text:
Exercise for meditation sitting
I couldn't find this exact question asked before.
What kind of exercise is recommended for better physical comfort and "endurance"/"stamina" when sitting in meditation; apart from the sitting itself?
I usually sit in the half vajra position, which is quite comfortable and stable, but find it a bit tiring when I sit for many hours.
Any good exercises in "the long run"? Any good stretching or other exercises between sessions when sitting whole days?

This is why the Buddha told us to practice walking as much as sitting :)

And the whole seeing impermanence thing ;)

Indeed. But it's hardly appropriate to start walking around the gompa when the lama is sitting down. I practice walking meditation too, but that was not the question here.

Lol touché. Which leads me to the question I forgot to post; which tradition?!

I don't really see what that's got to do with sitting comfort and endurance. Can you elaborate? And why don't post as answer if indeed answering is what you are trying to do

Well, aside from walking meditation, I don't recall the Buddha ever recommending any form of exercise. And the point of sitting isn't to be comfortable, its to see impermanence, suffering, and non-self; so with that said, I'm not answering because I'm first trying to understand why you're trying to fabricate an impermanent state to avoid another impermanent state.

Also I'm at work which makes linking to resources difficult; hopefully I'll remember when I get home and I'll  answer with some stuff on sloth and torpor :)

Cool, I didn't see it that way until you enlightened me with your wisdom.

I was trying to help you improve your question since its lacking necessary information for a thorough answer; but since you're enlightened, my work is done! Have a good one friend

Thanks, you too. And someone actually did answer and gave some tips. And your comments were also on the spot. Win win for all

The single best stretch you can do is the straddle stretch.  The linked video is pretty fantastic in that it not only shows you the ideal, but also the progression leading up to it.  Honorable mention goes to the frog pose.  I also really like this sequence from Kelly Starrett.  Ultimately, what you are going to want to pay attention to is hip mobility.  Most meditators experience pain in the knees and back and tend to focus on stretches and exercises that target those two areas.  Unbeknownst to them, what's really at issue is hip and psosas tightness.  The pain they experience is a symptom of a problem farther up along the movement chain; it's being caused by the body trying to adapt to a less than ideal condition imposed by poor mobility elsewhere.  Loosen up those other areas and the discomfort will lessen significantly.
And for the record, meditating for long periods of time should make you tired.  That's kind of the point.  ;-)

Those stretches are ridiculously good @neko, the best part it's all hip, no stress on the knee.

Well, you can strain your knee a bit if you overdue the straddle.  The tendency is for some side shearing.  But thanks!

Sorry for being something of a jerk , man. I just had one of those days :p
so to actually answer your question, it does depend on which tradition we're talking about.
I know some (all?) traditions within Tibetan Buddhism teach yoga/stretches, these kind of things.
Within the Theravada, stretching, yoga, exercise in general is not considered part of the practice, as far as formal meditation goes.
So from a Theravada perspective, I would submit to you that your best course of action would be to
1) Not solely sit for extended periods, much less an entire day. I've done this before at Goenka retreats, and I've found personally my meditation is much more productive when sitting is balanced with walking. I would also refer you to Ven. Yuttadhammo's answer to my question here

The Buddha did in fact teach just this practice:
Bhikkhus, you should train thus: ‘We will be devoted to wakefulness. During the day, while walking back and forth and sitting, we will purify our minds of obstructive states. In the first watch of the night, while walking back and forth and sitting, we will purify our minds of obstructive states. In the middle watch of the night we will lie down on the right side in the lion’s pose with one foot overlapping the other, mindful and fully aware, after noting in our minds the time for rising. After rising, in the third watch of the night, while walking back and forth and sitting, we will purify our minds of obstructive states.’
-- MN 39 (Bodhi, trans)
  This passage occurs frequently in the suttas. The Buddha taught there are five benefits to walking meditation:
addhānakkhamo hoti - one is able to tolerate long-distance travel
padhānakkhamo hoti - one is able to tolerate exertion
appābādho hoti - one has little sickness
asitaṃ pītaṃ khāyitaṃ sāyitaṃ sammā pariṇāmaṃ gacchati - what is eaten, drunk, chewed and tasted goes to proper digestion
caṅkamādhigato samādhi ciraṭṭhitiko hoti - walking-produced concentration is of long duration.
  -- AN 5.29

2) Meditate on the feeling of tired. Again, I'm not sure what personal practice you undertake, but within my practice it would be as simple as taking up the feeling as the object of meditation and noting "Tired, tired".
There's nothing really wrong with being tired, its just another transient state. The more you fight it, however, the more it will bite back :P You must bring about a clear awareness of it, look at how your mind reacts to it. It's nothing to go out of your way to stop arising, just like anything else. I hope this is actually of some use to you. Best of luck, be well.

Your comments were good for reflection + the answer -> I'm happy (well, not happy, but from the perspective of conventionality I'm having an experience that this was helpful)

SE wont let me post JUST  a smiley- :)

There are 2 types of exercises which you can apply here.

Physical
Mental

Physical
With regard to physical exercise is that you pratice sitting in a particular posture gradually increasing the duration of your sitting.
In meditation pratice by S.N.Goenka this is developed as part of developing your resolve as well as the ability to sit for a long hours.

Another p±ram² is adhiµµh±na—strong determination. When one starts a Vipassana course, one makes a determination to remain for the entire period of the course. One resolves to follow the precepts, the rule of silence, all the discipline of the course. After the introduction of the technique of Vipassana itself, one makes a strong determination to meditate for the entire hour during each group sitting without opening eyes, hands or legs. At a later stage on the path, this p±ram² will be very important; when coming close to the final goal, one must be ready to sit without break until reaching liberation. For this purpose it is necessary to develop strong determination.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N.Goenka
Mental
In order to be able to sit for long hours you have to experience lightness in body and mind. You have to do this by actively releasing tensions by looking at gross solidified sensation part by part and if you have a free flow of subtle sensation in your body sweeping through them opens up the areas which are either numb or there is gross solidified sensations.
Also one way that the body will get lighter is to have sustained concentration on an object, i.e., you first bring your mind to the object (e.g. breath) then you continuously repeat the same metal redirection of the mind to the object regardless of the mind wandering away. Also walking meditation is able to develop stable concentration which intern will create lightness in the body.
For a more technical answer please see: Having trouble meditating long sessions (Physical pain)

Also I like to add the following note. Though in the 10 day meditation taught by S.N.Goenka there is no formal time allocated for walking meditation, walking is considered an antidote to drowsiness and sleepiness in the spirit of the following Sutta.

... Bhikshus, what more should be done? Bhikshus, you should train yourselves thus, We will devote ourselves to wakefulness.
  During the day, while walking to and fro and sitting down, we will purify the mind of obstructions.
  During the first watch of the night, while walking to and fro and sitting down, we will purify
  the mind of obstructions (avarana synonym for nīvarana).
  During the middle watch of the night, we will, after mentally noting the time for rising,
   mindfully
  and fully aware lie down, lion-like on our right side, one foot placed on the other. ...

Source: Maha Assa,pura Sutta. Also see footnote 30. The context here is staying awake and fighting drowsiness.
and

If, Moggallāna, that drowsiness still would not go away, then, Moggallāna,
  you should, perceiving before and after, be resolute in walking back and forth, with the senses
  turned inward, with the mind not straying outward. It is possible that when you do so, that drowsiness would go away.

Source: Pacalā Sutta. The context here is staying awake and fighting drowsiness.
These suttas only advocate this as an antidote to sleepiness and as a means to keep awake than any other form of pratice. This how S.N.Goenka teachers. This is inline with the Suttas.

Another enemy is laziness, drowsiness. All night you slept soundly, and yet when you sit to meditate, you feel very sleepy. This sleepiness is caused by your mental impurities, which would be driven out by the practice of Vipassana, and which therefore try to stop you from meditating. You must fight to prevent this enemy from overpowering you. Breathe slightly hard, or else get up, sprinkle cold water on your eyes, or walk a little, and then sit again.

Source: The Discourse Summaries
NB: Added this note as to there is no misunderstanding about this pratice, but not to condemn any other pratice.


text:
What is Buddhism "for" (in favor of)?
Aside from ending suffering, encouraging compassionate action and leading one to nirvanna, is there anything that Buddhism promotes, or says is good?
The reason that I ask is because in another recent question I asked about musical composers, and as I  look around at related questions, I find that dance, singing and listening to music seem to go against the 7th Precept. I am not aware of any sutras promoting art or creativity, other than skillful actions and insightful discourse. It seems pretty flat to me, but I cannot find fault with it.
As a person who has always danced and listened to music, and sometimes draws or paints, I am wondering just what we should be doing with our "one wild and precious life"? (Assuming that this is the last one.) Is life good in itself, once cleared of defilements? Can it not be enjoyed - meaning that something worthwhile is done that uplifts self and others?

In one of the teachings I received, there is this concept of Five Joys:

The joy of having your basic needs satisfied (food, shelter, safety).
The (higher) joy of material comfort and sensual enjoyment.
The (even higher) joy of professional/creative realization.
The (very high) joy of helping society: teaching, healing.
The (highest) joy of Enlightenment.

