text:
Deva realms with maidens - samsaric and sexist?
One occasionally comes across stories in the Buddhist canon like the story of Manduka (Sanskrit: frog) Devaputta (Sanskrit: son of devas) (Chronicle of the Buddhas, Page 1123) - a frog while listening to the Buddha's sermon, attains the Tavatimsa Deva realm when he is accidentally crushed by a member of the audience.
The story makes a big deal of the frog's deva mansion 12 yojanas long and fair deva maidens who wait on him day and night.
Do women who are born in the deva realm too get fair attendants who are men? Or are all devas men?
Why are the samsaric pleasures of a large palace and maidens the chief attraction of the deva realm? Don't the fair maidens of the deva realm get a lesser deal - having to wait on the devas - how do they make merit?
I know these are silly questions, little to do with the dhamma, but one wonders all the same.
These stories remind me of telemarketing slots on TV - "call now, and we will throw in this 12-spanner set for free."

I'd rather not answer my own question, but these thoughts occurred to me about the lure of deva realms in general, and I guess this is as good a place as any to put it down.

There are several kinds of people, some have strong delusion, so for these people a little incentive to make them commit is upaya.
The Dhammapada story of Buddha's nephew who follows the Buddha into monastic life yet yearns for his fair wife back home comes to mind. He agrees to practice hard only after the Buddha promises him fair maidens in the deva realms when he completes his attainment of arahatship. Fellow monks aren't so understanding and label him a mercenary monk. It appears only the Buddha is compassionate enough to not poke fun at him.
Perhaps the Buddha's largely male audience was a bit of a boy's club - no harm in throwing in the lure of fair maidens - again upaya? He was after all preaching to cow herds and farmers who could only dream of riches and fair maidens. Then again, most monks and Arahats were royalty and Brahmins too.
I guess they don't have to pay estate taxes, mop the floors and mow the lawn on mansions in deva realms. If someone else is doing all the heavy lifting then celestial mansions aren't as much of a bore. This is also why human life is considered good for spiritual attainment because every sense pleasure here carries a stinger unlike the deva realms. Perhaps the fair deva maidens never cling, never fight or demand expensive gifts (I can't help taking a sexist tone here, the situation is overtly so, my apologies). It will only bother those who realize it is all unreal.

This still doesn't answer why women are nowhere in the equation. Aren't women equally tempted by luxuries? Shouldn't there be a deva realm filled with Adonisesque serving men? Or filled with babies that are always cute and never hurt the parent?

Do women who are born in the deva realm too get fair attendants who
  are men?

Women don't have to be born as nymphs. They can be born as Devas too. ex: Queen Maya was born as a male Deva, after she died 1 week after giving birth to prince Siddhartha. It depends on the power of your birth Karma. Men can be born as nymphs, if they go to heavens due to a lesser Karma. Nymph have companions nymphs. AFAIK, they play with each other and enjoy until their owner Deva arrives. Then they take pleasure in enjoying him.

are all devas men?

I've heard stories of powerful nymphs with retinues.

Why are the samsaric pleasures of a large palace and maidens the chief
  attraction of the deva realm?

It is their dwelling. Just like rich humans having houses like palaces. I'm sure they have many other means of entertainment, just like humans do.

how do they make merit?

They have to ask permission from the owner Deva to leave and acquire new merits. Or they can participate in the good deeds done by the Deva himself.

Are there devas who disavow their palaces and harem and go forth as ascetics?

Not exactly like ascetics. But there are some who stay away from the nymphs and meditate. Especially the ones who have attained Maggaphala

The fair maidens do indeed get the lesser deal in that realm, much like women get the lesser deal in this realm. Since being a woman is an inferior birth (according this person anyway) the similar must apply to these so called nymphs, which I can't find any information on. If now Queen Maya was born a male deva, that still doesn't make the entire realm not-sexist. It arguably makes it more sexist that she couldn't be born a highly regarded nymph/maiden if female devas simply don't exist.
One wonders if there are nymph suffragettes in these higher realms, who demand to be treated equally and dishy servants...

I wanted to post a comment here, but space was too limited, so I posted it as an answer.

Can a ladder still be useful if all rungs were the top rung? Abandon all views, goes the Zen saying - the superiority complex, the inferiority complex and the equality complex.
If we were to abandon titles such as deva, male, female, dog, insect, hell dweller etc. and merely view them as rungs on a ladder, then they are all useful and have a place in the system. If all are merely rungs, then a dog has an equal right to bark for equality as a hell dweller or woman or man, but can it? Would that make any sense?
Much better to see that each has a place, and none defines the self. If we identify with womanhood, then yes, we feel insulted by sexism. If we identify with anatta then we won't suffer.
It is meaningless to chafe at somethings and not others. If sexism is unfair, then it is also unfair that a rock needs no food or air to live, but a human does.
The problem is in our identification with identities. This is our costume for today, nothing more.
--
The above is the canonical karma theory answer I believe to the problem of sexism, social station and racism. It doesn't comfort the ego, it doesn't assure us that our identities are sacred.
It just tells things as it is.
--
I'm not sure the above is always my position, but it is very useful sometimes to think clearly without getting caught in social drama. Other times it does lead to what can be perceived as a lack of compassion.

Let's hope those nymphs identify with anatta, then. Maybe the nature of those maiden servants is like the house elves in Harry Potter, in that they simply need to serve. But if that is the case then they have attachment issues, which isn't good either. Whether the realm is sexist depends, are these nymphs perceived by devas as only good enough to be servants or have they been made for that purpose and are not forced by oppression?

I read such stories always with the mind on "that one who has invented that story", "that one who's mind is filled with that point-of-view/that projections". And then, I must say, I feel misery with that writer/inventor and I don't want that his/her paradigms/projections/point-of-views enter (and modify) my inner life, my way of seeing and feeling. Don't like to have community with that, for me this is not "noble community", so to say...

As I mentioned, it can cause a perception of lack of compassion, but is not actually devoid of compassion. Several buddhists holding such view points as real, also swore to be born in hell realms or as a woman or as a dog and so on to help them too out of suffering. Such views of perennial life have also led Buddhist monks to self immolate, not out of self destruction, but out of a desire for self preservation. Intolerance, hatred and discrimination are the real enemies, not the differences in nature itself.

"Lord Buddha, help us to be alert to realize that we are not victims of each other. We are victims of our own ignorance and the ignorance of others. Help us to avoid engaging ourselves more in mutual slaughter because of the will of others to power and to predominance." Thich Nhat Hanh

Towards the comment "As I mentioned..." - whyever the terms "intolerance" etc become involved here: since I'm not yet an "arhat", the advice of the Buddha to its disciples/lay followers seems to be relevant for me where he addresses types of helpful and unhelpful company, helpful and unhelpful subjects (and modes) of talk and of upcoming phantasies. The Buddha is no more around, so I've to employ my own antennas for the selection of the helpful and the unhelpful and I've to trust my own intuition or a teacher to whom I gave trust before (for some good reason, again based on my intuition).

No doubt. It's easy to forget we live in charmed times, all things considered. It was after all an age when many women died during childbirth, and perhaps only 1 in 3 kids survived to adulthood. It must have been dreadful to be a woman when life was extremely physically demanding, so to some degree the expectation of equality we project today on the sexes would have sounded false in such surroundings. If we can work with no preconception or notions of orthodoxy, only expressing compassion and goodwill, the right thing to do will happen naturally.


text:
What's the first thing that arises, from which everything else arise?
Suppose you completely empty your mind of all thoughts. You go into complete emptiness of mind, where nothing is arising. Suppose that in that state you make a choice to arise a thought. If in that state a choice is made to arise a thought, "choice" is the arising of "this thought". "Choice" must be arisen before "this thought" is arisen. Is there something that must arise before "choice" in order for "choice" to arise?
What did the Buddha say is the first thing that arises that leads to the arising of thoughts?
Is the answer to this question in the twelve nidanas: "'mental fermentations/volitions' lead to the arising of thoughts"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nid%C4%81nas
As I see it, consciousness (vinnana) arises from 'mental fermentations/volitions' (sankhara). Then, from consciousness arise 'name and form' (namarupa), which is constituted of 'matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness' (skandhas). I see skandhas as thoughts. Thus, the first thing that arise is 'mental fermentations/volitions', which leads to the arising of thoughts. Is this correct?

