no meaning beyond the meaning we give it.

This is not a standard way to express Buddhist doctrine, that I know of. Wikipedia claims, "Buddhism denies both Brahman and Atman concepts in ancient Hindu literature, and posits Śūnyatā (emptiness, voidness) and Anatta (non-Self, no soul) concept instead."


text:
Concentration Meditation and Alertness
I am wondering how concentration meditation (i.e. shamatha) compares with other techniques or remedies for awareness and alertness. Does anyone know whether meditation increases alertness more than exercise, or nutrition? Or perhaps, I mean to ask how efficient -- if this is a measurable aspect -- focused meditation is at sustaining alertness?
Thank you.

According to AN 11.2 below, it says that skillful virtue (sila) leads to freedom from remorse, which leads to joy, which leads to rapture, which leads to pleasure, which leads to concentration of mind.
It says that there is no need to will for this - it arises out of the very nature of being endowed with virtue and consummate with virtue. This to me is a statement of the efficiency of the use of virtue to lead one towards concentration. Furthermore, I think it is far more efficient to start with the cultivation of skillful virtue and skillful thinking, rather than struggling directly with the five hindrances in meditation.

"For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no
  need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is
  in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person
  endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.
"For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises
  in a person free from remorse.
"For a joyful person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
  rapture arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that rapture
  arises in a joyful person.
"For a rapturous person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May my
  body be serene.' It is in the nature of things that a rapturous person
  grows serene in body.
"For a person serene in body, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May I experience pleasure.' It is in the nature of things that a
  person serene in body experiences pleasure.
"For a person experiencing pleasure, there is no need for an act of
  will, 'May my mind grow concentrated.' It is in the nature of things
  that the mind of a person experiencing pleasure grows concentrated.
"For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act
  of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees
  things as they actually are.
"For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is
  no need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they
  actually are feels disenchantment.
"For a person who feels disenchantment, there is no need for an act of
  will, 'May I grow dispassionate.' It is in the nature of things that a
  person who feels disenchantment grows dispassionate.
"For a dispassionate person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
  I realize the knowledge & vision of release.' It is in the nature of
  things that a dispassionate person realizes the knowledge & vision of
  release.

Namaste
This is a common misconception that meditation is a form of concentration.
Have you ever witnessed a scene of natural beauty, such as an amazing sunset, and for a moment felt one with the universe, only to lose that state as soon as your mind tried to analyze what was going on?
That experience is called a spontaneous enlightenment, the best-known of them being the "near death" experience.
That would be the easiest way to understand what enlightenment and meditation are.
Enlightenment is a state of mind where we are shading off the Ego and reunite the self, the "I" the soul, spirit or whatever you want to call it with the infinite wisdom of the universe.
Meditation then would be the process of removing the "Ego", of escaping the prison of reason.
There are many forms of meditation but at the base of every form of meditation there is one principle:
The "reason" can only process one thing at the time. If you think that you can do more than one, try to do any mental activity while counting backward from 5000 to 1 - (Automatic reflexes that do not use reasoning, like driving a stickshift car do not constitute a mental activity.)
So whether you are "focusing" on your breathing, a candle flame a chant or a mantra you are basically keeping your mind from the usual continuous chatter "rumination"common to an unenlightened state.
The reason meditations do not work is because the practitioner doesn't understand the purpose of meditation and believes that "Focusing" is the desired result.
A good meditation is the one that gives you enlightenment not focus

Does anyone know whether meditation increases alertness more than exercise, or nutrition?

In the path of purification concentration preparation chapter, the concentration practitioner must has well enough self managements, such as exercise, nutrition, friend, etc, before to make the meditation growing up.

