text:
Is there a better term than Hinayana?
I'm aware that using the term Hinayana isn't ideal as it has derogatory undertones - being coined by the Mahayana school to differentiate themselves from what had gone on before. The implication being that the Greater Vehicle of the Mahayana is better than the lesser vehicle of the Hinayana.
So is there another term that can be used? I have often heard Theravada being used interchangeably. I'm not convinced that's right since I'm sure there are other 'Hinayana ' schools that aren't Theravadan, particularly considering ancient schools that don't exist now.

Non-mahayana. ;)

Maybe this could be a Meta question as wel, if we could agree to one term to use on this site, that would helpful IMHO.

@DirkM I absolutely agree. I was going to see what the possibilities were here then ask for a consensus on meta or even if the issue was seen as important for this site

@DirkM I've now asked the question on the meta site http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/231/is-there-a-better-term-than-hinayana-that-we-should-be-using

Based on the Introduction in "Buddhist Religions" by Robinson, Johnson, and Thanissaro (5th ed.), one option could be to use Śrāvakayāna. Those authors discuss Buddhism as being more like three (at least) religions within a single family, than one single religion. Those three are:

The Theravāda tradition, centered on the Pali Canon, and dominated by the Śrāvakayāna
The East Asian tradition, centered on the Chinese Canon, and dominated by the Mahāyāna, and
The Tibetan tradition, centered on the Tibetan Canon, and dominated by the Vajrayāna

They note that the mention of each of those three "yāna" (vehicles or courses) as dominant influences doesn't mean that they were the only influence, and that in fact each tradition contains influences from all three vehicles.

As I was just explaining in a comment to one of my answers, the term "Hinayana" is widely used by Tibetan Buddhism teachers to refer to basic/elementary/foundational (and because of this often simplified) aspects of Buddha-Dharma. If you'd go to their lectures, you'd hear this notion of Hinayana-understanding vs. Mahayana-understanding discussed in almost every other lecture. Amongst tens of books written by the teacher I consider my Root Guru, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a recently published 3-volume set has its first book, of 680 pages, dedicated to Hinayana, with this word used on almost every page.
Again, to emphasize, "Hinayana" is not used to refer to Theravada at all. Rather, it is used in two senses: one, to refer to a primitive interpretation of Buddha-Dharma (by a member of any school, and of any standing, but usually a beginner, or a "senior junior") and two, to refer to the first phase of Buddhist upbringing, during which the student is introduced to the most basic discipline and doctrines, that serve as the foundation for subsequent education & practice.
Imagine two teachers discussing their students with each other: "I have 3 Hinayana-level students, 2 Mahayana-level, and 1 Mahamudra" or "This guy is stuck at Hinayana level, perhaps I should try Kriyayogatantra..."
Whoever thinks the term is derogatory misses the point. The term is indeed used to refer to "primitive" or "elementary" level of Dharma. But we don't consider "elementary education" a derogatory term, do we? Or perhaps, in countries where Parliament comes in two houses, we don't consider The Lower House of Parliament a derogatory term? And when the rental cars come in three classes: economy, business and luxury -- we do not insist that the use of the term "economy" should be discouraged because it hurts the feelings of lower-income people etc.
The term "Hinayana" is an important term, used by thousands of gurus over thousands of years to teach their students a very important point: that Dharma, like any other non-trivial area of human activity goes far beyond simple logic, and requires depth, sensitivity, ability to compromise, to go beyond black-and-white view of the world, to juggle multiple contradicting needs, to understand different perspectives, and in general to not get stuck at the level of mechanical application of formulaic if-then-else rules.
Besides the negative connotations ("black-n-white understanding of the beginner"), the way it was presented by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche I feel "hinayana" also has positive connotations like "fundamental basic teaching" and "spartan discipline".
Here's how Trungpa praised hinayana in his famous short talk, Never Forget Hinayana (edited for readability):

Good evening. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a very profound time and profound experience for us to realize how important is the hinayana teaching.
The hinayana teaching should not be regarded as something that you can just carry out and then get rid of, or discard. The hinayana teaching is the life force that carries our practice and discipline, which goes on continuously. From that point of view the hinayana should be regarded as life’s strength.
It is [important] for us to understand that basic life [force], that basic strength. It is very important to us, and inseparable from our lives and our existence as individuals. It is the life force that carries [you] on whether you are going through the hinayana, mahayana, or vajrayana [levels]. It is our substance and our sustenance.
NEVER FORGET HINAYANA!

This is clarifying, I wasn't aware of this use by tibetans. However, given it's (early and modern) history, to use this term is quite hard to get away from the polemic...

Until the comment by @Theravada and your (comment) response to it, I had never come the concept of Hinayana as insulting. I had only ever come across it in terms of the Tibetan usage. I am unclear under what circumstances the negative connotations of the term (if any) are an issue.

I don't think there is one commonly-accepted alternative name, but I did find some interesting suggestions here.
Of all the listed suggestions IMHO these three are best:

Nikāya Buddhism; coined by Professor Masatoshi Nagatomi of Harvard University especially for the purpose of avoiding the use of the term Hinayana
Non-Mahayana Buddhism
Early Buddhism

Misleading. "Early Buddhism" and "Nikaya Buddhism" refer to Buddhism before Theravada, not inclusive of.

I'm just reading An Introduction to Buddhism by Peter Harvey. He uses a geographically based model which I like so

Southern Buddhism - Theravada (Burma, Laos, Cambodia etc..)
Eastern Buddhism - Chinese transmission of Mahayana Buddhism (China,
Korea, Japan etc..)
Northern Buddhism - heir of late Indian forms where Vajrayana forms
dominate (Tibet, Mongolia, Some Russian areas etc..)

I think the model works for describing the major schools of Buddhism today in a way which doesn't have any derogatory overtones

e.g. "Heart Sutra is one of the most important sutras of Eastern and Northern Buddhism, not considered authentic word of the Buddha by Southern Buddhists"?

I believe that the first category is itself misleading - I found, to my surprise when I was there, that Buddhism in Laos is overwhelmingly Mahayana based.

In the other answers there are some proposals which I do not want to repeat here; this answer is just to shed some other/private light on some more whereabouts of the problem.
In pre-socialistic Russia there were the two sections of the communist party, one called "menshewiki" the others "bolshewiki". Today most people knows only "bolshewiki" and associate something -possibly special cruel- with it...
Now, well, it only meant:"menshewiki"- the smaller fraction, "bolshewiki" - the larger fraction. "minority"- "majority"....
Of what I've read, the word "mahasanghika" had initially simply some similar connotation, but with the occurence of the term "maha-yana" (the wider/larger vehicle) it must have happened relatively soon that also a connotation far beyond of the size-aspect towards "better/worse", "superior/inferior" overlaid (and possibly dominated) that size-aspect. (A specially intense impression can one get when reading the (mahayana-) Parinirvana-sutra, where even the term itself is mentioned and celebrated as liberation-relevant).
Perhaps, if it had happened using the english language one had called the own, larger, part of the sangha the "omnibus-car", or even "ferrari-car", the "thunderbolt-car", and the smaller, more traditional part the "bobby-car". And the pali-term "hina" means in almost all cases something with a less-worth connotation as some Pali-dictionary had pointed out.
So you can try to imagine that when you say "hinayana" the listener understands "bobbycar" and feels somehow intimidated. The use of the term "theravada" is, again as I understood that things, only a way out of the mess, because originally it meant only a subgroup in that smaller fraction of descendents of the initial sangha. But it seems, it is the only surviving one of them and one might accept, that their name is taken "pars-pro-toto".


text:
What's the origin of 108 being a sacred number?
The number 108 is a sacred number in Buddhism, but in other religions as well (Hinduism, Jainism).
What exactly is the origin of 108 being a sacred number in Buddhism? Is there anything about it in the ancient scriptures? Did the Buddha say anything about it? Or is it more likely that this was incorporated from other older beliefs?

I can't source it, but I read that this was just a way of counting 100s and being sure you didn't under count, like a baker's dozen (13 instead of 12)

The number 108 comes from the Vedas - so it predates Buddhism by at least a millennium. I did a lot of research on the topic last year, and found that there were two major numerological memes in Asia: 7/21 and 27/108. The latter goes back to Vedas and the earlier seems to be of Chinese origins.
Interaction of two memes is reflected in design of Zen mala, which has 108 beads but positions marker beads at 7 and 21. Looks like Zen mala was designed by people who already had 7 as their sacred number by the time Buddhism came to them. For them reciting prayers 7 times, doing prostrations 7x3 times etc. felt very natural, so they thought that adding numbers 7 and 21 to the foreign 108-bead Buddhist mala was a great convenience feature. For these people, number 108 remained somewhat alien and less important than their traditional number 7. (The Japanese still celebrate 7th day after baby's birth, mourn the 7th day after death, recognize 7 spring herbs and 7 lucky gods. The Chinese increment person's age on 7th day of the year, eat 7 good luck dishes, their version of Valentine's day is on 7th day of 7th lunar month etc.)
The two traditions must have existed independently in different parts of Asia, until Buddhism started spreading outside of India, carrying Hindu memes on its back (mantras, rituals etc) -- so in countries other than India number 108 became identified with Buddhism exclusively, while in India it remains a generic lucky number until this day.

