text:
When Zen monks are completing a task, why are they doing it very quickly?
Recently, I watched a documentary about zen philosophy and what it is like to be zen monk on a daily basis and I noticed that in the documentary the zen monks always looked like they were in a hurry. For example, in the documentary we see the monks "rushing" to sleep. Another instance in the documentary is when one monk is waking up the other monks, we see that he is running.
The question is: is there a reason behind the speed?
Thanks

Another approach to Zen by Thich Nhat Hanh is that everything is done with a connection to the breath and things slow down. You may not complete as much but increase the awareness of each moment.
Not sure why other Zen practitioners hurry. The tea ceremony is done precisely. If you practice it over and over again perhaps there is no hesitaion and it appears faster. When the personal self is erased there is only pure action..
Here is a Zen story that advocates less hurry.
http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/Zen_Humor.html

Other sayings from Linji or attributed to him: “What is the frantic
  hurry to deck yourselves in a lion's skin when all the while you are
  yapping like wild foxes? A real man has no need to give himself the
  airs of a real man!”

Now I just discovered something about the documentary

This Documentary is all about rinzai zen and Zen in common.  It will
  give you a bit of insight how Zen is lived in a strict monastery order
  and how it influenced so many things.

Soto is the form of Shunryu Suzuki and even Dogen and one I am more familiar with. This tends to be different in application than Rinzai Zen in a very strict monastery. I only watched first 7 minutes where walking is quite ordinary. Perhaps someone who can watch the 2 hour documentary will share further insights.

So essentially, the movement of the action and the experience of the moment is so fluid that it appears that the monk is in a hurry?

I am hypothesizing, Soto is the form of Shunryu Suzuki and even Dogen and one I am more familiar with. This tends to be different in application than Rinzai Zen in a very strict monastery. I only watched first 7 minutes where walking is quite ordinary. Perhaps someone who can watch the 2 hour documentary will share further insights. Maybe there is an element of fear of punishment in the speed with which things are done.

<A real man has no need to give himself the airs of a real man!”> So true.

"Don't spare yourself" seems to be the key motivating factor in this Zen monastery. By working hard and not wasting a moment even in lying down they are training their subconscious to become infected with the enthusiasm. If they keep at this until it becomes a habit, soon the rest of their being obeys. Until then they need the keisaku (stick) wielding Jikijitsu.

Theravada retreats can set a gruelling pace too - the make you wake up at dawn and meditate all day on one meal a day. The teacher can get quite worked up if a student misses a sitting. Of course, some Zendos like here can take it to the extreme.
This harsh self denial isn't exclusively Zen or Buddhist, here's Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, the Hindu mystic warning against mollycoddling the self in times of illness (Youtube video).
Armies do this too; in boot camps new recruits wake up at the crack of dawn, and make the bed neatly in precise moves, and completed in 20 seconds. Next, a morning shower in exactly 2 minutes and so on. Initially they of course only act like they are self disciplined to avoid punishment, but soon acting sharp and smart becomes a life long habit even without the drill sergeant.
Thich Nhat Hanh, the Vietnamese Zen master disagrees with the use of the keisaku and likes to joke that no one here beats people with a stick unlike in other Zen monasteries. Motivation and encouragement is given through love to oneself and one's inner subconscious. As the other answerer noted, Plum Village has an air of deliberate compassion. There's no hurry, but there's no laziness either. In my opinion, we could all use more places like Plum Village, but it is my experience that PV's gentle way is the exception not the rule. I haven't practiced with Ajahn Brahm, but from his talks he hints that he is very gentle with his students, unlike other Theravada retreats.

Edit - running helps purge the lactic acid out of legs that are almost always aching after long bouts of meditation.  Not sure how I forgot to mention that fairly obvious point in my original answer!
Everything that goes on at a Zen monastery is carefully considered.  From the time you wake up to the moment your eyes close for the night, everything is done to maximize the potential for awakening.  With that said, it is extremely difficult to pick out how one aspect of Zen training contributes to awakening.  The entire training has to be considered in gestalt.
There are a couple of things at play here.  The main one to consider is that one of the most salient difficulties that practitioners face at sesshin is exhaustion.  In our sangha, we wake up at 3:30AM.  To quote Chris Griffin - "3:30AM??  I didn't even know there was a 3:30AM!  What else haven't you told me?!"  That's about four to five hours of sleep - tops.  Unless you've actually tried getting up that early to recite sutras for an hour and then sat for two hours before getting a break, you really can't wrap your head around how tiring that is.  By 6:00AM, you're done - despite the fact that you have a whole day of sitting ahead of you.  Those periods of intense, fast activity really help jar you out of sleepiness.  They are like a smack of the keisaku and help you from falling back into your own head.
Zen (and I'm speaking of Rinzai Zen here...which is what I practice) doesn't really put a whole lot of weight behind mindfulness training.  All that running and scrubbing and what not are done for a very different purpose than what you might find at a Plum Village or Theravada retreat.  I think it's important to view this sort of training for what it is and not try to view it through the lens of other Buddhist practices.

Out of curiosity, how do you avoid being tired after sleeping for only four to five hours? Don't you get tired during the middle of the day?

@Jeel - you are tired. And that's kind of the point. Sesshin is designed to wear down the ego. The stronger it is, the more you have to fight with it during your sits.  It's sort of like fasting. For the first couple of days, you are hungry and miserable. After that, as if by magic, that hunger and misery is replaced by energy and clarity. On about the third day of sesshin, the pain in your legs, the tiredness, etc. doesn't really effect you in the same way. It's still definitely there, but it's not as "oh-shit-this-sucks". When you reach that point, sitting becomes much deeper and clearer.

I shoot in the blue, vote me down, if you like.
Could be, that this is not so much a zen but more a Japanese thing? Something in there cultural tradition. For sure, there are strong cross-influences between Japanese culture and zen and its hard to separate them. But the overall "hurry" and "no time" is something, I associate with Japan in general.
Any native here to clarify?

When beginning walking meditation, one should go very very very slow, noticing each gradation of each step: lifting, pushing, dropping, placing. Repeat for each leg.
This going slow is common practice instruction in all Buddhist walking meditation manuals if one will do some research.
Eventually, once one has dhyana, one's mind is fully absorbed into the meditation and one can walk much faster without having one's attention falter. Eventually, one can even run while in dhyana!

They are moving fast because they don't think. Acting on your non-conceptual (pre-conceptual) knowledge/wisdom/intuition is one of the most important Zen practices. So important that sometimes the word "Zen" itself is taken to mean such action. When action is mediated by thought it has an element of calculation in it, an element of doubt, an element of worrying about personal profit. Wu-wei -- literally "no action" -- actually stands for action that is not based on dualistic mind, not targeted at attaining (an egoistic) goal, it is action without an actor and therefore fast.

Don't you think a better word to describe that kind of action is "spontaneous" rather than "fast"?  And does spontaneous action have to be speedy?  I'm not so sure.


text:
Why are there rising/falling tones in English-language chanting?
I gather from reading around that the rising/falling pitches that appear in Pali chanting by Thais
is due to the tones in the Thai language.
But when I see English-language chanting by monks from a Thai tradition,
they still have rising/falling tones.
See excerpt from the Abhayagiri Chanting Book,
with the tones marked:

It doesn't seem to match the equivalent Pali.
Is there a system that they're using,
such as shoehorning the Thai tone rules into English syllables?
Or are they just making it up entirely?

Peter Harvey in an Introduction to Buddhism says of chanting

[chanting] has a rhythm which encourages the mind to flow from word to
  word [but ..] usually lacks melody which might encourage some words to
  become distorted

Also

chanting is neither singing or a monotonous dirge [...] it holds
  interest with it's minor variations of pitch and rhythm

So from this I would suggest that the tone of chanting is an aid to memory and interest and doesn't, in English, have a semantic content deriving from the original language. Of course Thai being a tonal language (i am not any kind of expert here) the tones may well have a more semantic content.
I guess less charitably you could say we are making it up a bit. Certainly from my own experience chanting within the Triratna community we have a tone they we vary widely from  and add harmonies to on occasion. The the Padmasambhava chant we actually got the words wrong too initially (50 years ago) but we have just stuck to our original bad interpretation. We kind of like it.

Thai chanting has a very distinctive rhythm and melody to it. The makers of that chanting book have simply replicated the Thai style to fit English. You couldn't do it exactly the same as the Pali because the lengths of words and sentences are different and the melodies sort of match up with the sentence boundaries.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
"When the iron bird flies and horses run on wheels, the dharma will come to the land of the red faces"
"When the iron bird flies and horses run on wheels, the dharma will come to the land of the red faces" is a quote from ~700AD that is too good to check. It is also the title of a reasonably good documentary about Tibetan Buddhism in the US.
Google already said that the "iron bird" is actually the name of a year. What is the surrounding context of this quote?

This article sheds some light on this: http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index.php/en/tibet-tibet

Is there any reference to this quote? where did it come from?

calling Native ppl "red" is weird. American Indians were racialized as red long after that prophecy which might reference sunburnt melanin-challenged ppl...