So assuming you're in your 50s and done with the first three, I suppose you can derive joy from helping the less lucky ones?

is there anything that Buddhism promotes, or says is good?

Buddhism promotes the well being of oneself and others or general good of society inclusive of onself.

“Guarding oneself, one protects others.”
    “Guarding others, one protects oneself.” - Sedaka Sutta

dance, singing and listening to music seem to go against the 7th Precept.

This is not interested for general householder. Generally you can enjoy the what this though it is called non pure. Also the joy of renunciation or joy born from parting from seeking sensual objects is considered pure. Extensive discussion see: Vedanā (Feeling): A study of the 2nd aggregate - Theme: A reflection on the Datthabba Sutta by Piya Tan

...  Is life good in itself, once cleared of defilements? Can it not be enjoyed ...

You have the joy and pleasure of renunciation. This is pure and considered more pleasurable. You have eliminated all avenues on which you can become unhappy, stressed or sad, hence you are joyful and happy person who can truly enjoy life.

Once you have renunciation, then what? What is a good thing to do with life at age 50?

Renunciation has is not taking delight in what you see, hear, .... The most common method to do this is going forth. When you do not delight in what is experienced bad experiences cannot hurt you also when positive experiences end.

Your question is very broad, with multiple aspects and many possible answers. I will just address one aspect. In the Pali Canon we do find a tradition of spontaneous ecstatic poetry, uttered at significant moments in order to express a realization or insight, especially in the Theragatha and the Therigatha but also in the suttas. This traditon developed into the Tibetan mahasiddhi tradition where spontaneous utterances puntuated ganachakras, or "tantric feasts," which in turn has analogies with the uposatha, properly the eve of the soma festival that the Buddha adapted to the sangha. The verbal expression of poetry is, of course, an aesthetic act, which seems to be what your question is about. Zen koans might also be said to have an aesthetic aspect, and of course one has the highly refined Buddhist aesthetics of China and Japan, also related to Zen.

Rumi is similar, and Milarepa's spontaneously uttered songs come to mind. This is similar to "spontaneous appropriate action", but verbal. Perhaps there is room for well-made paintings or dance also?

Thangkas in the Tibetan tradition.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Wisdom in practice
My day time job is with a Drug Helpline. This is an anonymous phone, chat and online Q/A service for drug and alcohol users and their relatives, friends, families and anyone with questions.
This job gives a lot of opportunity to put wisdom and compassion into practice. In average, I am in contract with about 5000 people every year. All of them in need of help and support one way or the other.
In my personal life, thinking and meditation on the three marks of Dukkha, Non-self and impermanence has helped tremendously. I soemtimes think that "if only the users of our service could think like that, it would be so much easier for them".
Example: Very often relatives of drug users do the exact opposite of whar would be a good strategy, they yell, demand the person to stop and the next moment they give them money for "stuff in the apartment and food". Another classic is this "My partner is the cause of my sepair because he drinks/drugs".
If compassion is the wish for others not to suffer, and I have a very firm conviction about what would be a good way for them to suffer less, how can I best convey this? I can't say "you should meditate on the three marks" and "your partner isn't causing your despair, you are". For one it would ruin the dialogue and also I'm supposed to support the users perspective. I cannot use personal experience because I am a so called "professional".

So youre spending around 25 minutes per person? I would think this time constraint would prove the most difficult aspect; how to get through to a total stranger in that short amount of time over the phone

Average, yes. But it varies a lot. Depends on the nature of the call/chat. If it is a simple fact question, about urine samples etc, a few  min.  When they need a lot of support, up to ninety minutes. Another challenge is that we're not supposed to have repeated contact/develop a therapeutic relation. Of course this is hard to avoid and it's a thin line. But those are the government's "orders"

I am keen to understand the answers below. Although the recommendations are intended to help, shouldn't we be addressing the underlying causes supported by the practices suggested. To give an example, should we not feed the hungry to meet their basic needs before embarking on the practices. So in the context of the question, should we not understand their suffering that has driven them down this path?

@Motivated. Are you referring here to the "path" of drug and alcohol (ab)use or the "path" of unhelpful ways of coping with being "co-dependent"? It seems likely you are talking about drug users here?  I think often the psychological patterns and mechanisms are very similar for users and their codependent family and others emotionally involved people. Codependent suffering is very clearly caused by not seeing the effects of one's behavior and not recognizing the real causes of own suffering (eg. blaming the user)

@Mr. Concept - I am referring to both and others. I am unsure to the extent help is provided to understand the choices that led them down a particular path. If these are not being addressed e.g. hunger, I don't see how the path of Dharma will influence them positively.

@Motivated i agree completely, and that is also why I try to open their minds to even consider changing mindset about both choices and interpretations of their situation. But then it's important to refer people to services that also can think the same way, and those services are quite few and far between, especially the parts pretty close to the north pole, where 50 kilometers to the grocery store is common, and it's 500 k to the closest (and only) treatment service - those folks tend to have to take what they get, but I can still point some ideas out to them

@Mr.Concept - I wonder if there is an opportunity to start a local support group of sorts that offers these services rather than having to travel great distances.

@Motivated Yes the idea is very good and has been tried, with varying degrees of luck. Sometimes it's hard to keep support groups steady and the most competent and eager people often get a job (500 k away). People with alcohol and drug problems also tend to be have some difficulty following up over time. But the idea is definitely very good and need to be tried out more. We had a research project on this exact challenge on the main hospital in northernmost areas, and then we got a new government: no more money

I can't say "..." it would ruin the dialogue and also I'm supposed to support the users perspective.

Some personal counsellors ask questions, along the lines of, "And how do you feel about that?"
Maybe that's similar to Vipasanna's asking people to note their feelings.
Maybe that turns people's attention inward (not "my partner is wrong" but "I'm feeling ignored" or "confused and angry about my inability to make my partner behave the way I want them to") which might be essential to helping them to act, "rationally" or sanely.
Maybe asking 'leading' questions is an acceptable way to steer the conversation. By analogy with a medical doctor they could be 'informed' questions (i.e. informed by your prior knowledge), but still I suppose they ought to be questions (I read a science fiction story once in which a society had a jury system where the jury members were expected to be "biased" but not allowed to be "prejudiced").
Beware that I'm not "a so-called professional", but your professional page (which you linked to) says,

In addition to providing the caller with information about alcohol and drugs, and suggesting appropriate services for treatment of substance abuse, the counsellors practice the «professional conversation». The counsellors’ role is not to judge or moralize, but, by listening and asking the right questions, unveiling the solutions which best suits the caller’s situation.

I have a very firm conviction about what would be a good way for them to suffer less, how can I best convey this?

The quote above says there are "appropriate services for treatment".
Do you agree whether those services exist? And whether they're appropriate? Is it your job to be/supply those services, or is it your job to suggest those services?
Does your meditation on the three marks suggest ways in which those services could be improved or augmented? Is there someone (e.g. your boss and/or counsellor) with whom you can discuss whether to add to the services or solutions which are "suggested as appropriate" by the agency which employs you?
Also if you want to or are able to "use personal experience" in a way that not appropriate for your job, there are vehicles for doing that outside the scope of your employment -- I'm thinking that AA / Al-Anon or NA / Nar-Anon meetings, for example, centre around people recounting their personal experience and insight for the benefit of others.

I sometimes think that "if only the users of our service could think like that, it would be so much easier for them".

That reminds me of (among other things) this scene in a movie, As Good as It Gets, where the girl is wooed by an antihero and cries out, "Why can't I just have a normal boy-friend? Why? Just a regular boy-friend who doesn't go nuts on me?" At that point her mum, who's listening behind the door, pops out and says, "Everybody wants that, dear. It doesn't exist. Oh I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt."
If you want to meet people who've already solved their personal problems then I guess you need a different job (or to meet other people outside the scope of your job).
If you're saying "If only other people had the same views as I have then they wouldn't have a problem", I think you're not the first person to have said that. :-)

how can I best convey this?

Maybe be clearer about what you're trying to convey. Compassion? Your description of a universal solution? An environment in which someone sees their own way out of their problem? An emotional intensity, neither too little (complacency) nor too much (despair)? Professional (legal or psychiatric) help? An independent (e.g. not "co-dependent") perspective on what's right and wrong? A life-line? ...?

This is very interesting and helpful. About referrals to help services for families /relatives they do exist, but are few and far between, especially in the northern part of the country. My job is to give some initial guidance and then refer them when possible. Very often relatives and partners are very reluctant,they want the person to stop using, not talk about themselves. Thanks for many good ideas and advice

This job gives a lot of opportunity to put wisdom and compassion into practice. In average, I am in contract with about 5000 people every year. All of them in need of help and support one way or the other.

You are very lucky. Being rightly motivated this can be a great opportunity to help others as well as make merit for your self.

In my personal life, thinking and meditation on the three marks of Dukkha, Non-self and impermanence has helped tremendously. I soemtimes think that "if only the users of our service could think like that, it would be so much easier for them".

The main objective of insight is to see things as there are (Yathā Bhūta ñāna Dassana) hence develop revulsion (Nibbida). This can happen in many ways though realising the three marks of existence and developing understating of the Dependent Origination process. Both are necessary as per some teachers.