The origin of 108 in the ancient buddhist scriptures seems to be from the total number of feelings classified in different ways by the Buddha:

"Monks, I will teach you a one-hundred-and-eight exposition that is a
Dhamma exposition. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "And which one-hundred-and-eight exposition is a
Dhamma exposition? There is the exposition whereby I have spoken of
two feelings, the exposition whereby I have spoken of three
feelings... five... six... eighteen... thirty-six... one hundred and
eight feelings.
"And which are the two feelings? Physical & mental. These are the two
feelings.
"And which are the three feelings? A feeling of pleasure, a feeling of
pain, a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. These are the three
feelings.
"And which are the five feelings? The pleasure-faculty, the
pain-faculty, the happiness-faculty, the distress-faculty, the
equanimity-faculty. These are the five feelings.
"And which are the six feelings? A feeling born of eye-contact, a
feeling born of ear-contact... nose-contact... tongue-contact...
body-contact... intellect-contact. These are the six feelings.
"And which are the eighteen feelings? Six happiness-explorations, six
distress-explorations, six equanimity-explorations. These are the
eighteen feelings.
"And which are the thirty-six feelings? Six kinds of household
happiness & six kinds of renunciation happiness; six kinds of
household distress & six kinds of renunciation distress; six kinds of
household equanimity & six kinds of renunciation equanimity. These are
the thirty-six feelings.
"And which are the one hundred and eight feelings? Thirty-six past
feelings, thirty-six future feelings, and thirty-six present feelings.
These are the one hundred and eight feelings.
"And this, monks, is the one-hundred-and-eight exposition that is a
Dhamma exposition."
-SN 36.22, Discourse on One-hundred-and-eight (Aṭṭhasatasuttaṃ)

There is also a reference to 108 Craving-verbalizations in AN 4.199, Discourse on Craving (Taṇhā-suttaṃ).

I have heard from an Indian friend who is an ordained Buddhist why there are 108 beads on a Mala. 108 signifies:

There are six incoming senses and sensations: eyes, ears, touch, taste, smell and what the mind takes hold of.
There are three types of sensation: pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. (6 times 3 = 18)
There are three time zones in which we receive these incoming sensations: past, present and future. (18 times 3 = 54)
There are two ways of dealing with these incoming sensations. (2 times 54 = 108)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Buddhist logic and Nagarjuna
In this article http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/logic-of-buddhist-philosophy/
Philosopher/Logician Graham Priest talks about some of the differences that Western logic has with Buddhist logic.
Quickly said: Western/Aristotelian logic doesn't tolerate contradictions (principle of non-contradiction) and everything has to be either true or false (principle of the excluded middle), but Buddhist logic follows a system called the catuskoti which implies that statements can be true, false, true and false, or neither true nor false. Tibetan philosopher Gorampa even included the 'ineffable'.
My question is this:
In buddhist logic, where does "hey man, that's illogical!" fit in? I mean, it pretty much seems everything can be valid in Buddhist logic, and there's just no place for the illogical, which pretty much points to the inefficacy of that system.

I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are asking. Are you asking how Buddhism looks at contradictions? You say there is no place for the illogical in Buddhist logic, but to me it looks like it is the other way around. There is no place for the illogical in Western/Greek classical logic since they reject the idea that something can be true and not true at the same time.

To me the question seems: In western logic there is a clear line between logical and Illogical statements and clear rules how a logical argument should be formulated. Is there the same in Buddhist logic? Can statements be bad or illogicaly fomulated?

"Western" philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, also included the ineffable.

BUDDHIST ILLOGIC: A Critical Analysis of Nagarjuna’s Arguments by Avi Sion, Ph.D. http://www.thelogician.net/3b_buddhist_illogic/3b_bl_frame.htm

I never understood the use of the phrase "Buddhist Logic".  Isn't the point of logic to give us a system wherein we can derive new information from previous data?  No such thing is possible with "Buddhist Logic" because it negates all. This rejection could be valuable from the standpoint of practicing, but calling it any kind of logic (given accepted connotations of logic) is going too far, and it seems like an attempt to turn Buddhism into something like Western philosophy.

Graham priest has an incorrect uinderstanding of Buddhist logic. He is causing great confusion by promoting his view. He does not understand Nagarjuna's argument, his logic or his motivation, . .

@R.Barzell - Spot on. What Priest calls 'Buddhist logic' is just a particular application of Aristotle's logic. The man is doing great damage to Buddhism by misunderstading it completely. He seems to think Buddhists are unable to think clearly but does not see the mote in his own eye. .  . . . . .

Firstly, Nagajuna was creative in saying "no" 3 different ways, closing all avenues of objection. Read with that in mind. Secondly, it's not Nagajuna that introduced "Emptiness" into Buddhism, it is directly quoted in the Suttas. Buddha was pointing to it in the beginning. Thirdly, there is no empirical proof that all things are NOT transitory, temporal, including the "self" (Einstein, Hawking agree) which is Buddhist, case closed. Graham Priest repeatedly apologizes for using Western Logic stating it is just like Buddhist logic, but then says it's not. The contradiction is Priest's.

Originally the Catuṣkoṭi or Tetralemma was just an indication of all possible combinations of two predicates, and obviously, if these two predicates don't contradict, there is no problem.
Now, the Buddha himself does make seemingly contradictory statements, like when he refuses to answer the questions of Vacchagotta in SN 44.10, who asks first whether there is a self, then whether there is no self. Questioned by Ananda as to why he did not answer, the Buddha effectively claims, that both answers would have been wrong.
In this case, since there is only one predicate (and its contradiction), there do arise logical problems. The only attempt, to solve these kinds of problems I am aware of is in the article

Klaus Butzenberger: Einige Aspekte zur catuskoti unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Nagarjunas, in: Synthesis Philosophica 1990, 567–580.

If you know German, then go read it. If not, let me summarize that it attempts to solve these problems in three ways: by classical logic, non-classical logic and thirdly by admitting its insolubility, but Butzenberger admits, that each of these attempts at solution does remain unconvincing to fruitless.
This might - now here comes my 50 cents - be due to the case, that the Tetralemma is used by a great number of authors in Indian logic and they do not handle it the same way. In the case of the Buddha's refusal to answer, it might be conjectured, that the Buddha is talking in two different levels of truth: a conventional truth and an absolute truth. So in order to remain truthful on the absolute level, we may have to accept contradictions on the conventional level, if - what the Buddha sometimes blames questioners for - the question is posed in a wrong way.

Good answer. I'll just add that even in "western" logic, we have to deal with the problem of incompleteness of some formal systems. Specifically, tracing a line from Hilbert through Frege, and Russell, we end up at Goedel who showed that contradiction was inherent in certain situations. However, Goedel's proofs didn't mean there was no longer a place for "hey man, that's illogical!". They just meant you have to broaden your scope of view. In the western logic case, that sometimes involves adding axioms; in the Buddhist case it sometimes involves refusing to answer the question :-)

Goedel wanted to solve one of hilbert's problems which was that of the completeness of arithmetic. He showed that you can't have completeness and consistency at the same time. Now, in mathematics we sacrifice completeness in order to keep consitency because if there's a contradiction in a formal system anything can be proven and that renders the system as a failure. This principle is called the principle of explosion or "ex falso quodlibet".

This seems to be analogous to "The present King of France is bald" problem. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description

For a current discussion in a philosophy newsgroup I'd like to read that Butzenberger-article; unfortunately the "Synthesis Philosophica"-website has archives only back to some 2005... Is there any way to get access to that article?

Try any university library where the university has a department of indology.

There is no problem here. The issue is quite simple. All positive statements about the world are wrong so must not be asserted. There can be no contradiction between two views that are false. I cannot grasp why there is so much confusion on this issue. Nothing said by the Buddha or Nagarjuna is  contradictory. Priest seems to be uninterested in understanding Buddhism. . . .

I would like to comment on a few points:
There are hundres of places in the suttas where the Buddha said that something was wrong or didn't make any sense, it is not that "anything goes", not at all, sometimes he did that using examples, a nice one was when the Buddha came across a trible, in this trible when someone dies, they used to turn the person facing the skies and call his name, screaming, they believed this way the person would see Heaven and go up there, the Buddha said: "Suppose I throw a stone in a river and scream "come to the surface!" will it come? In the same way the person you go up and down according to kamma, not because someone is calling him"
Buddhism may not be so imperative or black and white as other religions, take the precepts for example, Buddha said we should refrain from doing A, because the consequence B will lead you to suffering, in other religions you will probably read: you shall not do that, end of story. I'm noy saying buddhism is better or worse, just different.
Finally, Nagarjuna was a great buddhist, but his texts have different weight in different traditions, meaning we all deeply respect him and Milarepa for example, but the level of devotion changes.

We have to bear in mind that "Buddhist logic" is rather a branch of "Indian logic" than of "Buddhism", which is in the nature of the subject-matter of it. Logic is a rather universal phenomenon.

Buddhist logic is Aristotle's logic, as Nagarjuna shows. It is just a particularly thorough application of it. Nagarjuna's logical argument should have the same weight in any tradition or even on another planet. .It is either valid or not, and where it is valid and sound we cannot ignore it without abandoning our reason. .