Suppose you completely empty your mind of all thoughts

This is what happens when you go into deep sleep. When you don't dream, the mind falls back to the Bhavanga process. This is called the passive state of the mind. It is what keeps you alive, when there's no other thought. This Bhavanga process is the result of your birth Karma.

Suppose that in that state you make a choice to arise a thought

No, you can't make any choices when you are in Bhavanga state. The Bhavanga process should first be interrupted by one of the sense doors. Volition comes much later in the process.
A complete thought process, occurring through the physical sense doors, is made up of seventeen thought moments (citta kha.na). These are:

A bhava"nga that flows by in a passive state when one of the five physical sense organs comes in contact with its object (atiita bhava"nga).
A bhava"nga that vibrates for one thought moment (bhava"nga calana).
A bhava"nga that cuts off the flow (bhava"nga upaccheda).
A citta that turns towards the object through the sense door that has been stimulated (pañcadvaara-vajjana).
The appropriate sense consciousness; in the case of the eye, for example, eye consciousness (cakkhu viññaa.na).
Next a thought moment — the sampa.ticchana citta — which has the function of receiving the object.
When the object has been received another thought moment, called the santiirana citta, arises, performing the function of investigating the object.
The act (kamma) itself, especially if it was a weighty one.

9 to 15. The object having been determined, the most important stage from an ethical standpoint follows. This stage, called javana, consists of seven consecutive thought moments all having an identical nature. It is at this stage that good or evil is done, depending on whether the cittas have wholesome or unwholesome roots. Therefore, these javana thought moments have roots and also produce new kamma.
16 and 17. Following the seventh javana the registering stage occurs, composed of two thought moments called tadaalambane. When the second registering citta has perished, the bhava"nga follows, flowing on until interrupted by another thought process.
As you can see, decision making starts at the 8th stage of the process.

Thus, the first thing that arise is 'mental fermentations/volitions',
  which leads to the arising of thoughts.

The first unit of Paticca Samuppada is given as ignorance. But that doesn't mean it started from ignorance. There's no real starting point. It's like asking the starting point of a circle. It's wherever you hold it first. The standard Paticca Samuppada teaching spans over 3 consecutive lives. The past, the present and the future.

Thanks. As I understand, before choice is made there arise different types of consciousness and cittas. What is a citta? Citta can have many meanings - thought, mind, intention, awareness, thinking,.. In the arising of a thought or a choice to make a thought, what does citta mean?

A citta is a thought. It is actually the mental part of a single experience, aside from rupa. A citta of a single experience can contain a maximum of 17 thought moments which are called the cittakhanas. Each cittakhana has it's task to perform. Even the cittakhana that is making a choice isn't an 'I' or a 'self'. It's just another cittakhana performing a function. The time a cittakhana lasts is said to be the smallest time unit in nature. There isn't an example to compare to it. To give some additional info, the smallest unit of Rupa(matter) lasts only 17 thought moments.

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas1 is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

Anguttara Nikaya 4.77- Unconjecturable Questions:
I'll go ahead and answer since  you're probably on now, this question is one of the imponderable questions that will only serve to detract in your practice. Although the wording of your question in particular isn't exactly one of these four, your questions seems to lie both within the 3rd and 4th questions. I'm sure this question has been asked at least twice, though, so don't be surprised when Chris or whomever else comes along and closes it :)

I understand. I'm not asking what is not visible within our minds, as that would lead to speculation. I'm asking what is the first "thing" seen? What did the Buddha say he saw as the first "thing" arising?

This falls under : "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world. And also, time in a Buddhist context is cyclical, so "first thing" is a misnomer.

Can't this question be answered with the twelve nidanas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nid%C4%81nas As I see it, consciousness (vinnana) arises from 'mental fermentations/volitions' (sankhara). Then, from consciousness arise 'name and form' (namarupa), which is constituted of 'matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness' (skandhas). I see skandhas as thoughts. Thus, the first thing that arise is 'mental fermentations/volitions', which leads to the arising of thoughts. What do you think?

I understand what you're getting at. The twelve nidanas are meant to be understood experientially , as a means to understand the path leading to the cessation of suffering. Not as a means of tracing ones karmic lineage back across the aeons and seeing where/how this thing came about

I agree. Probably my question was not clear enough, so I made some changes. Take a look. Is this the correct answer to my question: "'mental fermentations/volitions' lead to the arising of thoughts"?

Honestly I don't know. Hopefully someone will come along and clear up the 12 nidanas for us !

Great Question!
I think the answer to this question lies in the free will versus determinism debate. If you "you make a choice to arise a thought", then you are in favor of 'free will', however if you think that your "choice to arise a thought", is actually just determined by the universe and you actually made no choice at all, than you agree with determinism. Now a person that agrees with free will as the answer, will likely struggle to answer what's the first thing that arises from which everything else arises. This, however is not because the question is ignorant but because the essence of the question is so, that a free will individual cant answer it. Why? because a free will individual may also think that all their decisions are made by their own choosing and that outside factors don't have an influence.
A determinist however would argue that it is pointless asking this question because they have no say over their lives anyway so they may as well just accept these questions as if they weren't their own.
This would also be wrong, because otherwise all criminals would not be accountable for their sins. Everyone would just say, "its not his fault, because the universe 'determined' his fate.
To answer your question fully, I think a Buddha would likely answer this question by taking the 'middle way' of these extremes. Answering it by explaining, that you don't have to know "what's the first thing that arises from which everything else arises". The way out of suffering is not accomplished by knowing the answer to this question. Instead he would probably ask you to watch your thoughts of choice and your thoughts of emptying your mind too (because that is also just a thought). By doing this, your likely to realize that 'your' thoughts are actually shared amongst your family and friends. Where 'you' actually becomes a very hard question to answer. Watch your thoughts for this and also ask your family too if they have that burning question.
Hope this helps :)

Well it is an an empty mind, not a stopped mind, so there's always something going on inside even if we can't know it.
It is said even the Buddha has not delved to the complete depths of the mind.
The mind is as illusory and empty as anything else - thus it leads a compounded existence, always reacting to inputs.
Normal meditative equanimity:
Internal factors: In intermediate states of meditation where the mind is resting in equanimity an increase or decrease in body temperature, a movement in the bowels, activity of various organs, circadian rhythm, change in visuddhinana cycles, change in concentration can all disturb the equanimity and cause thoughts to occur.
External factors: The mind is most reactive to noises, especially human voices, when in meditation, but also rain or an insect for example, may trigger thoughts. The connection may not be apparent, especially if the domino effect of unconscious thoughts takes a while to manifest as a visible thought.
Non-meditative equanimity or no-mind states:
With deep and continuous mindfulness practice one can abide in no-mind states with no apparent thoughts, and in these cases one may appear to make a conscious decision to cogitate - however even this is typically motivated by an external factor - someone asking a question of us, or a decision or plan to be made and so on.
Thus, if the mind appears to come alive it is a result of a change in its compounded condition.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Telepathic Communication, do Buddhists Believe in it?
I know that Buddhists practice compassionate mediation by wishing to free first their loved ones from suffering, than their friends and than the people they have trouble with. Is this only for the individual practicing or can the practice actually reach the object too? (ie. friend)
ps: There is recent scientific evidence for ESP or telepathic communication but did the Buddhists monks know this whole time? thanks.

It is a well known super power attained by advanced meditators. You can find references to such powers in the stories of the Buddha, and in biographies of well known monks.
Kevatta Sutta:

"Kevatta, there are these three miracles that I have declared, having
  directly known and realized them for myself. Which three? The miracle
  of psychic power, the miracle of telepathy, and the miracle of
  instruction.