Example: Very often relatives of drug users do the exact opposite of whar would be a good strategy, they yell, demand the person to stop and the next moment they give them money for "stuff in the apartment and food". Another classic is this "My partner is the cause of my sepair because he drinks/drugs".

As you say people do find causes to blame for their despair on outside sources. Understanding or rationalising this at a logical level does help a bit but this understanding can also change hence you have to realise it through meditation pratice. Firstly you have to talk some sense and then get them to pratice. Also ego and emotions which we all have defies all logic hence do not try to be too logical and persuasive. Just let them understand though their pratice but know enough sense to entice them to give a fair trial to meditation.
Also there are some research how Vipassana helps in addiction recovery and mental health. Goto Vipassana Research Institute research index here and then look under the titles "Drug Addiction" and "Psychiatry and Health" which might also help you in your line of work.

If compassion is the wish for others not to suffer, and I have a very firm conviction about what would be a good way for them to suffer less, how can I best convey this? I can't say "you should meditate on the three marks" and "your partner isn't causing your despair, you are". For one it would ruin the dialogue and also I'm supposed to support the users perspective. I cannot use personal experience because I am a so called "professional".

Sometimes the users may not be in the best mental frame to receive the Dhamma. In this case the best is give them time to adjust and have a more balanced mind. Once they are in a conducive state of mind then perhaps you can point out there is a techniques like so and so which might also help in your problems.
When in distress people loose in touch will reality, i.e, misidentification of what is experienced - ignorance in short. When ignorance dominates you will never see anything clearly as you have to cut through all this. You have to wait for it to settle a bit through dialog and counselling. If a person thinks too much or worries then there is a chance that this is aggravated by perversions or distortions of perceptions1.
Also you might be able to share some testimonials on the benefit of vipassana with these people to inspire them. There are some on youtube: Youtube Content on Vipassana Meditation Experience.
1 More on perversions or distortions of perceptions see: Vipallasa Sutta

Pardon my correction friend, but where you wrote Revolution I believe you meant to write Revulsion.  Thank you for sharing your insight

@sova well spotted! Thanks for point this out.

Bringing up anything specifically Buddhism-related would probably be inappropriate, but I suppose you could try and teach them along the lines of the Noble Eightfold Path (just don't call it so):

First, they need to establish the right ground: that the problem is fixable, not unfixable. That they can make it worse, or they can make it better. If they repeatedly try to make it better for a long enough time, it will get better.
Once they are in the right frame of reference, they should make a commitment to only acting with that goal in mind, not reacting emotionally. Every time there is a problem, they should do something that will make things better, not worse. This should be their mantra: act purposefully, try to quickly calculate the basic results of your action before you act.
Specifically, in terms of what they say, they should not speak from emotion, because when they speak from emotion, they don't think clearly and can only make it worse. Everything they say should be constructive, meaning it should not just criticize but offer some positive next steps that will improve things.
Same with anything else they do: going somewhere, buying something, etc. Especially if their action is motivated by the emotion of being upset/frustrated - they should force themselves to sit on their hands, or distract themselves with something, or express the negative emotion into singing or drawing or dancing or yelling in the closet - just don't do something that will make things worse.
If they have some daily routines or life cycles or people influences that keep on feeding the negative patterns - then they should change the circumstances, move somewhere, get rid of those friends, stop watching those particular movies or listening to that music - in short whatever in their lifestyle is part of the nutrient for the pathological patterns should be removed.
So, in summary, they should get in the habit of watching their mind for destructive intentions and replace them with constructive intentions. They can't act positively if their mind is negative - so they should get in the habit of only thinking useful thoughts, and stopping useless/negative thoughts.
First, they will forget this and get carried away by the emotions - but they should keep repeating to themselves, every day, for a long long time until it gets better: "only do what will help, don't do what will make it worse" - and then with time it will become second nature.
Eventually, (once they get used to NOT acting negatively) it becomes an exercise in always being in good mood. Your entire life becomes a game of accumulating good mood. The more good mood you have, the more opportunities you will see for getting even better mood, through healthy and creative means. And when you are in good mood, it becomes contagious and people around you get caught in your good mood too - and then you can help them by teaching this same principle.

Something along these lines should help both the relatives and the drug abusers themselves. The idea is to show them the rational way to go in the right direction, imbue faith in this rational way, give some specific details, and show the glimpse of the end result. It may seem simplistic and kinda too obvious to be useful, but this idea of only doing what helps at all levels (speaking, acting, lifestyle, thinking, mood) is for some reason very difficult to internalize. Once they have internalized it, they can figure out the details as they go, and it's just a matter of time until it gets better.

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


text:
How do different traditions define "intoxicant"?
Since the mapping of Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS) began about ten years ago, around 500 new subsatances  has been discovered. This is a somewhat different situation than what was the case 2500 years ago.
Some NPS are not illegal, and even it they are defined as pshychoactive they're not intoxicating but more like caffein ("upper") or melatonin (for sleep) or valerian (calming).
What defines - in the different traditions - whether taking an NPS is against the five precepts or not? Is it the intention with which you take the substance? Is it the effect? Neurobiological damage? Physical damage? Frequency? Does legal status come in to the picture?
Is this something one should take directly with the teacher? Or something you can define according to your own conscience?

Also see Is drinking coffee or tea against the fifth precept and If a substance enhanced the ability to stay mindful, and didnt cause intoxication or carelessness, would it still violate the fifth precept

Also, Are there any specific stories or talks where Buddha discussed using mind altering substances other than alcohol

Do all Buddhists abstain from alcohol

Is it useful to practice intoxicated?

Is moderate drinking acceptable in Buddhism?

And let's not forget that intoxicants of any stripe tend to coincide with the hindrance of sensual desire.  That's not exactly something you want to be reinforcing either.

Let me first explain the original Pāli version of the fifth precept, according to what I learnt from prof. Richard Gombrich, who knows Pāli well and is a Theravāda scholar, but is not a Buddhist.

Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

The last three words are the same for all precepts and mean "I undertake the rule of abstaining from". The key word here is surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā. It is a compound that can be split as follows: surā-meraya-majja-pamāda-ṭṭhānā. The literal translation is surā-meraya-majja-carelessness-occasion. Surā, meraya and majja are names of three intoxicating drinks, but we cannot be sure what they exactly were. So if we look at it literally, the rule deals with three specific drinks, and whether and how it shoud be extended to other intoxicants is a matter of interpretation.
The use of pamāda (carelessness) is even more interesting. Since it is a part of a compound, the grammar rules of Pāli tell us very little about how it should be interpreted. So the literal reading of the fifth precept could be either

I undertake the rule of abstaining from surā, meraya and majja, because they cause occasions for carelessness.

or

I undertake the rule of abstaining from surā, meraya and majja, in so far as they cause occasions for carelessness.

Coming back to your question, there is no agreement among Theravāda Buddhists on which of the two readings should be used. There are quite a few who interpret it according to the latter reading and don't think that consumption of small amounts of alcohol is against the precept. But in any case, there is an agreement that surāmerayamajja should interpreted as alcoholic beverages in general. There is, however, a controversy on whether the precept is applicable to smoking.
To sum up, various Buddhist traditions have surely different views on that matter, but in any case, the word pamāda seems to be the key. It is what defines intoxicants, and - for traditions that allow some use of intoxicans - defines the limits of their use.

This is any substance which lead to carelessness:

Loss of Sila - taking something like alcohol or drugs with similar effect taken for recreational value. Being drunk reduces ones resolve to adhere to the precepts.
Loss of Samadhi - again taking alcohol or even pain killers or sleeping pills other spescription medications taken recreational value. Alcohol, sleeping pills, certcertain medications make you less concentrated, especially those labeled not to operate machines or drive.
Loss of Satti - taking hallucinogens or other drugs which alter perception of reality or decreases perception of reality if taken for recreational value

Loss of Samadhi and Satti contributes to loss of Sila and morality one is more deligent with them and more careless when they reduce.
Also see:

Do all Buddhists abstain from alcohol?
Is it useful to practice intoxicated?

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


text:
Reference request: blame as the source of anger?
I am looking for a textual reference. I cannot recall the exact details but I will try my best; if anyone knows what I am referring to and can point me to the text, it would be much appreciated.
The basic idea in the passage was roughly, I believe, that if one doesn't have anyone who can tell them what to do or not do...doesn't have a person who can punish them, then they won't become angry. I believe I read this in the Visuddhimagga but I'm not sure. Any help is appreciated!

Are you sure that's the principle of the passage? Kings fit that description but are still prone to anger; any un enlightened being is!

This is not a Buddhist reference but something that seen as true by some school teachers: http://www.blinn.edu/socialscience/LDThomas/Feldman/Handouts/0801hand.htm ("If a child lives with hostility, he learns to fight" etc.).

He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me of my property. Whosoever harbor such thoughts will never be able to still their enmity.
Never indeed is hatred stilled by hatred; it will only be stilled by non-hatred — this is an eternal law.
— Dhp., vv. 4-5

(Source: The Elimination of Anger: With two stories retold from the Buddhist texts by Ven. K. Piyatissa Thera)
The bolded text implies they blame the other for one's plight.