There is no identified scriptural source for this, which is meant to be from one of Padmasambhava’s terma texts. The earliest version of this apocrypha appears in the US in the 1980s, suggesting that it is a bit made-up. However, to be more generous, this may be a poetic mash-up of earlier sources, perhaps intended to resonate for modern times. Thus, the 9th Century Prophecy of the Khotanese Arhat (a Dunhuang document) declares “A bodhisattva will take birth as the king of the Red-Faced Ones and the practice of the true dharma will come to the land of Tibet” (I’m using Sam Van Schaik’s translation there).
Here, Red-Faced Ones in Tibetan is gdong-dmar (pron. dongmar) and refers very explicitly to Tibetans. The king in this case is Songtsen Gampo, who was (and is) regarded as a great bodhisattva, builder of the Jokhang Temple and founder of Lhasa.
More generously still, the first temple Songtsen Gampo ever founded was Trandruk in the Yarlung Valley, whose name means Thundering Falcon, referring to a magical bird summoned by Songtsen Gampo to kill a great water spirit that had flooded the valley. The bird is described as having wings of iron (hence, iron bird?) which it used to cut off the five heads of the naga spirit. This last tale is taken from a 16th C pilgrimage guide to Trandruk Temple (check out Per Sorensen’s book on the subject if you’re interested).
So, this MIGHT suggest that elements if the “myth” were recycled mash-ups from the life of Songtsen Gampo (150 years before Padmasambhava), but (again, to be generous) Tibetan prophecies have always been written with a certain vagueness to them - to echo through history in the way that trulku and terma also resonate, century after century.
This, by the way, is only a suggested interpretation of my own: I have no idea whether Sam Van Schaik or Per Sorensen would agree!

In the Karma Kagyu tradition of Tibetan Buddhism we interpret this saying in a different way.
We interpret the iron birds as the airplanes and the horses running on wheels as the trains or automobiles.
The prophecy was fulfilled when the XVI Karmapa visited the Sioux Indians in the seventies.

The 16th Karmapa visited the Hopi Indians and fulfilled the prophesy however Guru Rinpoche was not only speaking about the aKarma Kagyu lineage he spoke about Tibetans...saying they would scatter like ants across the Earth. However, back to the Karma Kagyu Lineage :
Yeshe Tsogyal asked Guru Rinpoche who or what could help Humanity at this time of great upheavals and degenetation.
Guru Rinpoche stated that during the time of the Tibetans being spread across the Earthlike ants and the Red Robes coming to the land of the Red Men there will be one and his name will be Karmapa to help guide sentient beings through these troubled times and that the Karmapa was one of his 35 main disciples at that time.. So the Karma Kagyu lineage has a very strong connection the the USA and this is why the 16th Karmapa made his seat in the west in the USA and not Europe or other Western Countries.

I thought it was fulfilled when china invaded Tibet, and the world took in the Tibetan people, and they brought us the glorious BuddhaDharma

Hello David and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some information to help you get started here.

I always felt a bit doubtful of the interpretation of this prophecy
a)  Birds made from Iron will never fly, they are too heavy.
b)  Horses will run on wheels, why should they, they got 4 perfectly shaped legs
and to "see" in this sentence  an automobile or a train is absurd.
c)  The red faced men......I never accepted this because no matter how hard I
try, I have never seen the faces of Native americans as red but more like
olive- brown.
Also, the seat of the 16th Karmapa was in Rumtek. Other centers in the world are just "other"  Dharma centers  or if you prefer  other main -Dharma centers
be happy
Karma Lodro Singhi

The "iron bird" portion can't be a reference to a year. That's ignoring the male and female system of the Tibetan lunar calendar, if the iron bird was a reference to a year it would have a male or female tag on it. Also, why do they mention the horse? The horse is also an animal in the Tibetan lunar calendar. Is that a reference to a horse year too, since it's right next to the iron bird portion? It makes far more sense in reference of modern transportation.
Everyone sees it as a clear metaphor for planes and cars from the 8th century. Not just the Kagyupa.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama visited the Navajo Nation one time, that's also a good example of the Dharma coming to the land of the Red Man (basically the Native Americans' homeland).

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

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


text:
The Third Precept and Prostitution
For a Buddhist who is single, do occasional "visits" to the brothel break the observing of the Third Precept? In other words, the Third Precept is perfectly "intact" when one engages in such activity (from the words of a venerable here )?

And this post from that same thread makes clear what the guy was saying, in a legalistic way (by literally reading the rules and not projecting a personal sense of what the rules should be), you do indeed get that possibility. http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=22572#p323479

But that's not the question I asked. I specifically asked him with the exact phrasing as above, and he specifically said Yes with no exception. Not only for male layfollowers, but also for female layfollowers to "visit" gigolos if they want to.

Under what sort of law? Court of opinion (which tends to ignore what the written rules are), or court of some specific institutional sangha? (which can be very hairsplitting in the interpretation of a rule, or they could decide such a question based on precident)

Christians have the word 'fornication' (widely misunderstood) which literally means having sex in a brothel. (Fornix means arch, referring to the doorway of the building) For them it is prohibited. As far as I know there is no word for having sex with a willing and 'acceptable' partner where neither person is married if it does not go against any vows they have taken, because such people are not under a code of conduct that they have chosen for themselves. They might be "behaving like animals", but so does everyone in all ways until they develop. No way to fault that, it is inevitable.

Is Upasaka/ika Santa100 still interested in an answer?

I am a Buddhist, happy, content prostitute.  I am not a greedy person, nor am a sex addict (or anything of the like).  This is the chapter in which my life is.  I have used my current profession to touch the lives of many humans, male and female.  I also do advocacy work for prostitutes and know that there are many different types of persons in the sex trade industry.
While I cannot answer the specific question regarding the Third Precept, I would like to offer that my work and my Buddhist practice have played on one another in regards to my own livelihood.  Until another path appears to me where I can effect positive change AND make a living in NYC to support my children, I CHOOSE this work.
I am open to my friends, family, and community about my sex work.  I don't walk in darkness, but in beauty and light.  The compassion that I have is very much felt by all those around me, within and outside of my trade.  I give of my true self, but I keep an open mind and heart until the next chapter (which is probably soon because I have done this work for  almost five years).
I have gone a bit off topic, I know, but in my advocacy work I have met prostitutes from all over the world...all whom chose this, not all were necessarily happy while doing this, but often as a means to am end.  Many while working on the undergrad, and a surprising percentage while working on their masters.  Our goal is to humanize the the trade, and to give sex workers a voice because, as you see, not many out there are educated as to the actual lives of prostitutes.
Thank you for allowing me to share.

I think the issue isn't the brothel, but what the visits say about your clinging to (sexual) desire.  How do your visits affect your clinging to this desire?

Do they reinforce it?
Do they have no effect?
Do they reduce it?

That's the answer to whether this is misconduct or not.
Although some interpret this injunctions legalistically/moralistically, I think that misses the point.  In fact, I think this site has the right idea.  It states the abstention is from SENSUAL misconduct, including overindulgence in (say) chocolate.

"Abstination from sensual misconduct" is indeed what Buddhism is about. It is written in all sutras to be of benefit to do so, especially the "The Six Dharma Gates to the Sublime" where it talks about the harms that can be done to oneself if one has not let go of sensual misconduct at higher stages of the Path (where there tends to be paranormal experiences and a more energetically dependent state of life and even increased desire).

Does it also apply to sex in a marriage? Is it a misconduct when it is enjoyable (as it reinforces the desire then)?

At a more mature level how to look at this is to look at desire just as mere desire. Look at the implication of it on the 5 aggregates more particularly on sensations. Look at proliferation of thoughts what sensation this cause.
The act is to get rid of particular sensations or to create new sensation. Get rid of the burning sensation of desire and the sensation when doing the act. Notice a mind full of desire is not a pleasant situation and act to overcome it by looking lust as lust at the level of sensation and that is impermanent and you cannot absolutely manipulate the desire as you want and being in desire is not satisfactory.

Any time you feed into a blind habitual pattern of grasping for a sense pleasure, you feed into and increase your capacity for suffering. The so called single individual who is seeking after a prostitute must already have enough clinging and grasping attachment to have fostered the intention to seek a prostitute, and is feeding into that attachment, creating volitional formation even as he or she acts on that intention and merely seeks. Even before the act itself this is unwholesome.
While there is no wife and family or significant other to offend by breaking a vow of monogamy, there are other considerations as well. The most important thing to consider is that by eliciting the services of a prostitute, that you are supporting the lifestyle and industries of prostitution and human trafficking.
Is prostitution right livelihood? What do you think? I promise you, there is no such thing as a happy, content prostitute. That is to say, if there were other options open to them, they would choose another path in life. The fact of the matter is that the vast, sweeping majority (if not all) of prostitutes are victims of human trafficking, they are modern day slaves that are subject to control and coercion via physical violence, threats against themselves and their loved ones, drug addiction, and brain washing. Many do not know any other way of life because they have been
someone else's business property for so long, and they are afraid to leave. They are insecure and abused, and end up clinging to their traffickers.
There is no way around this. If you go to a prostitute you are feeding into you own suffering, but more importantly you are supporting the suffering and degradation of another human being, and ultimately supporting modern day slavery.