In the Theravada tradition the Visuddhimagga is well known for speaking directly about mastering the occult powers, and in the Madhiyamika tradition (Tibet) the path of the Bodhisattva requires learning to see into the minds of others so they can be helped.
Accounts from recent times, such as the biography of Ven. Acharya Mun Bhuridatta Thera include incidents where he communicated with other monks living elsewhere.
Ajahn Chah's telepathic powers: https://youtu.be/mPIJhO8ipgs
The Buddha forbade speaking about or giving importance to powers with good reason, so in general accounts are not first person, but third person where a monk (usually) talks about witnessing another's powers.

I've seen other powers mentioned, but I've never seen telepathy.

Telepathy is one of the more common powers actually -the Buddha explicitly talks about it in Kevatta sutta -  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html

Is the telepathy where a meditator can read (know what's in) the mind of another, or is it where the meditator can write (make something known to) the mind of another? The OP (which says "practice actually reach the object") might assume it means the latter not the former, i.e. projecting and not only receiving. Will metta meditation help not just the meditator but the person who is the object of their meditation?

Once, while the venerable Anuruddha was meditating in solitude, he considered how, by means of the four Foundations of Mindfulness (satipatthana) the Noble Path that leads to the extinction of suffering can be perfected. Then Moggallana, penetrating Anuruddha's mind by his own, appeared before him through supernormal power and requested him to describe in detail this method of practice (Samy. 52, 1-2). http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/1._Penetration_of_others'minds_and_thought-reading(telepathy)

@ChrisW It's been my experience that metta helps the person who's the object of the meditation.

Oh ok thank you for the new information @Buddho :)

Oh thanks @Buddho :D
that was a really helpful reply :)
I'm going to check out Ajahn Chah's telepathic powers video now
Regards

@Buddho so the powers of a Tathagata can also be attained by us, not just a Tathagata? I thought we were only able to attain the Five Abhiñña.

@user5380 the sutta says the powers were to be demonstrated by one of his disciples, not the Buddha himself. Besides powers arise in samatha jhanas, which were already perfected by many in India at the time of the Buddha, they aren't a Buddhist invention. Of course there are powers exclusive to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, but telepathy isn't one of them. I'm not really sure about the full list of powers of the Buddhas, but I believe seeing the state of attainment of anyone is one of them.

Do you have to attain the fourth jhana in the Earth Kasina to be able to solidify things like water? Which give the ability to walk on it? @Buddho

I don't know unfortunately, I've not investigated powers too much, I find them a distraction to practice.

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


text:
Are these valid Buddha quotes?
The BBC has these two quotes attributed to the Buddha that strike me as suspiciously pop-culture-esque assumptions of Buddhism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/capitalpunishment.shtml
Quote #1:

An action, even if it brings benefit to oneself, cannot be considered
  a good action if it causes physical and mental pain to another being.
The Buddha

Quote #2:

If a person foolishly does me wrong, I will return to him
  the protection of my boundless love. The more evil that comes from
  him, the more good will go from me.
The Buddha

The language isn't right, and they don't stand up to the test of logic.
For example:
1: A girl pesters a monk to marry her, and is heartbroken when the monk refuses and commits suicide out of heart break. I don't think Buddhism would blame the monk because his intention is not to hurt the girl.
2: The words "protection of my boundless love" seem odd, when actually per the laws of karma, none can protect another from the effects of their actions. Plus, the Buddha doesn't mind calling a spade a spade - he can't hate anyone obviously, but he isn't going to love the sinners more than the virtuous as the quote implies.

You can submit these quotes to http://fakebuddhaquotes.com/all-fake-buddha-quotes/ They will find if a quote is genuine or not.

@user5380 Thanks I was thinking of Bodhipaksa when I wrote this.

They don't sound like Buddha quotes. The Buddha in the Pali Canon doesn't really speak in such quotable 1-liners like this. His speech is much deeper. I don't know for certain, though.

the language isn't right, definitely, but i think that the general idea in each, that causing harm to others is always bad, and that the buddha won't punish sinners, seems ok, i think

In the first one I think they are summarizing the following from Ambalaṭṭhikā-Rāhulovada Sutta.

“Whatever action you desire to do with the body [similarly with mind and word] Rāhula, of that
  particular bodily action you should reflect: ‘Now, this action that I
  desire to do with the body—would this, my bodily action, be conducive
  to my own harm, or to the harm of others, or to that of both (myself
  and others)?—Then, unskilful is this bodily action, entailing
  suffering and productive of pain.
MN61

The other one seems to be coming from a Mahayana sutta, "Sermon on Abuse" in The sutta of 42 sections

Buddha said: A man foolishly stating or considering that I do that
  which is not right, will obtain no other refutation from me but that
  which proceeds from the exercise of my four qualities of love (?), so
  the more evil he brings against me, the more good will proceed from
  me; the influence of this resting on me, the effect of that returning
  to him
http://www.sacred-texts.com/journals/jras/os19-14.htm

Little known fact: the words “A Fake Buddha Quote all ’bout truth” were originally in Alanis Morissette’s song “Ironic,” but she took them out when she realized that this actually was an example of irony, unlike most of the other images in the song.
No, that’s not true.
But isn’t it ironic?
This one has its origins in the first translated Buddhist text I ever read: Juan Mascaró’s translation of the Dhammapada for Penguin Classics. I was deeply impressed by this at the time, although now I realize that Mascaró, like other Hindu translators of the Dhammapada, seriously misrepresented what some key passages say.
But that’s a story for another day. Here we’re not talking about the translation since these words are from Mascaró’s introduction. On page 21 of my edition, we find: Buddha Quotes
“Love is beauty and beauty is the truth, and this is why in the beauty of a flower we can see the truth of the universe.” (Note that we have here “this is why” and not the “that is why” of the quote in the image above.)

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


text:
Is the age of monastic life over? Is it societal conditioning or keeping up with the times?
I hear a lot of "spiritually awakened" people, on shows like batgap.com and on forums like dharmaoverground.org claim that the age of the monastic life is over, and in the present day one must learn to mix the spiritual life with the ordinary life. There is also evidenced by popular lay leaders like John Kabat-Zinn, one-time monastic Jack Kornfield, Ram Dass, Shinzen Young, Daniel Ingram, Kenneth Folk, Eckhart Tolle and others. Perhaps a lot of lay people on this forum are in this boat too.
These are largely sincere people from what I can tell, who have spent a lot of time looking for the truth. So why do they say this?

There have always been scandals and corruption in monastic orders since the time of the Buddha, as well as rather rigid and dogmatic views taken by some abbots. So, that cannot be a new reason to decry the tradition. The Buddha certainly appears to have spent a lot of time dealing with problem makers of this sort.
And both problems continue to be pretty common in almost all Buddhist traditions today (Tibetan, Theravada, Zen etc) who in addition seem to have also confused culture with the pursuit of the truth.
Now, a monk who isn't a local, enrolling in any foreign tradition spends a lot of time learning the new culture, the language, the food, the social mores, often dealing with racism to boot - all of which appear to be a waste of time, taking away from actual time spent on spiritual development. The saving grace is that it teaches perseverance, patience and doggedness, but is it enough? What's the alternative?
Maybe it is this?

Religion is largely becoming a taboo word in modern times with the trend towards secular materialism ascending. So, it's not like the times of the Buddha when the entire Sakhyan clan decided to follow the Buddha into monkhood. The bar is quite high for someone in the west or in any westernized country really, to forsake all known things, and head off to the other side of the world to become a monk.
Of course many still do.
Maybe it is this?