When you cultivate samatha, you cultivate the three factors:

Concentration
Mindfulness
Alertness

And you establish the two aspects of (1) clarity and (2) stability which oppose (1) laxity and (2) excitement respectively. The cultivation of samatha is not merely the cultivation of the concentration mental factor.
We usually compare the mental factor of 'alertness' (or introspection) to a spy that checks the state of one's mind and what the mind is doing. At the beginning of each meditation session, it is suitable to ask oneself "Is my mind heavy or light? Is it excited or calm? Is it bright or dark? Is it sleepy or awake? and so forth" because that will enable you to cultivate alertness. Then, in the context of meditation, every time you lose your object, do not run after the object that distracted you, but identify the consciousness to which it appeared. If you lost your object of concentration because of a sound, identify "ear-consciousness", etc. This also helps you to cultivate alertness.
Cultivating samatha is helpful in that, by trying to stay with an object, your learn how your mind reacts in relation to it. However, with cultivating samatha, there is the risk of bringing attachment into meditation, clinging into your object of meditation, taking a lack of concentration as a failure. This is the reason why vipassana might be more suitable. In the context of Vipassana, you can tell yourself "Concentration is not my purpose... my purpose is to understand how and why I lose my object. So my object of concentration is just an anchor". A fully qualified samatha is a union of calm abiding and special insight. Therefore you must practice both alternately.
Ethical discipline is the root of mindfulness and alertness. When you are about to break a vow or when you just broke one, the spy of alertness knows you have erred. The vows are thus a very good way of cultivating mindfulness (keeping virtue in mind) and introspection (checking where you find yourself). Non-introspection leads you to break your vows. In 'A Necklace for Those of Clear Awareness Clearly Revealing the Modes of Minds and Mental Factors' a texts on minds and mental factors by Yeshe Gyeltsen, it says:

QUESTION: What is non-introspection? RESPONSE: A wisdom that is
  concomitant with afflictions and engages unknowingly in activities of
  body, speech, and mind. It has the function of acting as a support for
  infractions.


text:
Dealing with Anger and Criticism
I noticed I sometimes feel anger when someone treats me unjustly, or criticizes me or one of my works. I know Buddhism advises waiting, or not acting upon anger. However, every time someone irritates me this way I am extremely tempted to say something mean, or when I get criticized I often delete my works or remove a comment. In a sense, these are respectively fight and flight responses.
What would Buddhism advise to avoid reacting to anger in either way described?
Thank you.

related question: What does Buddhism teach about anger?

here's a short video that might help: Ask A Monk: Criticism and Insults

One of my early teachers suggested:

Externalize the core of anger within yourself as "not me". Meaning, you say to yourself "this is my ego getting angry", "this is my ego feeling hurt", or "this is my ego wants to feel superior" etc. Blame it on the ego, then discipline the ego like a misbehaving child.
identify the source of anger in an attachment. You say to yourself: "looks like I assign too much importance to X" or "looks like I'm overgeneralizing Y" or "looks like I stereo-typically identify A with B while in fact they are not always the same". As you identify the attachment, you know it's not you who's angry, it's your attachment that is angry (ego is made of attachments). Let go of the attachment and the anger will subside.

My root guru also taught a more advanced technique:

See your anger directly as somatic energy overlayed on the body-image. As you look at it directly you can transmute it from whatever it is to pure energy, or in the worst case to regular headache :)

The first step in dealing with anger is to have a clear understanding of the psychology of anger.
Anger can be defined as an emotion that has the function of giving overriding importance to addressing a perceived injustice in an energetic and focused manner. The perceived injustice can take many forms. As with all emotions, the mental process of addressing an issue in this way is not an intentional action. Instead, it is motivated by a spontaneous and unconscious decision-making process. Usually, the injustice addressed is personal in nature, largely because more abstract injustices are addressed intentionally under selected circumstances. In many cases, anger is imposed upon the perpetrator of the injustice with the purpose of correcting his or her behaviour. Another attribute of most emotions is the engagement of an extremely narrow frame of reference.
The problem with anger, of course, are its unwelcome or harmful consequences. The reality is that anger seldom has valuable consequences. In many cases anger is inappropriate. Although getting angry “when someone treats me unjustly” sounds appropriate, it is laden with potential consequences that can be harmful. This is due to two facts:

your anger is based entirely on your perception, understanding, and assessment of the motives of another person; and

you are certain you are correct in your assessment. This assessment may include dogmatic beliefs about that another person.
Through your anger, you confront that person with your beliefs about them and you do so with force and with no possibility of dialogue on the issue. Chances are the other person views the situation differently and you do not care. You can end up losing a friend or being viewed as a narrow-minded, self-centered, or even potentially dangerous person. In the meantime, you walk away feeling good that you have successfully addressed an injustice.

The answer to your question: Do not act on your anger, by counting to ten if you have to. And study your anger after it has passed. Consider the possible harm you may have avoided by not acting on your anger. If your anger is violent or out of control, then find a good psychotherapist to find the unconscious causes of your anger.

Thank you for the edit ChrisW. By far the greatest harm done by anger is parental anger that causes children to lose contact with their own love, awareness, and innate wisdom. Such anger undermines the emotional development of children for the remainder of their lives. Such anger is the greatest cause of human suffering. This fact is not an "amorphous blob" Dr. Storr.

I think reflecting on how you yourself suffer when overcome by ‘negative’ off any emotion that causes you suffering. Realize and see, understand how you yourself suffer from this anger. You find a way to end it, simply because it’s better for you, not to mention others too. But, of course, you have stop the fight back impulse initially, and then examine how that anger makes you feel. You might find some common theme from the past in there,

The Chachakka Sutta - The Six Sets of Six has been useful for me when noticeable unwholesome, wholesome or neutral  states arise. It is an easy and deeply useful Sutta to memorize and I find its wisdom of great assistance while working to develop a still mind.
With Metta

Here's a sutta about an ideal way to respond to being "abused and criticized in foul and harsh words, reviled":
Akkosa Sutta: Insult
I think I interpret it literally, i.e. if someone uses harsh words I see it as a statement about their state of mind.
You can maybe take it too far, e.g. if I irritate you and you tell me so, it may be wrong of me to assume that irritation is all your fault.
Nevertheless I think's it's a good sutta.
I'm rather struck by one of the statements in it, though:

Knowing that the other man is angry,
  He mindfully maintains his peace
  And endures the anger of both,
  His own, as well as of the other

I think that's saying that when you converse with someone who is angry, then you yourself will feel some anger. I'm not sure why that's so, whether it's a selfish reaction ("how dare he?!") or a sympathetic reaction.
In summary:

Try to behave toward others in a way that doesn't occasion their anger
Keep to this kind of behaviour:

Even so, brahman, you are abusing us who do not abuse, you are angry with us who do not get angry, you are quarreling with us who do not quarrel.

And avoid engaging in this kind of behaviour:

When, brahman, one abuses back when abused, repays anger in kind, and quarrels back when quarreled with, this is called, brahman, associating with each other and exchanging mutually. This association and mutual exchange we do not engage in

If you feel anger then mindfully maintain your peace and endure it.

He alone wins the battle hard to win.
  He promotes the weal of both,
  His own, as well as of the other.

Practice the Eightfold Path.
Practice metta and compassion for short term relief of anger.
Practice some form of mindful meditation for permanent relief of anger and suffering.
Maybe you already know but just in case anyone doesn't know, it's good to practice the Dhamma as opposed to just looking at it and studying it intellectually. The Dhamma is something to do, to make good karma with and let go of bad karma.
Practicing the Dhamma is like driving a car to Nirvana City.
If you admire cars,  don't start the car and just learn how it can move on the road then that is like only studying the Dhamma. At the most it is like pushing the car to a better place but not clear to Nirvanaville although anything is possible but it would be a very rare occurrence so it wouldn't be wise to count on not practicing and only studying.
That's what I have been taught and what my experience tells me so take it as my opinion as always.


text:
Willpower in Buddhism
I don't see any other questions, in the suggestions of the site, linked with this precise topic.
What is the equivalent of "willpower" in Buddhism? How is it developped?
Thank you.

