text:
Present moment awareness
What is the different between living in present and the mindfulness? I experience living in the present without thinking but often not with mindfulness.

In the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, the Buddha teaches how a practitioner should dwell with (right) mindfulness of body and mind;

(The Four Postures)

“Again, bhikkhus, when walking, a bhikkhu understands: ‘I
  am walking’; when standing, he understands: ‘I am standing’;
  when sitting, he understands: ‘I am sitting’; when lying
  down, he understands: ‘I am lying down’; or he understands
  accordingly however his body is disposed.

-- MN 9: Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, p. 146 - (Bodhi, Trans.)

and

(Contemplation of Mind)

“And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating
  mind as mind? Here a bhikkhu understands mind affected
  by lust as mind affected by lust, and mind unaffected by lust as
  mind unaffected by lust. He understands mind affected by hate
  as mind affected by hate, and mind unaffected by hate as mind
  unaffected by hate. He understands mind affected by delusion
  as mind affected by delusion, and mind unaffected by delusion
  as mind unaffected by delusion. He understands contracted
  mind as contracted mind, and distracted mind as distracted
  mind. He understands exalted mind as exalted mind, and unexalted
  mind as unexalted mind. He understands surpassed mind
  as surpassed mind, and unsurpassed mind as unsurpassed
  mind. He understands concentrated mind as concentrated
  mind, and unconcentrated mind as unconcentrated mind. He
  understands liberated mind as liberated mind, and unliberated
  mind as unliberated mind.

-- MN 9: Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, p. 150 - (Bodhi, Trans.)

It is taught that one should be mindful of whatever phenomena arises in the body and mind.
Insight-meditationally speaking this means that one should take whatever physical or mental object that arises and cultivate insight from it. If a feeling of anger arises, one takes that feeling as an object. If aversion towards that feeling of anger arises, one takes the aversion as an object and so forth.
One practices to realize the Three Characteristics of Existence; "impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and uncontrollability". All conditioned phenomena are subject to these three characteristics. They are also the 3 gateways to Liberation as taught in the Visuddhimagga;

[The Triple Gateway To Liberation]
It enters upon the state of the triple gateway to liberation now with the
  predominance of [one of] three faculties according as the contemplation occurs
  in [one of] the three ways.
  For it is the three contemplations that are called the three gateways to liberation, according as it is said: “But these three gateways to liberation lead to the outlet from the world, [that is to say,]
(i) to the seeing of all formations as limited and circumscribed
  and to the entering of consciousness into the signless element,
(ii) to the stirring up of the mind with respect to all formations and to the entering of consciousness into
  the desireless element,
(iii) to the seeing of all things (dhamma) as alien and to the
  entering of consciousness into the voidness element. These three gateways to
  liberation lead to the outlet from the world”.
-- Visuddhimagga: The Path of Purification, p. 685-88, by Ven. Buddhaghosa

Living in present is the phrase used by Buddhists to refer to mindfulness. Mindfulness can be something like "When we walk, we walk. When we eat, we eat." Mindfulness can also be non distraction, being here.


text:
What are the characteristics of karmaless action?
Assuming one has to operate in the temporal sphere, but seeks to diminish the karmic implications of action, what are the characteristics of karmaless actions?
Is this distinct from right action?

I wish the Buddha was here to answer such questions :)

Who ever meets the Dhamma, meets the Tathagata. Who ever meets the Tathagata, meets the Dhamma. So just do, Nyom @UrsulRosu .

What are the characteristics of karmaless action?
It leads to dispassion.
Meaning, it's an action that reduces both karmic as well as mental / emotional entanglement.
Normal pathological action leads to entanglement in issues and trouble. Typical example is a child of a dysfunctional family, who is forced to inherit the bad circumstances and negative inertia, and by reacting destructively keeps creating causes for future trouble. Normal success-oriented action leads to positive entanglement in worldly affairs. Such as, when you are realizing yourself as a successful professional in any field.
Supramundane action leads to dispassion, to disentanglement, to letting go, to unbinding. How? Through counteracting/taming the forces of desire, aversion, and confusion.
So every time you act (whether directly or indirectly) towards reduction of desire, reduction of aversion, increase of wisdom - that's the supramundane action.
You can act towards reduction of desire and aversion by directly suppressing them and letting go - and realize wisdom as you practice this ("samatha followed by vipassana" in the broad sense). Or you can pursue wisdom and realize reduction of desire and aversion, and eventual dispassion - as a product of wisdom ("vipassana followed by samatha" metaphorically speaking). This is a theoretical construct meant to made the point. In practice everyone has to do both, in a spiral fashion - emotional intelligence and wisdom developing in lockstep.
While "karmaless" action can be ensured in the most straightforward way by literally leaving the world and engaging in practice of meditation (an approach typical of Theravada), a more effective approach, IMHO, is the Mahayana practice of not letting your ego indulge in self-sustaining activities. In other words, you should only do what leads to objectively optimal result (within the limits of your practical ability to achieve the optimum in the midst of a real life situation) and never let your social image, your ego, your group/tribe ego, your fears, your pride, (including your spiritual pride!), your bias etc. to get a bite of nutrition. This way all of your action will go towards dispassion and wisdom, as it will not be motivated by an egoistic motive (aka "passion").
Now, for the wisdom leg, this wisdom is not the worldly wisdom either. It is the special wisdom of understanding the nature of phenomena and mind, the nature of reality so to speak. So any action toward pursuit of this wisdom counts as "karmaless" action (action that leads to the ending of karma).
One notable characteristic of special wisdom is abandonment of overgeneralization and stereotyping. This leads to action that itself is not based on overgeneralization, stereotyping, and passionate side-taking - and encourages others to avoid overgeneralization, stereotyping, and passionate side-taking. Enlightened/enlightening action is inherently peaceful and brings peace.

Very nice breakdown.   I especially like your categorization of "action toward the pursuit of wisdom" as "karmaless".  My one comment, based on the study of complexity theory, is that objectivity does not exist except in special cases such as the "solved game".  (Limits to the speed of information mean only the system itself is objective, for instance "Laplace's Demon", but any agent within the system is in a perpetual state of subjectivity. But I take your meaning :)

"There are three conditions which often look alike yet differ completely, flourish in the same hedgerow:
attachment to self and to things and to persons, detachment
from self and from things and from persons; and, growing between them, indifference, which resembles the others as death resembles life,
being between two lives - unflowering, between the live and the dead nettle."

Right, I know exactly what you mean. And this practice is really not about achieving any true objective optimum, that's more like a provisional goal. The whole point is to make one avoid selfish action with its passions, and develop the wisdom of emptiness as one strives to find the elusive objective optimum.

...what are the characteristics of karmaless actions?

There's only one characteristic - for truth, it's Selfless/Anatman (無我) action. All Karmas are doing (actions), all doings signify there the doers. When the doer has ceased, there's no doing, hence no Karma.
It's not my invention :). It's what Nagarjuna said. Read his Madhyamaka in Chinese original if you could, not the Tibetan or Sanskrit translated English ones though. Almost all of those Eng. versions you could find are from Tib. or San. these scholars being taken thinking those more exotic or authentic; yet the truth is, they were back-translated from Chinese, of inaccuracy. The whole Sastra included "Blue Eyes" explanation by Kumarajiva is only 68 pages, full of witty remarks.
The other way to help pondering Karmaless action is the Daoist: 無為 而無不為 -- Dao De Jing.
More it's close to a Selfless action, lesser the Karmic implication. Until one realized Anatman, then all his doings are Karmaless doings. Too many people believing once they know the concept, learn the theory or argument, or read the Suttas of Anatta, etc., they have the privileges of having the Anatta. It's so unhealthy even fatal for their Dharma lives. It must be stressed, the proof of really realizing Anatman is one can disappear at will. Again, it's not my invention, it's described in the Sutras and Vinayas I read, such as, a Bhiksu disappeared right in front of the eyes of the visitors from the rock he sat to report to the Buddha then reappeared right at the same spot telling the Buddha was on his way from Grdhrakūta.

This makes a lot of sense.  If there is no "self", how can the action carry karmic consequences? Of course, true selflessness and "no mind" are quite hard to achieve!