'Anger' is an 'underlying tendency' (anusaya) thus the potential to anger exists regardless of an object of anger (refer to paragraph 3 of MN 64 and to AN 7.11). In relation to sense objects, while blame is a cause of anger, the cause of blame is unpleasant feelings or feeling hurt. Thus the scriptures state: "If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's underlying tendency to anger gets obsessed." MN 148

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn64 A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘beings,’ so how could ill will towards beings arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will lies within him.

Atma does not think that such could be found in the frame of Buddhas teachings. Actually people get most angry after a while, or more angry, if not confronted. Of course such anger is at least turned into once own direction. Andrei Volkov Avatar appearance reminds a little on such.
Maybe Adhipateyya Sutta: Governing Principles is useful.

There must be some mistake or the text might mean there isn't as much anger if there isn't another person there to facilitate anger.
By myself I experience much subtle and gross anger. If I have pain , I might react with frustration(frustration is the same as anger in this case). If while practicing I wander off many times  then I might feel a subtle anger because I want a smoother practice session.
Anger and greed are not very precise translations for the Pali words "dosa" and "lobha".
Anger(dosa) is whenever we don't want to accept something and so we can't accept reality. Greed(lobha) is any time we don't want to let something go so we can't accept reality.


text:
How are expectations seen in Buddhism?
If one has expectations of others, how is this perceived in Buddhism?
For example, if one expects others to show respect, not hurt others, help others, make effort to understand others, etc, how is this perceived?
If these expectations are not met or remain unfulfilled, does one simply class these are ignorance, lack of maturity, etc?

This may sound surprising to you... but as I understand, in Buddhism the expectations like you described would be seen as your attachments and your ignorance.
Indeed, if you were infinitely wise, you would see this person as they are, and would not be mistaken by the appearance. The fact that your original opinion turned out to be wrong means you are not infinitely wise! :)
Two, once the expectations have been unfulfilled and you become disenchanted, to continue to be upset and to regret that things are not the way you thought they were, is a case of attachment. Meaning, you had one experience of the world, and now situation has changed - hence another experience, but you continue to hold to the past picture.
So in this way, these expectations are your ignorance and your attachment.

Um. But what about  monastic rules: those are "expectations", aren't they? And so are parental rules.

The monastic rules are in place to create a conducive environment for practice; there's no expectation that anyone should follow them, and ergo be a monk. Some may have the expectation that monastics should follow them, but that expectation and the rules themselves are two different things.

As far as I understand at least

@ChrisW those are more like conditions right? "You are expected to follow the rules or else". I don't think that's what OP meant, but let's wait and see.

@Andrei Volkov - Thanks. I'll attempt to define expectations which may be governed by implict and explicit rules, structures, mental models. For example, if there exists an explicit rule, there is an both an implicit and explicit expectation/condition that this is followed. In scenarios where these rules don't generally exist e.g. helping others, understanding others, these appear to fall short i.e. there is a disconnect between the outcome and the intended expected outcome often causing rise to effects unless the person is wise to understand the cause, condition and effect.

+1 I think clinging nails it.

If one needs reality to be something else, that partiality  will  lead one to suffering however it is possible for one to act appropriately without needing reality to change.
The more one practices what cultivates wisdom, the more one will make the appropriate decisions without partiality to the decisions one makes.

Are you able to cite real world examples?

Simply put it expectations are a source of stress and misery as in many instances your expectations are never met. Expectations arise from ignorance real state of the world or not seeing this as they are (lack of yathā bhūta ñāna dassana).


text:
Does samsara exist or not exists?
Does samsara exist? Or does samsara not exists and it just looks to us that it exists, but in reality it is all the same "thing"?
Here's the updated question, to make it clearer:
UPDATE
Nibanna is the cessation of all that is conditioned, i.e. samsara.
As I understand it, when you attain Nibanna which is unconditioned, then you are out of samsara.
Does this mean, that when you attain Nibanna, samsara:

does not exist but it exists for other beings in samsara?
does not exist, and neither it exists for the other beings in samsara, because Nibanna is unconditioned, so there is no samsara, and consequently there are no beings?

Which one is it? 1 or 2?

What would be the difference between Samsara existing, and Samsara not existing, but just appearing that it exists?

and whats "all the same thing" ?

Note that "exists" might have different meanings, specially in the buddhist context. It might help explaining what one means by something "existing" and something "not existing"

The traditional Mahayana formula is that "Samsara is Nirvana". This is explained in depth in Madhyamaka literature. Here is one quote from Jay Garfield commentary on his translation of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika:

It is [possible] to grasp after nirvana – to reify it as a state and to crave it as a phenomenon inherently different from samsara and as highly desirable since it is indeed characterized as liberation from suffering. But this grasping onto the end of grasping is itself a grasping and so precludes the attainment of nirvana. Nirvana requires, according to Nagarjuna, a complete cessation of grasping, including that onto nirvana itself. While that might seem paradoxical, it is not: To grasp onto something in this sense requires, inter alia, that one reify it. By refusing to reify liberation, in virtue of seeing it as the correlative of bondage, which itself is not inherently existent, it is possible to pursue the path to liberation without creating at the same time a huge obstacle on that path – the root delusion with regard to nirvana itself.

And from Master Dogen's Genjokoan:

When everything is buddha-dharma, there are Samsara and Nirvana, Path, birth and death, Buddhas and sentient beings. When myriad things are without self, there is no Samsara, no Nirvana, no Buddha, no sentient beings, no birth and no death.

Samsara exists based on mind-matter phenomena. Any phenomena which is part of mind, mind content, matter comes under ultimate truths (truths that not fall apart under divisibility into its constituent components or indivisible). So it is an ultimate truth that samsara does exit when you are part of it if you are worldling.
When you attain Nirvana which is unconditioned, then you are out of samsara. For some one who attains Nirvana this also is an ultimate truth.

Samsara is just a word. There is seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, smelling, and thinking. And there is the UN enlightened mind that misapprehends the true nature of these phenomenon.
edit for your edit :

does not exist but it exists for other beings in samsara?

There are four things without bounds; the knowledge of a buddha, space, the universe, and the world of beings.  Therefore, samsara will never be extinguished. In this way, enlightenment is like a forest fire, burning down an endless forest.
I COULD tell you the timestamp for my reference; but instead I'll make you watch through the entire thing, enjoy!

Then why is it wrong to say Samsara is permanent?

Physically - it is changing- so nonpermanent.   2. Conceptually- Until creating (person) samara exists.  3. By experiencing (nirvana)  - samara ? @GokulNC

With awakening, samsara is extinguished. All samsara.

If you use "exists" in the Buddhist context, you might be understood as "has own, unconditioned essence" which is the traditional use -- here, the object in question cannot suddenly become or unbecome according to circumstances, because it always "is". Or as "is real / refers to an actual experience" which is the more popular understanding. Not being explicit about how this word is being can be confusing.
Having said that, to the questions:

Does samsara exist? Or does samsara not exists and it just looks to us that it exists, but in reality it is all the same "thing"?

I'm understanding samsara here as a word to describe the cycle of birth and death.
Whether it "exists" -- in the traditional sense -- or "not exists" is a philosophical topic whose answer might change according to the philosophy of each school (though I think no school who would declare existence of phenomena or concepts have survived).

Does this mean, that when you attain Nibanna, samsara does not exist but it exists for other beings in samsara?

from the following:
The Buddha attained nibanna, but here we are, subject to samsara.
we can conclude from our experience that samsara is "real" (insofar as the cycle of birth and death is actual -- or if one understands samsara to be simply this circumstance of being subject to suffering).
In the traditional sense of "exists", samsara either "exists" or "not exists" -- it doesn't make sense to change according to circumstances (eg. when an event happens, like attaining nibanna).
The "cessation of samsara", insofar as we are talking about the Buddha attaining nibanna, is not the cessation of our reality, nor the cessation of the samsara we are subjected to.

Does this mean, that when you attain Nibanna, samsara does not exist, and neither it exists for the other beings in samsara, because Nibanna is unconditioned, so there is no samsara, and consequently there are no beings?

Beings "don't exist" in the traditional sense; beings are anatta. But we are certainly alive -- we are not imagination.

When we wake up from dream, does it exist for others?

Samsara exists. 2. Samsara does not exist. 3. Samsara both exists and does not exist. 4. Samsara neither exists nor not exists. All of these statements are true. All of these statements are false. All of these statements are both true and false. All of these statements are neither true nor false.

Being or not being, the wise cling to neither.

Samsara exist because there is enlightenment- free from Samara.
Just like wealth exist because there are poor.
Only if one is free from Samsara can one see Samsara.
If everyone is in Samsara, then how can one see Samsara?
That is what Buddha is here to teach

Excerpt from "Lamp of Mahamudra" by Tsele Natsok Rangdrol:

"Section One - Ground Mahamudra"
"The View"
"Your natural essence cannot be established as either samsara or nirvana.  Not confined by any one extreme, free from the limitations of exaggeration or denigration, it is not tainted nor spoiled by such designations as pleasant or unpleasant, being or not being, existent or non-existent, permanent or annihilated, self or other, and so forth...
Yet, no matter how it manifests, ultimately this essence has no true existence...
It is the actual basis of all that appears and exists, the whole of samsara and nirvana.
When you realize its nature, knowing its real condition, you are called a Buddha.  When you do not realize it, remaining ignorant of it and experiencing confusion, you are called a sentient being."