Quote from the excellent Bill Hamilton's Saints & Psychopaths (pg. 94-95):

Buddhists are required to avoid sexual misconduct, but it is not clear what this means in California. Many Buddhist teachers suggest that people should not engage in sexual activities which result in anyone suffering. This is a vague standard that could be logically argued to be a total prohibition of sex, or an invitation to free love. Perhaps it is sufficient to simply practice continuous mindfulness in situations where the issue of sex arises
The purpose of Buddhist precepts is pragmatic in that they are directed at achieving a quiet mind. If your sex life is causing mental agitation in your meditations, you should change your behavior. While on retreat, you should avoid letting your senses wander to sexually stimulating objects and direct your attention to meditation objects. In the daily life situation this may result in becoming a horny, neurotic celibate which may not be good for your practice. It is better to be simple and direct in your views, intead of getting involved in elaborate logical reasoning about right and wrong.

Third precept about sexual misconduct, which explicitly mentions adultery. because other partners do not like it.
Men should not go to women who are protected by their guardians (parents or relatives,community); that rakkitha "protected female" means interpert in "atuwa [use to interpret words] as Mathu Rakkitha—when her father passed away, her elderly mother provided her with food, clothing, and other necessities, with the expectation of arranging her marriage to someone in the future. Similarly, ‘pithu rakkitha,’ goththa rakkitha,’ and others are also interpreted in a similar manner.
In Buddha's time, people usually got married after the age of 14. However, the above "atuwa" interpretation didn't mention any age information.
Teeka (another source for defining words) says that protected" refers to women whose guardians restrict their actions (they are not allowed to behave like they want), hide them from other males( interactions), and provide advice on what they should or should not do.
Other than the above meanings, some books and monks interpret that as meaning that all single women (living/depend with a guardian) without considering age or maturity belong to the "protected" category.
guardian permission necessary (doesn't care age/independent/maturity)
and others understand [interpret] that mature adult women don't belong under the "protected" meaning.
Also women who entail punishment, but this type of woman is also interpreted as a "woman prisoner (undergoing punishment). Women who protect religious sects like nuns These types of women are prohibited; if someone engages in sex with them, they break the third precept.
Prostitution doesn't seem like a problem.
But Buddha didn't want to promote bonds or desire(these are cause to rebirth). He promotes only nirvana.

The Buddha said prostitution is a problem. Refer to this link: https://suttacentral.net/snp1.6/en/mills?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false

buddha didn't said be prostitution as break third precept...but if you waste all time and wealth on sex...then you will corrupt (parabawa sutta) and also increase desire. remember not only sex addiction and waste all wealth and time on it...laziness , waste your wealth (not proper managment) also corrupts you (parabawa)...

Thank you for answering. Please note though that Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged.

I know it late but Simple answer is no for third precept.
Third precept in Pali is "Kāmesumicchācāra veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi."
the first Phrase Kāmesu/micchācāra >> Kāmesu=desires (may be sexual), micchācāra=wrong way or practice. This is the only and whole rule by Buddha. Other ideas are interpretation.
There are prostitutes who adhere 5 precept in Buddha time.
Feeding on desire is bad. Most answer emphasis on here. This not necessarily break the third precept. Even eating if you eat with desire , oh I love this taste, it is still feeding on desire. Don't we still eat all this time?
Long Answer:
According Pali Cannon. to break third precept all 4 conditions must be met.

with woman who should not have sex with ( say nothing about man)
desire to have sex
put afford to have sex
enjoy it

and there is 20 type of women who should not have sex with. But this come from traditional teaching not Buddha teaching.

who in care of mother
who in care of father
who in care of mother and father
who in care of brothers
who in care of sisters
who in care of relative
who in care of people ( of same kind??)
who in care of dhamma friend

above are women who have guardian and who do not have person with sexual right

who is pregnant
wife that you bought.
who is willingly married.
who is married because of wealth.
who is married because of gifts.
who is married because of parents
working women (lowely paid??) who is married
women who king/government prohibit to have sex with
slave women who also have sex with owner
worker women who also have sex with employer
POW who also have sex with captor
prostitute belong to someone else ( without permission of the person who paid the service)

9 to 20 basically mean women who have someone with sexual right and you have no permission.
To conclude only exception in the above list is women who's guardian permit you to have sex with and one who have no one with sexual right. Example is ur wife who sexual right is you.

The 3rd precept is redundant and cannot be used to guide contemporary sexual behavior because the 3rd precept was taught in association with the duty of parents (in DN 31) to arrange the marriage of their children.
If we adhere to the literal definition of the 3rd precept then having sex with female monkeys or dogs is also OK.
Visiting prostitutes harms oneself & harms others, including the prostitute.

Unsatisfied with his own wife,
with others’ wives he’s seen in tow,
corrupted too with prostitutes—
that’s the way to disaster’s woe.
https://suttacentral.net/snp1.6/en/mills

I'm not sure whether a perfect answer for your question is available in the scriptures. What I can offer you is my view on it.
A single man seeking sexual pleasures is the core of your question. That is nothing abnormal nor denounced by Buddhism. However, you mention a 'brothel'. That alone shouldn't taint my latter statement, though.
The clarity and purity of the intent of the pleasure seeker is what matters most here. Is he going there for sexual pleasures out of love for this prostitute? Is he seeking a relationship? Or, is he paying for different prostitutes each time? In the latter case, his sexual needs have gone overboard! Third Precept won't be intact there. It can also be explained in practical terms of sleeping around with many women just to satisfy sexual desires. It adds to suffering. It creates problems and complications. The Third Precept can't work there, can it?
However, if the sexual pleasure he seeks is on a consensual basis---based on a good understanding and honest intent of a possible future relationship---I guess the Third Precept may stay intact there. But I don't think one will go to a brothel looking for something as profound as a honest relationship. Rare cases exists, though.
Final answer for question 1:
It depends on the case and on the individual. Above all, it depends on the intent of the person visiting the brothel. Sorry for the general answer. This is what I know and can do for you.
Final answer for question 2:
I don't agree with that answer in your link you gave. In accordance with my explanation above, it depends on the true and honest intent of the pleasure seeker.

"Purity" of the desire doesn't change it -- if anything, loving the prostitute is worse because now there's the possibility of (stronger) emotional clinging.  Are you treating the precept moralistically? Whatever one's beliefs on the "moral" differences between "just sex" and love, the former is generally less clingy than the latter.  In fact, there was a passage somewhere (can't recall where sadly) to this effect.

@R.Barzell There's nothing moralistic about Buddhism. It's a practice in reality. What I offered above (as stated in the beginning) is my opinion/analysis of it. If you read carefully, you'll see that I talk in terms of how sex (or rather sex that is not in check) leads to cascading problems, worsening one's situation. You state "just sex" is less clingy than "love"...well, that's highly debatable. Anyway, I'd like to read that passage you were talking about. It piqued my interest.

I never said there was anything moralistic about Buddhism, I just asked if you were treating the precept moralistically. I know this is your opinion, but since it's an interpretation, I felt it proper to respond. I agree that sex can lead to problems (it can definitely be clinging), although in general "just sex" is less clingy than romantic love.  I will look for the passage I mentioned.

@mlomailom Why are you assuming that having sex with a prostitute because of desire to have a relationship is somehow better? For one thing, you're just exchanging one desire for another. And for another, I'm not an expert, but I think that most prostitutes aren't looking for relationships with their clients.

Ven. Dhammanando is perfectly correct.  You break the third precept only if you have sex 1) Non-consensually or though violence 2) With a person 'under the protection of another' - what this means is that the person does not have the capacity to give consent as they are not able to look after themselves.  This includes children;  as with other cases in the Pali canon, age is not mentioned but rather the capacity of the person.  It doesn't mean eg someone still living at home. 3) A married person whose partner has not given consent 4) A slave.
The commentators on that thread are quite wrong to conflate prostitution with slavery.  This is a puritan-derived attitude.  Instead we could point out that a woman running her own business is making more money and has more freedom than a women in a garment factory.  Slavery is a separate matter and it is already clear that Buddhism is opposed to slavery.