DukeZhou, who ever finds intereset,
reading the question, the answers and comments a little, looking for possible places to make a benefical share, possible correcting, possible filling lacks, possible provoking skillful thoughts, possible to proper perception of the path to release, and therefore possible leading to abonding, disenchantment, release:

A person unknowing:
  the actions performed by him,
  born of greed, born of aversion,
  & born of delusion,
  whether many or few,
  are experienced right here:
      no other ground is found.
So a monk, knowing, (eg. Arahat)
      sheds
  greed, aversion, & delusion;
  giving rise to clear knowledge, he
      sheds
  all bad destinations.
AN 3.33

When the root of kamma, not-knowing (avijjā), is up-rooted, abonded, reminderless destoyed, with the lack of effluents of the mind (which is also the root for lobha and dosa), no more kamma comes into be.
Note, since it is often misunderstood missinterprated. Such as "neutral (avyākata) kamma" is not all a kamma with no results.
Kamma of a mind that is not released from not-knowing, even if neither skillful nor unskillful, does neither cause increase nor decrease not-knowing. Therefore, dwelling in a neutal mind-state (which has not abounded not-knowing) still has the quality of wandering on in the kammic circle, has it's effects.
Dwelling in "non-action" which actually is not, therefore makes no sense for release. Skillful actions are required as base to uproot avijjā, to develop the path.
So called Zazen or only samatta are no means for liberation in and off themselves.
Even a "neutral" mind state (yet mind still deluded), dwelling on such stand, is conditioned, subject to becoming and all of which is originated is subject to decay.
One seeks for kammic consequences which are cutting off, needs to cause a result of cutting off, come to a state beyound states, unbinding, release.

*‘‘Katamañca, bhikkhave, kammaṃ akaṇhaasukkaṃ akaṇhaasukkavipākaṃ kammakkhayāya saṃvattati? Sammādiṭṭhi…pe… sammāsamādhi. Idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, kammaṃ akaṇhaasukkaṃ akaṇhaasukkavipākaṃ kammakkhayāya saṃvattati. Imāni kho, bhikkhave, cattāri kammāni mayā sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā paveditānī’’ti. *
"And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.
Ariyamagga Sutta: The Noble Path

Therefore:
Assuming one has to operate in the temporal sphere, but seeks to diminish the karmic implications of action, what are the characteristics of karmaless actions?
One who operates, if there is a notion of one who operates, causes kamma and results. The results of "neutral" kamma, depending on the quality of mind, leads to either pleasant, unpleasant or functional results.
The chatacteristic of kamma-less actions is, that such are based on realeased mind.
Is this distinct from right action?
This is distinct of right action yes. Right kamma, neutral kamma, kamma that leads to an end of kamma and such deeds without results, are differnt Dhammas.
For more on ending kamma (if that's the questions underlying purpose at least, or answer had lead to this, if not solved yet) one may see further: MN 57; "Kamma and the Ending of Kamma" in The Wings to Awakening
Consider also, if thinking to "boddhisatta"-around the compassioned advice of Upasaka Warapol, on the possible root-inclination of the question, here. Hopeless overestimating, while mostly not capable to keep basic precepts, even fear of having no electricity but thinking a strive for a more noble then a noble, is very common, here, and today like all the time.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

No one can avoid any kamma in a very long travel in saṅsāravaṭṭa, except niyata-bodhisatta (bodhisatta who has enough experience to be an inevitable person to enlighten as buddha).
However, niyata-bodhisatta still born in hell, except just avīci-hell, still born as animals, except just very small and very big body animals, etc.
So, although you are bodhisatta, you still can not avoid the hell.
In commentary's statistic, just attained jhāna people have an enough long lifetime to get a very small chance to meet metteyya-buddha in present life, and just angels in 4th jhāna sphere   and anāgāmi-ariya in no 5 string sphere have a lifetime that long enough to get a very small chance to meet next buddha after metteyya-buddha.
The other people, such as all 1st-6th heaven people and all human, will die before the next meeting buddha, and their death can lead them to the hell uncountable time, before their next meeting buddha.
Bodhisatta develop their wholesome minds without any fear, although they realizing that they will born in hell uncountable time before the enlightenment.
So, if you don't expect to be a new buddha, just this life is the easiest way to enlighten for you.

Who died, Nyom Warapol?

This is an important question for the person practicing Theravadin mindfulness meditation because its answer is relevant to understanding how this meditation works. But first some background information. In Theravadin Buddhist psychology, “karma” includes both bodily and mental action. For example, decision-making is a form of mental action. And, although the Theravadin Abhidhamma does not talk about unconscious cognitive processes, karma includes unconscious decision-making. There are four types of action (karma in Sanskrit, kamma in Pali): (1) Wholesome action (kusala), (2) unwholesome (akusala), (3) karma-resultant (vipaka), and (4) not wholesome, not unwholesome, and not karma-resultant (aryakata, kiriya, or kiriya-citta, sometimes called functional consciousness). Your question is about the fourth type. I will call it functional mental action. Finally, all actions are caused by sankhara, which is best understood as schemata (in the sense defined by Immanuel Kant). Sankhara are the products of mental evolution or learning. The sankhara that cause functional mental actions are all products of an ancient evolution of consciousness.
The kiriya-sankhara have the function of causing a person to act as intelligently as possible, even when he or she is in an unwholesome state of mind. In terms of modern psychology, the kiriya-sankhara generate “core knowledge,” knowledge discovered to be present in young infants by Elizabeth Spelke. Of course, the kiriya-sankhara continue to generate core knowledge throughout our lives. In Mahayana Buddhism, the kiriya-sankhara cause the complex and important cognitive processes referred to as the Bodhicitta.
The kiriya-sankhara cause several types of functional mental actions. By far the most important functional mental action (in this case, an unconscious cognitive process) is one that causes us to make sense of potential actions and make sense of what we experience. This is an automatic and largely unconscious process that we take totally for granted, yet is essential to understanding Buddhist psychology and the kiriya-sankhara.
This most basic nature of all sankhara gives us a fundamental insight in the minds of the Buddha, greatest teachers of Buddha-Dharma, and the ordinary person alike. The reality is that we all, without exception, make sense of things (everything!) by means of the sankhara we possess. Only by means of a sankhara (or schema) does a sensation become a perception. Only by means of a sankhara does a feeling make sense to us. We cannot perform any action unless it makes sense to us by means of a sankhara. It is only by means of sankhara that we understand other people or ourselves. A sankhara (or schema) is a set of predispositions (beliefs, values, attitudes, memories, understandings, or the like) that allow us to process (mostly by means of unconscious mental processes) meaningless data into meaningful information (action, knowledge, belief, even illusion). Only through our sankhara are we able to be intelligent in the most basic or brilliant way. And one more important fact: all sankhara are finite in scope and understanding. There is no such thing as an infinite sankhara or an infinite understanding. It is psychologically not possible to know everything about something. Wisdom must necessarily mean knowing what is most important or relevant about something. This is an inherent limitation of the human mind, even the mind of a Buddha or a genius. (Buddhists do not talk about gods.)
What does this mean for the beginner of mindfulness meditation practice? It means that overcoming suffering, making progress on the Path, and undergoing Enlightenment itself consists entirely of unlearning unwise sankhara and learning wiser sankhara. The hard part is working out the details! It is your kiriya-sankhara that make both learning and unlearning possible.

Very elucidating!  It raises some interesting questions in my mind regarding decision theory, game theory, and the nature of intelligence and consciousness.  Are you aware of the concept of bounded rationality?

Thank you. The concept of bounded rationality is a good way of talking about the "inherent limitation of the human mind." It is also a good way to explain the inherent limitation of sankhara, except we would be talking about the more fundamental fact that, in our complex world, a sankhara cannot take into account ALL relevant experiences because there are usually far too many of them.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Tackling Addictions Directly VS Meditation
I gathered some ideas from different previous replies, but I thought I'd synthesize these ideas into a question.
Is it (1) more sensible to cut down on addictive behaviours in order to liberate one's time for meditation, or (2) meditate despite addictive behaviours present as to cause their diminution.
In other words, will addictive behaviours diminish naturally from a meditation practice? Or, will diminishing addictions and procrastination and such enable meditation?
Personally, I feel my attempts at diminishing attachments have generated very few effortful and beneficial behaviours. It seems the other way around: meditation, exercise, reading all lead to more efficient time-spending.
If this is so, then it seems to imply diminishing all attachments is less beneficial than tackling gross aversion to effort. Any thoughts?
Thank you.
(Extra thought: can we say expending effort involves a process of becoming, given there's an investment producing effects? In this sense, effortful activities like those I mention have a karmic -- i.e. efficient -- effect, while detachment involves removing oneself from karma. For example, I could exercise and produce a good result, but by avoiding junk food I am avoiding negative consequences. Just a thought!)

The hindrence here is Sceptical doubt (vicikiccha), which is the cause of not taking on the right practice.
For the purpose of release: Not-knowing (right) is the cause of addiction, tanha, Eggmann.
By reminderless up-rooting of this very not-knowing (avijjā), there is the end of suffering, the end of grasping after this and that.
And how is the path for up-rooting this very root of suffering? Just this Noble eightfold path, with right view as it's for-runner.
And what is the prerequisite to develop right view?