For any who are interested, "Lamp of Mahamudra" and "The Heart of the Matter", both by Tsele Natsok Rangdrol, have been combined in a single book, entitled "Heart Lamp", translated by Erik Pema Kunsang, Rangjung Yeshe Publications, North Atlantic Books.

From SN 15.3:

“Mendicants, transmigration (samsara) has no known beginning. No first point is
found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by
ignorance and fettered by craving. What do you think? Which is more:
the flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating for
such a very long time—weeping and wailing from being united with the
unloved and separated from the loved—or the water in the four oceans?”
“As we understand the Buddha’s teaching, the flow of tears we’ve shed
while roaming and transmigrating is more than the water in the four
oceans.”
“Good, good, mendicants!

Samsara exists and it has no beginning.
Who shed the tears for such a long time, that could exceed the four oceans?
It's the self. The mental idea of the self. It's the self that experiences samsara.
For whom does samsara exist? It exists for the self.
If there's no self at all, there's no samsara.
If there's self, there's samsara.
So, basically, samsara exists dependent on mind-body phenomena. So long as mind-body phenomena exists, so does samsara.

Also at the same time, samsara doesn't really exist. Why?
Sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self.

One of the issues is that there are two types of Samsara.

Samsara as a place, a location. It is called 'external samsara'
Samsara as the contaminated aggregates that are in the nature of suffering. It is called 'internal nirvana'.

One can be free from internal samsara but abide or manifest in any of the abodes of the external samsara. The two types of samsara are not that closely related. So, when you attain nirvana, you are not necessarily out of samsara as a place. When you attain nirvana, you are free from true suffering, so in this manner samsara (as a place) is not 'samsaric' anymore in the perspective of that being, because it does not act as a cause and a basis of suffering for that being. It does not make it any less samsara, though.
When we say that 'a Bodhisattva does not wander in samsara, but he comes back to samsara due to the power of prayers and compassion' we mean that 'he is free from internal samsara but can abide in external samsara', that is 'he does not come back due to the power of karma and afflictions but he comes back to the place'. It might already part of the question. As Geshe Gyaltsen said in his commentary to Maitreya's Sublime Continuum:

The continuum of the aggregates of the person is called samsara and
  the bodhisattva is not samsara in not being the continuity of the
  aggregates, but the bodhisattva abides and takes birth in samsara in
  taking birth in all the different realms of samsara from the hell up
  to the peak of existence, the different samsaric abodes[...]

Any being who has achieved the final true cessation is free from wandering in samsara in that he will not come back to take contaminated aggregates. Some say the body (even of an Arhat) transforms and becomes uncontaminated (and thus not samsara itself) from the time of achieving Arhatship but there is a lot of debate about this point. The Vaïbashika and Sautrantika schools further say that at the time of parinirvana, the continuum of a hearer or solitary realizer Arhat is severed (and thus no longer abides in any abode in samsara as a place), but Mahayana tenets refute such a position.
'A continuum being samsara' and 'a continuum being nirvana' are mutually exclusive. If it is one, it is not the other. In the same way, 'a room in which John is present' and 'a room in which John is absent' are mutually exclusive. Nirvana and samsara are are identical in that they are empty of inherent existence, as you and I are identical in that we are human beings. But they are not the same and one phenomena, in the same way you and I are not the same person. Samsara and nirvana do exist conventionally. This is another issue that is called 'the yoga of the equality of samsara and nirvana', sometimes phrased 'samsara is nirvana'.

The yoga of the equality of samsara and nirvana is achieved [from the
  eighth ground] which is the direct realization of the emptiness of
  true existence of both samsara and nirvana.

I think that for those beings still transmigrating in Samsara, it is very much real. But after parinibbana, samsara cannot be said to exist from the point of view of the enlightened person because

There is no 'I' with reference to the enlightened person, and as such terms such as 'exist' doesn't make sense. He is outside the frame of reference. Its almost like saying he is outside the universe, beyond space time.
The enlightened person is unconditioned, and thus none of the adjectives can be used to describe. Our language is subject to condition, and thus there is no vocabulary in english nor in an language, to describe the 'state' after parinibbana.

There are 2 objects of knowing...

Reality (yathabhūta) - the existent without imagination.

Imagination (sammati,smaññā) - the conception which appearing only while imagining.

We are knowing both switching rapidly. Trillion times of mind moment in a second, there are many moment knowing realities and many moment imagining  imaginations switching rapidly. We see many realities such as colors, voices, smells, tastes, tempture or hardness or motion, then we imagine "this is piece", "this is loaf", "This many loaf is body", "this body is me", "this is a body living in samsara", etc.
Reality can be exist without imagination, but imagination never exist and never arise, only concept.
We are knowing both switching rapidly. Trillion times of mind moment in a second, there are many moment knowing realities and many moment imagining  "imaginations about Samsara" switching rapidly.
**However, there are 3 existent... 1. real existent, 2.right imagined existent, 3. wrong imagined existent (See below).

There are 2 realities...

Saṅkhata - causes & their effect which constructing, conditioning each others to arise and to vanish. This is exist only when it arising. See SN. SaṅkhataLakkhaṇaSutta. It is exist only when arising, but it is real in every right recalling.

Asaṅkhata- Nibbāna, the opposite of Saṅkhata.  This is exist forever, but it is neither arising nor vanishing because it is the opposite of Saṅkhata.

Ther are 3 existents...

real existent - Saṅkhata and Asaṅkhata.

right imagined existent - the imagination which imagined by any mind without wrong-view-clinging about the reality which really possible to arise and to vanish (saṅkhāra) or to be (nibbāna). For the example, tomorrow you, who reading, are right imagined existent, if the karma, which birthing the realities which called "you", still be possible to go on giving arising  the realities which called "you" tomorrow.

wrong imagined existent -  the imagination which imagined by wrong-view-clinging about the misunderstood of reality, wrong causes and wrong effects in of trillions times arising in a second moment. For the example, when we are reading this answer, we read it by wholesome, unwholesome, resultant, and neither-wholesome-nor-unwholesome-minds switching rapidly. There also are many
trillions of object pass trough the senses as well. However, we imagine they are only a wholesome mind, only an object, only me, one body from birth, etc. This is an imagination.  Another example, tomorrow you, who reading, are wrong imagined existent, if the karma, which birthing the realities which called "you", are not possible to go on giving arising  the realities which called "you" tomorrow anymore because of accidental death. This is an imagination.

There are deeply uncountable detail of the truth. This is why the concentration meditation is still important in Tipitaka, although the insight meditation is the way to see the truth. The deeply and variant detail makes the insight meditation hard to control without the concentration meditation for the practitioner who has low skill of 10 perfections (Pāramī).


text:
Samsara and States of Being (reference request)
One book I like very much is The Myth Of Freedom by Chogyam Trungpa.  Of particular interest is the section where he distinguishes the realms of existence as mental states and ways of being.
I've yet to find this discussed elsewhere in any way that resonates.  Everything I find merely talks about Buddhism and psychology and speaks about it in terms defined in the latter.
Trungpa nourishes the metaphor and generates a rich unanswerable question.  Other writings I've found prey on the metaphor and regurgitate a definitive answer.
The former offers opening for insight; the latter suppresses thought.
Does anyone know of anywhere else this subject is written upon with the type of creativity I've alluded to?

Did you try Trungpa's Transcending Madness: The Experience of the Six Bardos?
Another Trungpa's work that touches similar topics is Glimpses of Abhidharma: From a Seminar on Buddhist Psychology

Just an update.  I read/am reading Transcending Madness.  It definitely covers what I was looking for.  Thanks

You will find similar discussion in Ken McLeod's book "Wake up to Your Life".  McLeod begins a definition of the 6 realms of existence on page 146,
"The six worlds of projected emotion are known as the six realms of beings: hell beings, hungry ghosts, animals, human beings, titans, and gods.  The six corresponding reactive emotional patterns give rise to six different interpretations of experience.  In effect, we project the emotional reaction onto the world of experience.
When we experience the world through anger, we see everything as an enemy and fight our way through life. We live in hell."
And he goes on to describe the other five realms/reactive emotions in similar terms.  McLeod also touches on and expands on these descriptions in some of this podcasts (available through Unfettered Mind)(sorry, I can't cite specific pod casts).  McLeod also comes out of the Tibetan tradition, though a different lineage (a student of Kalu Rinpoche).

Kalu is Karma-Kagyu as well. Very close.