In the time of the Buddha lay arhats were pretty rare, the general route was to become a monk. Certainly if one must remain immersed in meditation and dhammic thoughts all day and night, lay life with its smells, noises and temptations is far more dangerous today than at any time previously. This alone must make monasticism all the more necessary today.
Yet, some lay teachers I can think of like Daniel Ingram and Kenneth Folk (at least one of them claims to be an arhat) declare that the idea of 24x7 meditative or dhammic immersion is impossible. One must allow for simple lay pleasures they say. KF even teaches in Silicon Valley, a rather central hub of material pleasures.
It doesn't help that in Buddhist countries like Thailand and Indian-Tibet most monks don't spend all day in dharmic duties either - they can often been seen out in the city, listening to music or idly browsing their smart phones or even smoking. All variously (dubiously?) justified as not contravening the Vinaya.
So, is it this?

Is the monastic life still relevant? The theoretical idea of samsaric seclusion, wise teachers and rigid routine is certainly attractive - but one's resolve is weakened when looking at the reality which often appears far different.
I'd certainly be interested in hearing from monks on the forum like Ven. Yuttadhammo if possible.

In summary this question is asking,

Some people say (and others exemplify) that "in the present day one must learn to mix the spiritual life with the ordinary life": why do they say this?
Is monasticism more a matter of "culture" than "pursuit of the truth"?
Is racism and a language barrier a reason why people look for an alternative?
Does a modern social taboo on religion and an ascending trend towards secular materialism explain why people no longer "go forth"?

Is 24x7 immersion necessary to become an arhat? What about simple lay pleasures? Don't even monastics smoke and listen to music?
Is the monastic life still relevant? Even if in theory it should be good, is the reality different, and ought one therefore resolve on another life?

This series of questions is quite involved and surely a book could be written to properly assess the status of how well a very traditional monastic community is holding up in modern times.
But a few things did come to mind that can be easily stated. Your comments are from people who are not currently part of the monastic tradition. They've made their decision and had their reasons. But the monastic community is alive and well without those individuals. It's far more interesting to hear the perspective of those actively a part of the monastic community.

The bar is quite high for someone in the west or in any westernized country really, to forsake all known things, and head off to the other side of the world to become a monk.

I suppose that's true. And yet people do it and stick with it and find it to be a meaningful way to live. As far as forsaking material things, an interesting example of this is Ajahn Siripanno. His father is a billionaire and he could have lived a life of extraordinary wealth and privilege. And he choose to ordain as a Theravada monk instead. That's a powerful statement about priority when people see clearly.

Now, a monk who isn't a local, enrolling in any foreign tradition spends a lot of time learning the new culture, the language, the food, the social mores, often dealing with racism to boot - all of which appear to be a waste of time, taking away from actual time spent on spiritual development.

The head monk are our local Theravada monastery, originally from Laos, does not speak English despite having been in the US for a number of years now. Bilingual lay followers at the temple have told me his reason for not doing so is so that he will have fewer distractions. I think this is a smart approach really. Of course, he is not in a position of having to actively seek out lay followers, it's an ethnic community which seeks out the monastery. But that's certainly one way of avoiding the waste of time you speak of.
As far as whether we are moving towards some sort of a "permanent" secularization in society, that would be short sighted speculation. Throughout history, societies have changed and become more or less religious. Religious traditions have become corrupted and then reformed. Religious traditions become more heavily focused on one aspect over another and additional sects emerge (I think this latter is roughly how the "forest traditions" revived in modern times.)
It's not for everyone. But I would think for those "with little dust in their eyes" monastic life will survive all that modern life can throw at it. :)

What do you think, how many generations shall do that nice life that we have at the moment (do "we"?) Assembling and metabolizing the Dharma should point away from short-term perspectives. The Buddha - in my understanding - proposed a kind of living, a kind of needs, a kind of "time-table" for a life (little for physical needs, lot for reflecting, meditating and finally staying in an awakened and throughout happy and free mood). Let "monkhood" be "out-of-style" for the mainstream today and even unthinkable for the scene around - a community, staying together, cultivating the good manners of life (8-fold path, for a start) shall be useful for many of us, our children or grandchildren or ... when the current hype of ways-of-living gets down or possibly even breaks completely down.
There is a nice small sutra where the Buddha was asked what would happen if the Dharma goes down, and he tells a story of the people becoming unhappier, angrier, even physically smaller, and each one might kill each other one just like that... And that he expects, that even then some people get fed up with that unhappiness, glue themselves together in small communities, saying "let's stop that mutual killing" etc and a new cycle of the Dharma would occur. But such a sutra was not intended to describe the span of the 1970ies to 2010th, for instance, just one generation: it was intended to describe time-spans of, say, the birth to the dawn of the roman imperium and more.
So the message is: let's see. Why not support people who say "let's stop that mutual killing" and... put themselves together in some community - with communication, with social life, with rules, with - let's call it: a "vinaya" for the between-friend-of-the-dharma-relations.

Some people say (and others exemplify) that "in the present day one
  must learn to mix the spiritual life with the ordinary life": why do
  they say this?

Begging and homelessness is illegal. Buddhism has no state support in the West. Monasteries that do exist have long waiting lists for application. I hear that in Taiwan, though, it is fairly easy to become a full time monk.

Is monasticism more a matter of "culture" than "pursuit of the truth"?

It's all about economics. In the time of the Buddha, it was a stroke of genius to think up a way to get out of the rat race by going forth, begging and teaching and being moral in return for donations. The business model doesn't work in the west.

Is racism and a language barrier a reason why people look for an
  alternative?

Sort of, at least in the case of westerners going to Nepal and India, where you can't get a visa to stay indefinitely-- but this is because of ordinary xenophobia and government just not wanting to be bothered with immigrants.

Does a modern social taboo on religion and an ascending trend towards
  secular materialism explain why people no longer "go forth"?

Somewhat. If you are a secular Buddhist (I consider myself to be one), the focus is on this life and the collective that follows us on earth. In a Mahayanaist path to liberation, you practice in this life as a monk so that in future lives you become a Buddha where you can provide mundane benefits to others. If we don't live after death, then it's more important to be of use to others in a mundane sense now.

Is 24x7 immersion necessary to become an arhat?

The answer depends on what you think enlightenment is. Some sects envision it as something that can be done soon, other in a virtually infinite amount of time, other see it as already done, what ever that means.

What about simple lay pleasures? Don't even monastics smoke and listen to music?

They couldn't if the laity didn't think they should. If a lay follower was going to gain merit by donating to a monk, if that monk was a goof off, then people wouldn't be incline to donate.
I don't believe in the magical sin of alcohol, meat or tobacco. I believe in the real problem of alcoholism, heart disease and lung disease. If I gave a buck to a monk and they spent it on whiskey, hamburgers and ciggies-- all luxury goods, I would think they were probably rich enough to not need by dollar.  I imagine the problem with music is not so much that the music is evil, but if you have the leisure to listen to music, then what work of soteriological benefit is being skipped?

Is the monastic life still relevant?

In a vanishingly few monasteries, mostly far, far from where I live. I think I see in person a Buddhist monk or nun about every few years, only because I live in Washington, DC.


text:
Three questions about sensual desire
If music is a sensual desire , what's wrong with that?
Sensual desire is described as the first of the five hindrances. What I am a little perplexed by is the stance of Buddhism on the positive senses.
For instance, if I desire to listen to a song, is the problem the desire, or the 'emotions and feelings' the song itself brings up?
Apart from sensual 'desire', what about just sensual 'enjoyment'?
If I just happen to walk by an area in which music is playing, and I find myself tapping my feet, or feeling really good; is this seen as a state we must abandon? I mean, if we never desired the music in the first place and it just happens to play around us, what is the harm in seeing the beauty in it? If someone offers us food, are we required to not enjoy our sense pleasures of it?
Isn't even metta meditation also a sensual desire?
Also, metta-meditation frequently uses people as objects of good-will and loving-kindness -- however, this is attaching sense pleasures to mental objects, which I thought are to be abandoned?
How does metta-meditation even make sense in the context of Buddhism when the meditation cultivates 'positive' states from mental objects?