For a Buddhist who is single, do occasional "visits" to the brothel break the observing of the Third Precept?
1.) Police-officer/Investigator visiting Brothel only for case purpose, without any sex-desire, without any groping-desire... No, 3rd percept is preserved.
2.) Any other person visiting specifically for any work/search not for self-participation-in-sexuality, not for self-participitation-in-groping... No, 3rd percept remains preserved.
3.) Person going for any self-sexual-activity or someone-else's-sexual-activity or self/other's-groping-activity... 3rd percept broken.
Above is for body level
For mental level
Mind is a leader.
Mind thinking about sex, groping, masterbation,... 3rd percept broken.
For speech level
Talking about sex or related activities with intention to increase similar desire into self or others... 3rd percept broken.
Above is for Single
For married or officially engaged or dedicated to 1 other/similar partner
At mental level
Mind is leader.
Thinking about sex or related activity when not doing it or when not ready to do it... 3rd percept broken.
At body level
1.) Doing with other than partner... 3rd percept broken.
2.) Doing without partner's permission... 3rd percept broken.
'At speech level`
Talking about sex or related activities with intention to increase similar desire into self or others...when not ready-to or doing it with partner... 3rd percept broken.
Although dedication is necessary to 1 only because in this way person will be able to develop more insight... for to do it with more than 1 increases craving chances for more sex or similar activity, chances of becoming more arrogant.
Not only this, even with 1, if done very oftenly and couple is without any intention of establishing in dhamma during other-times(moments other than that of ***), increases chances of craving for more sex, arrogancy, etc.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Practical experience is with masterbation only, assuming that sex involves similar or more amount of defilements••• presented this answer.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Case when partner is incapable
Either such cases go for divorce/break-up
OR
Good partners sort-out this matter to have a peaceful life. Generally seen sort-out is, " Unsatisfied partner goes for 1 other " or " Decision is made to when-when unsatisfied partner will go to brothel but will do with 1 only ".
OR
Both go for celibacy.
But here is a problem, celibacy-- if adopted unwillingly(without the intention to remove defilements, without the power to tackle lust) it results in more defilements, more unsatisfactoriness, etc.


text:
Reason(s) for being born as men and women
Does anyone have an explanation as to how Buddhism explains the reason(s) as to why and how humans are born as men and women? What governs the gender?

Any excerpts from scripture is highly appreciated. But, if none is known, I'd welcome your opinions/conjecture on it. Food for thought pls.

The ancient Buddhist thinkers were generally male chauvinists-- you were born as a woman because of bad karma & would be unable to attain enlightenment. Contemporary thinkers are working hard to re-think this so as not to be so blatantly sexist. http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/A/Andrews/womenTheraBudAndrews.html http://buddhism.about.com/od/becomingabuddhist/a/sexism.htm are representative.

The Aggañña Sutta gives a creation style account of human development. In it it says that humans were originally asexual and only later differentiated and grew sex organs. To quote

And as they did so, their bodies became coarser still, and the
  difference in their looks became even greater. And the females
  developed female sex organs and the males developed male sex organs.
  And the women became excessively preoccupied with the men, and the men
  with the women. Owing to this excessive preoccupation with each other,
  passion was aroused, and their bodies burnt with lust. And later
  because of this burning, they indulged in sexual activity.

Bear in mind though that these is a feeling that the entire sutta is a satire on the  brahminical claims regarding the divine nature of the caste system.

This lecture titled Kamma and Rebirth says,

According to Buddhism, there are three factors necessary for the rebirth of a human being, that is, for the formation of the embryo in the mother's womb. They are: the female ovum, the male sperm, and the karma-energy (kamma-vega), which in the Suttas is metaphorically called "gandhabba," i.e. "ghost," or "soul." This kamma-energy is sent forth by a dying individual at the moment of his death. The father and mother only provide the necessary physical material for the formation of the embryonic body.

To the extent that gender is a physical phenomenon, perhaps therefore humans are born as men and women because their physical bodies are made that way by their parents' ovum and sperm (gametes).

There's a different theory presented in (for example) HOW REBIRTH TAKES PLACE which says,

With the cessation of the decease-consciousness death actually occurs.
  Then no material qualities born of mind and food (cittaja and āhāraja)
  are produced. Only a series of material qualities born of heat (utuja)
  goes on till the corpse is reduced to dust. [2]
Simultaneous with the arising of the rebirth consciousness there
  spring up the 'body-decad,' 'sex-decad,' and 'base-decad'
  (Kāya-bhāva-vatthu-dasaka). [3]
According to Buddhism, therefore, sex is determined at the moment of
  conception and is conditioned by Kamma not by any fortuitous
  combination of sperm and ovum-cells. [4]
The passing away of the consciousness of the past birth is the
  occasion for the arising of the new consciousness in the subsequent
  birth. However, nothing unchangeable or permanent is transmitted from
  the past to the present.

I don't understand the source of this theory. The first paragraph of that chapter starts with,

To the dying man at this critical stage, according to Abhidhamma philosophy, is presented a Kamma, Kamma Nimitta, or Gati Nimitta.

... which suggests the theory comes from the Abhidhamma; however the footnotes to those paragraphs are referencing The Tibetan Book of the Dead (which isn't Theravada).

My personal opinion is that "your kamma from previous lives conditions your position in society" is a Hindu belief (see for example Karma in Hinduism - Relation between birth in a particular body to karma).
That seems to me to be a kind of "Identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi)", which Buddhism  suggests we avoid.

your comment is very nice. I mean not the whole one given as answer but the opinion which you have expressed at the end!! It speaks for everything.


text:
How often to meditate and how far apart
I am able to sit in floor in half lotus pose and meditate 30 minutes at s time.
Originally I did once in morning and once at night but I have been looking to also do once before lunch and once after lunch (at least when I'm home from work) making it 4 times, total two hours.
At this point I am trying to determine how to do the two mid-day meditations on the days I go to work. I am thinking perhaps once in morning, once after breakfast before I get train, once when I come home from work and once at night.
Do meditations need to be spread out? And what happens if I am too sleepy to do meditation that I must skip else I will fall asleep during meditation?
Thanks !

Are you going about your day meditatively?  Are you mindful in all you do?  Do you walk, eat, talk, work, etc... mindfully? While adding more meditation time can be a good thing, don't forget that everything you do can be a meditation.  You can go deep while on the cushion, but your entire life can be a practice.

@R.Barzell at this point, no I'm not mindful. However when I have negative and angry thoughts I remind myself that God doesn't allow pain without something new being born, and that I mindfully give my pain to God and ask for happiness in return. I guess you can call that mindfulness to some extent, but otherwise, I'm rather overwhelmed with this type of mindfulness. When I meditate I am eventually able to concentrate on my breath, and sometimes I get great ideas about things.

I hope not to offend as I express some concern over the role of God in your practice. Instead of judging you, I could point you to these answers which have taught me a lot: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/4043/praying-to-god-what-are-the-consequences
So take it or leave it; if anything, the answers will help with your original question too.

@qweilun --- yes I totally understand .. I think ... in Bhagavad Gita they say purpose of Yoga is to realize the inner self and the outer self, or God is one and the same .... I subscribe to that notion that we have power within us ... after all the force that created us out a part of us in him ... I'm not sure what Buddhism says about this though, but I find at this stage that thinking of God, this life force who created us, certainly helps us in our life journey. Like when bad things happen there is always a reason ... hope I'm not rambling ....

Well, the great thing about Buddhism is that you don't have to become Buddhist to practice and realize the benefits. It sounds like you are already benefiting.

How often should you meditate? The short answer is every day, and don't overdo it.
The long answer: If, like me, you want a lasting improvement in your day-to-day affairs, you should prioritize application and regularity, while evaluating your practice critically, and if possible, taking a course in meditation.
Application
After you finish sitting, can you keep on applying what you've learned for the next 5 minutes? For the next 10 minutes? For the next 10 hours, even? This is something that comes with practice, and moreso if your practice is regular.
R.Barzell's comment about going about your day mindfully is important, because meditation is worth more if you take it as a training on how to handle daily life. When someone says something that used to offend you, if you can look at that the same way you look at your breath, that's a huge  benefit. On the other hand you might make many beginner's mistakes, such as thinking "Meditation is an escape from reality that will make me feel good" or being overconfident and smug about your supposed progress. Both are mistakes I have made in the past.
Regularity
Regularity will make or break your practice. Even if you only sit 10 minutes, you'll get huge benefits from practicing every day, regardless of which tradition you practice (assuming that you stick to a tradition and don't make a random fruit basket of traditions). So if you're sitting for 30 minutes a day every day, you should ideally make more progress than someone who only sits 10 minutes a day every day. But all of this probably doesn't matter if you can't evaluate your practice critically.
Right Reflection
This means asking the right questions about your practice.

What was gained from this practice? What was lost?
Does this teacher have good qualities? Bad qualities?
Is there more or less suffering as a result of the practice?
Am I more prone to distraction or more focused?

To be clear, I don't mean you should to overly analyze this in the mind as our logical abilities can only take us so far. What I mean is to keep an eye out. Try things and see how it goes. As some say, check yourself before you wreck yourself (I really like that expression, hah).
Sleepiness
This one probably varies depending on what tradition you practice. In the Mahasi Sayadaw school, any experience that arises should be the main object of meditation. This goes for sleepiness, so if you're sleepy, focus on that. Either you'll fall asleep or the sleepiness will go away. We shouldn't worry about falling asleep, but, in the case that we start worrying, then we should meditate on the worrying itself.
Take a Course
Finally, there's great value in taking a course under an accomplished teacher. A teacher can correct your practice when it goes astray—I know my practice went astray plenty of times, so I'm grateful to my teacher for helping with that. On a course you will probably meditate during every waking hour for many days consecutively. While this may seem to oppose the idea of meditating 10 minutes a day every day, think how much more you can gain from a consistent practice, when you have under your belt lessons learned from 50 or so hours of nearly continuous meditation under the guidance of a teacher.
Beware the Lotus
I forgot to add, be careful about sitting with one leg on top of the other, or even worse, both legs on top of each other. If you don't have the requisite flexibility in your hip sockets, you will do long-term damage to your knees as they bend in ways they are not built to handle. Much less strenuous is Burmese position, where one leg is in front of the other.

