text:
What are the attitudes of the schools to the experience of physical pain during sitting meditation?
Both the Theravada and the Zen traditions appear to regard pain, even extreme physical pain, as a necessary part of sitting, whereas Ngakpa Chogyam in Journey into Vastness, speaking for the Dzogchen point of view, seems to imply that pain is an indication that one is not sitting properly and that there are ways of sitting that do not produce pain.
The only references to pain in the context of meditation in the Pali Canon appear to refer to the Buddha's six-year period of self-mortification, which he repudiated (correct me with a specific reference if I am mistaken). Therefore, I am interested in the attitude of different Buddhist schools to pain in the context of sitting and meditation. Is it a sign of poor sitting practice or is it part of the experience, perhaps even something important that should be cultivated (e.g., ancient shamans used pain to induce altered states of consciousness, an example being the famous Sun Dance in which in which practitioners hung themselves by the pectoral muscles from a post for several days).
What do the different Buddhist schools and traditions say about this?

I think it is important to emphasize what Alex is wanting. That is, "I am interested in the attitude of different Buddhist schools to pain in the context of sitting and meditation." Not our personal opinion on pain, but rather, a compare and contrast in regards to Buddhist schools and their views on pain.

My experience with Soto Zen is that, a first mention of pain during sitting is regarded as normal and one should "just keep doing it". Generally, there's also a culture within Soto Zen taking pride on painful things -- like hard blows of keisaku, or sleeping on hard wood -- but I suspect this is more related to novices then advanced practitioners.
At the same time, using a different posture or a chair was always welcomed -- despite the toughness attitude, meditation itself was more important than posture, specially if it's becoming an obstacle. My experience with Tibetan and Theravada is similar on this: there's a preference for a stable and "portable" position like lotus. But being in unbearable pain when meditating in a posture is not seeing as positive to the practice.
Also, westerns are notorious for having difficulties sitting cross legged and many monasteries of different schools offer cushions and chairs.
From the suttas, I think the attitude towards pain in the training depends on a few things:

whether the physical discomfort is optional (e.g. dwelling temperature, body position, hunger/thirst, etc) as opposed to medical condition.
whether the pain is present right now.
whether the hindrance of aversion is present.

There are some specific points to draw.
Training samatha, for example, is notoriously difficult under physical pain. Here's a section of a sutta that is indicative of the problem of physical discomfort to develop samadhi:

But with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration. So I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it. Why is that? So my mind should not be strained.
-- Dvedhāvitakka Sutta [Bodhi trans.], MN 19

I think understanding how pain is dealt with in general in the suttas might illuminate how one should approach it during sitting (or non-sitting) meditation.
The general teaching that I think most schools share towards pain is to be mindful of the pain being experienced. Here's an associated sutta section:

“There are, bhikkhus, tangible objects cognizable by the body that are agreeable and those that are disagreeable. One should train so that these do not persist obsessing one’s mind even when they are repeatedly experienced. When the mind is not obsessed, tireless energy is aroused, unmuddled mindfulness is set up, the body becomes tranquil and untroubled, the mind becomes concentrated and one-pointed”
-- SN 35.134

A more detailed technique is described in the sathipatana sutta in the contemplation of feeling section:

"And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating feeling in feelings?
"Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu when experiencing a pleasant feeling, understands: 'I experience a pleasant feeling'; when experiencing a painful feeling, he understands: 'I experience a painful feeling'; when experiencing a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling, he understands: 'I experience a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling'; when experiencing a pleasant worldly feeling, he understands: 'I experience a pleasant worldly feeling'; when experiencing a pleasant spiritual feeling, he understands: 'I experience a pleasant spiritual feeling'; when experiencing a painful worldly feeling, he understands: 'I experience a painful worldly feeling'; when experiencing a painful spiritual feeling, he understands: 'I experience a painful spiritual feeling'; when experiencing a neither-pleasant-nor-painful worldly feeling, he understands: 'I experience a neither-pleasant-nor-painful worldly feeling'; when experiencing a neither-pleasant-nor-painful spiritual feeling, he understands: 'I experience a neither-pleasant-nor-painful spiritual feeling.'
"Thus he lives contemplating feelings in feelings internally, or he lives contemplating feeling in feelings externally, or he lives contemplating feeling in feelings internally and externally. He lives contemplating origination-things in feelings, or he lives contemplating dissolution-things in feelings, or he lives contemplating origination-and-dissolution-things in feelings. Or his mindfulness is established with the thought: 'Feeling exists,' to the extent necessary just for knowledge and remembrance and he lives independent and clings to naught in the world.
"Thus, indeed, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating feeling in feelings."
-- Satipatthana Sutta, MN 10 (Soma Thera Trans.)