Prevention is better than cure. It is easiest to tackle the mental pollution of unwholesome acts before it has happened - i.e. at the stage that desire is born.
For the same reason, help groups like Alchoholics Anonymous say "Say no to the first drink" - call a sponsor or friend and get over the urge. Suicide hotlines work the same way - they would like us to call at the very first thought of self harm, and not when we are standing on the ledge.
Likewise, it is more effective to walk away or keep silent when we feel angry, than calm down after a long rant.
Preventing unwholesome desires from arising, or tackling them as soon as they have arisen with right contemplation is better than recovering from the addiction.
Samsara is a greater addiction than any drug or alcohol.

If I just happen to walk by an area in which music is playing, and I
  find myself tapping my feet, or feeling really good; is this seen as a
  state we must abandon?

This is a fundamental question about all entertainment - why must entertainment be eschewed?
First, the nature of boredom is that it arises out of a mind that isn't at ease with itself. The nature of thought at the moment a bored mind arises is to gravitate towards the outside world - towards sense pleasures.
Distracted thought gets reinforced with every application of distraction, so much so, we live in a world where hardly anyone reads books, and more and more people even find Twitter too much text - they want videos or GIF images instead. If we make a habit of mindfulness, then the opposite is true, at every opportunity the mind will seek mindfulness.
Second, the nature of boredom is that it gets excited by violence rather than peace - it is an existential threat mechanism that is woken up and makes us come alive. Thus entertainment is the enemy of equanimity.
Thirdly, entertainment reinforces duality, of the entertainer and the entertained. It makes us lapse into being controlled by external forces, rather than taking control of our mind.
It is thus a quality of mind to be safe guarded against.

Also, metta-meditation frequently uses people as objects of good-will
  and loving-kindness -- however, this is attaching sense pleasures to
  mental objects, which I thought are to be abandoned?

All mind states come with a stinger of unwholesomeness, except four mind states. Which four?
The four Bramhaviharas or Bramha abodes - namely, karuna (compassion), maithri (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy at the well being of others, or the opposite of schadenfreude) and upeksha (equanimity).
The mind needs to be parked somewhere, and rather than park it in a state where it can be tempted by a more exciting desire, if we park it in these four areas the mind will remain at peace, occupied and not easily distracted.

So is it that the sense pleasures are inherently unsatisfactory, or is it that indulging in the sense pleasures 'creates' attachment/desire/lust, and thus that one should avoid indulging sense pleasures, since it generates unsatisfactory states? More simply, is the concern over the repercussions of the sense pleasures, rather than the sense pleasure itself?

Unwholesome pleasure and suffering are two sides of the same coin. A mind trained to seek enjoyment in such pleasures is a mind trained to suffer. One cannot pick and choose, thus there is no choice but to go beyond both states. Go where? To the 4 wholesome pleasures. The very act of unwholesome pleasure denies the present moment - it implies there is something external needed to be happy, and thus defeats the pursuit of happiness. In other words, both your fears are true.

I think I see what you're saying now. With regards to the 4 wholesome pleasures however: doesn't mudita derive its energy from an external object -- a person? How is this wholesome?

Mudita arises from seeing the external as the internal, the happiness arises from erasing the division between oneself and another. Consequently one doesn't get attached or addicted to mudita or any of the other Brahma viharas, because it is a natural state of being. One merely chooses to repose in whatever brahmic context is appropriate.

Great questions, you're welcome :-)

"If music is a sensual desire , what's wrong with that?"
The sense bases are dukkha:

“Bhikkhus, the ear is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
-- SN 35.1

The danger of sensual pleasures:

(1) “And what, bhikkhus, is the bond of sensuality? Here, someone does not understand as they really are the origin and the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard to sensual pleasures. When one does not understand these things as they really are, then sensual lust, sensual delight, sensual affection, sensual infatuation, sensual thirst, sensual passion, sensual attachment, and sensual craving lie deep within one in regard to sensual pleasures. This is called the bond of sensuality.
-- AN 4.10

and:

"Again, with sensual pleasures as the cause, sensual pleasures as the source, sensual pleasures as the basis, the cause being simply sensual pleasures, people indulge in misconduct of body, speech, and mind."
-- MN 13 (Bodhi trans.)

How this danger takes place:

“Bhikkhus, when one does not know and see the ear as it actually is, when one does not know and see sounds as they actually are, when one does not know and see ear-consciousness as it actually is, when one does not know and see ear-contact as it actually is, when one does not know and see as it actually is the feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with ear-contact as condition, then one is inflamed by lust for the ear, for sounds, for ear-consciousness, for ear-contact, for the feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with ear-contact as condition.
“When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built up for oneself in the future; and one’s craving—which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that—increases. One’s bodily and mental troubles increase, one’s bodily and mental torments increase, one’s bodily and mental fevers increase, and one experiences bodily and mental suffering.
-- MN 149

Fully understanding and abandoning delight in the senses is a crucial aspect of the path to nibbāna:

This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five cords of sensual pleasure, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”
-- SN 45.176

"Sensual desire is described as the first of the five hindrances. What I am a little perplexed by is the stance of Buddhism on the positive senses."
While the gratification is acknowledged...

“And what, bhikkhus, is the gratification in the case of sensual pleasures? Bhikkhus, there are these five cords of sensual pleasure. What are the five? Forms cognizable by the eye that are wished for, desired, agreeable and likeable, connected with sensual desire, and provocative of lust. Sounds cognizable by the ear ... Odours cognizable by the nose ... Flavours cognizable by the tongue ... Tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for, desired, agreeable and likeable, connected with sensual desire, and provocative of lust. These are the five cords of sensual pleasure. Now the pleasure and joy that arise dependent on these five cords of sensual pleasure are the gratification in the case of sensual pleasures.
-- MN 13 (Bodhi trans.)

...the training requires abandoning delight on the senses, both in its method and in its culmination:

Concentration is impaired by the presence of sensual pleasures (thus, it's one of the five hindrances).
The sense bases are the very source of craving -- one of the main fetters to be relinquished to attain nibbāna.

"For instance, if I desire to listen to a song, is the problem the desire, or the 'emotions and feelings' the song itself brings up?"
The problem (i.e. the obstacle to nibbāna) is the desire you mention and the absorption in the "emotions and feelings" which obscures wisdom and perpetuate ignorance of the reality. More generally, the problem  is the craving and the ignorance of it's functioning from the perspective of conditioned arising and the four noble truths.
Some sensual pleasures might as well trigger wholesome states, but there is a very high risk of not being able to discern what is what (as mindfulness is neglected in delight) and fall in the trap of craving. Like an alcoholic feeling thirsty seeing a bottle of water and beer and deciding to have the beer without seeing the danger in it (to use  Buddho's analogy).
Since wholesome states can be developed in other ways (safer ways, like drinking water)  and sensual pleasures always carry a high danger with them (like beer to an alcoholic), it is very reasonable, from the point of view of being effective and direct, to simply regard them as a treat and prescribe its immediate abandonment:

“Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards forms, revulsion towards sounds, revulsion towards odours, revulsion towards tastes, revulsion towards tactile objects, revulsion towards mental phenomena. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”
-- SN 35.4

"Apart from sensual 'desire', what about just sensual 'enjoyment'?"
sensual feelings are dukkha:

Whether it be pleasant or painful
  Along with the neither-painful-nor-pleasant,
  Both the internal and the external,
  Whatever kind of feeling there is:
  Having known, “This is suffering,
  Perishable, disintegrating,”
  Having touched and touched them, seeing their fall,
  Thus one loses one’s passion for them.
-- SN 36.62

Thus:

Sāriputta: “If they were to ask me this, venerable sir, I would answer thus: ‘Friends, there are these three feelings. What three? Pleasant feeling, painful feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. These three feelings, friends, are impermanent; whatever is impermanent is suffering. When this was understood, delight in feelings no longer remained present in me.’ Being asked thus, venerable sir, I would answer in such a way.” -- “Good, good, Sāriputta!”
-- SN 12.32

"If I just happen to walk by an area in which music is playing, and I find myself tapping my feet, or feeling really good; is this seen as a state we must abandon?"
If nibbana (or the fruits of this abandonment) is of concern, yes. Practice tends to naturally create dispassion towards the senses. For example, upon seeing how the sounds are gross in comparison to more sublime states of happiness and pleasures, and upon noticing how mindfulness weakens when embarking in sensual pleasures, one does not find much inclination to tap the feet anymore.
"I mean, if we never desired the music in the first place and it just happens to play around us, what is the harm in seeing the beauty in it?"
There's no inherent harm in seeing beauty. You should see beauty where there's beauty, and pleasure were there's pleasure. But nurturing that sensual pleasure (craving it) and giving attention to the sign of beauty is a problem.