Graham Priest promotes a wildly incorrect view of Buddhist logic and teachings. He believes that Buddhist doctrine contains contradictions, which is utter nonsense. His problem is that he does not properly understand Aristotle's logic so cannot understand Nagarjuna. Not being a Buddhist, Priest has no grasp of the Two Truths doctrine and seems to believe it leads to contradictions, which is such a complete misunderstanding it seems almost wilful.
Let's examine the question here.
..."Western/Aristotelian logic doesn't tolerate contradictions (principle of non-contradiction)..."
True.
..."and everything has to be either true or false (principle of the excluded middle),
This is wrong. The principle of bivalence is what you're thinking of and this is not necessary for dialectical logic. This logic works with statements that are true or false (in the form A/not-A) but it does not say that all statements must be true or false. The LEM is applicable where a pair of statements meet Aristotle's specification, (which is that one is true and one false), but statements do not have meet this specification. Where they do not the law does not apply. This is the point that Priest misunderstands, and it is why Buddhist doctrine contains no contradictions.
..." but Buddhist logic follows a system called the catuskoti which implies that statements can be true, false, true and false, or neither true nor false."
This is an utterly ridiculous idea. I can't imagine how anyone could arrive at it.   Buddhist logic is no different from Aristotle's, it's just that it is applied to pairs of statements on two axes (this or that, neither or both). Priest muddles the issues and creates complications where none are necessary. He does Buddhism a massive disservice, as is shown by the low view you have formed of Buddhist logic after reading him. He seems to believe that Buddhists are idiots.
I would suggest that Priest is ignored. Nagarjuna offers us a rigorous application of Aristotelian logic and if it were not rigorous the whole argument in Fundamental Wisdom would fall apart.
For a longer response I have an essay on Bernardo Kastrup's blog entitled, 'Aristotle, Nagarjuna and the Law of Non-Contradiction in Buddhist Philosophy'. https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2017/05/aristotle-nagarjuna-and-law-of-non.html
This puts paid to Priest's anti-Buddhist ideas. He should take the trouble to study Buddhism.
There are NO dialectical or 'true' contradictions in Buddhist doctrine and this is exactly what Nagarjuna proves.

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

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


text:
Euthanasia and Buddhism
The first precept makes it clear that we should refrain from killing.
However let's say you have an animal (or worse, a human) who is going to die anyway (say from being attacked by another animal, or some incurable disease). He can either die on his own in agony, or you could end his life quickly.
The intention is not to end his life out of hate or anger, but out of love and compassion - and anyway, nothing you or anyone will do will change that their going to die.
Looking through the other questions on the topic, it's clear that you're going to get bad karma for killing something, even if it's (in your head) justified by self-defence or whatever - but in those cases you have a choice of killing vs something bad happening , while in this case you have a choice of killing vs watching die.

What exactly is your question?

Are you asking if it's still bad Karma?

euthanizing dogs and pets are very common in US. All are done under compassion.

@J.Chang The question isn't about what's common in the US, but about Buddhism.

I am just pointing out how important this question is. I keep trying to cure my old and dying cats till they died anyway. I wonder if it's a good idea.

I've been to a lecture in which a Tibetan Buddhist monk (specifically, a nyingmapa) was asked the same question by a teenage girl. Basically, his answer was, such killing would both end some existing suffering and create some new suffering. Because regular person does not see all complexity of karma network spanning multiple lives, his or her acts are very likely to make the karmic situation even worse.
According to that monk, compassionate killing should be left to either dakas/dakinis (the crazy yogis capable of "eating icecream and shit at the same time" -- i.e. skilfully dealing with consequences of the bad karma they take on) or omniscient buddhas who can grant liberation at the time of killing, or at least create a favorable karmic condition in subsequent lives.

The precepts as protection for one self are simply as they are.
Abstaining from taking live. It's not possible to have an skillful intention for an act of killing, to tell someone to kill or to accept or appreciate killing. All three doors, body, speech (sign), thoughts, are unskilfull an bad kamma, while the first to are a break of the precept.
Actually, in this frame, there are even many (sadly even encouraged by "buddhist" teacher, even monks) who do Abhithanani by killing even mother or father in this frame of ideas. Since such fatal bad deeds lead directly to hell, it's actually a very serious topic. Such a person is also incapable to progress further in Dhamma, meaning that he/she has less ways to lighten the fruits perception of his/her deed.
Here are two talks which might be useful to understand and learn:

Getting the Message
Educating Compassion

It's good to avoid people who develop what ever kind of ideas and justifying which require the break of the basic precepts. Such a person, whether layman, monk, high respected... has to be seen as an outsider, a person not relayable in regard of Dhamma and liberation with even great lack of faith and confidence into the Juwels.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

I am not a buddhist. But there is an article in wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_euthanasia
Both talk about 2 people
Vakkali and Channa
Both committed suicide
And both seems quite okay

Apparently these acts were acceptable because they were already enlightened and/or blameless. I think most Buddhists wouldn't assume that of themselves. Also perhaps there's a difference between suicide and killing ... and killing (and recommending suicide) is described as (very) blameworthy, in the Vinaya for example.

Also in another comment you wrote, "I keep trying to cure my old and dying cats till they died anyway. I wonder if it's a good idea" ... people make similar decisions with their own loved ones and family members. Maybe there's a middle way -- to neither kill nor cure but to try to provide comfort, ease, safety.

@ChrisW, a mind-blowing practice at Nánshān sì (南山寺) Guangdong China, there patients with terminal illness wait many days for their lives terminations, chanting Amitabha. Some peacefully gone, some miraculously recovered return home. The monastery headed by Ven. Dharma Master Rén-huàn (仁焕法师). This is the dying, a dying with dignity, imo.


text:
Strange feelings after meditation and mindfulness practice?
I started to meditate half a year ago with my first Vipassana retreat in Bodhgaya. I'm trying to meditate every day since then. Around two months ago I started to practice mindfulness and try to bring meditation into my daily life and not to be mindful only on the cushion. Last week I was getting some strange results. I feel like almost all I do is automatic. I don't feel that it's me who is doing it. When I talk to people, going to work, riding on the bus. I feel like I'm watching the movie. Two days ago I was watching my breath on the bus and when the bus stopped I couldn't move for two minutes. It felt like my will was totally gone. Before, during my day I felt that I wasn't present. Now I feel present but detached, and not in a good way. Am I doing something wrong? Or it is only a stage of the practice that I must go through? Thank you for your answers.

This is very similar to this question. See the answers there. My own answer on that thread also points to another similar question (with even more answers) also on this site.

P.S. And pay particular attention to @yuttadhammo's answer on that thread.

I don't think you are alone in this. Susan Blakemore in her excellent book Zen and the Art of Consciousness describes almost this exact situation. She paid attention in her everyday life just as you have done and found it very illuminating. However after two weeks of this she reach a point when she couldn't cross the road. She was paralysed as you were. She abandoned this 'experiment' and went back to her meditation and retreats the results of which she details in the book.
I hesitate to give advice in your case as I am woefully unqualified to do it. However it does seem you are having trouble integrating you experiences, you might even be have a kind of alienated awareness experience where you are very aware but not emotionally connected. I think with all these practices wisdom and compassion need to be balanced. I would be tempted to back off a little and engage with some metta type practices - kindly awareness towards yourself and others. But please disregard this - it's only what I would try.

I guess the amount of change depends on where you were, you may feel a big impact if you used to be a very anxious or greed person for instance, very focused on work, money, career, selfimage etc.. what meditation can do is realign your priorities, it makes you give up or at least not care as much for wordly concerns.
Just try not to mistake the feeling of "this is not so important" for "I'm now a robot", because you will realize that a few things are really not so important and this can shake you up a little bit, but as I said it doesn't mean you are a robot, it is just that your priorities are changing.
In addition to that, meditation calms the mind, so if you do a lot of meditation you can feel more relaxed.
Hope it helps.

Thank you. Maybe I wasn't clear with my question (english is not my mother language), but what is important to me is to understand is the change that I'm experiencing right. Is this kind of detachment a common experience on the path? As I understand, advancing on the path should bring me to a place where I can make decisions and act according to my wisdom and not just following cravings. Right now I see that I'm following. I feel that I'm not in charge. The only difference with my past experiences is that now I see it more clearly and for a longer periods of time.

Friend, this is a hard question because it is very personal, the question is clear, but it is hard to especulate about it, so I had to give a sort of generic answer, I think you should contemplate more your feelings, study the dhamma, try to think about your motivations and let's see what other people  will say here

Well, then I hope someone had similar experience on their path and can share it with us :)

Being mindful will help you in your day to day activities and to avoid mishaps. Being mindful alone is not the right mindfulness. If you practice right mindfulness much of the complications are avoided.
Mindfulness in a Buddhist meditation perspective is to be mightful of the 4 Satipatthana and Anapana
You should be observing:

Sensations
Body posture through sensations
Sensations arising due to mental states
Sensations arising due to metal contents

Also see for the importance of sensation in practising:

Importance of Vedana
The Importance of Vedana and Sampajanna
The Great Discourse on the Establishing of Awareness (See introduction: Vedanā in the Practice of Satipaṭṭhāna)
Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta

You should place special attention to sensations as it is due to sensation that craving arises and in dependent origination.
With regard to your in ability to move. It is more likely some level of concentration. This slows down your body and moving is not possible. Also may be some level of Sloth-torpor (a hindrance) arising.