Moreover, presence of pain is an opportunity to develop equanimity:

"Now how, Ananda, in the discipline of a noble one is there the unexcelled development of the faculties?
"[...] when touching a tactile sensation with the body, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. He discerns that 'This agreeable thing has arisen in me, this disagreeable thing... this agreeable & disagreeable thing has arisen in me. And that is compounded, gross, dependently co-arisen. But this is peaceful, this is exquisite, i.e., equanimity.' With that, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. Just as a strong man might easily extend his flexed arm or flex his extended arm, that is how quickly, how rapidly, how easily, no matter what it refers to, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. In the discipline of a noble one, this is called the unexcelled development of the faculties with regard to tactile sensations cognizable by the body.
"And how is one a person in training, someone following the way?
There is the case where, when touching a tactile sensation with the body, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. He feels horrified, humiliated, & disgusted with the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing.
"And how is one a noble one with developed faculties?
There is the case where, when touching a tactile sensation with the body, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome & what is. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not. If he wants — in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not — cutting himself off from both, he remains equanimous, alert, & mindful.
-- Indriya-bhavana Sutta, MN 152 (Thanissaro Trans.)

Endurance is an important part of the practice as well (Soto Zen is particularly emphatic on this one):

“Bhikkhus, in three cases ardor should be exercised. What three? (1) Ardor should be exercised for the non-arising of unarisen bad unwholesome qualities. (2) Ardor should be exercised for the arising of unarisen wholesome qualities. (3) Ardor should be exercised for enduring arisen bodily feelings that are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, harrowing, disagreeable, sapping one’s vitality. In these three cases ardor should be exercised.
-- AN 3.49

Finally, here's how the Buddha is described reacting to bodily pain:

Now on that occasion the Blessed One’s foot had been cut by a stone splinter. Severe pains assailed the Blessed One—bodily feelings that were painful, racking, sharp, piercing, harrowing, disagreeable. But the Blessed One endured them, mindful and clearly comprehending, without becoming distressed.
-- SN 1.38

Complementary, the presence of aversion is one of the 5 hindrances that generally obstruct one's practice:

“Bhikkhus, there are these five hindrances. What five? The hindrance of sensual desire, the hindrance of ill will [aversion], the hindrance of sloth and torpor, the hindrance of restlessness and remorse, the hindrance of doubt. These are the five hindrances. This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five hindrances, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”
SN 45.177

Thank you for the MN 19 quotation. I think that quotation really sums up the whole matter.

Pain is obviously related to physical posture; obviously related to the mobility of an individual's body & joints. Therefore, some individuals without any samadhi (meditative development) can sit for long periods while other individuals (who might have better samadhi) cannot sit as long without experiencing pain.
For example, in the West, are often found slender naturally flexible women leading hatha yoga classes, who display no evidence of spiritual development (e.g., they are emotionally unbalanced, addicted to cigarettes, etc).
Imo, the above shows there is no relevance or correlation between physical posture/pain and meditative development. If it was otherwise, a naturally physically flexible person would either be advantaged or disadvantaged compared to another person.
When samadhi (concentration) is genuinely developed (absorption into breathing, jhana, etc), awareness of pain disappears from consciousness, even though the legs themselves may become very stiff & very painful. A samadhi practitioner may sit for a few hours without consciously experiencing pain then, after emerging from samadhi, will struggle to stand up & walk.
This is why I am not aware of any instructions in the Pali teachings about meditation & physical pain. In fact, the very essence of the Middle-Way is the development of jhana (with rapture, happiness & equanimity) which is contrary to those Theravada schools (Goenka; Mahasi, etc) that teach meditation on pain.
Since the ultimate purpose of Buddhist meditation is to develop a bliss (samatha) that liberates an individual from reliance on sensuality & then insight (vipassana) that liberates a individual from attachment, self-view & suffering, it is obvious meditation on pain is not directly relevant to the Buddhist path.
When I was young, I practised meditation very intensively and developed some capacity to be non-attached. Then at a later time, my body suffered an injury & a lengthy rehabilitation that was very painful at times. I required no additional training in non-attachment to deal with my injury & rehabilitation. The non-attachment developed in my painless meditation, when I was younger, was more than sufficient.
It may sound like a paradox but non-attachment & dispassion towards rapture (piti) is said by some to be much more effective at dealing with pain that direct meditation on pain itself. This is probably why the Buddha encouraged the development of non-attachment & egolessness (rather than meditation on pain itself).