“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the ear faculty to be lacerated by a sharp iron stake burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in a sound cognizable by the ear. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features, and if one should die on that occasion, it is possible that one will go to one of two destinations: hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus.
-- SN 235

"If someone offers us food, are we required to not enjoy our sense pleasures of it?""
In general, we are instructed to train to be equanimous towards the senses, watching out for the dangers of craving and not being infatuated by the pleasures felt, eg, by the flavors.
"Isn't even metta meditation also a sensual desire?"
Practicing metta develops pleasure, but of a wholesome kind. This pleasure is not related to the sense bases, and is regarded as sublime, unwordly. It also promotes concentration and the factors of enlightenment. Therefore, it's a practice that leads to nibbāna.
"Also, metta-meditation frequently uses people as objects of good-will and loving-kindness -- however, this is attaching sense pleasures to mental objects, which I thought are to be abandoned?"
The pleasure of metta meditation is not born from the craving for the mental objects. Its born from the mental state/attitude that are transformed using the mental objects as vehicle.

Great answer. So are the words Dukkha, Impermanence and Suffering one in the same? Is 'suffering' here used in the same context as the Western notion of suffering, or is it something more profound than that?

Sometimes dukkha is used for our notion of suffering (pain). But the deeper notion is that they are unable to give us final and complete rest for all our anxieties. "The unsatisfactoriness of the conditioned is due to impermanence, its vulnerability to pain and its inability to provide complete and lasting satisfaction" (Bodhi).

I think the answer lies in the practical part of Buddhism, i.e. insight meditation.
When one practices insight meditation diligently one will come to see for oneself that all physical and mental phenomena are subject to the 3 signs of existence, i.e. Impermanence, Unsatisfactoriness and Not-self, i.e. the uncontrollable and ungovernable nature of phenomena.
When experiencing these signs of existence and gaining experiental knowledge about them one's outlook on reality changes. One can still enjoy wordly stuff but without attachment or clinging because one knows that the phenomena, e.g. music will come to an end sooner or later. At some point one will just not have an interest for worldly stuff because of the inherent suffering and deep instability that are build into conventional reality.
It becomes unwholesome if one sees the song or the emotions/feelings as being permanent and satisfactory and thereby develops attachment and clinging towards them. Then one is having wrong view.

Regarding metta-meditation then one develops loving-kindness towards other beings. Loving-kindness is an antidote for one of the 3 defilements, i.e. Hatred and the second hindrance, i.e. Ill-will. In this sense one is cultivating wholesome states from which wholesome actions and results can arise.
Metta-meditation belongs to samatha meditation: which does not have 'reality' as the object of medication (meaning that one cannot use samatha meditation to develop insights into how reality functions and thereby eradicate ignorance, Aviija). Instead of 'reality', one is having a 'concept' as the object of meditation, and one is trying to make that concept permanent and stable. In samatha meditation there is a risk of developing attachment towards these pleasant states.
If one is aware of that and knows experientially that all phenomena are subject to arising and ceasing then it should not be a problem.

Would the Buddha himself have been able to experience the sensual desire of music if he chose to? I guess what I am asking is, was the Buddha incapable of experiencing sensual pleasures, or did the Buddha choose not to dwell there, since it is unsatisfactory? Also, does 'unsatisfactory' mean 'unpleasant' in the Buddhist context?

I can't speak for the Buddha, but coming out of deep mindfulness or meditation I can find music or movies jarring, and so unpleasant - like a vulgar joke only teenagers can laugh at.  When I've not eaten sugar for months, and I accidentally eat something with sugar, I don't feel sweetness, I feel distaste. Everyone's first drink of alcohol is horrible for the same reason. The Buddha trained to reside in mindfulness would find several everyday distractions uncomfortable simply because he is used to something better. Suttas say he wouldn't beg at houses where music could be heard.

But isn't experiencing distaste at sugar as bad as experiencing pleasure? Wouldn't the raw experience of the sensory quality, without labels of 'pleasant' or 'unpleasant' be more to the truth of the sensation?

@Steve Discernment is the essence of wisdom. Not to live like a rock with no emotions. We learn to choose the wise and forsake the unwise. It takes lane discipline to stay safe on the road, even if one may argue true freedom is to drive the car on whichever side of the road one wants. It's not about what we want - it is about what keeps us safe from suffering. The Buddha only promised to show the way to end suffering - he didn't promise a life of lazy ease, or a life of total freedom from responsibilities and choices.

@Buddho -- Isn't the ultimate goal to liberate ourselves of emotion though (positive or negative)? Or am I misunderstanding the Buddhist idea of Nibbana? Sorry for all the questions, but this topic has always confused me -- I'm glad you're answering them though, since I am gaining a greater understanding. Thanks for that.

@Steve Glad to answer. I see that "emotion" is a confusing word, perhaps it brings up ideas of foul or silly emotions. Let's call it knowledge of right and wrong. Our brain has two parts, a logical part that is slower to react but precise, and a quicker judgmental part that reacts from stored up aversions and cravings. When the judgmental part is eliminated, we receive sense inputs as they are - without prejudice. We see what is wholesome and unwholesome - we aren't swayed by immediate pleasures or pains - we take the long term view on things.

When one practices insight meditation one eventually comes to "knowledge of disgust". This is a stage in the practice where conventional dhammas loose their appeal. One sees their true nature clearly and knows the danger of enjoicing in them. One knows that their transient and momentary nature cannot provide any lasting happiness.

Actually there's nothing really wrong with sensual pleasure at all.
It is the sensual craving that is the problem and if the pleasure is not aligned with the Eightfold path (e.g. pleasure from the four efforts, Right Livelihood, etc.).
The 2nd training, concentration/absorption, is actually all about this training to be able to focus the mind through usage of the Five Faculties on a meditation object--it is a very pleasurable experience which is naturally cultivated... like a final resting place.. which is why it is called samadhi/dhyana. Learn more about these 9 buddhist jhanas.
The above can also be said about the 1st and 3rd Buddhist trainings for various reasons: there is pleasure associated with their cultivation.
Now, to answer the heart of your question:
We gain pleasure from typical things so... all that is fine, but you will have to learn the rules for these temporary pleasure. This is all the 1st Training (morality).
For example, exercise is pleasurable and healthy for the system which the Buddha has instructed us to take care of, a temple for Enlightenment. But we should not overexert ourselves.
Eating is great, but you should not overeat.
Sometimes the things you kno about certain temporary pleasures are not what you really think they are.
So yeah, by doing anything non-Buddhist you are basically taking the risk of harming yourself if you do nor arm yourself with appropriate knowledge of things.
Anyway, in summary, the answer to your question is the 1st Training (morality), which really has no end to it, even after you are a Buddha with the full regalia of powers, you are learning things or unlearning things, developing skillful means to even greater perfection.


text:
Why do I learn the most from people that suffer?
When ever I see an individual that is suffering and I am able to tolerate their suffering, is also when I seem to learn and grow the most. Spiritual leaders get me on the path but the so called 'bad people' or 'obstacles' seem to teach me the most. Can Buddhists scriptures explain this? Many thanks.

Or rephrased, "Why do I learn the most when I suffer?"