I feel that there is nothing wrong with your practice, and I also got to a stage where I was completely detached - but in a good way .... but I got this result after 11 years of practice ....
So, I guess you are doing pretty well and you just need conceptual clarification from your assistant teachers - get in touch with your assistant teachers and talk to them. And I am sure you will be soon progressing very well in this path ...
Metta


text:
Kamma and right livelihood in a modern business environment
It is easier to define "right livelihood" in the time of the Buddha when compared to our modern society. I would like to know if this situation can be considered wrong livelihood and if it creates bad kamma or not:
Imagine someone that works for a company, just a regular employee, maybe from HR, finance or the legal department, this person provides a service and gets paid for it, but what happens if the company sells alcohol or maybe other product that damages people's health or even if the company sells meat or products to kill insects, plagues and so on...
To be honest a great part of the companies these days either damages the environment or the public health, others may have practices not very ethical regarding labour or tax payments, it is not easy to find a 100% "clean" business.
I have tried to find an answer in the suttas and dhammapada and the closest thing I found was a story about the wife of a hunter, she used to help her husband by cleaning his weapon, the traps and cooking the dead animals, the Buddha said she was not guilty and was not creating bad Kamma, only the hunter who was actually killing animals.
Are there better references than this one? In my example, is it wrong livelihood? Does it create bad Kamma?

Are you sure the story said she was helping with the traps?

Hi Sankha, I may be wrong, but by helping I meant "cleaning the traps" and not using them directly in the forest, I will edit the question. Thanks!

It depends on what services you are providing to the company. If you are just helping them to balance accounts, it'll be similar to the hunter's wife cooking the meat. But if you are actually involved in poison making or marketing of the product, it won't be a right livelihood. Even as an HR officer, if you are hiring people to make poison or butcher animals, it's not a right livelihood. As a lawyer, if you are helping the company to get away with environmental damage, tax fraud, public health concerns, it's not a right livelihood. Yes, it creates bad Karma.

Thanks Sankha, I tend to agree with you, in addition to that I think the shareholder is more responsible than the cashier selling an hamburger for example. I think it comes down to 2 aspects: What kind of serviced you are providing and If you are the owner (shareholder) or just a simple employee, sometimes it is hard to see the clear picture these days.

Yes, the shareholders/investors are much responsible as they are investing to butcher.

For me, at this moment, right livelihood has two components

Is ethics of the business compatible with your current understanding and relationship to Buddhist ethics
Does the nature of the work allow you to have an effective Buddhist practice

I would (and have) argued that both these components need to be addressed for something to be termed right livelihood.
If I can give a personal example. I was a school teacher a few years ago. I was spending my time working towards a societal good. So was this right livelihood for me at that moment? No - because I was so overworked and stressed I couldn't even imagine having an effective practice. I could barely look up. Now I am a software developer which scores lower on point 1 but is a far more agreeable occupation. So now I have a (reasonably) effective Buddhist practice. So that is the right livelihood for me right now.
I'm aware that there is the danger of justifying your own decisions with this. Also I think as time goes on you will move into roles that are more compatible with your ethics.Your understanding of ethics, of others, of the world and it's interconnections will increase over time. Your understanding of right livelihood will develop with it.
Or you will go part time and leave yourself lots of time for practice. I know a lot of people who have done just that. That's right livelihood too.

I see your point, but when I think about right livelihood I think more about the kind of work you do than how much available time will you have for Buddhism, I believe we can try to integrate the practice in our daily lives, including the working hours (not meditation of course, but the precepts for instance)

@konrad01 I do appreciate that this reading of right livelihood is non-standard. I guess it's my interpretation of it and what it means in the modern world. For me the challenge is engaging in the first place without being overwhelmed - but this certainly isn't a reading that you would find a whole lot of support for in the canonical texts

Although an old question, perhaps worth another perspective since this type of speculation often resurfaces.
On the most basic level, one could say that adhering to the 5 precepts, also contained in Right Action and Right Speech, goes a long way - if not all the way - to maintaining Right Livelihood.
Right Livelihood at its core

"And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood."
— SN 45.8

So if the living situation is such, that you do no harm, by abstaining from killing, from taking what is not given (purposely not just 'stealing'), and from sexual misconduct, you are acting in accordance with the teachings.
And if the living situation is such, that when you speak, you abstain from lying, from speaking harshly or out of anger, from malicious or divisive speech, and from gossip and idle chatter, you are speaking in accordance with the teachings.
If living in a heedful way, not taking intoxicants that lead to carelessness in these areas, such as alcohol, drugs (or even medication), you are living in accordance with the teachings.
And if, when speaking of actions and speech like the above, you do not promote harmful action, harmful speech, and carelessness (like what's mentioned above), but you promote wholesome action, wholesome speech, and heedfulness, you are living in accordance with the teachings.
The balance of the middle way

"Herein, Vyagghapajja, a householder knowing his income and expenses leads a balanced life, neither extravagant nor miserly, knowing that thus his income will stand in excess of his expenses, but not his expenses in excess of his income.
"Just as the goldsmith, or an apprentice of his, knows, on holding up a balance, that by so much it has dipped down, by so much it has tilted up; even so a householder, knowing his income and expenses leads a balanced life, neither extravagant nor miserly, knowing that thus his income will stand in excess of his expenses, but not his expenses in excess of his income."
— AN 8.54

Simply avoiding extravagance and stinginess, the middle way of being heedful of income and expenses and not making purchases to show off or accumulate non-essential things. Dana - giving - is also part of wholesome living, although not mentioned here.
For lay followers to avoid

"A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison."
— AN 5.177

Additionally, some suttas strongly suggest avoiding careers in the military (SN 42.3) and acting (SN 42.2). These are likely to be conducive to a rebirth in a hell realm.

Can you consider GM foods as poison? Most people consider it's safe but it's a controversial topic. Will you avoid foods and beverages business for the sake of minimizing harm or will you follow the AN 5.177 above?

@B1100  The understanding of poison is a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed. Here, the intention is important as related to livelihood, whether working with food meant for nutrition or substances meant for harming. Ultimately, it is up to each of us to evaluate what is helpful and harmful, and to follow the helpful path.
May you be well

Modern and ancient worlds are not very different. If you are saying people are more selfish than they were before probably you are right. But fundamentally people have not changed for last few thousand years post civilization. It is wrong to blame current social,political, and economic setup.
If you are working for basic livelihood then working for a corrupt person/organization is justified since one needs to survive first for Nirvana to happen. Its simple intelligence. But if one is working to get to enjoy Honolulu holidays and beach outings on weekends then one is asking for trouble.
Most of the moral dilemma of this sort happens because the person does not know that one can survive with the minimum. But the person does not want to seen as laggard. I have been to Laddhak, a sort of mini-tibet in India. There is acute poverty because of lack of natural resources and industries but everyone is happy. Question is not about corruption outside but inside. I am yet to find a person whose actions are not guided by desires.
If you do not find the environment conducive to your growth leave it. Start something of your own which is 100% clean. Do what you love to do. You will make enough to survive. Of-course you need to cut down on entertainment bills. Probably you do not want to and that is why this question arose.


text:
What is the recommended time of day for meditation?
Does Buddhism have any recommendation for particular time of day for meditation?
Can I meditate before going to sleep at night if I don't feel drowsy before I go to bed?
Is there any Sutra which talks about this?

Just to be clear, you are asking if there is anything in the scriptures on this? And not asking about other people's personal experience and recommendations?

@THelper, maybe both. I would like to know if there is any sutra which recommends the timings. Also what practitioners & teachers say.

No such recommended time. Especially if you are doing Vipassana meditation, you are advised to practice Samma Sati all the time. But early morning(just before dawn) is said to be a good time for meditation since the world is still sleeping and the mind is very clear and less distracted. So you can easily attain Samadhi. You'll find that it's a very good time to study as well. You can easily memorise things. All the Buddhas have attained enlightenment just before dawn as I've heard. Yes, you can do meditation before going to bed. If it's Vipassana meditation, drowsiness won't be a problem as you can meditate on the drowsiness. Some people with insomnia try meditation at nights to help them fall asleep.

Thought I total agree that there isn't a particular time of day for meditation I personally think it is important to have a time of day of your choosing that you aim to meditate. So if that's morning then great or late of an evening then also great. However the important thing is that there is a time and you make an attempt to stick to it (without beating yourself up if you miss it). With a structure you will be more likely to have a regular meditation practice. Without a structure my experience is that things will slip.
That said, I think there are times when it's going to be harder to meditate. I've always found after lunch particularly difficult. You are naturally more sleepy then, so sloth and torpor will be pronounced hindrances. Still even an after lunch meditation is possible particularly something like a walking meditation.

I can answer based on the retreats I've done, this is not an universal rule or something.
We used to Meditate twice a day, first before dawn with empty stomach for 30 or 40 minutes and then after bedtime again 30 or 40 minutes. It is important not to have a full stomach when meditating.
Of course, if you go to a retreat focused on meditation you will meditate much more than that. At home I try to meditate at least 20 minutes per day, but I don't think this is enough, I'm trying to increase.