Faith

Association with People of Integrity

Listening to the True Dhamma

Appropriate Attention

Practice in Accordance with the Dhamma

Not released now one might think: "I know, but..." In that case there there was the case of improper attention by not having had admirable association out of lack of devotion, out of lack of faith. In that case, if not willing to uproot this by approaching the Juwels in the right way, find access to them by lowering, by giving up, by seeking refuge, there is no way, no short cut that right view could be developed, right release be gained. For such as "knowing" and still doubt, such can not be.
That was why it was sad: "For the purpose of release: Not-knowing (right) is the cause of addiction, tanha, Eggmann."
And what is the cause, what is the reason for faith? Suffering, being confronted to give up, to seek for release, is the reason why one takes on faith.
For one havving gained right view, had attended proper, listened proper, seen and reminds the Dhamma, just then:

The Tree Pulls Itself Down
Craving and desire lead us to suffering. But if we contemplate, our contemplation leans out from craving. It contemplates craving, and it pulls on the craving, shakes it up, so that it goes away or lessens on its own.
It's like a tree. Does anyone tell it what to do? Does anyone give it hints? You can't tell it what to do. You can't make it do anything. But it leans over and pulls itself down. When you look at things in this way, that's Dhamma.

So focus on gaining right view, it's pre-requisites. For it is not pleasant to be sooner or later confronted with suffering, when sickness, death, lose of beloved, gain of pain... arises and one does not find the way to release, does not know, have not discerned, seen before, here and now.
Asking: Tackling Addictions Directly or Meditation:
Respect, Confidence and Patient as prerequisite means for release from addiction, when and before is effects come into be.
And what are the obstacles,
the Hindrances for devotion, for lowering, Individually?

Sensual Desire

Ill-will

Sloth and Torpor

Restlessness and Remorse

Doubt

May all beings find the way to end suffering by themselves with ease!

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

I think it is a combination of both. Obvious unwholesome & dangerous addictions can be overcome directly, without meditation, because the mind should ideally discern these addictions are very harmful & very dangerous.
But with more subtle & ordinary addictions (such as eating wrong & too much food, watching lots of TV or even sex), meditation can provide the alternative source of pleasure to replace these sensual addictions.
In Buddhism, it seems clear that people need pleasure or happiness and that one of the benefits of meditation is it can provide a stable source of non-sensual pleasure.

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


text:
Is it a good or bad sign that meditation is sometimes a frightening and nervous activity?
It can happen that one gets scared or nervous by just sitting there, one can't for example sit still. But is this a good or bad sign?

Meditation is an activity of 'mental solitude', which will bring up fear & nervousness. Fear is an instinctual emotion that probably every practitioner that "crosses over" must pass through when the instinctual 'self' or 'ego' is diminished.
For people with a history or disposition of mental instability, they probably need to be careful here and should ideally meditate with a group.

Marijn and who ever might be interested,
assuming that the question was raised in seek for release:
First:
❋  Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa  ❋
Restlessness and Remorse (nervous or scared) is one of the five hindrences and ne needs - aside of it being perceived, become aware of it - by coming aware of it, knowing it as hindrence, be abounded.
The means and ways for that are found in a compiled work here, based on teachings by the Buddha, found in the canon: The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest
The two mental faculties (indriya), right concentration (samadhi) and right mindfullness (sati) are the means to abound it.
The cause of concentration is rature, the cause of rapture is freedom from remorse, or conviction.
How is the freedom from remorse developed: by acts of generosity, by keeping the precepts without spot.
And how is conviction developed? By reminding the Buddhas quality, the Dhammas quality, the Sanghas quality, by reminding ones generosity, by reminding ones virtue, by reminding, calling in mind, ones virtues equal those of the devas. (The six reflections)
So by taking/asking for refuge, by taking/asking for the precepts, by devotion and acts of it as preperation, the basement is developed.
See for this required proper prepairation: Respect, Confidence and Patient and probably Devotion, basicly requirement because without respect and gratitude (e.g. right view) no right object of joy, no joy no right concentration, no right concentration no release. So is it that right view is the forrunner for right release and by wrong view wrong releas comes into be.
And what is right view?

There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed (convition in result of action, benefit of giving). There are fruits & results of good & bad actions (convition in fruits of kamma, benefit of dana, sila, bhavana). There is this world & the next world (convition in rebirth). There is mother & father (respect and gratitude torward giver, goodness). There are spontaneously reborn beings (convition in Devas, deities and their virtues); there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.(devotion torward the juwels, following them, relay on them)' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."

— AN 10.176
Q: But is this (scared or nervous) a good or bad sign?
Is just a Dhamma. Seeing Dhammas arise and decay. Knowing there qualities, holding on, increase developing benefical and giving no further attention, abound unbenefical, is the work not only to reach proper concentration, Jhana, but also to obsereve them (Dhammas) there in there arising and decay more refined and like they actually are.
It's a good sign, being aware of it, and for its abounding, it was a good sign, a blessing, to ask abot it:

Six things are conducive to the abandonment of restlessness and remorse:

Knowledge of the Buddhist scriptures (Doctrine and Discipline);

Asking questions about them;

Familiarity with the Vinaya (the Code of Monastic Discipline, and for lay followers, with the principles of moral conduct);

Association with those mature in age and experience, who possess dignity, restraint and calm;

Noble friendship;

Suitable conversation.

So now it's up to your right effort to make the best out of your previous and here rippened good sign.
Mudita

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

If you have crossed Arising and Passing away (mistakenly taken as kundalini, or enlightenment experience) Yes, it is expected you go through it at some stage.
refer to:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html#ch6.6
https://www.dharmaoverground.org/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/MCTB+6.+Fear


text:
What is Mastery of reflectionJhana mastery
They say to master jhana you must master five factors. I understand the first four but mastery of reflection is kind of leaving me unsure. I think i get it. Once you come out of the jhana state, you refect on the absorption factors like you do the jhana factors you focus on each until the hindrances is gone. But what are these absotbtion factors. Do i just think about it or stsrt a second meditations on each factor and be aware of them? How do i know what these factors are and distinguish them? They also say there different absorption factor to reflect on. Can you help me understand

These five powers have to be mastered, DeusIIXII, for the purpose to develop right view, for the purpose to gain proper concentraion, for the purpose of release:
(the) first
❋ Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa ❋

There are these five strengths for one in training. Which five? Strength of conviction, strength of conscience, strength of concern, strength of persistence, & strength of discernment.
And what is strength of conviction? ...Vitthara Sutta: (Strengths) in Detail

Since certain prerequisites are possible missing, for one living at home: Development of the first six recollections/reflections can be done "no" matter how busy you are, if the busy is according to the Dhamma: AN 11.13
Since lack of stinginess is prerequisiten

"Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; incapable of realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship. Which five? Stinginess as to one's monastery [lodgings], stinginess as to one's family [of supporters], stinginess as to one's gains, stinginess as to one's status, and ingratitude. Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; one is incapable realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship.
Macchariya Suttas: Stinginess

Lack of Macchariya is reached by entering the stream. So as long difficulty in devotion, gratitude, precepts, e.g. having not really get known the Dhamma by proper attention, no right view yet, it's good to focus on the base. Then it might be possible, like for this generous and devoted man, to take on: fear & animosity are stilled
Much joyful effort is wished!
Addition, since just coming aware again: There is a "new" book, a gift of Dhamma to give, surely very usefullin this regard:

 The Five Faculties : Putting Wisdom in Charge of the Mind, by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu. (revised October 22, 2017) In May of 2017, members of Le Refuge, a Buddhist group located near Marseilles, invited me to lead an nine-day retreat on the topic of the five faculties (indrīya): conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, and discernment. These are a set of qualities that the Buddha numbered among his most important teachings. When put in charge of the mind, they lead all the way to awakening. Taken together, they deal primarily with the practice of meditation, which makes them a good framework for a meditation retreat. However, the first faculty—conviction—focuses on questions of self and world: what kinds of happiness you believe you are capable of attaining, along with what kind of happiness you believe can be found in the world. This means that the five faculties also provide an excellent framework for covering the entire practice of the Buddha’s teachings, both on retreat and in the world at large. (Source)

Note that "reflection", which you used in the question, is actually wisdom/"knowing" (paññā), or discrimination, such as reflection requires sati (mindfullness) and paññā.
Since knowledge at first place, having hear/read the good Dhamma, this might be most usefull to fullfil the answers demand on it's root.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

You should ask your jhāna-attained teacher.
5 mastery are:

āvajjanavasī - professional & quick & easy recalling 5 jhāna-factors, everytime everywhere.
samāpajjanavasī - professional & quick & easy to begin attaining jhāna, everytime everywhere.
adhiṭṭhānavasī - professional controlling time period of jhāna attaining, such as I just attaining a second then use actually a second, I just attaining a minute then use actually a minute, etc.
vuṭṭhānavasī - professional stopping the attaining jhāna.
paccavekkhaṇavasī = āvajjanavasī.