The term is padhana - effort, exertion, striving, as in The Four Right Exertions.
Another term is vayama, The Right Effort step of the Eightfold Path.
Another word is chanda - will or intent.

There is the case where a bhikkhu generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for ... [specific practices]

"Generates desire" is an important phrase here.
According to my root Guru, the key to effort is joy. If effort gets you what you're looking for, it makes you happy, then you're motivated to practice more. So the key is not as much to force oneself, but rather, to find the right narrative or frame of reference in which you feel motivated.
So in Buddhism willpower is not as much just sheer force, as it is ability to control one's attention and concentration, to not let external influences change one's frame of reference from position in which the motivation exists naturally.

See also this answer -- I'd guess these two answers are related.

So, if I understand correctly, in this view something generating both joy and effort (e.g. reading, or exercise) might be more effective than something simply effortful? And, also, something one feels like doing at a given moment (i.e. subjectively interesting) might be more effective as well?

That's right. As ChrisW pointed out, this is a Vajrayana-flavored approach. Like in Aikido, we use student's preexisting inertia and desire as fuel for practice. (Of course Buddha Gotama did this all the time too.)

What is the equivalent of "willpower" in Buddhism? How is it developped?

Here are 3 aspects where "willpower" can be experienced and developed.
Practical Aspect - Meditation:

Vitakka & Vichara: Applied and Sustained Thought.

Vitakka means to apply the mind to the object. Vicara means to continuously keep the mind on the object.
Vitakka is like striking a bell once.
Vicara is like striking a bell continuously with a little pause between strikes so the bell sounds have a balanced and continuous flow.
Five Spiritual Faculties:

Energy (Viriya) Faculty: Right Effort (Samma Vayama); Four Right Efforts

In SN 45.8: Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path, the Buddha teaches how to deal with unskillful, unwholesome states of mind by practicing the factor of Right Effort:

"... And what, bhikkhus, is right effort? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu generates desire for the nonarising of unarisen evil unwholesome states; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. He generates desire for the abandoning of arisen evil unwholesome states…. He generates desire for the arising of unarisen wholesome states…. He generates desire for the maintenance of arisen wholesome states, for their nondecay, increase, expansion, and fulfilment by development; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. This is called right effort ...".

The Ten Paramis:

The Ten Paramis;
The Adhiṭṭhāna Parami, meaning "resolution, determination".

The perfection of determination should be reviewed thus: "Without firmly undertaking the practice of giving (and the other paaramiis), maintaining an unshakeable determination in the encounter with their opposites, and practicing them with constancy and vigor, the bases of enlightenment — i.e., the requisites such as giving, etc. — do not arise."
-- A Treatise on the Paramis, by Acariya Dhammapala

I attended a Goenka retreat a while back. In this tradition, Goenka taught "Adhiṭṭhāna meditation", which is a meditation where one makes the resolution to not move for the duration of the meditation session. On the retreat the duration were set to 1 hour. If not moving at all is too difficult, one can choose to only move e.g. 3 times. The result of this is a strengthening of ones determination on the Path.