How did your non-attachment help with the pain? Was there less pain because of your understanding or your meditation practice or something else?

Non-attachment did not change physical pain. It just stops suffering (psychological turmoil) about pain. When Buddha was old, the scriptures report he experienced physical pain but did not suffer over the pain. Regards.

Theravada Buddhist Answer. Vipassana instructions following the tradition of the late Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.
The body is conditioned and therefore "dukkha". There will arise pain sooner or later in one form or the other. That is its nature.
Pain is just pain. There is nothing inherently bad about it. It's simply an experience.
In the Sallatha Sutta (SN 36.6) the Buddha compared pain and our reaction to the pain as being shot by 2 arrows.
The first arrow is the pain we cannot avoid, e.g. physical pain from doing sitting meditation. The second arrow is our aversion (attachment) to the pain. This arrow we can avoid by being mindful and taking the pain as an object of meditation.
In Vipassana meditation pain should be observed with mindfulness in the present moment. If aversion to the pain arises, then the aversion should be taken as an object.
This allows us to see the object clearly and thereby change the reactionary behavior of the untrained mind into a behavior based on impartiality and acceptance of what is ocurring at the sense doors.

As addition for the Mahasi approach (which I heard at retreats in that lineage): while pain is inevitable, if it persists off-cushion, it might be a medical condition which should be taken care of appropriately.

To give a more practical take on this, I would answer "It depends on who you ask".
There have been a number of realized masters that have said The Full Lotus position or nothing.
There are others who have said that posture is important, but how you achieve it is meaningless.
And yet others who say that Lotus Position sitting is silly, outmoded, and should be updated for the modern world.
What it really comes down to is that the lotus position, full, half, or any variation of it, is actually a fertility symbol, as well as a way (not THE way) to achieve some balance between attentiveness and a wandering mind.
If you think about it, the buddha in full lotus resembles a phallus. This is probably intentional. It goes back into the mists of time through Hinduism, and is a symbol of focus and asceticism.
Which is why some teachers criticize the use of that posture today. But as I said, others believe the pain is important, as it gives us more to be concerned about, thus making our sitting even better.

I don't know much about the teachings but what I have experienced is at a time our mind can do one task only. we don't feel pain unless our conscious is aware of the pain or is on other thing. I would suggest while meditating, take it easy, follow your breath or any mantra and when we feel pain, let don't push it more. It is all about practice. keep practicing, it will be very easy.


text:
Help me with my panic attack during meditation
Today when i was doing "space between breathing" meditation i experienced something strange which caused me to panic.
When i got deep enough in meditation, gradually space between my breaths expanded and my breaths became very shallow. I could no longer feel my breathing. Also i lost sensation of my body and awareness of environment. I entered a silent dark space which was very tight.
I felt like a vibrating round mass. The vibration gradually increased and also i felt a really hot sensation in my body. As heat increased i felt as if the space became tighter. Then i had the panic attack. My heart start beating very forcefully and fast. I couldn’t feel and move my body. I couldn’t find my breathing. It took me so long to find my breath and get back to awareness. I am so scared i cannot meditatie again.
I was wondering what was this sensation. is this feeling  normal. How can i avoide the panic i experienced