Maybe the The Thirty-one Planes of Existence are of interest for user1167442. Ven. Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu also kindly shared an impression of the many states: Samsara - Kinds of being. The Buddha sometime compared certain people or their tendency with being(s) of other realm like the human, like when saying "Licchavi of Vesali are comparable to the assembly of the Thirty-three gods" (DN16).
In regard of such as bardo-states, be informed that such is not found in the teachings of the Buddha, since there is no such as in between. The only possible idea of such later developments is that people made something our of the mentioning "sambhavesī" (like in the Karaṇīya Mettā Sutta) which is normally translated as "seeking birth" or more lit. on being born (maybe thought of an egg), so not estimated as a being by others yet


text:
Reference request: no rest for those with ill will
I am looking for a text that I recall having seen in which the Buddha says something like: There is no rest for those who are obsessed with thoughts such as 'he has wronged/harmed me' and similar.
It may have been the Dhammapada...any help is appreciated.

Yes that's verse 3 of the opening chapter of the Dhammapada,

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

Good find Chris! There's another dhammapada verse that's similar to this that the OP may find useful as well, I can't find it ATM though; its something along the lines of "emnity does not vanquish emnity. I just thought I'd throw it out there if you have a minute to link it too; I don't think it's the verse he's looking for, but its very similar in concept so I thought it might be of use :)

@Ryan I think that "emnity does not vanquish emnity" is verse 5, above.

LOL sure enough, I didn't read that far :)

@adamokkha Ven. Yuttadhammo also has translated readings of the associated stories on his YouTube channel, if you're interested :)


text:
Reflexive awareness?
Indian philosophers, both Buddhist and others, are divided on how they stand on the issue of reflexive awareness. As I understand it, reflexive awareness can be formulated thus: when I remember yesterday's blue sky, I not only remember the sky, but seeing the sky. Thus, remembering seeing the sky, my awareness - at the time of seeing the sky - must have been "aware of itsef". As far as I can understand reflexivity is supposed to pertain to awareness per ce, not only vision. (I hope my formulation here makes sense, please correct me if I'm wrong).
Questions

Does anyone have some arguments both for and against reflexive awareness? They should preferably be from one or more of the Indian Buddhist saints, but also formulated in your own words.
Does anyone have links to sources discussing for and against reflexive awareness, in the context of Buddhism/Indian Buddhist philosophy?

A relatively easy source on that is Unique Tenets of The Middle Way Consequence School, by Daniel Cozort. Better ones are Khedrup Je's Dose of Emptiness, and Shantideva's Bodhisattva Deeds.
Vaïbashikas and Madhyamika-Prasangika do not assert self-knowers (self-cognizers). The other schools do. However, if Prasangika refute self-knowers, they do assert that awareness is self-knowing. It just does not know itself in the way that other schools posit. Prasangika refute self-knower as presented by other schools. Other schools posit a self-knower that is:

special in that it is neither a main mind nor a mental factor
realizes an apprehender (i.e. another consciousness) in a direct and non-dualistic way
one entity with the consciousness it knows.

The idea is that other schools of thoughts (tenets) from Svatantrikas down to and including Sautrantikas claim that if there was no self-knower, one could remember blue but could not remember having seen blue. Prasanngika claim that there is no need for self-knowers to be able to remember having seen blue, because the eye-consciousness apprehending blue implicitly realized itself at the time of seeing blue. Implicitly means by way of the object not appearing. So, when one remembers blue, he also remembers "having seen blue" by way of relation; realizing having seen blue is induced by remembering the object, because the consciousness and its object were already related by the time of seeing.
What follows are arguments from Geshe Gyaltsen's teachings. There are a commentary to the chapter 9 of Shantideva's Bodhisattva Deeds.

Prasangika: "There is no self-knower realizing an apprehender directly
  and explicitly in a non-dual manner, because Buddha said mind cannot
  see itself as the sword cannot cut itself."
Prasangika: "If a self-knower was to realize itself in a non-dualistic
  manner, it would follow that [the apprehended object and its
  apprehending consciousness] are of the same isolates."
Cittamatrin: "The self-knower is like a butter lamp, illuminating both
  the outside and itself."
Prasangika: "The butter lamp does not illuminates itself since it does
  not need to be illuminated. The butter lamp does not need to
  illuminate itself since it does not obscure itself[...] The fact that
  the consciousness illuminates is known by the consciousness, which is
  of a different substance. 'Consciousness illuminates' is known by
  what? By another consciousness or by itself? If we say consciousness
  illuminates and that is known by another consciousness, that
  consciousness should be known again by another consciousness and that
  should go on like this without end."
Prasangika: We do not need that self-knower since the eye
  consciousness explicitly realizes its object and implicitly realizes
  itself, while realizing its object.
Through relation of experiencing another, that is when the eye
  consciousness sees blue, it also experiences itself, in relation to
  realizing blue. Therefore there is no point in asserting a
  self-knower.
This is possible because both do not exist inherently and therefore
  can be related. By remembering the object, one implicitly realizes the
  subject.

This is exactly the kind of guidance and references I was looking for. Thanks.

Your awareness at the time of seeing the sky cannot at the same time be aware of itself. The mind can only take one object as its focus at once. So perhaps there is the awareness  of the sky, followed by the awareness of this awareness itself. This becomes clear when one practices meditation. I hope this answers your question, I wasn't entirely clear on it.
edit: There's almost certainly a more detailed explanation available within the Abhidhamma, hopefully someone more well-read than me can come along and explain the exact technical process.

Self-reflexive awareness is awareness focused on itself.  IT has nothing to do with memories or fantasies of past and future, but is knowable only in the precise moment of inspection.  Self-reflexive awareness is the natural condition of the mind and is such a profound topic that debate without meditation would be like cooking rice without a fire.
Please check this resource for a most excellent write-up, and please be sure to verify the conclusions in your own meditative experience.

http://sweepingzen.com/mirror-awareness-the-true-host/


text:
How does one do mindfulness of breathing with relaxation?
In this lecture, by B. Alan Wallace, of mindfulness of breathing with relaxation, it has been instructed that I have to release all thoughts, relax every part of the body and let go of all involuntary thoughts during exhalation.
Now what exactly is meant by releasing all thoughts with exhalation? What should I do during exhalation? Does it mean that mind will go blank during exhalation? If yes, then how is it possible?

Briefly, "let go" here means you turn your attention to something else (like the room in front of you) - and then whatever thoughts you had the moment before dissolve by themselves.
Normally our attention is dragged around by thoughts and experiences. Being able to disengage from them, and either hold on firmly to one thing, or to switch around at will, or to kinda suspend mid-air as thoughts and experiences flow by - is a useful skill to have.
Specifically in this case you're learning to disengage from whatever particular thoughts you have at the moment - to disidentify and to stop feeding.
It doesn't mean your mind goes blank, since you still have experiences of your body and surroundings, exhaling etc., - and you have an overall idea of what it is that you are doing (meditating, disengaging). So all mental functions keep on going, it's just that you are learning to gently let go of mental chatter, daydreaming, worrisome replays etc.
(no reference for this: I'm summarizing broadly based on what I was taught by the live Zen Master, what I read in books, and on my own meditation experience)

Relaxing body and mind has a deep meaning though many never get to know what actually this means.
What this means if Kāya (body) and Citta (mind) Lahutā.
The achievement of this you can practice meditation on the wind element (expansion contraction feeling tied to inhalation and exhalation process) or passing you consciousness or attention in a zigzag manner though any heavy, gross, solidified or painful areas or just simply being consciously aware of the  sensation in itself. Also developing continuous and recurring attention on a particular object might be of help as this creates bodily pleasantness when closing on the the Jhanas. Also smiling mildly helps as it creates pleasant feeling in the body and mind.
Also though during meditation you have to cut out thought (Vachi Sankhāra) and concept proliferation (papañca). This is not the same as the mind going blank but more towards developing:

Samadhi - collection of the mind with the ability to direct it to a chosen object which is felt, or mastery over the mind.
Jhana - close scrutiny and examination of an experienced object what is felt.

Watching breathing is like learning alphabets of watching. Thats how we practice vipassna. First you just get read of this idea of doing something. This destroies all meditation,attempt to be calm or release thoughts. Keep it simple the way of Zen. Just watch your breath don't try to resist the thoughts let them come and gradually go. Just don't cling to them. After some time you will be blank without any effort watching your breath. Meditation is simple we insist making it complex.


text:
Thoughts in Daily Life
I try to maintain mindfulness in daily life and I find that most of the time my thoughts keep wandering and I often find myself regurgitating on some random topic which is not at all useful at the moment. Is there any sutta in which Buddha talks about thoughts - which thoughts are useful to dwell on and which are not?

Sathipattana sutta describes this very idea i.e. being mindful in all aspects of daily life.