@qweilum ... this is lot of great info. I started meditation so I learn how to think clearly, to focus and concentrate more sharply. I have suffered greatly in life because I was not aware of my surroundings, because I was less observant and less sharp than others. What's worse, I couldn't figure out what the universe, or the voice inside me was trying to tell me and now I am recovering from a terrible situation that is too big for me (hence I ask God fir help when I don't know the answers) ... at this point I am looking for meditation to help ease anxiety, make wiser choices, improve health

you are absolutely right about the sitting position. I either  sit Burmese style or I sit in m bed against a straight pillow and legs straight on the bed

to me meditation is a balm .... our inner voice already knows the answers we are seeking

Best is divide your time into 2 sessions. One in the morning and one in the evening / night. The rationale is some time if you are overcome by hindrances in one session the other will be productive. Also some mediators are more fruitful in certain hours of the day, but grain this vary from day to day. So splitting it up is a good idea.
Also you need to rub two sticks for some time to get to a critical temperature. So a meditation session should be long enough to gain some critical mass. Ideally 2 hours in total per day is a good time.

This little plant of Dhamma requires service now. Protect it from the criticism of others by making a distinction between the theory, to which some might object, and the practice, which is acceptable to all. Don’t allow such criticism to stop your practice. Meditate one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. This regular, daily practice is essential. At first it may seem a heavy burden to devote two hours a day to meditation, but you will soon find that much time will be saved that was wasted in the past. Firstly, you will need less time for sleep. Secondly, you will be able to complete your work more quickly, because your capacity for work will increase. When a problem arises you will remain balanced, and will be able immediately to find the correct solution. As you become established in the technique, you will find that having meditated in the morning, you are full of energy throughout the day, without any agitation.
...
When you go to bed at night, for five minutes be aware of sensations anywhere in the body before you fall asleep. Next morning, as soon as you wake up, again observe sensations within for five minutes. These few minutes of meditation immediately before falling asleep and after waking up will prove very helpful.
...
Daily meditation of two hours and yearly retreats of ten days are only the minimum necessary to maintain the practice. If you have more free time, you should use it for meditation. You may do short courses of a week, or a few days, even one day. In such short courses, devote the first one third of your time to the practice of Anapana, and the rest to Vipassana.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N.Goenka


text:
Why is Buddhahood attained only by males?
Is there a particular reason(s) for a Buddha to be only of male gender?
I'm interested in any explanation in scriptures as well as your interpretations and opinions.

What is your source?

@R.Barzell My source is rather a practically implicated one: a lifetime of being a Buddhist in Sri Lanka (Theravada Buddhism). Hence, I'm looking for solid reasons (if any) behind it.

@ChrisW Yes, that answers my question. Thx.

The question is a bit unclear, so here's an answer to what I think your question is.
I believe anyone -- regardless of gender -- can reap the same fruits of the path.  It's all about diligence in practice; gender has nothing to do with it.
Now I recall some misogynistic passages and early injunctions against nuns, but I ignore all that.  I don't think Buddhist scriptures or personalities (including The Buddha) are unerring.  I think that despite having some profound things to say, Buddhism still was a product of its time and place and often failed to transcend those prejudices.
Fortunately, since Buddhist practice pays off in short order, there's no need for faith, so I don't have to rely on The Buddha being this or that, or claims that a transmission was preserved or any other claim that strains credibility.  I simply see what works and use it.
With that said, Buddhism has some strong females.  The one that comes to mind is Quan Yin (Guanyin), the archetype of compassion.  My local Buddhist Temple gave more prominence to her than to the Buddha, even to the point of stressing her ideal (Bodhisattva) as the goal of practice. Furthermore, in all the Buddhist temples I attended, the Quan Yin statues were much more prominent than the Buddha ones; in fact, there's a nearby Buddhist Temple with a 50 foot tall statue that dominates the grounds.  Who's on that statue? Quan Yin.

ChrisW (above) answered it with this post

ChrisW answered. Answer is in this post titled Can the Buddha ever be a woman?
PS. No need to up/down vote. This is just to close this question by accepting it.

I think we'd better close this question as a duplicate of that question.

There are reasons that explain why it is convenient for a Buddha to be male.
Namely that, for bad and for good, humans tend to form patriarchal societies. The good is unfortunately forgotten so often in modern times, that it seems strange, at first sight, that it is more likely that a Buddha is male. Men tend to be more charismatic, strong and respected. And women know by experience that they have to double their efforts to be as charismatic, strong and respected. And it's not just cultural because there is an unnavoidable biological component to human existence. We evolved from mostly patriarchal societies of apes. So there is a tendency to behave in the ways we inherited from our biological ancestors.
But if the future Buddha arises in a matriarchal human society, it's more likely that it will be a female Buddha. In the end it's just skillful means to teach. I don't think beings with this level of direct knowledge pay much attention to gender anyway. So I strongly doubt there is something inherently male about a Buddha.

Anyone cares to point any lie that I said, instead of reacting with aversion? Feminism has complained about the negative aspects of what I wrote for decades. Are there no positive aspects at all in the way humans tend to organise themselves, as it's the product of millions of years of natural selection?

Remember natural selection can make someone HIV positive or wipe out New Orleans. Is there something noble about nature and what it produces?

Maybe isn't much pointing of lies or aversion, but pointing the lack of solid grounds: it is too much, to hand-wave some seriously controversial opinions without a serious body of evidence behind it, and dodge disapproval.

Ok. Then there's nothing positive about males? Is that what you are saying? That we are like HIV? That women are better than men at everything? I would like to see the evidence of that, by the way. Because I hope you at least know that men and women are physically and psychologically different due to biology. Are men inferior to women in all aspects?

@EyeArrow Thanks for your reply. I'Ve heard all my life (in Theravada Buddhism) that it's only a being born as a human male (in the life in which he attains Buddhahood) that can be a Buddha. As a matter of argument, your answer is appreciated. Any more arguments/evidence (or even solid conjecture) to either negate of back it up? Something from scriptures?

ChrisW (above) answered it with this post

I'm still waiting for arguments that invalidate what I said above. I am especially waiting for a rational explanation of why men were compared with HIV and hurricane Katrina. How much hatred for men is there for this comparisson to be made so casualy?

This article suggests that of the two very closely-related species of chimpanzee, one species is more 'patriarchal' and the other is more 'matriarchal': and we don't know which ('patriarchal' or 'matriarchal') was our ancestor. Asserting that human society is  'biological' (i.e. 'nature') instead of cultural (i.e. 'nurture') is not a matter of fact, and neither (IMO) is saying that men are more 'charismatic'.

The most obvious "patriarchal society of ape" is the  gorilla. But surely you are not saying that the Buddha is like a silverback gorilla who fights off other males (or scares them away with threat displays) and thus gets all the females to himself? I suspect that argument about the 'biological component to human existence' might be irrelevant, because that's more related to rebirth than to teaching enlightenement.

I said nothing of the sort of our precious teacher. Again, instead of reacting to words, analyse them objectively. The overwhelming majority of mamals form patriarchal societies. Matriarchal societies of mamals are rare exceptions to the rule. So the rational scientific assumption is to say that humans are biologically patriarchical. And the burden of proof lies with those who think otherwise. The natural inclination of human beings is to find males more charismatic. The most obvious example is the disproportion of men and women in stand up comedy. So it is convenient for a teacher to be male.

I am not saying men are better than women. I am saying we are different. Women usualy do some things better and men usualy do other things better and some things are usualy equaly well done by us. That is the rational a priori view, that must be challenged by evidence. Just a final note: this path is to find the truth. If you preffer confortable lies, you will have trouble gaining insight. Especially if you consider that lies hurt more than inconvenient truths.

You said "I'm still waiting for arguments", above, but I don't see a reason now to make any further arguments.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I think there's a big misunderstanding here with mahayana inclined buddhists. When I say Buddha, I am using the theravada definition of Buddha. And that is a being that attains enlightenment when there is no dharma during his time. I did not say that women can't attain enlightenment. That would have absolutely no basis in the buddhist texts or reason.


text:
Could someone help me transcribe a Pali chant?
I'm working on the subtitles for a YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxKbO4bLDQM) and could use some help transcribing the chant at the beginning. I suppose it's one of the relatively common ones? Thanks!

Pali : Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa.
English : Homage to the Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Rightly Self-awakened
  One.

If you are interested in this chanting, you should read The Divine Mantra.