Paccavekkhaṇavasī is āvajjanavasī, nothing difference of them.
Samāpajjanavasī expert begin jhāna.
Adhiṭṭhānavasī expert attaining jhāna.
Vuṭṭhānavasī expert stop jhāna.
Path of purification page 146-148 [204-206 by e-book's auto number]:

Therefore he should acquire mastery in the five ways first of all with respect to the first jhána. Herein, these are the five kinds of
  mastery: mastery in adverting, mastery in attaining, mastery in
  resolving (steadying the duration), mastery in emerging, and mastery
  in reviewing. “He adverts to the first jhána where, when, and for as
  long as, he wishes; he has no difficulty in adverting; thus it is
  mastery in adverting. He attains the first jhána where ... he has no
  difficulty in attaining; thus it is mastery in attaining” (Paþis I
  100), and all the rest should be quoted in detail (XXIII.27).
The explanation of the meaning here is this. When he emerges from the first jhána and first of all adverts to the applied thought, then,
  next to the adverting that arose interrupting the life-continuum,
  either four or five impulsions impel with that applied thought as
  their object. Then there are two life-continuum [consciousnesses].
  Then there is adverting with the sustained thought as its object and
  followed by impulsions in the way just stated. When he is able to
  prolong his conscious process uninterruptedly in this way with the
  five jhána factors, then his mastery of adverting is successful. But
  this mastery is found at its acme of perfection in the Blessed One’s
  Twin Marvel (Paþis I 125), or for others on the aforesaid occasions.
  There is no quicker mastery in adverting than that.
The venerable Mahá-Moggallána’s ability to enter upon jhána quickly, as in the taming of the royal nága-serpent Nandopananda
  (XII.106f.), is called mastery in attaining.
Ability to remain in jhána for a moment consisting in exactly a finger- snap or exactly ten finger-snaps is called mastery in
  resolving (steadying the duration). Ability to emerge quickly in the
  same way is called mastery in emerging.
The story of the Elder Buddharakkhita may be told in order to illustrate both these last. [155] Eight years after his admission to
  the Community that elder was sitting in the midst of thirty thousand
  bhikkhus possessed of supernormal powers who had gathered to attend
  upon the sickness of the Elder Mahá- Rohanagutta at Therambatthala. He
  saw a royal supaóóa (bird) swooping down from the sky intending to
  seize an attendant royal nága-serpent as he was getting rice-gruel
  accepted for the elder. The Elder Buddharakkhita created a rock
  meanwhile, and seizing the royal nága by the arm, he pushed him inside
  it. The royal supaóóa gave the rock a blow and made off. The senior
  elder remarked: “Friends, if Rakkhita had not been there, we should
  all have been put to shame.”
Mastery in reviewing is described in the same way as mastery in adverting; for the reviewing impulsions are in fact those next to the
  adverting mentioned there (§132).
When he has once acquired mastery in these five ways, then on emerging from the now familiar first jhána he can regard the flaws in
  it in this way: “This attainment is threatened by the nearness of the
  hindrances, and its factors are weakened by the grossness of the
  applied and sustained thought.” He can bring the second jhána to mind
  as quieter and so end his attachment to the first jhána and set about
  doing what is needed for attaining the second.
When he has emerged from the first jhána, applied and sustained thought appear gross to him as he reviews the jhána factors with
  mindfulness and full awareness, while happiness and bliss and
  unification of mind appear peaceful. Then, as he brings that same sign
  to mind as “earth, earth” again and again with the purpose of
  abandoning the gross factors and obtaining the peaceful factors,
  [knowing] “now the second jhána will arise,” there arises in him
  mind-door adverting with that same earth kasióa as its object,
  interrupting the life-continuum. After that, either four or five
  impulsions impel on that same object, the last one of which is an
  impulsion of the fine-material sphere belonging to the second jhána.
  The rest are of the sense sphere of the kinds already stated (§74).

cr. www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf


text:
Authenticity of rules for monks and nuns
Is there any way we can know that all these rules are from the Buddha and not made up after him,  based on cultural and/or persons agendas?

People (e.g. those having left home, having left stinginess) who have mastered the fist step, who have gained the strainless eye of Dhamma, have neither doubts nor do they ponder much about it.
So why, if really like to know, don't simply follow them and why, if not follow them ponder about that much, being not you issue yet?
If seeking for doubters and waste a live by pondering around, there is a community working hard on being wiser as the elders for more than 2500 year. Simply join, there are plenty on topics on it. It's like science or watching news, everyday some new personal opinions.
If more tend to uproot doubt, to know for youself, avoiding association with doubt, foremost outwardly and also inwardly. Associate with admirable friends.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

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


text:
Meditation and Pleasure
I have three simple questions relating to pleasure. I have tried meditation many times without generating pleasure. Thus:
1) What level of skill permits meditation to release pleasure? How advanced must one be for this effect?
2) Is focused meditation -- i.e. shamatha -- the only meditation conducive to pleasure? Are there meditations more conducive to pleasure?
3) Is there still attachment when we want the benefits of pleasure not for themselves, but for an altruistic or wider goal?
These are my questions,
Thank you.

1) What level of skill permits meditation to release pleasure? How advanced must one be for this effect?
Ability to enter and abide in 1st Jhana is needed for deriving pleasure from meditation. This involves gaining access concentration (upacara samadhi) and then shifting focus to a pleasant sensation in the body or smile etc.
This is one of the simplest guides I've found for entering jhanas:

Instruction for Entering Jhana (by
Leigh Brasington).

You can also refer to:

9 Jhanas -- The First Jhana: Pleasant Sensations
The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation --
Part 2: How to Enter the Jhanas

From the first link:

You watch the breath until you arrive at access concentration, and then you let go of the breath and shift your attention to a pleasant sensation. There is not much point in watching the breath that has gotten extremely subtle or has disappeared completely. There's nothing left to watch. Shift your attention to a pleasant sensation, preferably a pleasant physical sensation. You will need a good bit of concentration to watch a pleasant physical sensation, because a mildly pleasant feeling somewhere in your body is not nearly as exciting as the breath coming in and the breath going out. You've got this mildly pleasant sensation that's just sitting there; you need to be well-concentrated to stay with it.
The first question that may arise when I say "Shift your attention to a pleasant sensation" is "What pleasant sensation?" Well, it turns out that when you get to access concentration, the odds are quite strong that some place in your physical being, there will be a pleasant sensation. Look at this statue of the Buddha: he has a smile on his face. That is not just for artistic purposes; it is there as a teaching mechanism. Smile when you meditate, because when you reach access concentration, you only have to shift your attention one inch to find the pleasant sensation.

2) Is focused meditation -- i.e. shamatha -- the only meditation conducive to pleasure? Are there meditations more conducive to pleasure?
I don't know about all the meditation techniques available, but out of vipassana and shamatha, shamatha is conducive to gain pleasure and tranquility. Some times you get pleasure out of vipassana as well, but it is not conducive for that, the objectives are different.
3) Is there still attachment when we want the benefits of pleasure not for themselves, but for an altruistic or wider goal?
Like for practicing for eightfold path and liberation? Then no. If it is for mundane or daily activities, it is easy to get attached to the pleasure.

So another try to find a shortcut of your(s) (defilements)... :-) at least you give others chances to enjoy the effort of doing merits. If even they would see fruits of answering your questions for you, such as success by your's would be great.
Well then: read, and pay close attention, Eggman, Atma will write and link.
What level of skill permits meditation to release pleasure? How advanced must one be for this effect?
See again the answer to similar question of yours: Lack of Pleasure and Joy.
To have in the objects of reflection, the devotion for them need to be developed.
For having joy in reflecting about ones generosity, moral conduct, virtues like Devas, certain amount of such successful deeds of merits that such is present in one, need be done in faith, in advanced.
It's not possible to gain without having given a cause, having sacrified first. Like no corn if field-work has not been done. Dhamma does not work on borrow, taking first.
Is focused meditation -- i.e. shamatha -- the only meditation conducive to pleasure? Are there meditations more conducive to pleasure?
To gain the pleasure sukkha, reflect again:

The depending co-cessation
[What's the benefit of devotion/gratitude/generosity/moral virtue?]
"Freedom from remorse, Ananda."
"And of freedom from remorse?"
"Joy, Ananda" (pāmujja)
"And of joy?"
"Rapture, Ananda" (pīti, better satisfaction)
"And of rapture?"
"Tranquillity, Ananda." (passaddhi)
"And of tranquillity?"
"Happiness, Ananda." (sukkha)

"And of happiness?"