This is restlessness, or the mind being scattered by many thoughts coming and going. Refer to the suttas on the hindrances, e.g.: (Nīvarara) Sangarava Sutta, Nīvarana,pahana Vagga. This is aggravated by Vipallasa (see Vipallasa Sutta). (These could lead to wrong conclusion and views hence keep the Samma,ditthi Sutta in mind.) Also see: Nīvaraṇa an essay by Piya Tan
Thoughts are generally not good to dwell on unless they are directed at maintaining properly executing our daily activities and also perhaps some planning the activities and future. This cannot be avoided if you are householder. Also keep your thoughts on on what can be considered compatible or at least not contrary to Right Thoughts (Samma Sankappa). Thinking lead to concept proliferation and verbal fabrications which is at best avoided when possible at least during a formal meditation sitting.
With regard to concept proliferation the following essay highlights how thinking leads to fabrication: Papañca-Saññā-Sankhā, Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought by Bhikkhu Nanananda. Also Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta covers the topic: perception and mental proliferation. Also Mindfulness in Early Buddhism, by Tse-fu Kuan contains though proliferation in the context of Vipassanā which might be an interesting read.
With regard to Verbal Fabrication the following Suttas deal with the subject: Mahā Vedalla Sutta, Cūla Vedalla Sutta, Kāma,bhū Sutta 2

Piya Tan's reference is good...He also has a youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClbko8WO-oyVIAbb6Mshv_A

Yes. Some of the best explanations I have seen where he connects to dots between Suttas where you can have a macro understanding.

The interconnections between the Suttas are the most important aspect that many other commentators do not touch on. Also everything is very well researched.

Buddha don't want to you to cling to anything. There is no classification as worth dwelling or letting go. Just don't cling on any thought thats what we are learning we are not seeking anything we are just being in the moment as it is consciously. Classification is the way of cunning mind. Mara. We are are here to be no mind. Even trying to attain no mind is a seeking. Just be here and now always.


text:
What number Jataka tale does this story come from?
There are many adaptations of a story about a brave little parrot (or other type of bird) who tries to put out a forest fire by dipping her feathers in a lake and shaking the drops over a raging forest fire. Does anyone know which number Jataka tale this originates from?
Here is an example of the adapted tale. http://healingstory.org/the-brave-little-parrot/
Thank you.

I guess it'll be somewhere here: http://tales.siththan.com/archives/2483

Hi Robin. Nice to see you on Buddhism SE again. Take care.

There's a story of a squirrel, bodhisattva was a squirrel in a previous life and Rahula was his baby. He tried to save the baby when it fell into the ocean by trying to dry the ocean. In that story he dipped his tail in water, ran to the beach and shook out his tail. I could only locate it here page 48 verse 78, http://www.bhikkhuni.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/yasodhara_the_wife_of_the_bodhisattva.pdf

@Robin111 I couldn't find it either. Every version I came across had the fire being put out by tears. If Bhante's memory wasn't so good, I'd swear he was mistaken :p

@Ryan The version which Robin referenced also has the fire being put out by (the Eagle's) tears: so that's probably what Robin's looking for. Can you cite the number[s] of the version[s] you found?

The closest I have found is about a quail who put out a fire though determination. This is VAṬṬAKA-JĀTAKA (35). Perhaps there might be another Jataka about the parrot but I am not sure if it fits the description. You can perhaps read more about other Jataka tales from The Jataka tr. by Robert Chalmers.

What the author of this had to say:

This is part of Rafe Martin, Sensei's teisho on "The Brave Little Parrot" jataka. It is from his forthcoming book on Zen Buddhist practice and the jatakas, to be published by Wisdom Publications 2016.
The text for the Brave Little Parrot Jataka remains elusive. It exists as a few stirring lines of verse in the brief Jatakastava “Verses in Praise of the Buddha’s Former Lives,” a short Sythian-Khotanese work composed just prior to 1,000 AD, discovered in the cache of texts found in the Buddhist cave grottoes of Dun-Huang, China, in 1907. It does not appear in either the Pali Jataka or the Sanskrit Jatakamala, though Jataka No. 35 in the Pali collection of 547, about a quail who stops a forest fire with an act of truth, is seen as a variant. An original may exist as a carving at the great Buddhist monument of Borobodur, as well as a painting at the Ajanta caves. Whether as text or visual art, the ending of the story is different than that of our version. In the original the god, moved by the parrot’s heroism, squeezes a cloud causing rain to fall. I created the god’s tears more than forty years ago when I began telling the tale. The colors of the parrot’s feathers aren’t mentioned either. Are they gray? Multi-colored? Never mind. The point is that deeds make us who we are. Beautiful, which means selfless deeds, make us beautiful. There is truth greater than fact. Myth reveals what never was, but always is. While fact recounts what happens in one time, in one place, myth (ideally) reveals the archetype, i.e., what happens in all times, all places. Literalists adhering to the facts can still create a truncated story.
It was my decision to make the Parrot female. Is she so in the original? No, he is not. Does that make our version untrue? Stories must find their relevance to every generation or they wither and fade. The feminine is reawakening. The jatakas are often though not exclusively, patriarchal. There are wise women, enlightened nuns, and true wives and queens throughout the tales. But rarely (if ever), does the Buddha appear in as female. Maybe this is true. Maybe this is how karma works. A man is a man is a man. Or maybe monastic forms led to suppression of a greater truth. In the jatakas, the Buddha could be a crow in a graveyard, a mongrel dog, or a monkey but never a woman? Really? I felt it was time to give our grand old tradition a nudge. Hence, the emergence peck peck peck, from its overly literal shell of the brave lady parrot. Dogen writes, in “Receiving the Marrow by Bowing,” in Shobogenzo, section no. 9:
Why are men special? Emptiness is emptiness. Four great elements are four great elements. Five skhandas are five skhandas. Women are just like that. Both men and women attain the way. You should honor attainment of the way. Do not discriminate between men and women. (Treasury of the Eye of the True Dharma: Zen Master Dogen’s Shobo Genzo, ed. by Kazuaki Tanahashi)

You may find a collection of the Jatakas given as a Dhamma-Gift by PTS in English a and by Beyerlein & Steinschulte Verlag in German in accesstoinsight format here: Jataka also a nice tool the "ramdom jataka" programmed and given by a devoted Upasaka.
There are certain "Mahayana" Versoins, which have obviously less founding in the teachings in meaning and also less connections to a serious source of origin.

It's kalandaka jatakaya, 548 jataka tale.
For those who don't understand sinhala:
The bodhisatva was born as a squirrel at one time. He had babies in his nest. Once, heavy rains and floods, removed big trees etc, and his nest was washed into the sea. To save his babies, the Bodhisatva squirrel, tried to empty the sea using his tail, by dipping it in the water, and shaking it off. After 7 days, Shakra saw his effort, and spoke to the squirrel. Shakra in human form told the squirrel that, the squirrel was doing something useless, and that he didnt understand how large the ocean was,  cos he was a squirrel. But the squirrel said to him,  the man himself lacked effort, and just by speaking to such a person, he the squirrel had wasted a lot of time.......... and asked the man to leave.
Shakra, realising the great effort of the squirrel, helped to save the baby squirrels.
It's the short version of a beautiful story. And to think of all the pain and trouble the Bodhisattva had to go through, just to give us his teachings.


text:
When are you a Buddhist?
I know labelling people is not in the spirit of Buddhism.  I am for example member of a Buddhist society, not because I'm so eager to be one but because in my country each religious society gets quite some money for having members (and if your not a member,  the church gets the money).
But when do people (not born into a Buddhist country) call themselves Buddhists?

I live in a country where most people are either atheist or christian. Estimates are that between 0.4 and 1% of all people here call themselves a Buddhist.
It's been my experience that there isn't a single agreed upon definition about when you can call yourself a Buddhist. Some people say you are a Buddhist if you consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher. This being said, most people I know (but certainly not all) regard the ceremony of 'taking refuge' as the moment when they became a true Buddhist.
Personally I like the view of Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche who has written a book on the topic called "What Makes You Not a Buddhist":

It’s whether you agree with the four fundamental discoveries the Buddha made under the Bodhi tree, and if you do, you can call yourself a Buddhist (source).

Disclaimer: this answer is largely based on my own answer on a similar question


text:
What's the Buddhist perspective on permanently eradicating bedbugs? (Extinction)
On one hand, killing...
On the other hand, if there are no bedbugs (extinct status) no one can be reborn as a bedbug. The species causes more suffering then good.
Perhaps it would be worth it to be reborn in the hell realm for a life or two as a sacrifice to better the universe in such a way...
Or perhaps the very thought is in grave error...
Say a man were to carry out the mission of bringing bedbugs to extinction, and then take the precept and never kill another thing for his entire remaining life.
What is the Buddhist perspective on this?
Would such a man be responsible for removing the suffering caused by bedbugs if he had not taken on his mission?

You could ask the same question for bacteria or viruses that cause  severe diseases (e.g. plague or ebola). People try to eradicate those living organisms too.

Sure, or remove the symptoms caused. Perhaps engineering the venom away and just let them feast on your flesh out of compassion?

@Crab Bucket this is less about killing, and move of removing an entire species from existence forever. There are more connotations here, like not being able to be reborn as a bedbug for instance

@Ryan same as above

I can see this could be different i,e. the difference between killing a mosquito and eradicating the entire species of malaria mosquito to save lives. Perhaps the mosquito one is a separate question again - as there is a stronger greater good element. Anyway I'll reopen then leave it to the community if they think it really is a duplicate or not. Cheers

Being in a position of not having to kill is better.  The idea of getting rid of species that cause more harm (or bad karma to themselves) is a product of pondering mind, and definitely not Buddha's teaching.
To answer your question, Buddha did not speak of any situations where killing another species was worth anything.
However, if you search "kill" in sutta, Buddha used "killing" in a context of anger.  Something like "those who killed anger live in peace" , and other contexts as well, but never in a context of taking lives or other species.  Your hypothetical doesn't lead to enlightenment or cessation.

however, Buddha used hypothetical situations to teach dharma many times.  Example, Buddha said if someone offered you an enlightenment after being tortured for 100 years, make sure you take it because it  is a fair trade.  (Sattisata Sutta).