Thanks, I got the "namo tassa" section but can't figure out the second part of the blessing which starts about 15 seconds into the video.


text:
"Kundalini" experiences during meditation
Can anyone advise on experiences of "kundalini" (energy rushing up the spine and out the crown of the head) during meditation?  I have experienced this for years and am wondering if it has an understanding/meaning in the Theravada tradition.  The energy has a physical effect (jolting the body) and a mental one (like temporarily cleaning out the conscious mind).  Thank you greatly.

that sounds so awesome!!! I'm a beginner and the only thing I closely experience is when an idea suddenly rushes at me, i.e. a Eureka! moment

I've experienced this myself on a number of occasions though I never heard it called kundalini. Sometimes the experience has been exactly as you describe it. Sometimes it's a tingling feeling all over the body. Sometimes it feels like electric jolts. Sometimes the jolts manifest in physical movement.
I was advised that this was probably a manifestation of piti (rapture). This would be in the context of the rupa-jhana factors going from

applied thought (vitakka)
sustained thought (vicāra)
joy/rapture/happiness (pīti)
happiness/pleasure/bliss (sukha)
equanimity (upekkhā)
one-pointedness (ekaggatā)

So you could expect this to be proceeded by strengthening concentration and perhaps develop into a calmer more pleasurable state (sukka). Here is a further breakdown of piti which again feels familiar to me. Yours might fit into the last two classification - exalting and fulfilling rapture.
From conversations I had with other people the exact manifestations of these very much depend on the type of person. I'm more the anxious, type A type of person so I feel a lot of energy. I often feel it trapped in me then it comes out in great surges. Other people never feel this.
I think the important thing with these kind of experiences is not to get attached to them and not to pursue them. They are as they are and they come and go. In the experience themselves there is no insight nor is there lasting benefit. Like everything these things are ultimately impermanent and unsatisfactory.

Crab Bucket, you have answered a question that I have carried around for a decade.  Can't thank you enough.  Your explanation and some further research I just did on Piti have brought it home.  Also, I totally agree that the experience is transient (not to be held on to).  It had become a distraction for me, not understanding it.  Now, I will receive it differently.  With Metta.

I practice according to Theravada texts and my sister practices likewise but the kundalini path. We have been in training for 6-9 years and have a good relationship.
In my experience there is no way to bridge anything.
My sister talks about kundalini arising and chakras activating, i can narrow this to perception of a pleasant feeling, whether this is some sort of physical response to breathing exercises, a feeling born of pelvic exertion or a pleasant feeling born of seclusion. I as a Theravadin can't tell and furthermore i don't care much.
As a Theravadin when i hear about people's meditative attainments that commonly people would talk about as "deep meditation", "meditative trance", in the "mystical" or "transcendental" or "lifechanging" categories of description.
What i care about is were you are that time experiencing discursive thought, what was the perception, can the perception be described in terms bodily sensations, color or form. If this is the case then i maybe this is a form-jhana or maybe something like a high for physiological response.
If can not be described in terms of a bodily sensation such as a pleasant feeling in the head or the body, nor a feeling of air blowing, of the hardness of the limbs, warmth or coolness, nor floating or flowing, then i think maybe this person attained to formless perception.
Either way, i don't care about these attainments and am more interested in a person not being fixated in wrong views. I hold a person who has just faith if not understanding of the correctly exposed Dhamma to the point where he can discern what is rightly spoken as Dhamma, i hold him infinitely higher than a person who mastered all feeling & perception attainments.

For years I have experienced the jolts of energy rushing up my spine and releasing through my skull, giving the sensation of hair being pulled upwards during anapana sati meditation from time to time and found that it was the result of a strong positive emotion in the field of meditation practice in general and the benefits of the practice in my life. Recently I experienced , after decades of meditation practice, with great intervals though, a sudden very tangible feeling of cold air blowing slightly into my face. At first I felt somewhat stunned and distracted by it and struggled not to look for explanations for it. I am not much of a reader about theoretical elucidation on meditation practice since it became clear to me that there are many different views and interpretations about the subject and that the only way to know is to experience.
Personally I never heard from my former teacher about any relation between anapana sati and prana (chi). I see this experience now as just one of those things that happen during meditation practice. The most important lesson I derive from this experience is not to let it distract me during meditation practice and around it by wanting to rationalize it. It will pass eventually.
Be well.

I recently had similar experience. I was 4 days into a 10 day silent meditation retreat doing 'vipassana' style meditation. So for 3 days was mostly silent, no phones, lotta nature, read a Raymond chandler book which was against rules but oh well, lotta meditating i guess it's pretty common style just focusing on your natural breathing sensations right at the nostrils.  Anyhow on day 4 we went from 'normal' meditation technique to focus out attention on small portions of our body starting at the base of the head and sort of moving our focus and attention around to different parts of the body, slowly and methodically. Basically if I could keep myself very still and breathe a bit heavier I could feel waves of intense electric feeling (sort of felt like dmt body high, no crazy psychedelic brain stuff tho) all over but wherever I had focused my attention too was more pronounced. Closest thing to what I'd call a religious type experience, and since I'm all sorts of atheist i figured must be a glitch in my brain (hallucination or psyched myself into it or whatever) or must just be how it works and therefore repeatable and explainable.  So I bailed on the monk training and totally plan to check it out further but had too much choring I'd left behind back home. Really cool experience, I hope I can repeat it but that's my tale. Cheers.


text:
Explain consciousness (viññāna) to non-Buddhists
Problem
In discussions on Buddhist term consciousness (viññāna) with non-Buddhists, it's imperative to start with talking about life in general because---to my understanding---life after all is the physical body we possess with consciousness, i.e., we wouldn't call a physical body without consciousness a life form.
Some non-Buddhists I talked with define life as simply an arbitrary biological phenomena. For example, we humans have sensors, sensor signals are interpreted by a complicated neural network in the brain, decisions and interpretations made as a result are conveyed around the body accordingly, and the motor actions take care of the rest. That's with regard to actions. Thinking is simply a neurological decision process made in the brain. Also, according to them the birth is a result of a sperm and an egg and death 'cos the heart stops.
All fair explanations. But, before even introducing the concept of this continuous consciousness that continues from one life form to another, all is understood biologically. Life is birth + (actions + thinking) + death. All done.
The continuous consciousness that I'm addressing here (that I want to explain to others) is what I have learnt to be what continues whatever the life form we take till Nibbana.
Question
How would you initiate one to step out of the above box of reasoning and get 'em to think of consciousness? What would be your line of reasoning to counter the above biological reasoning?
Note:
 1. Feel free to change the question if you think its wording is not exact or not understandable.
 2. The counter arguments I requested are purely for the sake of explanation. I've no personal interest in engaging in word-fights!
 3. Consider all sub questions in Question above as one question.

So are you trying to explain rebirth in terms of consciousness, but are running into an issue because people assume a materialistic basis for consciousness (in the form of the physical body), which they can't square with rebirth?  That is, belief that consciousness is tied to the physical body explicitly rejects the notion that a consciousness could migrate to a different one?  This -- coupled with the mechanisms of birth causing consciousness to emerge -- could lead to a rejection of the possibility that a previous consciousness could inhabit a body.  Is this correct?

I'm not sure what you mean by "continuous" consciousness, but Sāti was admonished by the Buddha for saying "it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the rounds of rebirths" MN 38

Maybe you're trying to explain rebirth (saying that "consciousness" is the answer to the question, "what is reborn?"), so you might find the answers to this question useful: Is rebirth a delusional belief?

The best scientific proof of existence of consciousness is rebirth. Look at this link http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm.

Continous consciousness implies continuity in its structure not just time wise. Think of consciousness which manifests itself (lets say as a human) as a wave in the ocean. The wave in the ocean arise and sink. As it progresses it looks like the same wave but it is not the same wave. So consciousness is a seamless super structure which manifests time and again(Nam-rupa) but it is not a single entity. This arising and fall of entities is a mixed phenomenon. That is why Sati was admonished by the Buddha.

It sounds like you're trying to explain consciousness within a framework that supports rebirth to people who understand consciousness in a (materialistic) framework that won't allow for rebirth. Seeing consciousness as tied to an organism and the development of consciousness in an organism leaves no room for the "migration" of consciousness required for rebirth to work.
Am I correct in understanding this difficulty?
If so, you could try the following...

Get people to abandon materialism.  For many, this is the same as asking them to abandon science.
Explain rebirth in a materialistic framework.  If consciousness is a property of structure, rather than organism then a rebirth mechanism exists by simply having the same structure arise in the future.  Karmic imprints could be explained by neuro-plasticity (which is said to be affected by meditation).  Still, they may ask what happens if this structure is replicated now (and why wouldn't it be, given how much life we have?).

An alternative is to look at the big picture.  If you are trying to introduce people to Buddhism, why mention rebirth?  The Buddhist path is identical, whether or not one believes in rebirth.  Further, many are attracted to Buddhism (or at least it's secularized variant popular in the west) precisely because of its less supernatural nature.  Introducing rebirth therefore might cause them to abandon Buddhism.  For many, if it's a choice between Buddhism and Science, then Science will win, no contest.

The difficulty in explaining one about consciousness came about in discussions on Buddhist philosophy. It's unavoidable to talk about consciousness when talking about Buddhist philosophy. So, I'm certain about my question. My difficulty is to introduce the concept of consciousness reasonably well. It's not important that I drive home the argument or whether they accept/reject my explanation.

@mlomailom I understand, but consciousness has nothing to do with Darwinism, etc... so why did you mention them?  If you rephrase your question, maybe I can help. I've been studying and practicing Buddhism for over a decade and I've read quite a bit on consciousness, yet I can't even understand your question.  I think that's an indication that the problem is your question and not the people you are talking to (no offense intended).  Could it be that you're asking about the "hard" problem of consciousness rather than something like the information theory of consciousness?