"Concentration, Ananda." (samādhi)
"And of concentration?"
"Vision and knowledge according to reality."
"And of the vision and knowledge according to reality?"
"Turning away and detachment, Ananda."
"And of turning away and detachment?"
"The vision and knowledge with regard to Deliverance, Ananda."
*see Upanisa Sutta: Prerequisites

One can gain pīti (satisfaction) by turning to asubha, unbeauty objects, yes.
You might look at the answer on What is the logic behind visualization meditation
But since you nature is an aversive, especially starting by lack of compassion to yourself, it's not recommended, given your seek after pleasure, and the insight that aversion migh not be conductive as well.
Again, aside of Dukkha, it seems as if the is not much base for now, so rather to focus on building a palace in a swamp, focus on virture and much, much generosity, = reducing consuming but giv, give up, serve...
Is there still attachment when we want the benefits of pleasure not for themselves, but for an altruistic or wider goal?
Seek after sensual pleasure kills, sensuallity is the reason for killing and wars in this world: How can there be any alturistic be included in such?
But, to do not understand wrong: the pleasure gained by Jhana is said to be outside the sphere of the five strings and such pleasure does not cause remorse if enjoyed.

Don't be afraid of this pleasure!
""...Simply from my eating so little, if I tried to ease my body by rubbing my limbs with my hands, the hair — rotted at its roots — fell from my body as I rubbed, simply from eating so little.
"People on seeing me would say, 'Gotama the contemplative is black.' Other people would say, 'Gotama the contemplative isn't black, he's brown.' Others would say, 'Gotama the contemplative is neither black nor brown, he's golden-skinned.' So much had the clear, bright color of my skin deteriorated, simply from eating so little.
"I thought: 'Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the past have felt painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None have been greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the future will feel painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None will be greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the present are feeling painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None is greater than this. But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'
"I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then following on that memory came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?' I thought: 'I am no longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities, but that pleasure is not easy to achieve with a body so extremely emaciated. Suppose I were to take some solid food: some rice & porridge.' So I took some solid food: some rice & porridge. Now five monks had been attending on me, thinking, 'If Gotama, our contemplative, achieves some higher state, he will tell us.' But when they saw me taking some solid food — some rice & porridge — they were disgusted and left me, thinking, 'Gotama the contemplative is living luxuriously. He has abandoned his exertion and is backsliding into abundance...
"So when I had taken solid food and regained strength, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, I entered & remained in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the fading of rapture I remained equanimous, mindful, & alert, and sensed pleasure with the body. I entered & remained in the third jhana, of which the noble ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain....
Maha-Saccaka Sutta: The Longer Discourse to Saccaka

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

2) Is focused meditation -- i.e. shamatha -- the only meditation
  conducive to pleasure? Are there meditations more conducive to
  pleasure?

Every meditation conducive to pleasure, except 5th-9th lokiya-jhāna and 5th lokuttara-jhāna.

3) Is there still attachment when we want the benefits of pleasure not
  for themselves, but for an altruistic or wider goal?

Samatha practitioner meditating to avoid just kāmadhamma-attachment, such as color-attachment, etc. So, the practitioner should not worry about pleasure-attachment in samatha meditation, because teacher will teach you to meditate insight-meditation to remove pleasure attachment in samatha, again, after you attain jhāna. Therefore, just meditate follow the meditation sequence.


text:
Meditation for Stress and Anxiety
I have read much about meditation and stress and anxiety, but I'd like to have an experiential perspective from people on here.
1) What's the Buddhist view about stress? What are the solutions to stress? [I don't mean suffering as in dukkha but the physiological reaction of stress linked with cortisol, or just the feeling of being stressed.]
2) Same thing, but with anxiety.
3) How much are stress and anxiety, or their exacerbation, barriers to spiritual practice?
Thank you.

How much are stress and anxiety, or their exacerbation, barriers to spiritual practice?

Stress can be broken up into mental and physical phenomena such as thoughts, emotions, muscle tension, pain etc. They are just impersonal phenomena arising and ceasing on their own accord.
Anxiety is a variation of the 4th Hindrance of restlessness and worry (uddhacca-kukkucca). The hindrances are barriers that block one from progressing on the Path, unless one practices to understand and overcome them.
In Vipassana meditation one treats all objects the same. No object is more or less important than the previous or next object.
Just note the phenomena a couple of times and return attention to the abdomen (Burmese Method).

They are prerequisites: seeing "suffering/stresd" as it is, outwardly, and then inwardly reflected, or inwardly and being aware. Which causes "anxity", seeing no possibility to escape. (samvega)
Having come accross a seldom birth as human (possible not stupid...) and access in meeting the Dhamma, remembering it, if heared/read, if known, faith , or called pasada gives way.
Again the Depending Co-Cessation:

Upanisa Sutta: Prerequisites
birth has becoming as its prerequisite, stress & suffering have birth as their prerequisite, conviction has stress & suffering as its prerequisite, joy has conviction as its prerequisite, rapture has joy as its prerequisite, serenity has rapture as its prerequisite, pleasure has serenity as its prerequisite, concentration has pleasure as its prerequisite, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has concentration as its prerequisite, disenchantment has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present as its prerequisite, dispassion has disenchantment as its prerequisite, release has dispassion as its prerequisite, knowledge of ending has release as its prerequisite.

See also: Affirming the Truths of the Heart: The Buddhist Teachings on Samvega & Pasada
But since one possible still seeks refuge in an next birth, another question, or hopes that with end of this birth suffering will have be disappeard, does neither came in contact with the Dhamma of the Experiant one, the unexceled Trainer of those ready to be taimed, or his following discioles, or is by hindrences not capable to reflect not foolish what has been said, suffering and anxity might arise again, and a gain, followed by death and anothers question birth, and in the case that there is no suffering and anxity, to develop right view, since it will come, would be wise.

What's the Buddhist view about stress? What are the solutions to stress? [I don't mean suffering as in dukkha but the physiological reaction of stress linked with cortisol, or just the feeling of being stressed.]

Dukkha is Dukkha. Feeling of stress are all three kind, caused by not-knowing.

pañcavaggiyakathā
(Mv.I.6.19) [14] “Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress: Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
(Mv.I.6.20) “And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming—accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there—i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.
(Mv.I.6.23) [15] “Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: ‘This is the noble truth of stress.’

“… ‘This noble truth of stress is to be comprehended.’
“Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: ‘ … has been comprehended.’

Same thing, but with anxiety.

Dame ss for Dhukka: why anxity?

How much are stress and anxiety, or their exacerbation, barriers to spiritual practice?

In as far one has a unfortune rebirth: not meeting, listening/hearing, reflecting, comprehending the Dhamma: therefor not developing the path.
Or if not seen Dhukkha, having heard...comprehended the dhamma, hoping when death or real fear approches to remembering it, the known Dhamma.
Still no fear? Still no suffering? Or still not read, reflected, comprehend the good Dhamma? Just await here the next birth in an another answer then. Some like to make merits and that gives possibilities for those with faith in it.

Meditations for Stress and Anxiety e.g. support of developing samvega

-- Reflection on death
-- Reflectikn on the (parts) of the body
-- Reflection on (one of the 10) corpse
-- Reflexion on the uglyness of food
Best possible to see suffering if one leaves the palace, the secure home and inspects the world outside a little: hospitals, cemeteries, slayer halls... might be possible near.
Or reflective listening to certain lyrics of Iron Maiden, Metallica... reflective, not singing, delight in sound and stressed bang the head...
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
Tolerating Sensations VS Diminishing them
I was wondering something. Basically, I was wondering whether sensations, such as suffering:
(1) naturally occur within the person, as pleasure and pain, or happiness and suffering, and it is their exacerbation which people call, for example, suffering. So, a person in mundane life experiences a plethora of sensations which, when a single feeling dominates, becomes joy, suffering, etc.
Here, suffering and sensations always exist.
or (2) involve an underlying neutrality which is the absence of sensation, and experiencing suffering or happiness generates a corresponding feeling.
Here, suffering and sensations cease.
So, (1) implies a variety of different and co-existing sensations, while (2) implies a neutral basis wherein sensations arise and dissipate.

This might seem like a metaphysical or trivial question, but I think its quite significant.
In (1), diminishing suffering might involve tolerating its presence, more and more. In (2), the ideal is neutrality, and suffering is diminished by elimination.
So, I think this question wonders whether Buddhism advocates (1) the existence of sensations and phenomena, positive or negative or neutral, but the equanimity towards them. Or, does it advocate (2), the equanimity towards sensations as in their diminution, and the return towards neutrality?
Does Buddhism experience suffering with tolerance, or diminish suffering by elimination?
Thank you.

Eggman. Might be possible good to change the titel, since its a total different topic then the detail after. What about: "Approaching suffering (unpleasant feelings) with tolerance, or diminish suffering by elimination, or something else?"