Any time that you actually will do it is the best time! Enough said.
...Here's a list of conditions that make my meditation effortlessly take off into concentration/wisdom:

physical needs satiated (hunger, warmth, thirst, sex)
no food in digestive tracts
no feces in bowels
did physical exercise (or yoga or some sort of physical tonification)
drink some light tea
no recent emotional/social problems plaguing the mind
evening-time or early morning: not too early, not too late, not too much thinking on mind at these times (during the day it is business time)
after reading some motivating dharma stories, especially Taoist
after reading proper practice instruction

The last one is key and one should always at least mentally review how to practice before practicing.

18 hours is the proper time for daily meditation :) The essence of Lord Buddha's teachings is mindfulness which means focusing to the present moment objectively without puting any judgements to it whether its positive, negative or neutral experience.
A beginner meditator's mind would be deeply cloudy and would have intense physical and mental addictions. Especially the modern technology age's "sweet" escaping tools is a real enemy for the meditator. If a meditator does few minutes(or even hours) of meditation, he or she mustn't think that "I finished my job today now I can go and entertain myself".
The real positive results comes when the meditator meditates all day long, which means he continues to practice mindfulness after finishing formal meditation session, whether he or she is walking, drinking water, sitting on a bus, or working on his/her job.
There is a hardcore path too, when the meditator starts practising intensive meditaton for long periods of time(If he or she has time and place ofcourse).  But its not possible to start walking on that path unless the meditator really starts to become a master of living in the present moment.
"Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment." BUDDHA

Could you say in which sutta the Buddha mentioned 18 hours. Thanks.


text:
Was Buddha born of a Virgin?
I was reading a work that claims Buddha "was born of the Virgin Maya". What Buddhist works address the birth of Buddha? Do any support or conflict with a virgin birth for Buddha?

This refers to a dream that Queen Maya had after trying for many years to have a baby with her husband. The reality is, they wrote that he was born to a woman who had been married for twenty years,
This Blog will help to clear your idea. http://www.rightreason.org/2009/the-virgin-birth-of-buddha/

Was Buddha born of a Virgin?

No. Tathagata Buddha was born as normal human being. He was named "Siddhartha Gautama". His birth is elaborated in some details over here
About the reference which you have given, the source from where you "got" this information - in my opinion this source is dangerous and is against Buddhist vision itself. It equates Krishna and Rama with Buddha! This is blunder. As I was Hindu (those who worship Krishna and Rama), I know that their message is nowhere close to Buddhist message. The whole things is conspiracy and in the Indian context it is called Brahminical conspiracy.

As far as I know Queen Maya is not described as a virgin anywhere in the Pali canon, but she was believed to be sterile by most Burmese Buddhists. The account of the Buddha's birth is derived from Acchariyabbhuta dhamma Sutta of Majjhima Nikaya

the link in your answer is temporarily unavailable.

I've edit the link to the one that is working thanks

Answer to the question "Was Buddha born of a Virgin?" is No
He was born as other normal humans are born into the world. Bodhisattva's who became Buddha in next immediate life are looking for 5 facts before they born into this world.

Suitable time
Suitable Land
Suitable Country
Suitable Cast
Suitable Mother

Here Mother should have various characteristics but here relevant factor is she should be biologically available (That means connection of Mother and Father as all of us know).
Load Buddha is not half god- half human but he has accepted him as a Normal human in lot of places. The Best location is "Dhrona Sutta" where Load Buddha has accepted he has born as a normal human.
As described in Dhrona Sutta, While Load Buddha was walking in between Udeni and Sawath towns, Load Buddha has met a Brahmin called Dhrona. Dhrona had seen special foot prints with various unusual symbols and marks and decided the owner of the foot prints cannot be a human and followed them.  Finally he has met Load Buddha at the end of footprint line and asked,
Are you a God?
Load Buddha said No.
then he asked following questions and got the same answer no.
Are you a Devil?
Are you a Gandharwa (half god- half human)?
Are you a human?
Then he has asked as everyone of us would ask, then who you are?
Then Load Buddha has answered "Drona, I was born as a normal human, lived as a normal human but I have destroyed all the klesha (desires, lust and angry). So I am a extreme human. Most suitable name to identify me is "Buddha"".
And finally Sidhhartha Gauthaama became Load Buddha not because of god has selected him to be a Buddha, Instead he has tried himself continually for very very long time to become a Buddha in his previous lives with fullfilling generally 10 facts (descriptivly 30) called Paramitha.

No, There is no truth of it .Buddha's fathe was king Suddhodana, leader of the Shakya clan and his mother was queen Maya Devi.So why there will raise a question of virgin birth of buddha ? He was born as all normal human born.

The Dona sutta does not say that Buddha was a human being. It actually says the opposite, that he was not a human.
"No, brahman, I am not a human being."
The Pali canon does not explicitly say Maya was a 'virgin' but certainly implies that he was conceived without sexual intercourse. At any rate the canon very clearly indicates that the the Bodhisattva's birth was due to the volitional choice of the Bodhisattva, not the result of a biological function.


text:
Is there a tradition or practice involving fasting in Buddhism or Buddhist countries?
Many religions have period or specific practice including fasting. I'm aware of the eating prescriptions of monks, but are there traditions or practices involving fasting for Lay-people?
If not in scripture, are there in culturally Buddhist countries?

Yes, eight precepts.

This has some information: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1708/what-are-any-and-all-of-the-exceptions-to-eating-after-noon-if-youve-taken-8-pr

In Tibetan Buddhism there is a special practice called Nyungne. Essentially it is a practice on Thousand-Armed Chenrezig who is the embodiment of loving kindness and active compassion (the active aspect is represented by his standing not sitting posture, see the picture below).
The practice is done in retreat settings usually for 2,5 - 3 days. From the day one the practitioners refrain from talking and from the day two they fast and do a number of meditation sessions per day, all focused on Chenrezig. I've been told that it should done with someone who has a direct transmission on this practice and who can give fine details about it. Overall, I know many Western practitioners who took part in such retreats so it is definitely not an old-forgotten, exotic ritual.
In general, Nyungne is a purifying practice on the level of body, speech and mind and helps to nurture compassion and loving kindness towards all the sentient beings.

As you said, the monks should not eat outside the morning hours, lay people should also not eat outside the morning hours when they are keeping the eight precepts.
I would say you should also meditate with empty stomach, a tea is fine.
I'm not aware of anything else for lay people.

Buddha has advised to be moderate in eating. This should not be taken as fasting. One of two meals a day in enough to sustain the body with allowance to take any fluids like tea, herbal drinks and water but not milk. Also you can take Chatu Madura out side morning hours.

Can you mention what Chatu Madura is please?

Chatu Madura is referred
in Buddhist scriptures as four delicacies. The four items to make Chatu Madura are 1.Ghee 2.Bees honey 3.Sugar cane juggery. Palmyra Jaggery too can be used 4. Sesame oil. They are taken of equal quantities and whipped well.This can be used during fasting hours of the Buddhist Monks.


text:
Does avoiding a person mean I have not truly forgiven them?
This individual has been belligerent in the past causing a lot of grief to myself. I've felt a great deal of animosity towards this individual in the past but after some time forgave them.
The forgiveness felt cleansing, but I still avoid contact. I feel that the spirit of forgiveness should be like starting from a tabula rasa but am concerned about a repetition of the past.
How should I react according to the precepts of Buddhism ? I feel that if I avoid the person, I have not truly forgiven them in my heart.

I believe forgiving and avoiding are two different things. It is important to forgive people for your own peace of mind. Let go of anger and resentment, this will be good for both you and the other person.
Avoiding may be important if this person is dragging you down somehow, continuously doing bad things. You can find it several times in the Buddha's teachings. However if this person is not doing bad things anymore and you still feel bad around him because of the past, the issue is in you. You haven't let it go completely, you are still attached to your image/bruised ego.
Meditate and let go of the ego if that's the case. I know it is not easy, but it is the best thing to do.

According to my Vajrayana teacher, avoiding is perfectly fine. It might mean that you still hold some grudges but you simply don't have to deal with them immediately. If in the current situation you don't feel strong enough to face them, avoiding is the best solution to remain calm and eliminate the chances to create further bad Karma.
On top of meditating my teacher suggests that one should make lots of good wishes for that person in order to clear the connection between the two. You can even wish that person all the happiness and success but far away from you. Imagine this person as a happy and fulfilled being possessing all the best qualities. In that way you will generate lots of compassion and realise that there is no reason to feel bad towards them and that in essence you want this person to be happy.


text:
What is Buddhism's view on divorce?
In some religions, marriage is perceived as eternal and is a bond that can not be broken.
I believe I have read that marriage in Buddhism is not a formal or well-defined institution as it is in Christianity or other religions, but I am not sure.
In Buddhism, is divorce permitted between lay people ? Is it frowned upon ?

It is frowned upon in cultures influenced by Buddhism depending on the situation. If you are abandoning your family because of your sexual desire or craving towards wealth, fame, power of another person, it's frowned upon. If you are getting divorced simply to get away from responsibilities, it's frowned upon. If you are leaving the lay life to become a monk or a hermit, it's accepted. If you want a divorce because you don't get along well with your partner, you are first expected to try to correct yourselves. Be more tolerant of the differences and resolve your problems according to the Dhamma. There's very good advice on how to lead a successful marriage life in the Singalovada sutta.
There's no 'soul-mate' concept among Buddhists as they don't believe in a soul. But the general advice is to stay celibate until you get married and limit yourself only to one partner afterwards.
There's no encouragement to get divorced in Buddhism. You can make a case with the verse in the Dhammapada Balavagga which says:

Should a seeker not find a companion who is better or equal, let him
  resolutely pursue a solitary course; there is no fellowship with the
  fool.