I edited the question to the best of my ability. If it's still confusing, then I guess we're thinking inside completely different, mutually exclusive realms :) However, I'm sure you get the gist of what I ask for. In that case, I'm totally fine if you moderate my question.

@mlomailom Ok, I think I have a better idea of what you're asking.  Could you clarify "continuous consciousness" in your question?  It seems that the question hinges on that, as this is the concept you are trying to get them to understand.  It's also something that confuses many Buddhists who ask how that squares with anatta. Thanks!

First of all Lord Buddha did not talk about a viññāna that goes from life to life continuously.That kind of explanation is exactly same with the "soul" mentioned in many religions.Lord Buddha dumped that theory and directly said there is no soul.
What you have misunderstood is the energy released from a dying person which act as the backup of his or her memories and karma.so there is no continuous viññāna.
This is like "Dark energy and Dark matter"
why?
Because both above concepts are understood in one way and that is by discovering the effects of their functioning.Just like the process in, Buddhism none of the theories mentioned above can be proved wrong with materialistic evidence.
Explain me this biologically
If you go to a physician and ask to be hypnotized so he could ask about your past he could take you back years into your childhood.But when he reach the very beginning of you life's past things get interesting.If he continue to ask you to go back even before your birth you start to talk about a life that you consciously couldn't remember.He can keep going and you will keep telling him about more and more lives.And the best part is if you do this again even a decade after you will recall the same lives and same events.
Many studies were done all around the world and even in my country about the reality of these "Past life memories" and many events were confirmed to be true,and the people who told the stories had no idea what happened in those places and the events they described predated their birth.These studies proved that these memories are not imaginations or illusions.Google it and you will see.
My conclusion.
We as Buddhists do not believe in an eternal soul or reincarnation.
But just like science there are some things that can only be proven by studying a lot of related fields (like the example i gave -Dark matter)
It doesn't matter if we like it or not everything can't be proven by materialistic evidence,But if you want to find it there are many other ways.Just have an open mind and keep searching.
May triple Gems bless you!


text:
How to practice mindfulness
How to practice mindfulness during the day?
I have been know known to be absent minded and forgetful but perhaps it's due to my Karma. The problem is so bad that is someone else makes the mistake due to their mindlessness I am automatically blamed without knowing the facts!!!!!
I have been told that meditation clears out ones' Karma and that mindfulness during the day is another form of meditation (I already sit on the floor Burmese pose 30 min twice daily and breathe in, breathe out)
How to gradually start being mindful? It seems rather overwhelming .... Thanks!

Start by adding Walking Meditation to your practice.
Next, when you finish your meditation and are about to go on with your day, make a resolve to be mindful and try to keep that mindfulness as you leave the meditation.
Then start setting aside key times during the day when you will accomplish some activity mindfully.  For instance, it could be meal-time, or a break in which you take a walk or do your exercise.
Gradually expand that mindfulness practice to include other parts of your day.
You could also carry a mindfulness timer or app that will chime at regular intervals to remind you to be mindful.
Most important: don't get discouraged.  Getting distracted or falling back into old patterns is natural.  Mindlessness is a habit, and like all habits, it takes work and there is backsliding.

I'm looking at Karma from a Bhagavad Gita perspective that actions from past life puts us in situation we are now, but we can overcome Karma with the right thoughts and actions. When I said the mindlessness is from Karma, I was acknowledging that something can be done about it.

I'll definitely start with walking mindfulness, especially when commuting to and from work ...

@Glowie got it.  Answer edited to remove that last sentence about blaming Karma :)

How to practice mindfulness during the day?

When you are doing your daily activities be mindful off any sensation you get through objects that come to your come in contact with. If you are holding a broom be mindful of the touch sensation. When you are standing scan your body to see what posture you are in.

I have been know known to be absent minded and forgetful but perhaps it's due to my Karma. The problem is so bad that is someone else makes the mistake due to their mindlessness I am automatically blamed without knowing the facts!!!!!

This happens to everyone. When you realise this. Look at the sensations what the distractions has caused. Lets say you were day dreaming then what kind of sensations this cause.

I have been told that meditation clears out ones' Karma and that mindfulness during the day is another form of meditation (I already sit on the floor Burmese pose 30 min twice daily and breathe in, breathe out)

Meditation clears out your Karma. Past Karma (fabrication) create sensation now. What ever the sensation be equanimous without craving or aversion.

How to gradually start being mindful?

This takes practice. Follow what has been said before.

How to gradually start being mindful?

Well that's it isn't it?
The answer is in the question.  The beauty of the nonsense we tell ourselves is that as we become aware of it, it ceases to have power over us.
For example:  I suspect that somewhere in the background you are harboring some notion that something will happen when you become sufficiently mindful - enlightement, happiness, perhaps something more subtle.  I suspect also that you think (I'm not picking on you - I promise this isn't personal to you) something like 'being mindful is a place you get to, and then you know you are mindful....maybe other people will notice too and treat you accordingly - and once you are there that's kind of it - that's now who you are and things work out nicely after that.'
Bad news - It isn't like that at all.
Good news - It isn't like that at all.
It's good news because there's nowhere to get.  Thus, you can't fail.  You can't succeed either, but you can master the game (mastery is not an endpoint).
Thus the most self-aware / mindful thing to notice is when you are not being mindful.
"Huh.  I was just lost in my mind for like fifteen minutes."  As soon as you notice, you have the opportunity to return your attention to the present, regaining awareness.
You go to 'sleep' 2 seconds later - start thinking about your favorite movie - no problem!  Notice that you went away - don't make it wrong or scold yourself - just notice - and then come back; ad infinitum.
As I said; mindfulness is not the end - it's not even the goal - I sometimes allow myself to flow along with my thoughts for long periods at a time - I like my thoughts.  However, mindfulness allows for certain side effects.
The side effects of awareness include but are not limited to:

Increased effectiveness
Less time spent upset
Hearing what other people are saying instead of what you say to yourself about what they are saying
Increased capacity for ... anything.
Less time spent indulging in self-pity.

In any moment, your access to awareness is recognizing that you are not aware.
To listen to people better - notice how you don't listen.
To meditate more effectively, notice what it is that pulls you from the present.
To be more compassionate - notice where you're being a jerk.
You have everything you need to work with wherever you are standing, because the only things there are to work with are what you bring with you.
By becoming aware of what is already there, you allow for the disappearance of what is there.  When what was in the way is no longer in the way, you can move freely.
Mindfulness is not the 'mindfulness'.
'Mindfulness' is a word.
Mindfulness is emptiness.
Mindfulness is like a master gardner preparing soil for growth.
'Mindfulness' is like trying to plant in rocky, weed infested sand.

Interesting that I'm reading this answer at this moment. When I struggle with negative thoughts it takes me a while to pull myself out of that "ditch" and change my thoughts, If I'm suddenly attacked with negative thoughts I try to quickly bring focus to what is happening and use my mind to "change the channel". I guess that's what mindfulness is ...

That's part of it for sure.  I think there are three things you can do with negative thoughts:  Resist them; Submit to them; Or 'be' with them.  When you resist them - push them away rigidly - they might go away, but they'll still be there and will come back stronger.  When you submit to them, you accept them as the truth and they become real, dominating you.  When you 'be' with the thoughts, you notice them; and let them be.  When you let them be, they let you be.  Thoughts are meaningless and weightless;  it is our resistance to thoughts that gives them form and shape.  We give them meaning.


text:
A Jewish Buddhist?
I am jewish by ethnicity and by religion as well but I find the dhammapada and buddhist meditation to be beneficial, is this frowned upon or discouraged amongs buddhists?

AFAIK, Judaism's rules have a bigger problem with "JuBu-ism" than Buddhism's rules have with JuBu-ism. Especially in Mahayana where the goals is universal enlightenment via the Dharma, the general feel is that we should not be especially picky about how people join the club. This is made most clear in the practice of taking 1, 2, or 3 of the refuges, or 1, 2, .. or 5 of the precepts & in the willingness to incorporate syncretic beliefs under the umbrella of "adapting the dharma to the audience"

@MatthewMartin could you elaborate on how this is conflicts with Judaism? It seems to make it more compatible.

2nd commandment seems clear. Jaweh is not interested in hairsplitting over if the Buddha is a human, a celestial Buddha, or if only the Gods of the formless realms are mortal or if Buddhist believe or disbelieve in a creator God. Jaweh doesn't even like the statues Buddhism borrowed from the Greeks. ref: http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/533

Also, again, Buddhism, like it's other similar Indic religions is highly syncretic, i.e. institutions willing to incorporate other religious beliefs. Judaisms main innovation was monotheism, which creates an entirely different dynamic. I suppose you could mix secular Buddhism and faithful Judaism the same way you can mix secular physics or French cooking and faithful Judaism. But if one is to just say "Buddhism" (or Dhamapada & Buddhist meditation) that doesn't rule out the rest of the religion.