Does Buddhism experience suffering with tolerance, or diminish suffering by elimination?
What ever Buddhism could do, does, should, even experiences... The Buddha told, and such is it recited:

"Eggman!"
"Yes," the householder replied.
The Monk said, "Eggman, the ending of the fermentations is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what? Appropriate attention & inappropriate attention. When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. There are fermentations to be abandoned by seeing, those to be abandoned by restraining, those to be abandoned by using, those to be abandoned by tolerating, those to be abandoned by avoiding, those to be abandoned by destroying, and those to be abandoned by developing.
...
"[4] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, endures. He tolerates cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to tolerate these things do not arise for him when he tolerates them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating.
[5] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspool, an open sewer. Reflecting appropriately, he avoids sitting in the sorts of unsuitable seats, wandering to the sorts of unsuitable habitats, and associating with the sorts of bad friends that would make his knowledgeable friends in the holy life suspect him of evil conduct. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to avoid these things do not arise for him when he avoids them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding.
[6] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence.
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will...
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty...
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to destroy these things do not arise for him when he destroys them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying.
Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

I'm not sure I follow your vocabulary (e.g. you distinguish dukkha, anxiety, suffering, sensations, etc., which I'm not sure I do or can).
a person in mundane life experiences a plethora of sensations which, when a single feeling dominates, becomes joy, suffering, etc.
Subjectively it seems to me that a lot depends on memory (or train of thought):

If I remember something sad (i.e. a time in the past when I felt sad) then I momentarily feel sad again!
If I remember something happy (a time when I felt happy) then maybe I feel sad because that time is past or passing!! :-)

I think that equanity includes:

Whatever it is (pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral) don't become attached to it (and don't think of it as "myself")
If present experience is pleasant then don't rejoice in it or relish it "too much", or without some mindfulness; or view it with dispassion, or even Nibbida
If it's unpleasant then don't "shy away from it", so that you would avoid knowing it (and knowing its cessation too)

Also according to this the brahma-viharas are "the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings " which "provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact" -- I'm not sure how that applies to equanimity, specifically, except that much restlessness seems to me to be associated with (or a residue from) social contact.

I dunno if we are allowed to answer our own question this way -- someone may inform me -- but I think my answer can provide some clarity on this topic. I realized after asking that my emotional reactions are immensely blunted, while also occurring immensely strongly in rare instances. For example, I will have no compassion, then feel a burst of immense compassionate feeling, and even cry sometimes.
This leads me to suppose my feelings are bottled up, filtered. The idea of a bottle, which has pressured contents, causing it to burst, is this phenomenon: I would think, perhaps, emotions and feelings -- and experiences -- function this way.
This leads me to question if the way I studied Buddhism and other philosophies was not totally misguided, and ultimately caused me to filter feelings in an avoidant way.
I feel Buddhism advocates feeling rather than avoidance, it makes sense to me now.
I think this answer has some use in that the bottled up phenomenon seems to suggest something about my mind, or emotions themselves, or provides a good example for what not to do in Buddhism.
If such answering is not well received, then merely delete it, or notify me.

Most other SE sites explicitly welcome answering your own question, but on this site please don't make a habit of it.


text:
Why would a non-dualist mind choose the Bodhisattva path once it has stopped differentiating between suffering and non-suffering?
As I understand from what contact I've had with Mahayanist explanations, a prominent feature of the enlightened mind is that it no longer splits the world into "X and non-X" categories but sees it all as a single harmonious continuum. But that would mean the same mind would also no longer split human experience into "suffering and non-suffering". What motivation, then, to follow the Bodhisattva path of helping all beings escape "suffering", if "suffering" is no longer distinguished?
Or is it the case that Mahayana never said enlightenment guarantees that a Buddha will take this path, and therefore that Mahayana does not guarantee you will come out a moral person once you have followed the path to its end?

Maybe worthy to add how a "neutral dwelling" (aside that it's not possible at least) could accumulate paramis.

The Pali sutta Buddha splits suffering & non-suffering because the Pali Buddha has understood it is not the idea of "suffering" that causes suffering but the view of "self" or "beings". Therefore, the Pali sutta Buddha does not see any "beings" or "selves" but sees suffering & non-suffering. What suffers is "minds" rather than "beings". Suffering is merely an element rather than a self. That is why a Buddha can act to end suffering because a Buddha sees suffering but sees no person that suffers. Its like putting out a fire with water. A fire is not a person.

What is a person? Mind, Element?...

What motivation, then, to follow the Bodhisattva path of helping all beings escape "suffering", if "suffering" is no longer distinguished?

The motivation is that, although Bodhisattva no longer splits the world, Bodhisattva understands that others still do and therefore have the basis for suffering.
In other words, suffering still exists for sentient beings, even though for Bodhisattva there is no suffering, no beings, and no Bodhisattva.
Because Bodhisattva understands that the nature of suffering is subjective experience, Bodhisattva helps out of great compassion.

...see: e.g. Wandering on Buddha. Who falls into hell as well, or exists eternaly? Total confusing, this schizophrenia thinking. Had to remember: "Sri Ramana Maharshi once remarked, “A good man says, ‘Let me be the last man to get liberation, so that I may help all others to be liberated before I am.’ Wonderful! Imagine a dreamer saying, ‘May all these dream people wake up before I do.’ The dreamer is no more absurd than this amiable philosopher.” His analysis astutely sums up the issue: only when the heart is free of all self-view can it attune itself to reality; a precise balance is needed."

Finding the Perfect Balance, Ajahn Amaro

Concepts are tools, Samana. Enlightenment does not mean we must become stupid and stop using concepts, such as concept of object, or concept of entity, or of sentient being, or of agent. It means we can use concepts as needed, while understanding their reward, danger, and escape. Direct vision does not mean only seeing with one eye of ultimate truth, but two eyes, ultimate and relative, for the unity of two truths, 3D vision.

Sure. But does a smart follow for example the concept of the "mouse on the mars?" or "Cockaigne"? But it's ok. Believes are individual choices. How could humans and devas, animals and humans ever support each other to see. Sadhu for the effort anyway.

Johann's article is the most detailed direct answer I've seen so far. The proposed solution seems to be a balancing between wisdom (seeing non-dually) and compassion (understanding dually that there's a lot of clinging in the world), as just one more application of the Middle Way, or of not clinging to anything. But I'll have to think about it some more, because it seems to suggest that enlightenment itself (or wisdom, in the above expression) could be conceived of as a potential object of clinging, and this strikes me as highly problematic, logically. (Can you cling to non-clinging?)

Quoted below is from Bodhicaryāvatāra, as it read, I think, the answer to your quotation is that the purpose is to tranquilize sorrow, although in the ultimate reality its effect is illusionary it not forbidden as it leads to tranquilizing sorrow. I think we could also say it leads to dispassion.

The Ego is neither the past nor the future thought, because that is
  seen not to exist.
But if the Ego is the production of thought, when that has disappeared
  the Ego does not exist.
Just as the stem of a banana tree does not exist when it has been
  divided into parts,so the Ego likewise has become unreal by being
  examined reflectively.
It may be thought that because a being cannot be found, there is no
  one upon whom to bestow compassion; but whatever is done [even] in a
  state of confusion is because of a purpose.
> Yet if there is no being, whose is the purpose? Truly the effort is illusionary; but because it is for the sake of tranquilizing sorrow,
  the delusion of purpose is not forbidden.
Because of the delusion of self, the concept of one’s individuality,
  the cause of sorrow, is increased.
Since it is destroyed in no other way, the concept of nonself is
  preferred.
The body is not the feet or the legs or the breast.
Neither is the body, the hips, the belly, the back, nor the arms.
It is likewise not the hands or the sides or the armpits or the
  shoulders or any external mark.
The body is not the neck or the head. What then is the body?
If the body finds itself partially in all [parts], the parts find
  themselves in parts, and so where does the body itself abide?
If the body is everywhere completely in every part, then there must
  exist as many bodies as there are parts.    The body is neither within
  nor without. How is the body in its parts?
How is it outside its parts? How indeed does it exist?
The body does not exist, but because of delusion there is a body-idea
  in its parts: because of a kind of fabrication, like imagining a man
  in a stump.
As long as there is a complete collection of causes, the body is taken
  to be a man.
Likewise, as long as it is in its members, the body is seen there.
In the same way there can be no foot, because that is a mass of toes.
The limb is likewise a collection of limbs, separated according to
  their parts.
The parts also are split into atoms. The atom also is in six sections.
The six sections are empty space without parts. Consequently there is
  no atom.
When the form is like dream, then who will deliberately fall in love
  with it?
And since there is no body, then what is a woman? And what is a man?
If sorrow really does exist, why does it not oppress the joyful?
If happiness is dainty food, why does it not please those involved in
  present grief?
If happiness is not experienced, because it is surpassed by something
  more powerful, what kind of a sensation is it when the essence is not
  experienced?
If sorrow is a subtle state which is destroyed by that which is gross,
  is it not possible that the other state is a degree of satisfaction?
  It follows that satisfaction is also a subtle state.
If sorrow does not arise in the presence of a contrary cause, then
  what is called “sensation” has arisen only because of adherence to a
  fiction.
This examination has for this very reason been its antidote.
The food of the Yogīs is that contemplation which has arisen in the
  field of imagination.
If there is an interval between the sense and its object, how is there
  a contact between them?
If there is no interval, they are a unity; and how then is there a
  contact?
There is no entering into an atom by an atom; it is equal [to the
  other atom] and without free space.
Without entering there is no mingling, there is no contact.
How can contact really arise from that which is without parts? And if
  that without parts has been seen in contact, let it be indicated.
Contact cannot be made without consciousness, which is formless, nor
  with an aggregate [of parts], because of its unreality, as previously
  demonstrated.
If this contact is not in existence, how is it the origin of
  sensation?
For the sake of what is this effort? Of what is the binding and why
  should it be?
Since there is not seen a knower nor any kind of sensation, O thirst!
  beholding this situation, why are you not split asunder?
Sensation is seen and it is touched, but by thought [only], which
  itself is like the sleep of māyā. Because of its very nature, due to
  that thought, sensation is not seen.
In this birth neither that which was before not that which will be
  afterwards is remembered or perceived.
It does not perceive itself, nor is it perceived by another.
There is not a knower, therefore there is not really any sensation.
Since this bundle is composed of nothing, how can one be oppressed by
  it?