But that's for finding friends in general. In case of marriage, it should be applied in the first place, when you are looking for a partner to get married to.

SN 37.30 (no-link) supports a Buddhist case for divorce. It states:

There are five powers of a woman...beauty... wealth... relatives... sons... virtue... If a women possesses...or does not possess...the power of
  beauty... wealth... relatives... sons but not the power of virtue, they
  expel her; they do not accommodate her in the family.

Therefore, it appears the only grounds for divorce in Buddhism is a lack of virtue (morality).

Here is a quote on "Divorce" from the book "What Buddhists Belive" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda, p. 323-324:

"Divorce
Separation or divorce is not prohibited in Buddhism though the necessity would scarcely arise if the Buddha’s injunctions were strictly followed. Men and women must have the liberty to separate if they really cannot agree with each other. Separation is preferable to living a miserable family life for a long period of time for both partners and innocent children. The Buddha further advises old men not to have young wives as the old and young are unlikely to be compatible, which can create undue problems, disharmony and downfall (PARABHAVA SUTRA).
A society grows through a network of relationships which are mutually intertwined and inter-dependent. Every relationship is a wholehearted commitment to support and to protect others in a group or community. Marriage plays a very important part in this strong web of relationships of giving support and protection. A good marriage should grow and develop gradually from understanding and not impulse, from true loyalty and not just sheer indulgence. The institution of marriage provides a fine basis for the development of culture, a delightful association of two individuals to be nurtured, and to be free from loneliness, deprivation and fear. In marriage, each partner develops a complementary role, giving strength and moral courage to one another, each manifesting a supportive and appreciative recognition of the other’s skills. There must be no thought of either man or woman being superior; each is complementary to the other, in a partnership of equality, exuding gentleness, self-control, respect, generosity, calm and dedication".

Thank you - I look forward to reading the rest of the PDF as well.

Np. I can recommend the reading. The book covers the majority of topics in Theravada Buddhism. Check out the table of contents and you can find almost anything in there. In-depth and great detailed discourses you will not find but more like an overview or different topics.

Am answering this in a general sense.

Most of us perceive "to love" and "being loved" as good.

In Buddhism, without going into talking about Karma, it is an
  attachment.

You love someone, more or less on the condition that, this person must love you back. If not, what would happen and how many relationships have ended up in tragedy.

Again, am not going into the Karma part of this.
Just speaking in terms of attachment.

Why do we love someone. Again, very generally speaking, first comes into play is the "sense of perception" (i.e. "She is beautiful", "He is just gorgeous, look at his body", etc).
Then, based on that, you conjure up thoughts and feelings that favor and fulfill that "sense of perception" ("No, no, no, he is not bad, I still think he is a good person", "I dunno why, even though she lied to her own mother and has stolen some money in the past, I still think she was just mistaken; deep inside, I think she is a good person. She is just lost and having a bad time in the moment. I think she is nice. Give her a chance").

Again, speaking very generally, you would do whatever to please her /
  him, doing things that you wouldn't normally do - that's one suffering
  (a debt, if you will).

And:
Then just to please her, you try to lavish her with items you don't normally buy.
For example, a leather bag, leather shoes, a gorgeous diner, etc etc. Think of these actions, behind these, someone / thing had to suffer / die for you, for your fulfillment of pleasing her.

Again, putting Karma aside.

Let say you are normally a very calm person, knowing how to avoid conflicts and ease things. But since you are with a girl now, you need to become / become competitive and more aggressive (i.e. if she complains that a guy at the train station is looking at her, you would need to stare at his guy back, when normally if you were being stared at, you had your own way to avoid conflict and stay calm).

Attachment stacks up, likewise sufferings.

And so, let say you still decided to do all of the above and is OK for you, then if one day she so happens to do something that doesn't please you back, all of what you have done for her rush at you in thoughts and your anger arises ("You know I love you, how much have I done for you?, I I I, did this; when I was sick, I still went to you and I I I". And she also "I I I".).

From now from, it cycles further.

Then, at the very very last thought before you decided to leave her, your first sight (the beauty of her) comes to "conciliate" your decision of leaving this relationship. And it goes on like this.
Let say somehow it turns out OK and you and her have kids. It is another attachment stacked up.
You need to raise them. The stress, etc etc, forces you to do something you don't normally do and against your will.

Again, putting aside Karma and be very general:

You need to fulfill your kids' needs (food, toys, clothes, iPad?). And now you need more money. Normally you work and that's it, but suddenly money is important and thus your job and a raise; so, you start office politics and ooze out some co-workers, who you think might endanger your position). Sufferings to all parties including yourself. Debts.

It goes on and on.

Your kids, who you tried so hard to put into Stanford, turn out to be someone who smokes and drinks on the streets with a guitar, living day by day by stealing. Another attachment that causes sufferings here - your "kindness" to your kids are not reciprocated. You disown them, and they in turn off and on shout at you, etc etc.
Or: they turn out to be graduates from Stanford. But not visiting you enough afterwards, not saying to you enough "thank you, papa" and your anger arises.
All these are "binary" - your love depends on the others', the others' yours.
It will be payed out and must be re-payed.
All of the above begin with one perception (re-cap: "He is gorgeous", "She is so fine, so pretty").

The cycle "cycles" onwards for generations.

Karma.
So, if you are already in a relationship and would like to know if a "divorce" would be frowned upon, the answer is, all has already begun from the "first perception" that led into "loving" and "wanting to be loved" with this person.
If the thought "why is loving another so 'bad'?" or "I think loving and being loved is a most beautiful thing!", then please re-visit my answer here someday in the future as you continue your path with Buddhism and I hope to hear from you then.
I am not saying / defining here some thing is bad; rather: not to attach oneself or get attached to that something is good enough.
Roses grow, fish swims, but we don't need to pluck the roses or catch the fish and put it into a tank. Let them be where they are and you so likewise.

Very good points, but I'm not so sure if it will answer this specific question, as a suggestion I believe you could explore more the social conventions on divorce x Buddhism, also the 4th precept. I understand that love and attachment are different things, but the question made assumes that the person has already decided to have a relationship.

In the world we do not have idealistic situations. Permanent fairly tail love does not exist other than story books. This is is also subjected to unsatisfactoriness like everything else. Also at some point one of the partners will have to die hence get separated.
Having said this Buddhism highlights duties and practices for a harmonious marriage. Much of the issues we see today are due to issues like fidelity and lack of respect each other. Also not doing thins which might increase the harmony like at least exchanging presents on the anniversary b'days etc. Buddhism says you should at least do something like this once a year.
Buddhism has nothing against divorce but practicing morality and other advice of the Buddha may certainly prevent it as your marriage will be happy, content and fulfilling. If you want to part or go your own ways it is up to the individuals to resolve this.

There is a difference between love and attachment:

if you love someone, then you don't have an attachment/dependency towards them
if you have a dependency/attachment towards someone, then you don't love them

Ideally marriages should last a long time, we have to be realistic - this is only feasible if the appropriate conditions are met and each partner is making the effort to keep the marriage going.
Siddhārtha Gautama abandoned his wife and child in silence without warning them. However, his former wife and son were well provided for, living in a fully staffed Royal Palace with the rest of Buddha's family. Surely abandoning one's family in silence without warning might be cruel?

The Pali suttas do not say the Buddha left silently. This story must be a fable. https://suttacentral.net/en/mn26 "Later, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessing of youth, in the prime of life, though my mother and father wished otherwise and wept with tearful faces, I shaved off my hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and went forth from the home life into homelessness"

This does not answer the question which is: "What is Buddhism's view on divorce?" & "In Buddhism, is divorce permitted between lay people ? Is it frowned upon ?".

It touches on the question, at least, by pointing out that Gautama separated himself from his family.

The last sentence ("Surely abandoning...") doesn't really fit: it seems to be a new question, rather than part of the answer. Perhaps you could delete it, or clarify how it helps to answer the question.


text:
How can there be Happiness without suffering?
I always thought that in order to be light, darkness must exist, in order for us to appreciate a beautiful sunshine, rainy days must exist, for a food to be good, bad food must exist and so on, if you have only good things you will not appreciate or feel happy about it. (this is the common mundane view)
This kind of thought clearly doesn't fit with the concept of Nibbana, where there is only Happiness and no suffering at all, so Happiness in Nibbana is not relative, it is something absolute.
Can someone explain what is wrong with the thought that sees happiness as something relative, that needs to be compared with other things? Is Happiness in Nibbana a different thing that has more to do with peace and stability?

Light vs darkness is a better analogy to wisdom vs ignorance than happiness vs suffering. What you describe as happiness and suffering are just experiences. They belong to the Sankhara group in the five aggregates of clinging. Nibbana exists independently of the five aggregates. All experiences, whether they are pleasurable, painful or neutral, fall under the first Noble truth. So they all have the inherent nature of Dukkha. Nibbana is non-experiential and devoid of Dukkha.