I would recommend learning & practising meditation in a group, that has a competent teacher or monk, so you can learn to become fluent in the basics of meditation.
As for your panic attack, it sounds like your mind was focusing more & more on the space, thus lengthening the gap of the space & shorting the duration of the breathing.
Therefore, not only did your mind lose a soothing, comforting & calming sense object (the breathing) but also found itself in a state of 'emptiness' ('diminishing ego') that it could not cope with; thus fear or panic arose; which is similar to a fear of 'death' people commonly feel.
Ultimately, correctly practised Buddhism meditation should 1st develop a strong foundation of calm, which gives the mind refuge & strength to develop more profound insights.
Where as "space between breathing" (emptiness) meditation is taught by ambitious teachers who foolishly believe they will enlighten students more quickly.
The real Buddhist meditation path is something gradual & natural and based on giving up desire (craving) & positive & negative judgments (rather than based on exercises designed to eliminate the 'ego' or 'self' prematurely; when the mind is not yet ready or spiritually mature enough).

Thank you for your response. So you believe i shouldn't practice this kind of meditation so early in my practice? What can i do instead of this?

Thank you. Most of us started with "mindfulness with breathing" meditation called 'anapanasati' because it makes the mind calm.

It sounds like you may have had a very deep meditative practice. It is possible that your body may have fallen asleep while you were still awake. It's not very common but pro-meditators (like the 9 hour guys) may experience it more often than others.

Did your limbs randomly move or shift without your effort? This is usually one of the first signs that your body falling asleep. Your brain is now trying to wake up different parts of the body.
Did you lose your ability to move while sitting in meditation posture? At this point your body released a hormone which paralyzes the body not to move. If you can't move your arm or finger than your paralyzed. It's not permanent but it can be scary.
The mental realm became more solid. Your body is beginning to shut down and the brain starts activating the areas of the brain associated with sleep. The dream state you experience in the morning starts to become active in your sitting.
Sense organs officially start shutting down. You can no longer hear, smell, taste, touch, or see the room you previously were in. Your body has officially fallen asleep while your brain still remains partially active/asleep. You are officially conscious of the subconscious realm.

Of course this is not recommended for most meditators, and it shouldn't be practiced without having a trained teacher. But this does sound like your body was beginning to fall asleep. Tips on how to handle the anxiety?

Move your attention onto Metta meditation.
Move your attention onto the breath.
Move onto walking meditation.
Move your attention into the anxiety and notice how it's just energy.
Keep your awareness center and let the anxiety be itself.
Encase the anxiety in a space bubble and let it slowly disappear overtime.
Place your hand on your chest and let love flow into your body.
etc....

Yes as you said i lost ability to move my body, i couldn't even hear the loud ticking sound of my room's clock. It was exactly like the sleep paralysis i sometimes experience in my sleeps. So do you think this meditation is harmful for me right now?  What can i do to prepare my self?

I recommend on finding a teacher such as a Tibetan Lama for meditations such as these. They have certain protocols  to protect you while in such deep states of mind. They will also tell you if your practice is moving forward or not. Sometimes the deep experiences can be the worst hindrances for our practice.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Three types of characteristics to achieve a goal
I have heard in a lot of sermons about how an individual achieve a goal. Even Buddha had the same type of characteristics. As far as I know they are

Determination
Consistency
Desire to see and end of the goal

My questions are,

Are these correct? If not what are they?
In which sutra can I find this?

I think the question is on the four iddhipada, the four mental factors of achieving a goal: chanda (intention), citta (thoughts), viriya (effort), wimansa (investigation). According to this section in wikipedia, there's a collection of discourses on this topic in Saṃyutta Nikāya called  Iddhipāda Saṃyutta.

These qualities are found in many sutta.