Say that it was 100 lives in the hell realm, but bedbugs never existed again, I would take that hit for the team.

Bedbugs or not, suffering arises in the mind.

i will be blunt.  An idea that suffering is caused by others (bed bugs) is a wrong view.  Even an idea of suffering is caused by self is also a wrong view. It is a common idea or conclusion from those who have not heard dharma.  The right view would be  "because of contact, feeling arises"..  Let me tell you, all beings from hell to high heaven who have not heard dharma, would come to a conclusion that suffering comes from self or others.  if you want to end feeling of suffering (vedana) to end, you must not have contact (passa).

@DeanAlkas  I edited the formatting to hopefully make it more readable; feel free to revert the changes if you'd like.

I will be concise,  no bed bugs, equals no bed bug bites.


text:
Training with both Zen and Rimé
I am very fond of the Prasangika Madhyamaka following Candrakirtis interpretation of Nagarjuna. This is what I read and study most. But I am also attracted to Zen.
Does anyone have any thoughts, moral or otherwise the, on pros and cons if I want to train with teachers at both a Zen center and a Tibetan Rimé center?

I would refer you to here; What is the benefit of staying with one method, lineage or Dharma tradition?

A very simple metaphor - if building a house with one blueprint is great, then building the same house with two different blueprints must be even better, right??  Obviously not.  You are going to get your directions crossed and wind up with something that resembles neither plan and leaks when it rains.

The traditional view on this is negative. One explanation I heard, is that a particular teaching is like a raft made of simplifications and approximations - which has all kinds of holes and inconsistencies, is leaking enough already, and has no value on its own outside of getting you to the other side. Now, when you study multiple traditions, you're effectively building two slightly different rafts at the same time - in your head - which leads to a combinatorial explosion of contradictions. More leaking. You may never get to your destination. Am I making myself absolutely clear? :)
This is different from the Tri-yana approach practiced by modern Karma-Kagyu school (and pioneered by Rime's founder Jamgon Kongtrul the Great). In Tri-yana, you first practice self-discipline at "hinayana" level of simplistic but well-defined black-and-white concepts and rules, then graduate to "mahayana" level of going beyond dualities as you work with others, until you mature to the "vajrayana" level where you practice spontaneity, confidence and intuition. Each level is effectively almost a different school, but practiced in succession - not at the same time.
Now, in this particular case, the two traditions are Madhyamaka and Zen. Both come from Nagarjuna/Prajnaparamita movement, so both essentially speak about the same thing (Emptiness). The key difference is in the approach.
In Madyamaka you study and study and study the theory, until you know it all in and out, and then meditate, meditate, meditate for years - until one day hopefully it clicks and the theory connects with experience. Essentially, Madhyamaka is walking back and forth on the hither shore while talking about the other shore - until one day you get used to the idea of the other shore enough that you make the step. If you already live in the wilderness and kinda despise its vulgarity, while secretly wishing to get more civilized, this may be your path.
While Zen is jumping into the water and swimming blindly, desperately, having no idea what you're doing, with Master metaphorically beating you on the head with the stick of prajnaparamita repeatedly as you try to turn back to this shore, until your pain instinct pushes you in the only direction away from pain - and you find your Master waiting for you smiling and hugging on the other shore. Then in post-realization you catch up on the theory as a communication tool. If your world is in its decadence phase and getting hit on the head is your idea of fun then Zen may be it for you.
So the two traditions are pretty much at odds with each other. The better you are at Madyamaka, the more your Zen Master will beat you - but your frustration will not mature in gidan as you will seek comfort in the certainty of Madyamaka, while at the same time finding it absolutely useless for your Zen plunges into the uncontrived emptiness. I may be wrong, but this is what my logical mind tells me.
Or it may actually work better this way, provided you have equal faith in both teachings and equal connection with both the live teachers - and never directly cross-question one's teachings with the other but skilfully relate and synthesize them in your head. But in practice most likely you will either spill one's wisdom to the other and draw their anger at you, or end up dropping one and going with the other.
A more traditional way would be to study Madhyamaka for several years and then make a clean cut to Zen. Do as I say, not as I've done. Gosh, am I getting old?


text:
How is a Dalai Lama chosen? And can it be a woman?
The 14th Dalai Lama is about 80 now. How will the next one be chosen or elected? Does the Dalai Lama himself decide, and has this already been decided? Are they, like the Catholics, 'voting' on candidates? Is it like the different sects take "turns", so for example now it's the Nyingmas turn to have the Dalai Lama? If someone is picked, can he refute?
And is there any chance for the Tibetans to get a female Dalai Lama?

Related question (and partial answer) here: What are the consequences of the 14th Dalai Lama being the last one?

The reincarnation of a lama isn't chosen or elected. He or she is found.
Man or woman
Historically the Dalai Lama has always been a man, but it has been my understanding that there is no rule that the next Dalai Lama can't be a woman. In fact, according to this news article the  Dalai Lama once said that

If a woman reveals herself as more useful the lama could very well be reincarnated in this form.

This is confirmed in this interview
where the Dalai Lama:

... also said half-jokingly that if the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation is female, she must be very attractive. The reason is so that she will have more influence on others. If she is an ugly female, she won’t be very effective, will she?

No reincarnation
In recent years, the Dalai Lama has also mentioned that he might be the last one. According to this BBC news article:

Whether another Dalai Lama came after him would depend on the circumstances after his death and was "up to the Tibetan people"

and

"The Dalai Lama institution will cease one day. These man-made institutions will cease," the Dalai Lama told the BBC.

These remarks were most likely politically motivated, because China very much wants to find the next Dalai Lama so they can 'control' him/her, just like they did with the Panchen Lama.
Finding a reincarnation
Suppose the Dalai Lama decides to come back after all. When a great Bodhisattva dies he1 can control the time and place of his rebirth. This is called the Tulku system and it makes sure that knowledge from a certain lineage is passed on. After his death a committee of high-ranked lamas of the same tradition as the deceased will gather with the task to find the reincarnation. This process can take several years and the committee will generally use a variety of sources.
In the case of the Dalai Lama it's customary to start with consulting the Nechung Oracle.
If the Dalai Lama is cremated the direction in which the smoke goes is also an important sign. It's possible for a prominent lama to have a vision or dream that reveals important details that help in finding him (e.g. certain characteristics of the location). Sometimes the deceased has left clues (e.g. a letter or specific personal objects) as to where he will be reborn.
Once a reincarnation is found, he will be tested to confirm that the right person has been found. For example, the 14th Dalai Lama was found at age 2 and one of his tests was to identify which items belonged to his predecessor.
If you are interested in this, there are a few films and documentaries that show how finding a reincarnation works. For example the (somewhat) popular movie Kundun starts with this IIRC, and I can recommend the documentary Unmistaken child, but that one may be harder to find.
1 for ease of reference I will use the words 'he/him' from here on, but as I mentioned earlier it can be a she/her.

See the Statement of the Dalai Lama on the Issue of His Reincarnation at http://www.dalailama.com/messages/statement-of-his-holiness-the-fourteenth-dalai-lama-tenzin-gyatso-on-the-issue-of-his-reincarnation.

I voted this up because of the link to the article.

If someone is picked, can he refute?

Someone was picked (found) when very young. This Dalai Lama Biography says,

After several months of searching for a successor to the 13th Dalai Lama and following many significant spiritual signs, religious officials located Lhamo Thondup, at age 2, and identified him as the reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso.

I don't know whether the parents could refuse (e.g. if monks come to the house and say "We've come to test whether your son is the Dalai Lama" whether the parents could say "Oh I'm sure he couldn't be because etc.").
There may be some kind of trial period. This article about Dalai Lama says,

The monks knew they had found the reincarnation of their leader. Lhamo was two years old at the time.
The monks took Lhamo to a monastery in Kumbum, Tibet. For two years he was given the basic education he would need to lead his country both spiritually and politically. After this he was brought to the Potala palace in Lhasa, the capital of the country. The Potala palace is a structure of over one thousand rooms built into a mountain. There he took his place on the Lion Throne, a richly carved, wooden throne covered with jewels. He was only four years old on February 22, 1940, when the monks declared that he was the new Dalai Lama.

The article At Home With the Dalai Lama says,

I also know that he wasn't a particularly good student when he was young. He had a mercurial temper and was impulsive. Monastic disciplines like meditation and scriptural study did not come naturally to him.
"Around seven or eight," the Dalai Lama told me in an earlier meeting, a mischievous gleam in his eyes, "I had no interest in study. Only play. But one thing: my mind since young, quite sharp, can learn easily. This brings laziness. So my tutor always keep one whip, a yellow whip, by his side. When I saw the yellow whip, the holy whip for holy student the Dalai Lama, I studied. Out of fear. Even at that age I know, if I study, no holy pain."