What do you learn when you see them suffer?

Suffering is like the fertilizer for our spiritual growth. It is what drives people into religion and spirituality.
If one is happy and content in life one sees no reason to change anything in ones life.
If one experience pain and suffering one naturally wants to seek a solution. For a lot of people that means coming to religion or spirituality to find a way out of their problems.
When meeting a spiritually developed being one knows that this being has gone through suffering and come out on the other side.
Regarding "bad" people or obstacles as vehicles for developing knowledge. It might be because these phenomena obviously show the suffering inherent in them, thereby making them good teachers.
"Pleasant" phenomena can be teachers too but here the suffering is masked. This makes them important to reveal and understand. The Buddha called this "flower-tipped arrows". Picturing a bhouket of flowers with arrow heads underneath so when one tries to pick a flower one is stung by the arrow. In the same way pleasant phenomena cause suffering when they change and disappear due to their impermanent nature. If one had attachment towards them one is left with suffering and a craving for more. That is how addiction is born.
For references to the texts we have The Four Noble Truths. They are briefly:

"The Truth of Dukkha is that all conditional phenomena and experiences are not ultimately satisfying;

The Truth of the Origin of Dukkha is that craving for and clinging to what is pleasurable and aversion to what is not pleasurable result in becoming, rebirth, dissatisfaction, and redeath;

The Truth of the Cessation of Dukkha is that putting an end to this craving and clinging also means that rebirth, dissatisfaction, and redeath can no longer arise;

The Truth of the Path Of Liberation from Dukkha is that by following the Noble Eightfold Path—namely, behaving decently, cultivating discipline, and practicing mindfulness and meditation—an end can be put to craving, to clinging, to becoming, to rebirth, to dissatisfaction, and to redeath".

That's a really good answer @Lanka!

Thank you Buddho:) im glad it was useful. I wanted to ask you if you have time for a chat in the weekend?

Sure, sent you an email.

Hi Lanka, thank you for your thoughtful answer :)

Your welcome. Glad it was of help.


text:
Clarity During Meditation
I'm wondering about clarity within meditation. I seem to have diminished greatly the agitation I experience, but there is a degree of mental sinking, of mental tiredness which I have a hard time eliminating. This tiredness seemingly makes the meditation session a meditation on the feeling of lethargy and laxity, and I am having a really really hard time ridding myself of this dullness. I've tried antidotes of uplifting thoughts, I've tried having equanimity towards the sensations, and remaining with them. I've tried tightening the breath, focusing sensations more closely on a specific area close to the nostrils. Yet, I've not managed to rid myself of this dullness, and I wonder if I should keep meditating while it is within my mindstream. Any advice would be appreciated.

In addition to the excellent answer by @Lanka, I find mindfully breathing in through the left nostril, and exhaling through the right for a period of 10 minutes or so will help with dullness - it is a special type of pranayama yoga. I have tried to stay with the dullness, and it does eventually pass, but I've gained no special insight from sitting with the dullness. I maybe wrong, and maybe the right thing is to do nothing and just observe.

It sounds like you might be experiencing the third hindrance for meditative progress, i.e. "Sloth and Torpor" (thina-middha). This hindrance is a mental tiredness that arises and makes the mind cloudy and unwieldy.
The Five Hindrances are briefly:

"Sensory desire (kāmacchanda): the particular type of wanting that seeks for happiness through the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and physical feeling.
Ill-will (vyāpāda; also spelled byāpāda): all kinds of thought related to wanting to reject, feelings of hostility, resentment, hatred and bitterness.
Sloth-torpor (thīna-middha): heaviness of body and dullness of mind which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression.
Restlessness-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca): the inability to calm the mind.
Doubt (vicikicchā): lack of conviction or trust".

There is some information about Sloth and Torpor and how to overcome it here.
Other solutions given could be to splash cold water in the face and then return to meditation or getting up and do walking meditation instead. The thing is that one has to balance the meditation practice meaning that if sloth and torpor arises then one must do the opposite in order to counter act it. In this case it would be to energize the mind.
Lastly, here is a great dhamma talk on the five hindrances by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi - Part 1 and Part 2.
This talk is highly recommended it gives a lot of information and antidotes to all of the hindrances.

I've tried having equanimity towards the sensations, and remaining with them. I've tried tightening the breath, focusing sensations more closely on a specific area close to the nostrils. Yet, I've not managed to rid myself of this dullness, and I wonder if I should keep meditating while it is within my mindstream. Any advice would be appreciated.

The Vipassana method, as in Pacalā Sutta, based on sensations to fight sleepiness is:

“Nothing is worth clinging to”
When this was said, the venerable Mahā Moggallāna said this to the Blessed One:
    “In what way, bhante, in brief, is a monk freed through the destruction of craving, that is, one who has reached total perfection, the total security from bondage, the total holy life, the total consummation, the highest amongst gods and humans?”
“Here, Moggallāna, the monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to.
    And, Moggallāna, a monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things [he directly knows the nature of the all].
    Having directly known the nature of all things, he fully understands all
    things.
Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether pleasant, painful or neither painful nor pleasant.
As regards to those feelings, [Section on Disillusionment and Revulsion (Nibbida) follows]
he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;
he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;
he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;
he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).
When he dwells contemplating impermanence in them, contemplating dispassion in them, contemplating ending in them, contemplating letting go, he does not cling to anything in the world.
    Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.

You can also try initial and sustained application of attention as per Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta. Also see this answer.
Also see: The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest Selected Texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries compiled and translated by Nyanaponika Thera

I wonder if what you are feeling is tiredness (or sloth/torpor as the sutta would call it) and not something else.  A lot of people, especially Westerns, very much prize the mental acuity and stimulation that you would have when, say, writing computer software, reading a riveting book, writing a SE response (heh), or watching an engaging movie.  While focus is an important part of meditation, the phenomenology of one-pointed samadhi is very different from these kinds of activities.  It doesn't have the same kind of sharpness.  In fact, when compared to activities that promote mental arousal, meditation can feel a little dull at first.
It sounds to me that you are actually just experiencing your mind relaxing.  I'm going to double down on that as you mentioned that agitation has been a problem for you in the past.  It's highly unlikely that the pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction.  A much more likely cause is that your mind is starting to rebel and cling desperately to stimulation.  The very last thing you want to do is arouse it again.  Doing that will undo the work you've put in quelling your agitation.  Just sit and watch the breath.  It sounds like you are doing fine.
Meditative states are like putting on a new pair of underwear.  As Garth says in Wayne's World, at first they can feel uncomfortable and constrictive.  But after a while, they become a part of you!  :-)


text:
Is the beginning of coming into birth described in the twelve nidanas?
The Twelve Nidanas state the cause for coming into birth.
Suppose we take a look at a being with the name Robert.
If we look at Robert and rewind time backwards to the time when Robert has not yet come into his first birth, can't we see how Robert came into his first birth?
As I see it, the twelve nidanas state that the cause Robert came into his first birth was because he started doing volitional activities because of his ignorance. The first time he did a volitional activity he basically stepped in the circle of the twelve nidanas and destined himself to "never ending" births and deaths. Is this correct?

In absolute sense, there is no "being with the name Robert" as a standalone (svabhava) entity. Twelve Nidanas explain how the false context of "my birth" arises by implication from (false) identification with a (incorrectly posited) living being.

I understand there is no Robert as a standalone entity. I understand that the Twelve Nidanas explain how the false birth of Robert arises. But do the Twelve Nidanas show us why the false births of Robert arise in the first place? The cause of Roberts first birth arising?

Thanks for the answers. I think I got it. The Buddha never said "there was no first birth" or "there was first birth". What he usually answered when asked similar questions is "the answer is in the middle" and explained a few links in the Twelve Nidanas. This is what he taught. Why? Because he knew that no human mind could comprehend what he knew about the first coming into birth or that details about the first time coming into birth are just speculations, thus poisoning the mind with clinging or aversion and leading the aspirant away from liberation.