emphasis added

I would answer, from my point of view, the difference is like a bunch of sand and a flowing river. Mundane perception views suffering as definite, real, tangible, and so on. Here, the grains of sand are distinct, seemingly disconnected. But, wisdom perceives suffering as dependently originated, empty, and so on. With the river, one sees the water as a flow. One sees the river flowing through time. This is like emptiness and impermanence.
So, suffering still exists with emptiness, but not as a distinct, independent entity.
You mentioned the non-distinction of suffering and non-suffering, which may be perceived in many ways. To me, suffering exists in the same reality as emptiness, as non-suffering. If everything is dependently originated, something connects suffering to non-suffering: they share a certain reality.
But, to answer your question, you mention that there is no distinction between suffering and non-suffering. When thinking of a rainbow, one sees the spectrum of light vary through neighbouring hues. Does this mean there is no red? No green? Not necessarily. In this example, categories are transcended, but they exist nevertheless.
Also, in Nagarjuna's philosophy, there is conventional and ultimate reality. In conventional reality, there exists objects, persons, etc. Only in ultimate reality does separateness -- and other such concepts -- cease to exist. But, they don't disappear. They are perceived as they really are, in an empty way.
[EDIT: I just wanted to add, emptiness could be achieved by different understandings. Another example using color: when you see "red", you think of a particular hue, a certain type of red. But you could always change the hue very slightly, generating colors that are still red, but different. If this is possible, how can there be red? How does red truly exist? Red, in reality, doesn't exist as itself but as an array of different hues. In the same way, objects exist differently in reality than how they appear.]


text:
Self-Compassion and Wisdom
I have questions linked with wisdom and self-compassion.
(1) Does self-compassion arise from wisdom?
(2) Does self-compassion imply accumulating joys and happiness in a context of detachment and non-craving? I.e. what is the nature of the wise person's self-compassion?
Thank you.

 (1) Does self-compassion arise from wisdom?
Yes! And out of compassion for all others. An all included wisdom & compassion.
➱ 1th stage of wisdom, serious honesty:

 Rājan Sutta: The King
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that occasion King Pasenadi Kosala had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace. Then he said to her, "Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"
"No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"
"No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself."
Then the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Just now, when I had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, 'Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, she said to me, 'No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, I said to her, 'No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself.'"
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
Searching all directions
  with your awareness,
  you find no one dearer
      than yourself.
  In the same way, others
  are thickly dear to themselves.
  So you shouldn't hurt others
      if you love yourself.

➯ 2nd Stage:

 Piya Sutta: Dear
At Savatthi. As he was sitting to one side, King Pasenadi Kosala said to the Blessed One: "Just now, lord, while I was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in my awareness: 'Who are dear to themselves, and who are not dear to themselves?' Then it occurred to me: 'Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct are not dear to themselves. Even though they may say, "We are dear to ourselves," still they aren't dear to themselves. Why is that? Of their own accord, they act toward themselves as an enemy would act toward an enemy; thus they aren't dear to themselves. But those who engage in good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct are dear to themselves. Even though they may say, "We aren't dear to ourselves," still they are dear to themselves. Why is that? Of their own accord, they act toward themselves as a dear one would act toward a dear one; thus they are dear to themselves.'"
That's the way it is, great king! That's the way it is! Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct are not dear to themselves. Even though they may say, 'We are dear to ourselves,' still they aren't dear to themselves. Why is that? Of their own accord, they act toward themselves as an enemy would act toward an enemy; thus they aren't dear to themselves. But those who engage in good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct are dear to themselves. Even though they may say, 'We aren't dear to ourselves,' still they are dear to themselves. Why is that? Of their own accord, they act toward themselves as a dear one would act toward a dear one; thus they are dear to themselves."
That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:
If you hold yourself dear
  then don't fetter yourself
          with evil,
  for happiness isn't easily gained
      by one who commits
      a wrong-doing.
When seized by the End-maker
      as you abandon the human state,
  what's truly your own?
  What do you take along when you go?
  What follows behind you
      like a shadow
      that never leaves?
Both the merit & evil
      that you as a mortal
      perform here:
  that's      what's truly your own,
          what you take along when you go;
  that's      what follows behind you
      like a shadow
      that never leaves.
So do what is admirable,
  as an accumulation
      for the future life.
  Deeds of merit are the support for beings
      when they arise
      in the other world.

.
 (2) Does self-compassion imply accumulating joys and happiness in a context of detachment and non-craving? I.e. what is the nature of the wise person's self-compassion?

➯ 3rd stage, supramundane wisdom: real compassion with all
It's already given under one, but maybe a ballade give wisdom for success of being really dear to oneself and so naturally to every being by leaving the states of demerits as well as merits behind:

 The Ballad of Liberation from the Khandhas
Once there was a man who loved himself
  and feared distress. He wanted happiness
  beyond the reach of danger, so he wandered
  endlessly. Wherever people said
  that happiness was found, he longed to go,
  but wandering took a long, long time.
  He was the sort of man who loved himself
  and really dreaded death. He truly wanted
  release from aging & mortality.
  Then one day he came to know the truth,
  abandoning the cause of suffering &
  compounded things. He found a cave of wonders,
  of endless happiness, i.e., the body... ❋

➯ 4th stage: the practice out of compassion:

 Sedaka Sutta: At Sedaka
The Blessed One said, "Once upon a time, monks, a bamboo acrobat, having erected a bamboo pole, addressed his assistant, Frying Pan: 'Come, my dear Frying Pan. Climb up the bamboo pole and stand on my shoulders.'
"'As you say, Master,' Frying Pan answered the bamboo acrobat and, climbing the bamboo pole, stood on his shoulders.
"So then the bamboo acrobat said to his assistant, 'Now you watch after me, my dear Frying Pan, and I'll watch after you. Thus, protecting one another, watching after one another, we'll show off our skill, receive our reward, and come down safely from the bamboo pole.'
"When he had said this, Frying Pan said to him, 'But that won't do at all, Master. You watch after yourself, and I'll watch after myself, and thus with each of us protecting ourselves, watching after ourselves, we'll show off our skill, receive our reward, and come down safely from the bamboo pole.'
"What Frying Pan, the assistant, said to her Master was the right way in that case.
"Monks, a frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after myself.' A frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after others.' When watching after oneself, one watches after others. When watching after others, one watches after oneself.
"And how does one, when watching after oneself, watch after others? Through pursuing [the practice], through developing it, through devoting oneself to it. This is how one, when watching after oneself, watches after others.
"And how does one, when watching after others, watch after oneself? Through endurance, through harmlessness, and through a mind of kindness & sympathy. This is how one, when watching after others, watches after oneself.
"A frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after myself.' A frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after others.' When watching after oneself, one watches after others. When watching after others, one watches after oneself."

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

In Buddhism, wisdom means discerning suffering & freedom from suffering (SN 48.10). Therefore, self-compassion certainly arises from true wisdom; just as faith in the Buddhism path for the purpose of self-compassion arises from the wisdom of discerning suffering (SN 12.23).

Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for
  faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply. SN 12.23

Therefore, if the freedom, peace & happiness from detachment & non-craving is discerned with wisdom; self-compassion certainly includes accumulating joys & happiness from Dhamma practise.
There are four right efforts in Buddhism, which summarize self-compassion, namely: (i) the effort to prevent suffering; (ii) the effort to abandon suffering; (iii) the effort to develop non-suffering; (iv) the effort to maintain & accumulate/increase non-suffering.


text:
Supposed one could give you Cockayne, would you strife for Nibbana?
Thought there is a great Guru, displaying personally the joy of abundance and teaches the attaining of Cockaigne, would you still seek for Nibbana?
Yes? No? If, or if not, why?
He doubts you have any argument against it, you just don't know the way!
"Don't get it wrong!"Hesays:
"Thereis endless sense pleasure,
 for all strings,
    no aging, no sickness,
         no death.
Eating the whole day
         without belly pain...
Cockaigne is not temporary.
Your favorit food, pleasure
as long as you like,
chaning it as you wish.
By abundance
Detached from any stressful'
    no consequence,
non-dual
        in that sphere!"
who seek rel-ease
        from IS

What are you talking about? Nibbana is Cockaigne.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I can only answer from my perspective, but the answer is a straightforwards yes; I would still strive for nirvana given I had come in contact with Buddhist teachings. There are many reasons for this:

Karmically speaking, what occurs within that temporary land is irrelevant. What truly matters is what will happen to me in the vaster perspective. I think of this as a temporary versus long-term benefit type of thing.
From a perspective of wisdom, I would still be suffering by engaging in those pleasures, they would merely hide or distract me from true happiness. Such a happiness might entail equanimity arising from perceiving reality.
From a compassionate point of view, there are people suffering, and with such a selfish attitude I would not be able to develop myself in a way conducive to helping others. It would be a completely narcissistic choice.

I think in my answer I expressed the three dimensions involved in the Mahayana Buddhist path: aspiring to liberation, bodhicitta, and the insight into emptiness.
I think, in fact, that we even conceive we'd be happier shows us the nature of delusion. We can imagine we'd be happy with intense pleasures, but the reality is otherwise, showing the discrepancy between our perception and reality. Nothing within this world shows us this discrepancy, and the proof is that many people do live in this way, seeking pleasures. Only the transcendent understanding from insight provides immunity from this misapprehension, and dealing with reality in a worldly way -- as in with your example of Cockaigne -- will hinder such insight.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Nibbana is not cockaigne, because its said that there is no want in Nibbana and that is bliss!
Even here in Samsara wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants, So if you are aiming to have fewer want you are following the true path.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

You are asking about five strength of a being ; Conviction (saddhā),Energy (viriya), Mindfulness (sati), Unification (samādhi), Wisdom (paññā) which impossible for none other than Buddha to see.  If one poses these five strength enough, he would seek deathlessness. Five strengths is what makes one strive for Nirvana, however we need to see if the environment he is in, such as Cockaigne, affects any of those 5????
i can think of reading sutta of what can be credited to Buddha's words about Uttarakuru country. It is the closest to Cockaigne I can think of.  None of them make any progress in Dharma. Buddha compared Uttarakuru country to us and tavatimsa deva in that world; 1)  No pain, 2) no jealousy, 3) fixed life expectancy.   And yet, no one in that world strives to make progress toward Nirvana.
In general, if you want to know drives or motivation and ability to strive in Nirvana, you need to look at being's five strength.
IMO, causal of Five Strengths in a being is both from Nature and Nurtured.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.


text:
Pattern of Strong Aversion
I noticed that when I engage in a task I am very able until I reach my limit, namely the point where I had enough, where effort and suffering kicks in. I noticed:

When I reach that point I lose energy, thinking becomes more difficult, confused. With something I enjoy it is the opposite.
When I reach that points demotivating thoughts as "This is worthless," "What's the point of doing this?" occur.

Even in meditation I am able to go a long time without effort or difficulty if I feel like it, but when there is resistance I fall asleep or want to do something else.
My question is: how can one increase their tolerance to physical pain and effort, suffering, etc. -- all the things linked with aversion to negative states? (Keep in mind that when I meditate at the wrong time I fall asleep or encounter difficulty).
Thank you.

Is it about ill-will (e.g. torward an object, person) or just lack of pleasant feeling at this stage?

Not ill-will, just aversion to negative states, e.g. displeasure, effort, pain.

Toward feeling? Who's feeling?

Given the psychological nature of sankhara (schemata), you have very understandable and intelligent reasons for having a “pattern of strong aversion” in terms of past experience. In other words, past experience in this lifetime and probably in previous lifetimes has given you substantial reasons to experience strong aversion today. Circumstances and experiences of the past have caused you to adapt to the world with aversion as a strategy for dealing with hardship. There is no blame here, but it is difficult to revise or unlearn strong patterns of adaptation. In Theravadin Buddhism, the classical remedy for modifying aversion is the development of bliss experienced during full samadhi. There are several Buddhist meditations that lead to full samadhi. Indeed, your own Bodhicitta will direct you towards full samadhi. It is important that you do not push yourself to the point where aversion kicks in. You might consider a full retreat in some beautiful countryside meditation center. I wish you well.


text:
Why should I give a bowl full of rice to a monk if there is no rebirth?
If there is no rebirth, what is the response for a layman asking as below?
Oh, monk, I have been feeding you for ten years and I was told that my good deeds could secure me a better fortune on my re-birth, and that I will be paid a hundred or even a thousand times more. I was told that this deed of mine could even secure me a place among the Devas. But now I hear you say in secret amongs you that there is no re-birth, so tell me why should I give you this bowl of rice if there is no reward for me?
I feed my son too for ten years, but he gives me delight and I also know that he is going to support me when I'm aged and weak from feeding you and him. But you, you say that you will be extinguished like fire and be here and nowhere, so why should I feed you?
Ooh, is it because of my compassion that I feed you? But if so where is your compassion when your aim is to delight in the Jhanas and at last be extinguished leaving me and my son at lose? Tell me why I shouldn’t call you a hypocrite?

See also What is right gifting? which describes motive.

Buddhism is not an obligatory religion but a religion of voluntary individual participation. There is no obligation to feed monks for non-Buddhists who have not gained appreciation and thus gratitude towards Buddhism.
Monks have carried the teachings over the centuries & established places for dedicated practice. Therefore, grateful Buddhists feeds monks who they have personal faith in & respect for. For example, I once expelled a monk from my home & advised him he was not welcome for alms, because I had no faith in that monk.
In short, non-Buddhists or non-faithful have no obligation to feed monks.
Also, Buddhism states monks should be easy to look after & not cause hardship to supporters. In other words, if your family will be deprived due to feeding a monk, Buddhism does not expect you to feed a monk.

Dhammapada 49. As a bee gathers honey from the flower without injuring its color or fragrance, even so the sage goes on his
  alms-round in the village.

Would a monk even respond at all, if they were asked a question like the OP's during an alms round?

If one would expand his awareness and look into the matter discerning, one would possible say:
"That's the way it is. One should never regret ones done good deed.
For the giving of alms to a contemplative Epic will spend many lifespans in heaven.
For the regret of having given alms to a member of the Sangha, on account of established wrong views act of thoughts and speech, if not coming to mind and timely not let it become even a bodily act of reject, Epic will for many livetimes have planty and whealth, but neither will she/he be able to enjoy the wealth and even the son of this livetime will not care for herghim in her/him age. Many times she/he will be heirless.

Grain, wealth, silver, gold,
  or whatever other belongings you have;
  slaves, servants, errand-runners,
  & any dependents:
      you must go without taking
          any of them;
      you must leave
          all of them
              behind.
What you do
  with body, speech, or mind:
      that    is yours;
              taking
      that    you go;
      that's
      your follower,
          like a shadow
          that never leaves.
Thus you should do what is fine
  as a stash for the next life.
      Acts of merit
  are the support for beings
  in their after-death world.
Aputtaka Sutta: Heirless (2)

On the significance of this, to that occassion:
"Indeed, it is trough association with fools, that foolish thoughts arising, or having arised, become nurishment.So is it that association, tending to the fools, listen on their advices leds upward, gives neither pleasant hold in this nor the next world, not to speak about beyound."
When ever the thought might arise "It would be good to be taught and encouraged in good ways, for long time benefit, it would be good to be explained what is benefical, what lead not to long lasting benefit." One might know how, whome and where to approach to be conductive satisfied.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


text:
What is the relationship between dana and tax?
Is dana (or has it ever been) considered taxable in some countries?

Do you mind an unreferenced answer?
I think the answer is "generally, no"; but that you're asking after any examples, however rare, where the answer has been yes.
Also I guess that gifts of wealth are usually made to an institution e.g. a monastery (as opposed to less-easily-taxable gifts of food and other requisites, given to a monk).

Historically where a country had Muslim conquerors (e.g. India, Afghanistan) there was sometimes a poll tax (a head-tax) on non-Muslims.
There were a few short periods, a thousand years ago or so, where Chinese emperors were troubled by the tax-exempt (and war-exempt) status of Buddhists, and tried to regulate or tax or suppress it
In the Soviet Union under Stalin (e.g. in 1928), they decided that Buddhism (even though atheist) was anti-revolutionary, and taxed monasteries
In Thailand a few years ago there was a proposal to tax monasteries (however I think that was not implemented)
In 1985-1987 Kyoto tried to add a tax to the price of admission tickets which the Buddhist temples sold to tourists