Great point, it seems to me that this ultimate happiness has more to do with no clinging, no desire, with the end of the 5 aggregates. There is one more thing, most people think that euphoria = happiness, while for Buddhists Happiness is the peace from the end of suffering and its causes, what do you think?

It's better understood as end of suffering. Imagine a cancer patient experiencing constant pain. He knows nothing but pain in life. Experiential happiness is like happiness he might gain by eating a chocolate. Nibbana is like the relief he gets if his cancer is suddenly cured.

I agree with Sankha, and it's a distinction that's subtle until you've seen it (based on my own not seeing it). It's really easy to confuse happiness, pleasure, euphoria and so on as being the opposite of suffering. But all those things are just as much part of the whole samsaric existence as pain, misery, and so on. For example, happiness, as we normally mean it, is impermanent. A positive word I've heard used for the cessation of suffering is "eudaimonia", which is more like "flourishing" or "wellbeing". Even there, it doesn't capture the deeper non-ness of nibanna.

Good question. First, let's get our terms straight:

Dukkha is not "suffering", it is the painful feeling of wrongness, experienced at the time of trouble, but also when craving for unsatisfied expectations, as well as mulling over inevitable looming dangers.
Sukha is not "happiness" (as in a joyful rapturous feeling we experience having attained a difficult goal), rather it is a quiet feeling of ease and comfort we experience when our existence is not burdened by troubles and emergencies.

At first approximation, when Third Noble Truth promises cessation of dukkha, it hints at attainment of everlasting sukha. Indeed, once you drop your attachments (as per Second Noble Truth), including positive ones (desires, expectations) as well as negative ones (aversions, clinging to something inevitably transient etc.) then the feeling of wrongness is no longer generated. In effect, all experience becomes agreeable, resulting in a permanent experience of sukha.
If we look deeper though, we can notice Buddha's emphasis on Three Marks of Existence: Impermanence, Corelessness and Dukkha as universal unconditional characteristics of existence-at-large. Because things are transient and lack a stable absolute point of reference, Dukkha is inevitably generated as mind in its modeling activity always lags behind reality. So even someone who fully understood the mechanism of dukkha, is never 100% free from occasional experiences of "wrongness", as fluctuations of mind over long time invariably generate mismatches between "is" and "should". So in all truth Nibbana is not and can't be a sterile ease, but rather a philosophical appreciation of things as they are (tathata) in all their complexity. Instead of being everlasting sukha Nibbana goes beyond sukha/dukkha by transcending the dichotomy altogether.
This understanding is reflected in the succession of jhana stages in which the practitioner

generates sukha tinted with rapture, born of withdrawal from attachments and therefore from dukkha, with help of discursive thinking.
generates sukha tinted with rapture, born of unification of mind (lack of inner conflict), directly with no help of discursive thinking.
establishes and maintains sukha not tinted with rapture, born of equanimity (seeing things as they are with no segregation into agreeable/disagreeable)
goes beyond sukha and indeed beyond dichotomy of sukha and dukkha, resulting in pure nonjudgmental awareness.

To summarize, Buddhist practice initially focuses on reducing and ceasing dukkha, then on generating sukha, and finally on transcending dukkha-sukha altogether.
To answer your question directly, because experience of sukha relies on "what is" matching "what should be", (just like experience of dukkha relies on the two mismatching) it still belongs in the category of conditional experience. In this sense the experience of sukha always has a shadow of dukkha looming over it, like you correctly supposed. Like you said, right and wrong co-imply each other, and Impermanence connects the two, guaranteeing that any "right" condition will not last forever. It is that feeling of being unable to fully enjoy vacation because of the need to return to work eventually. So your original premise is correct, by its very nature sukha always has a seed of dukkha in it, due to it being conditional.
Thankfully, Buddha-Dharma does not leave us at that. To build on vacation metaphor, Buddhism solves the problem of having to return to work by dissolving the essential difference between vacation and work. Nibbana-as-permanent-vacation is just a provisional motivator (upaya) utilized on initial (Hinayana) stages, before the student progresses enough to appreciate the full-scale teaching. When our mind is fully integrated, and we always do our best, then our creative spirit is shining continuously wherever we are and whatever we do. This fully integrated (and therefore unconditional!) experience is known as tathata and the one who realized it is called tathagata.

Buddhism always teaches us to take the middle way (not the happy end nor the sad end). So you are correct about "to end your suffering, you may need to lose your happiness too". But for the billions of years over which you have lived (reincarnation) you have felt both sad and happy from time to time.
You know you are on a non-ending journey of life with happy, neutral, and sad feelings. According to the overall picture you always tend to end with suffering. So if you can end (stop) this non-ending journey somehow, you will not born (exist) as any kind of life again and there you are free from suffering (but no one exist as you when you come to this state call Nibbana).

In order for there to be light, darkness must exist is one way to look at the reality. But you can look at it another way for example there is only light and darkness is the absence of light. If you look at the reality this way the permenent absence of suffering is what Buddhists call Nirvana.

To say it very simply, I think that you don't eradicate suffering from your life but you just change your perception of it, as well as you change your perception of good feelings.
I love this metaphor : it's like if you live floating on the surface of the ocean during your entire life, putting up with waves, winds and rain that make you suffer, and then one day you just dive into the ocean. And the deeper you dive the less those things affect you, but you will always see them.

Happiness in a worldly way is conditional. When cancer is cured and one becomes happy, it is conditional- the curing of cancer. When one eats chocolate and becomes happy, it is conditional-eating chocolate.
Happiness in Nibbana is non-conditional. It is happiness without any condition. Example of natural happiness is like the sun happily gives heat and light without any condition. Most happiness from  motherly love in the animal kingdom is also unconditional.
This explains happiness without suffering.

Happiness without clinging is happiness without suffering!
The Four Foundations of Mindfulness teach us that every mental and physical formation is nothing more than an experience, a phenomena, which is subject to the Three Universal Characteristics ( Impermanence,suffering and non-self). The Four Noble Truths show us and teach us the difference between an ignorant mind( a mind with wrong-view) and a mind with right-view, a mind that understands true reality, an experiential-reality, a reality without preferences, a reality without clinging.

Ultimate happiness is when the mind is unconditioned.
When the mind is unbalanced due to craving or ill will this creates suffering. This is due to Ignorance of a conditioned mind. When the mind reaches a stage of being unconditioned then you reach ultimate happiness. Any other state is always unsatisfactory as conditioned states are not permanent and you do not exercise control over them to make them last.
So suffering is the motivator to find happiness which is by practicing Vipassana Meditation to make your mind reach the unconditioned state.

Samsara is (wholly, entirely) Dukka (Suffering). Nibbana is (wholly) Happiness. This kind of thought clearly fits with the concept of Nibbana, where there is only Happiness and no suffering at all: so Happiness in Nibbana is not relative, it is something absolute.
Quotes from Maha Parinibbana Sutta

When the Blessed One was totally Unbound, simultaneously with
  the total Unbinding,
....without peer in the world the Tathagata, with strength attained,
  the Rightly Self-Awakened One, has been totally Unbound.
How inconstant are compounded things! Their nature: to arise & pass
  away. They disband as they are arising. Their total stilling is
  bliss.
With heart unbowed he endured the pain. Like a flame's unbinding was
  the liberation of awareness.
It was awe-inspiring. It was hair-raising when, displaying the
  foremost accomplishment in all things, the Rightly Self-Awakened One
  was totally Unbound.
When the Blessed One was totally Unbound, simultaneously with the
  total Unbinding, some of the monks present who were not without
  passion wept, uplifting their arms. As if their feet were cut out from
  under them, they fell down and rolled back & forth, crying, "All too
  soon is the Blessed One totally unbound! All too soon is the One
  Well-gone totally unbound! All too soon, the One with Eyes has
  disappeared from the world!" But those monks who were free from
  passion acquiesced, mindful & alert: "Fabrications are inconstant.
  What else is there to expect?"

One of the biggest problems I have found from self-study is the differing terminologies. I was reaching the same conclusions in study and reflection that were reached 3,500 years ago I just had different words for many of the concepts.I believe there is some of that effect here as well.
My simplistic view was/is dukkha identifies the dissatisfaction with impermanent conditions. Sukkha was/is eternal satisfaction. Happiness varies with conditions and is cyclical. Eternal satisfaction, however, is a constant. But thats just my understanding and the terms I use. Explanations vary.


text:
Sankharas, once eliminated. Do they have a chance of coming back?
When I talk of sankharas, I mean the pattern of the mind and the way in which the sanna recognizes an object. After prolonged Vipassana and remaining equanimous to the body sensations, Many of my thought patterns have changed and I can practically see a link there. But theoretically I am still unaware as to how remaining equanimous to body sensations has anything to do with the deepest habit patterns of the mind.
Now my question is if one stops Vipassana meditation for a sufficient period of time. Is there a way for these sankharas to develop again?

There are ten fetters eliminated in Vipassana meditation. Elimination does not occur before you reach the Sothapanna(stream enterer) state. Until then, fetters are only subdued. Once a fetter is eliminated, it's gone for good. Refer to the table below to know the fetters eliminated at each stage of the path.