If we look at Robert and rewind time backwards to the time when Robert
  has not yet come into his first birth, can't we see how Robert came
  into his first birth?

There is no first birth. Samsara is beginningless. But you can end it. Robert is a concept. There's no Robert existing in reality even from this moment to the next, let alone from life to life.

Do you have any sources that say that there is no first birth? Preferably from the original Pali Canon?

"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident" -Assu Sutta

If this is the case, why is there time given to how long a Buddha has to spend practicing perfections to become a Buddha? Is this just the time passed once a being has taken the Boddhisatva vow?

Yes, usually it is the time passed since the time the Bodhisatta gets confirmation from another Buddha. But he aspires to be a Buddha way before that.

Haha yep!
Robert is fundamentally ignorant (does not know his True Nature) and unintentionally stirred up his volition aggregate.
It is said that transforming this aggregate is the work of a bodhisattva and Buddha and this work comes much after transforming form, sensation, conception skandhas which includes the totality of ones body, chakras, emotions, poisons, and attachments to thought.
Robert reincarnates because of the latter part of the chain and creates endless seeds in the process--seeds which he desires to try to satisfy, there by producing more seeds--making himself trapped in the latter stages of the nidanas.
The Twelve Nidana wikipedia entry is explanatory but for a thorough, friendly discussion of the skandhas as a measurement system in parallel the process of becoming, see "How to Measure" by Bill Bodri.


text:
First life in samsara
In Buddhism, we believe in rebirth and karma. But was there a time when it was our first time in any of the 31 Planes of Existence?
If that is the case, how would we be reborn anywhere since we did not have any karma to pay off?
If that is not the case, how were we just infinitely here?

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acinteyya

These are the so-called "imponderables". I.e. stuff that isn't to be speculated about, haha.

Oh I see. Yeah I understand why they are imponderables because no matter what you answer, the answers cause you to have more questions than answers.  @David This is irrelevant, but how do you change your username?

On the black tab on the top > click on the numbers > search for "edit profile"

I'm not sure why they would be called imponderables, (seems silly to me, to be honest) but I just wanted to point this information out.

@David that was through a computer? I use a phone for this app. Why are they not imponderable, no one can come up with a clear answer for any of them.

The question is same as "if God created this world then who created God". Big Bang theory states the universe started with an explosion. Even scientists who have been scratching heads for hundreds of years have no answer. Why bother? Important thing is move beyond questions towards experiences. Those 31 planes cannot be intellectually grasped but experienced.

You can use http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/edit/5380 to change your "Display name".

If i may kindly correct the beginning sentence of your question, i.e. "In Buddhism, we believe in rebirth and karma."
We actually try to verify these things for ourselves by studying reality through insight meditation, thereby gaining insights into how reality functions. We practice to gain experiental knowledge instead of believing things to be in a certain way.
Through insight meditation one will come to see that phenomena arise dependent on causes and conditions. One sees that phenomena can spawn new phenomena.
Looking for a first cause is problematic. Why is that?
A first cause breaks causality. One can then ask "What caused the first cause? Or What caused the cause that caused the first cause? And so on ad infinitum".
This question of origin also belongs to The Four Imponderables, namely the 4th one "Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about".
The Buddha explained that is it not conducive to ones practice to think about these things. That is because one cannot understand it unless one is a Buddha. If one is not a Buddha thinking about them will only leave the mind agitated and distressed which will not be beneficial for ones practice.

"Therefore, o monks, do not brood over [any of these views] Such brooding, O monks, is senseless, has nothing to do with genuine pure conduct (s. ādibrahmacariyaka-sīla), does not lead to aversion, detachment, extinction, nor to peace, to full comprehension, enlightenment and Nibbāna."
-- SN 56: Saccasamyutta.

From the Buddha's famous "Tears" sutta:

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"
"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans."

So,

If that is not the case, how were we just infinitely here?

We're still here simply because our "fuel" (greed/anger/delusion) is still here. If the fuel's still here, the machine will keep on running. No more fuel means no more wandering in samsara.

Also very relevant is the doctrine of Dependent Origination.  Spontaneously arising together and ceasing together.  One without the other does not manifest -- what are these ones and others?  Welcome to Buddhism. =)

A similar question occurred in Lord Mind's too. Lord Buddha in search of the beginning looked back into the past of Lord's own samsara. This should go with the saying that among all the beings who can recall previous lives, lord Buddha is the most skilled in that task. With that ability no one matches lord Buddha in speed and the amount of lives visible.
Lord Buddha addressed monks and said,
It is a waste of time to look back to seek a beginning, even with the ability of a Buddha. I have looked back for eons and what I've seen is not even a fraction. Samsara is too long to look back and find a beginning.
Buddhism does not teach of a beginning of a samsara and refuse to answer it because of the search  for that question is not with a foreseeable end. That itself is the reason that Buddhism teach beings to not to be late, not to postpone the path. Because it is very long and the end of all suffering is not possible without Nirvana.
Namo Buddhaya!

Your questions sounds like: how can one be born a first time before having sinned ? Life is not a punishment, Through life you will get ups and lows and try to match theses variation with a constant rule, that is why we have this notion of good and bad which is different according to cultures and individuals. How do you believe what living people can tell about death ? No one will ever know.


text:
Effects of samatha
Are there any negative effects of samatha that were mentioned in the Pali Canon (Tripitaka), the commentaries, or just from your experience?
I have heard on an occasion that someone who might concentrate on a color such as a blue kasina might end up only seeing everything in blue.

Summary: "Negative" is a subjective term - I believe there is learning to be had in every moment in life.
Certain Samatha and Vipassana experiences can puzzle the unstable or ignorant mind. The damage in these cases is self caused or self amplified.
I'm not saying one can be stuck seeing blue, but if one does, so what? Observe it too, like anything else, without a positive or negative attachment.
This mindset that wants some special experiences, and does not want other experiences is the real danger for any meditator.
Samatha jhanas and powers like any conditioned event are impermanent and will arise and pass away eventually. There is no wholesome joy to be had in special events in life - the wisdom is to be peaceful no matter what while developing the wisdom to know what is right and wrong.
There is not a lot of harm in curiosity, and some thrill seeking, but it comes at the cost of delay in the arising of wisdom.
It is ideal, though not always possible to have the tactical knowledge or a knowledgeable teacher at hand to guide one through some of these experiences. This ensures one does not compound errors in method.
If not that, then, developing an equanimous mind that is unattached to  events is the best safety net.
Whether one is stuck in a sensation of bliss, or misery, the wise mind will remain unattached, unmoved, knowing it will all end.

You're welcome, glad it was helpful.

I agree. That was a very good answer. "There is not a lot of harm in curiosity, and some thrill seeking, but it comes at the cost of delay in the arising of wisdom". These are wise word. I like this one too "I'm not saying one can be stuck seeing blue, but if one does, so what? Observe it too, like anything else, without a positive or negative attachment."

Practiced correctly, there aren't many negative effects of samatha meditation.  That being said, there are quite a few "detours" that one might stumble down without proper guidance.  I think the greatest danger is bliss seeking and clinging to the bliss of jhana.  From personal experience, I can tell you that this is particularly pernicious.  Even knowing full well how easy it is to slip into this sort of thing, the highs that sitting can usher in are spectacularly enticing.
The subtle craving that the adsorptions engender (and sometimes they ain't even that subtle) really throw up a number of road blocks in your practice.  For instance, you might start thinking sits where you don't get into jhana to be somehow "missed opportunities", you might start trying to reconstruct the feeling of absorption without letting it arise naturally, and perhaps most damaging, you start to think of enlightenment as this kind of blissed out alternative to samsara and not the resolution of form and emptiness as taught by the Buddha.
Jhana is Buddha, but pain in your legs is also Buddha.  Almost feverish restlessness is every bit as important to your practice as ascending to the Brahma heavens.  The danger is in distinction.