These are the four determinations: the determination
  for discernment (wisdom), the determination for truth, the
  determination for relinquishment, the determination for calm (peace).
MN 140

~~~

'We will develop mindfulness...we will pursue it, hand it the reins and take it as a basis, give it a grounding, steady it, consolidate it
  and undertake it well.' That is how you should train yourselves.
SN 47.20

~~~

And what is the faculty of persistence? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, keeps his persistence aroused for
  abandoning unskillful mental qualities and taking on skillful mental
  qualities. He is steadfast, solid in his effort, not shirking his
  duties with regard to skillful mental qualities. He generates desire,
  endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the
  sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not
  yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful
  qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful
  qualities that have not yet arisen... [and] for the maintenance,
  non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development & culmination of
  skillful qualities that have arisen. This is called the faculty of
  persistence.
SN 48.10

~~~

Chanda mūlakā sabbe dhammā
All dhamma-practises are rooted in 'chanda' (wholesome desire; zeal; devotion).
AN 10.58

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


text:
How to actually do death contemplation?
How to do death contemplation ?    it seems i really dont care about dying that much
how long can i do it ?  is there a formal technique to do it ? cause just thinking about it dosnt seem to have no effect at all
i do seem to care about others who die though but not on myself  - and even on others i care much more about them being ill and suffer than them dying
so any tips you have to add to make this more effective would be great
and just to make it clear  : i want to do this to get a sense of urgency so i will meditate more so i will get chanda

There's no need to delete a question that's closed as a duplicate. People might find this question using Google (e.g. if it uses slightly different keywords than the original question), and see the link to the original question ... so keeping it (closed but undeleted) is a net benefit. See also e.g. Do not delete good duplicates!

What's wrong with duplicate questions when we need more questions don't we? There are far tooo Meny perfektionists here. Loosen up!

i do seem to care about others who die though but not on myself

But that's the whole point. So if you already don't mind dying (that's how i understand your statement), then maybe you're an arahant?
I of course am not familiar with your background, but whether you mind or not can be found out in the life and death situation, when contingency of dying is very real.  Good health and safe environment are not the conditions to help to realize one's own mortality. An event which has a potential of causing a profound shift in one's attitude towards death is a death of a close relative, and especially a sudden and unexpected one, because it hits very close to home and with great impact due to suddenness.
Contemplation of death for development of samvega is described in Maranasati suttas 1 & 2
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.019.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html
And here's how actual practice of perception of death is described in a Gandhari Samyukta Agama Sanna sutra (Andrew Glass, Mark Allon, 'Four Gāndhārī Saṃyuktāgama Sūtras: Senior Kharoṣṭhī Fragment 5')

What is the concentration connected with the perception of death? In
  regard to this, a monk who is at the root of a tree, or in an empty
  house, or in an open space… thinks “I will die, I will not live long,
  I will perish, I will die, I will disappear. It is the undistracted
  one-pointedness of mind of a person so positioned, which is called
  “the concentration connected with the perception of death.


text:
Unfriendly and unapproachable faces - Metta Practices
I'm kind of curious, some people may have looked a little aloof and cold from the outside, and get commented on this too but deep down she/he isn't like this. She/he are probably just quiet and doesn't mingle around, don't think it's a wrong trait?
How can metta help on this? And how can metta be practiced on situation like this?
Thanks.

Loving Kindness, I would think.
You are asking, really, what should we do when confronted with an unpleasant person (who is unpleasant in any way, including appearance). We cannot NOT be human, and so our reactions are, and will be, whatever they will be.
However, if you relax and give freely, of your attention and time, you may find their attitude changing towards you. You will also find your reactions changing. Through that process of feedback comes learning.
To be very clear, "giving freely" doesn't mean "giving without discretion". Give only what you would give to anyone on earth. Use your discrimination to determine how much farther you are willing to go in compassion. And end the interaction if you decide it is no longer fruitful.

thanks for sharing.
I think the situation is, let me give you a scenario.
The person actually have no ill-intention or whatsoever, probably she is just a quiet person by nature,probably with a lil low self-esteem.
The person may not mingle around or do some networking at work and that could sometimes jeopardize her career or image at work.
As much as possible,the person tried her best to fit in but sometimes got misunderstood for something else.