The question head refer to western psychology's willpower, right?
Tipitaka is teaching about the best willpower for receiving the 6 profit: this life profit, next life, nibbāna profit, own profit, the others profit, and social public profit (atthattha, parattha, attāparattha, diṭṭhadhammattha, samparāyikattha, and paramattha).
Target of every teaching in tipitaka is just nibbāna profit, if not, it is not buddha's teaching. It is just the other religious teaching, although that religious member can attains wholesome jhāna (añña-titthiya/diṭṭhi in V.N. Mahavagga Mahākhandhaka).
But the path to enlighten nibbāna profit, is an  eightfold path, path with eight element, so the practitioner who ้heading to nibbāna must manage and dedelop/meditate eightfold path's elements.
These eightfold path's elements is the cause of nibbāna profit and the other 5 profits, too. Also, buddha taught to meditate eightfold path. So, tipitaka is teaching about the best willpower.
For more explanation:
You avoid your gift for monk by giving monk gift, to receive the higher gain from that monk such as  adhi-sikkhā teaching, higher class study, more than just drunk in that gift, lower class.
You avoid your hell view physical happiness by observe the adhi-sīla, to receive the meditation-chance.
You avoid whole your present physical happiness by meditate concentration meditation, to receive the insight-meditation-chance.
You avoid whole your future happiness by meditate insight-meditation, to enlighten nibbāna.
The received chance is fruit that come with the other 5 profits, too.
So, tipitaka is teaching about the best willpower.

Will Power also same as normal definition of it. To achieve Nirvana people needs strong will power. simply its mean the idea of "I will definitely do till i get result (Nirvana) and not giving up".


text:
Emptiness and Mental Disposition
Upon reading Andrei Volkov's answer on this post, I am stricken by a deep questioning. My two questions are: (1) can emptiness be unsuitable for some dispositions? and (2) can emptiness be partially achieved?
Forgive my probable vast elaboration on this question, I just feel I should explain.
1.
Within Tibetan Buddhism, there are different schools teaching emptiness: Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Svantantrika. The Dalai Lama, in his books [a],[b] often suggests this corresponds to different mental dispositions. Similarly, he suggests in some books that religions are different because of different mental dispositions [c]. So, I'm wondering if emptiness could be detrimental when taught to certain types of mental dispositions, i.e. different individuals?
2.
For the second part, I feel on the basis of strong faith in Buddhism, and overconfidence on my own cognitive abilities, and a degree of pride, I studied emptiness and -- through that strong motivation -- understood a large degree of it. But, because of pride's delusional quality, I learned things in a flawed way. By faith and pride, I thought I understood, but I concluded I understood on partial grounds, which is "inadequate [according to Buddhist logic and epistemology]" [a]. So, I wonder here if it's possible to learn certain aspects of emptiness, but either apply or conceive it in a very partial, dissatisfactory way?
Lastly, would humility help in this case? Here, I specifically mean recognizing one's limitations, not overestimating understanding, or insight.
Thank you.

There is a difference between conceptual understanding of Emptiness, and experiential realization of Emptiness. The first is at best a simile, a model, leading to the second. In worst case the first can even be an obstacle to the second.
Because of its nature, experiential realization of Emptiness may have demotivating effect. It certainly also has liberating effect, but there is demotivating effect as well. Which is pretty expected, considering that it cuts off the root of desire.
So, if the person has not developed strong Sila (ethics, altruism, compassion) and strong Samadhi (here, mental discipline, control over one's mental/emotional state) premature realization of Emptiness may make person either somewhat unhinged or else rather meek, depending on disposition.

The effects you describe characterize me completely. What would you advise for premature realization of emptiness (assuming this could be the case)? How would such a person motivate themselves / resume desire?

That's it, you're screwed. I'm kidding. I'd say the last resort in this case is to find an actual (Varjrayana)  master and ask him to fix you. But you'd have to go all the way, even if they do what you do not like.

(1) can emptiness be unsuitable for some dispositions?

Yes. Genuine emptiness is the death of the self-instinct, which most minds cannot do. This is why some people have psychosis at meditation retreats or when taking hallucinogens, such as LSD. The self-instinct accords with ordinary nature. Where as emptiness is contrary to 'the world'.

(2) can emptiness be partially achieved?

For an unsuitable disposition, I doubt it. This is probably why many Buddhists give lip-service to emptiness but cling for their lives to reincarnation. But for those with disposition, yes, probably there can be partial emptiness achieved.
In short, the Buddha did not generally teach the Four Noble Truths, let alone Emptiness, to most lay people. DN 31 states a monk should teach a layperson morality & the path to heaven.