The phenomena you mention is so common it has a name.  BuJu or JuBu.  In fact, there's even a Wikipedia Page on it.  Furthermore, the contribution to (Western) Buddhism by Jews is very impressive!
Whether this is frowned upon depends on how your Jewish faith and Buddhist practice relate.  Whether they contradict, co-exist or complement depends in turn on how you regard each.
Since Buddhism can be treated as a secular philosophy (which is how I treat it), I see no inherent conflict.  This means typical problem points like Buddhism's "atheism", Karma and Rebirth are non-issues.
Even Buddhism's Emptiness (especially our lack of a "self") is not an issue (IMO) if we treat this as a statement about our experience or an injunction against clinging to these beliefs (as opposed to asserting one or the other).


text:
Should I avoid using Mindfulness to fall asleep?
Is the use of Mindfulness of breath for falling asleep a "bad" practice? Might such a practice invite torpor during sitting meditation?

If you are using meditation to go to sleep:

You are inducing a hindrance. If this becomes habitual it will block your progress.
Also when meditating you should be alert and hence reduce the hindrances and sleepiness. If you are not falling asleep it not an issue if you are meditating. It is said a Yogi never sleeps.

Therefore, what is the preferred practice for intentionally "entering" sleep, e.g. contemplation or recitation of something Theravadan? Is there a Theravada Buddhism recommendation?

This is what the Buddha said, "During the second watch of the night, reclining on his right side, he takes up the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful, alert, with his mind set on getting up." Technically speaking though, one shouldn't "use mindfulness of breath to fall asleep" - because there are 2 contradictory intentions here - 1. To be Mindful and 2.To go to sleep . The advisable thing to do is to be mindful of the sleepiness as and when it arises - as a result of which the sleepiness either disappears or you fall asleep.

In this way, your mind is always devoted to wakefulness - even when you lie down during the second watch of the night.

As Suminda commented, the risk is that you build a habit of becoming sleepy while meditating.
However, if you are having trouble falling asleep because your thoughts are racing, I would think that it's entirely appropriate and beneficial to use something like breath meditation to bring calm and focus to your mind.
Once this is accomplished, it's probably worthwhile to intentionally stop this practice, and allow yourself to fall asleep naturally. If your thoughts begin to race again, then repeat the process.
I do this often and don't find it problematic. I do the same thing to bring focus and calm before athletic events, public speaking, etc.

If you're feeling excessively sleepy while meditating, sleep and then come back to meditation.
If you're feeling excessively "meditate-y" while sleeping, get out of bed and meditate! It might be a chance to level up!
In general, when sleeping, don't try to meditate or vice versa because sleep itself is a Hindrance and conflicts with meditation and vice versa (meditation is Awakening and is the opposite of torporous sleep).
By default try to avoid a Hindrance when you can unless necessary because sleep is actually a fault, a flaw, of untransformed consciousness and one day, when you are fully enlightened, you will not need it at all. This is actually a valuable rule for the other Hindrances as well. Anyway, back to the topic of sleep.
This being said, there is an entire awesome world of dream cultivation and lucid dreams where "your cultivation power increases tenfold" according to Tibetan Buddhism and from my own personal occasional experiences with meditation within lucid dreams and also causing the lucid dream themselves. And how does this happen? By breaking that general rule... mixing sleep with mindfulness.
Now this is a complex topic with lots of differing perspectives but I'd suggest trying things out because lucid dreams are worth it. You can emerge from them feeling, super-conscious, awesomely self-aware, extremely blissful and joyful and self-integrated... basically if you are not able to get samadhi in your normal consciousness, if you experiment with mindful sleep you can BUMP INTO samadhi states with the multiplicative power of lucid dreaming.
My suggestions, after over 15 years of experimenting with meditation and lucid sleeping, is this:

the first half of your sleep (3-4 hours, "core sleep") focus on the torpor and just fall asleep
the second half, practice any meditation technique AS you fall asleep and decide to be aware through the process! Declare your intention and be aware as you fall back to sleep. ("WILD technique")

If you want to learn more (there is a treasure trove on forums and the internet) look up the above terms in quotes.


text:
Can you meditate too much as part of a daily routine?
Just to follow up from this question - is it possible for an individual to meditate too much? Is there a point when it becomes counterproductive and if so what would the signs be that someone should slacken off their meditation routine?
Just to be clear - I am talking about a meditation routine outside of a retreat setting. The question is about someone's daily meditation routine rather than during a retreat when the conditions and level of support one would receive would be very different.

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Practice like your hair is one fire"
However, one researcher was looking for people who had so-called "Dark Nights of the soul" experience, i.e. unpleasant experience with meditation. She found that

"She identified two susceptible demographics: a) men, 18 to 30 years
  old, who go to Asia and do 10 to 20 hrs of meditation/day, and b)
  middle-aged women w/an hr/day practice who go to “say, Spirit Rock
  Meditation Center ... for the last 10 to 20 years”.

ref: http://beyondmeds.com/2014/02/16/dark-night-of-the-soul/
In the case of a lay follower, I don't think we need to go outside of Buddhism to answer the question-- your job will determine the upper bound to how much you can meditate, which I suppose is the whole motivation behind renunciation, to allow more time to meditate. For a lay follower with a day job, fitting in 3 hours a day and maybe more on a weekend (16 maybe?) seems to be the most you can get away with without re-arranging your lifestyle and job to crank up the number of hours.
Anyhow, in my opinion quality trumps quantity, I wish I had a good objective metric for monitoring quality.
Also, in my own practice I've been working on doing more different sorts of meditation, since I already sit on my butt at the office all day staring at a screen (sometimes with concentration, sometimes scatter brained). So I've been trying to mix in prostrations, chants, walking meditation, etc.

"Dark Nights of the Soul" experiences are the Ten Stages of Insight. It is a sign of progress but one has to be ready for it, meaning practicing detached awareness. Please see Daniel Ingram's "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" for detailed info on this phenomenon. (There are a lot of public misconceptions about these meditation phenomena that drive away beginners.)

Beginner can be driven away by the thought of back pain and legs falling asleep while sitting. Seems just as likely that these are people with a pre-existing condition or disposition that could be triggered by a variety of stressful things, including "binge" meditation.

According to Master Nan, more often than not, when these physical phenomena are "triggered" they are "purifying" latent karma and DISEASES... diseases that could turn into something far far worse a few years down the road such as cancer or psychological disorders.

You practice should be continuous. Therefore there is only the risk of practising too little. But there is the risk of too much effort. This is generally chasing after results, exerting too much control like keeping you mind on the meditation object.

I will answer your second question first, signs of too much meditation are that you TRULY feel bored or really sleepy. In that case stop meditating. Like anything, meditation is a practice and practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect. So make sure you are curious enough about your own Self, self, and the Great Experiment of Buddhism. Otherwise you will end up wasting your time.
You also have to draw a fine line between running off from meditation because you need to read more about it and running off because you're lazy or you just feel a little pain from your legs. If the latter, try harder. Challenge yourself sometimes!!
Too much meditation? If you look at the suttas, there are people who attained realization in seven days by practicing meditation day and night, inspired by the Buddha's words.
These are people that had the proper teachings and thus motivated practice. For someone who is a beginner and who doesn't understand the entire picture, it is not good to meditate too much because then the person will become repulsed and extremely outcome-oriented.
For beginners, it is important to get used to meditation first... but just know that you won't get enlightened or attain mastery of your state of mind, body, heart (and even reality itself) without staying in meditation longer and longer periods of time.
On the other hand, there are some Buddhist professors who should be meditating all day!
(Because they have enough knowledge to accomplish Enlightenment. They've been studying for decades and not even practicing but just arbitrating smaller irrelevant concepts.)
Please see the free book by Daniel Ingram's "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" chapter about meditation scheduling and when to do it and how long.
According to stackexchange guidelines I should regurgitate the info here but I decide not to because the book will always be available and is free. Read the chapter I mentioned and then read the whole book. Also I didn't regurgitate because my response should very fully gives you enough hints.
Also here is an excerpt from one the best books I have ever read about Buddhism: (the advice offers a different perspective from above... equally valid)

"The main rule is to be at ease and thoroughly relaxed in muscles,
  nerves, and brain. Noises and bright light may create tension, and
  darkness may cause sleepiness. It is better to meditate often for a
  shorter time than for a long time but infrequently. To make real
  progress, meditation should become a vital part of one’s daily life.
  Meditation masters recommended to their students: “Do it with an
  aspiration so strong that it will be the cause of fulfilling your
  provisional and final aims. Meditate in this way during four sessions:
  predawn, morning, afternoon, and at nightfall. Furthermore, if at
  first you meditate for a long time, you will be readily susceptible to
  laxity and excitement. If this becomes your habit, it will then be
  difficult to correct your awareness. Meditate in many short sessions.
  If you end your session while still wanting to meditate, you will be
  eager to reenter each future session."
  --Mind Experiment pg. 201

If meditation is interfering with your life and relationships, then you are meditating too much. Follow the Middle Way. If you do not have a life, or relationships, then why are you bothering?
My meditation teacher (authorized by my guru to teach it) said that it is how you are in life that shows your progress, not how you personally feel, and that other people will probably see changes in you before you see them.

I made Someone On The Internet unhappy, again... sigh.