How does metta-practice come into place for situation like this and how does metta-practice helps in this?
Thanks.


text:
Where can I get Buddha's teachings of the Dharma practice?
I've tried several Buddhist traditions (Zen, Diamond Way) and none of it really worked for me. So now I intend to give it another try, but in a way, which is tailored to my personality. This time I want to do it

on my own (working with teachers or mentors did more harm than good for me, both in spiritual and in professional spheres) and
without things that I don't need, especially without the idea that the purpose of Buddhist practice is to achieve enlightenment (the reason for me to practice is to reduce my suffering in this life; I don't care about enlightenment or rebirths or Karma) and without communicating with other people (again, experience shows that this doesn't help me at all).

Is there a way to obtain Buddha's description of the practice in English, German or Russian? If yes, where?
Note that I'm not interested in later interpretations of his words. I want to learn what he himself said about how to practice (what exercises, rituals etc. he recommend, i. e. something you can do). I'm also not interested in philosophical stuff.
I want to

take his original texts (those parts, which most likely come from Siddhartha Gautama himself, not later additions),
devise a set of "procedures" (e. g. meditations of different kinds, exercises) and metrics,
regularly estimate the quality of my practice (the better my practice, the less suffering there is in my life), and
modify my practice (the procedures and intensity of doing them) so that the quality increases with time.

I cannot measure the amount of suffering directly, but I can estimate it. For example, the happier I am, the harder and more effectively I work (my experience is that I can't be really sad or euphoric, when I'm immersed in certain kinds of work). The latter two parameters (amount of productive work per week, number of tasks of comparable size completed per week) can be measured using timetracking and project management software. Both of them are estimates of the amount of suffering in my life.

The Buddha did not speak English, German or Russian therefore it is difficult to find translated instruction that is not subject to 'interpretation' (since there is not one well-known translator that has translated the instructions 100% accurately).
If you want to know exactly what the Buddha taught, you must use logic & intelligence ('wise reflection': 'yoniso manasikara') to discern his teachings.
For example, in his 1st sermon on the Four Noble Truths (note: linked translation is not 100% accurate), the Buddha taught:
(1) suffering is to be comprehended;
(2) the origin of suffering, namely, craving leading to self-becoming, is to be abandoned.
(3) the cessation of suffering, namely, the cessation of craving, is to be realised.
(4) the path to the cessation of suffering, namely, the noble eightfold path, is to be developed.
Therefore, what is 'suffering' (which the Buddha summarised as egoistic 'attachment/grasping' to the five aggregates) is something that must be comprehendible. It follows common ideas such as 'life is suffering' or 'the five aggregates (body, feeling, perception, mental forming & consciousness) are suffering' is not something comprehendible therefore do not form part of the instruction. The instruction is to comprehend that egoistic attachment/grasping ('upadana') is suffering.
The clearest & most obvious instruction that represents a radical change in behavior is that of 'craving is to be abandoned'. In other words, the noble eightfold path, including the meditation components, is obviously not to be developed using craving. Practising forms of meditation, such as watching breathing, with craving, is obviously contrary to the instructions. This is why many meditation instructions state the mindfulness & concentration developed is based in giving up craving & letting go of attachment (i.e., 'relinquishment').
As for the other components of noble eightfold path, such as the 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th, they are very straightforward.

...without things that I don't need, especially without the idea that the purpose of Buddhist practice is to achieve enlightenment...

If we walk the path to the higher goal, the lower goals will be fulfilled along the way.

...the reason for me to practice is to reduce my suffering in this life...

Sooner or later, we'll realize that the only way to reduce our suffering in this life, is to help reduce the suffering of others. To have the strength to do it, we'll need very strong motivations.

For example, the happier I am, the harder and more effectively I work...

There is nothing wrong in using the teachings to achieve mundane goals. However, this achievements are only temporary, and if we are not able to see this, they will only lead to more suffering.

Our ultimate purpose is using the practices to liberate ourselves of all relative conditionings, not only to improve them.
Tenzing Wangyal Rinpoche

If we walk the path to the higher goal, the lower goals will be fulfilled along the way. - This is may be true, but not for all people. There's plenty of very spiritual people, who fail to achieve what you call "lower goals", such as keeping themselves sane or maintain good-enough relationships with their relevant people (parents, children, spouses). In reality, the ability to achieve such "lower goals" is the ultimate test for one's spirituality.