Yes, if you stop doing vipassana short of attaining Sothapanna, your mind can fall back to an ordinary corrupted state again.

Buddhist practice usually eliminate causes, not consequences. If you eliminated some sankhara, it will naturally re-appear when conditions of its appearance are meet. Unless you destroyed bad sankhara In a way arahants destroy tanha, but that's difference case, I suppose.

Unless you are fully liberated you create new Sankara. The old Sankara you eliminated through practice Vipassana is Ahosi (or rendered in effective)
NB: This is answered in the context of interpretations of the Ledi Sayadaw lineages as I see the question seams to be from some one looking at it from this perspective.

Now my question is if one stops Vipassana meditation for a sufficient period of time. Is there a way for these sankharas to develop again?

It depends on whether or not their roots have been cut off by the practice. If one has "only" cut off large parts of them and not their roots - they can grow back to some extent. Once their roots have been removed the defilements can never return.
Also bear in mind that its difficult to answer precisely given the fact that every person has different kamma (and past practice).


text:
What is the basic literature for becoming a buddist?
I have been listening to free buddhist audio (FBA) podcast and have watched some videos about buddhism but i would like to see some introductory literature. Where to start?

Welcome to Buddhism SE! A similar question has already been asked and answered here. Does this help?

Yes, thanks that was just what I was looking for. Apparently not well enough initially.

The answer I found most fitting was http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1613/582


text:
Who are the Buddhas on the Wheel of Life?
In a lot of images of the wheel of life there are Buddha figures in each of the realms. You can see them in the image below of the full wheel of life and I've also put in a close up of the hell realm with the Buddha figure clearly visible. So a Buddha is in hell, animal, hungry ghosts, human, heaven and titan realms.
Who are these Buddhas and what are they doing in each of the realms. What is their significance?
Wheel of Life

Hell Realm with Buddha on the right

@konrad01 got it pretty close, the Buddhas symbolize various ways Dharma is presented in each of the six realms, expressed so as to match mental disposition of the realm's beings. If you look carefully, on most depictions of Bhava-Chakra the Buddha in each realm holds a different object in his hands. That is the key.

in Hell realm Buddha holds a cup of water, because for Hell beings the point of Dharma is to Escape from Suffering. This is the only seed of positive thinking that exists in their otherwise 100% negative mind.
in Animal realm Buddha holds a book, because for Animals the point of Dharma is to acquire Wisdom (and through wisdom, control and power -- which is what they secretly crave despite their laziness and inertia).
in Preta realm Buddha holds treasury, because for Preta mind everything looks very desirable from a distance but once they get it they realize that it is empty, so Dharma for them is the best hope to finally get something of Real Value that won't turn out to be yet another lie.
in Human realm Buddha holds the begging bowl, which stands for compassion and generosity. Because in Human realm the main feature of mind is obsession with quasi-valuable (such as the "I"), developing compassion/generosity is the best way to liberate mind from egoistic tendencies and obsessions, something required for Enlightenment.
in Asura realm Buddha holds vajra I think, or some kind of sharp weapon, symbolizing Perfection of Excellence. Because Asuras are very sharp and competitive, they are incurable perfectionists, so Dharma is presented to them as a way to perfect their excellence, until they eventually realize that the highest perfection is to transcend their perfectionism and thus attain liberation.
in Heaven realm Buddha holds flower as symbol of impermanence. Because life in Heaven is so perfect, the only potential problem Gods have is entropy finally kicking in. Impermanence is presented to Gods to remind them of their vulnerability/susceptibility and Dharma is presented as ultimate Protection from Impermanence.

Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva is famous for being the Buddha who rescues those in hell.  The other important personage is King Yama (Yamadevaloka), who is sort of a judge of the dead.  These two are a big deal in East Asian Buddhism, I would suppose the Tibetans were aware of them as well.

Ksitigarbha Sutra. I now determine to relieve the sufferings of the beings in the six
  realms of suffering and sorrow, skillfully leading them to salvation
  through innumerable kalpha, before I myself attain Buddhahood.

The wheel of life is full of symbolisms as you probably know, I believe the Buddhas are not actually Buddhas living in those realms, but just a way of showing that the Buddha could see all the realms and also go beyond them, like one who can visit the realms, know the realms and teach about them.


text:
What are the steps in Mindfulness of Breathing meditation?
I would like to have a detailed list of the steps in Mindfulness of Breathing meditation.
What is a good suggested duration?

Related question:  Application of sixteen contemplations in the anapanasati sutta

Steps differ by every teaching lineage. But a basic outline would look like this:

Focus on the breath and recognize it as breath, without the thought, this is me, this is mine, this is what I am, this is good, this is bad, etc.
If the mind wanders from the breath, acknowledge the thought in some system of categorizing objects that arise in the experience. The Satipatthana Sutta outlines a neat and tidy system for categorizing such objects.
Return to focusing on the breath.
Repeat 1-3 for duration of practice.

As for duration of practice, do what your body and mind can handle, and work upwards from there. Start with 5 minutes, and if that's easy, try 10 or 15. Try 30 or 60 minutes. But there's no substitute for having a teacher.
On a meditation course, my teacher had me practice 50 minutes of walking meditation, then 50 minutes of sitting meditation, repeating indefinitely. Back in the ordinary world I tend to keep it at 30 minutes (15 walking, 15 sitting).
If you study under a teacher, you will find that every teaching lineage has their own specific steps. For example in the Mahasi Sayadaw school we don't just focus on the breath. We start with rising and falling of the abdomen, and then as skill develops we include recognition of sitting, and then recognition of various points on the body. Out of respect for the teachers I don't want to go into too much detail as I am not a meditation teacher, just a practitioner.
theravadasatipatthanamahasibreathing

In the Theravada school there are sixteen steps in total:
"Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit?

"There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the
  shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs
  crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the
  fore.[1] Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.
"[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or
  breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' [2] Or
  breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or
  breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' [3] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.'[2]
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.'
  [4] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily
  fabrication.'[3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily
  fabrication.'
"[5] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.' [6] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to pleasure.' [7] He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication.'[4] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication.'
  [8] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming mental fabrication.'
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming mental fabrication.'
"[9] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the mind.' [10] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in satisfying the mind.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out satisfying the mind.' [11] He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe in steadying the mind.' He trains himself, 'I
  will breathe out steadying the mind.' [12] He trains himself, 'I will
  breathe in releasing the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out
  releasing the mind.'[5]
"[13] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.'
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.' [14]
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on dispassion
  [literally, fading].' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing
  on dispassion.' [15] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on
  cessation.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on
  cessation.' [16] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on
  relinquishment.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on
  relinquishment.'
"This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued
  so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit."

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html
They aren't necessarily purely sequential however. Here's a list of several works by prominent Theravada meditation teachers on how to practice Anapanasati:
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books11/Ajahn_Brahm-Mindfulness_Bliss_and_Beyond-Chapters1-5.pdf
http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/EachAndEveryBreath_v130123.pdf
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu-Anapanasati.pdf
Within classical Theravada the definitive guide to the practice of Anapanasati is found one of the Chapters of the Visuddhimagga, the great manual of Theravada meditation and doctrine. You can find the whole Visuddhimagga here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf Starting on Anapanasati on Page 317
Here is a basic introduction to Anapanasati by a Monk in the Ajahn Chah Thai Forest Tradition in a video playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8883E3B0A0F5587A

Close your eyes, and breathe. Think about waves or palm trees. Think about your day, and how to make it better. Think about the negatives things in your life then think about letting it go, and all the positive comments, well say it to yourself! breathe in, blow out. Blue skies in, gray skies out. Try it, become less stress and be a new person that is always his/her self, and become a person who is refreshed, and ready to go. Look for that sunset behind the mountains.

this is a relaxation technique.The OP needed specific instruction on mindfulness of breathing.

This isn't meditation, this is daydreaming.  I know some people have mistaken the two, which is why we have people listening to whale songs while visualizing they're on a cloud of energy and deluding themselves into thinking they're meditating.  They ain't.


text:
Autobiographies of Buddhist masters
Can you recommend any good autobiographies of Buddhist teachers and monks? I'm currently reading Getting Off, A Portrait of an American Buddhist Monk and I find it very interesting.

I can thoroughly recommended Dipa Ma-The Life and Legacy of a Buddhist Master, a short biography of Dipa Ma, She was an housewife, mother and highly developed Buddhist teacher living in Calcutta. I think it's inspirational, particularly for people interested in how to practice Buddhism in the modern world.
Also I've been personally recommended Wild Ivy which is an biography of Hakuin the 18th century Japanese Zen master. I haven't personally read this but I have attended study groups when we have been taking reading from this and it is excellent.
Finally Gautama Buddha: The Life and Teachings of The Awakened One is a well recommended recent biography of the original Buddhist teacher. I have received a fair few personal recommendations that this is a good one even if you think you are very familiar with the story of the historical Buddha.

These must be great books, even though OP asked about auto-biographies.

@AndreiVolkov hahahaha missed that. I'll let the answer stand though as they are great books. Still maybe someone has the proper answer

Specifically of auto-biographies, I enjoyed Confession of a Buddhist Atheist by Stephen Batchelor and of course Born In Tibet by Chogyam Trungpa
Of biographies, Life of Milarepa, even if mythical, remains an inspiring life story.