Sooner or later, we'll realize that the only way to reduce our suffering in this life, is to help reduce the suffering of others. - My ability to help others is directly to my well-being, which includes productivity. Hence, there is no way to reduce suffering (my own and that of other people) without increaseing effectiveness of me as a person.

@FranzDrollig Indeed, one cannot save a drowning man if oneself is drowning too. But, as our suffering diminishes, our awareness of the suffering of others increases. We need a very strong motivation to cope with this fact and to act accordingly, and productivity and success are not. As I said, there is nothing wrong with trying to achieve mundane goals, but if we're not careful, this achievements will become the very source of our suffering. Unless we aim for a higher goal, sooner or later we'll hit a wall of kausīdya.

You probably know this already but the name of the texts that preserve the teachings of the Buddha are called suttas (or sutras). Generally speaking, they are the closest records of what the buddha might have taught.
Other than these texts, the teachings of the Buddha survive through transmission from master to disciples across millennia spread through many branches.
These are likely the only sources of the teachings and both present problems of trust and authenticity (This does not mean current teachers are not to be trusted, nor that texts are not to be trusted, only that one needs to be at least aware of the problems one may encounter).
On the suttas, they are voluminous and were written down at different periods -- some of them arguably composed at different periods as well. One particular collection is often considered to be the earliest part (and, to many, the most authentic): these are the four nikayas/agamas (Dīgha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara) plus the Vinaya. Translations of these collections to many languages are available online. They are also available in physical books in english (see here, here, here and here).
These collections had translations preserved by many schools across many countries through centuries without much exchanges with each other, in particular, Tibet, Sri Lanka and China. The oldest texts are preserved in Sanskrit, Pali, and Classical Chinese, respectively. None of these are believed to be the language the Buddha spoke (some speculate that Pali might be a language close to their tongue).
A fifth book, Khuddaka Nikaya, is a miscellaneous collection and seem to have more divergences across recensions, mixing what seems to be older and newer compositions. Some schools also developed a third basket: the Abbidhamma, whose origin is not clear (some believe it was a project initiated by the Buddha to systematize the teachings, some believe it was developed by the schools as they attempted to solve conflicts between them or to clarify ambiguous passages, etc).
Two important take aways from the four Nikayas:

all schools recognize these collections as preserving the Buddha's teachings;
comparative analysis of the existing recensions show a remarkable consistency in content for texts of these collections.

Naturally, the buddhist schools grew apart and dispersed geographically. In doing so, they developed their own literature on top of what they already had: meditation manuals, philosophical treatises, commentaries, but also, some of them developed new sutras (that is, texts narrating the Buddha's dialogues and teachings). These new sutras have a distinct style and emphasis, and are usually recognized as Mahayana sutras. Some  regard them as superior in their teachings than early texts, some regard them as equivalent in meaning to the content of the nikayas and some do not regard them as authentic (the fact that they were composed much later is mostly accepted by scholars -- some buddhists have another explanations for their origin). Exemples of Mahayana sutras are Lotus, Diamond and Prajna Paramita.
Personally, as someone who studies alone, I find the nikayas to be the best bet to get to the closest of what might have been the Buddha's words -- my own opinion, of course. The closest, not the actual words verbatim, because it seems he never wrote from his own wrist, and you know, oral transmissions, translations and editions have a way of introducing errors.
On that note, two scholar monks, Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali have done an interesting work defending the authenticity of the nikayas: The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts (pdf here).
Also, the Theravada, considered the oldest surviving branch of buddhism is the most known tradition to preserve, study and practice according to the nikayas & vinaya. Moreover, scholars of early buddhism (in contrast to late/Mahayana buddhism) focus on the nikayas. In contrast, many Mahayana schools, although recognizing the nikayas as authentic, generally are not known for studying them.
Finally, for the most part, the reading of the nikayas is not really obscure (as one might expect after reading texts from other religions); I think they are very readable. Of course, when they get deep they are remarkably deep. And sometimes confusing -- after all it's arguably a 2500 year old text. However, there's plenty of books (commentaries, manuals, etc) that help clarify specific sutras or concepts. And for everything else, there are forums and Q&A like this to help.

The nowadays Vipassana (Mahasi Saydaw & his many direct or indirect descendants) reference Satipatthana Sutta. However, quoting an excellent Theravada reinvents vipassana blogpost:

If you read the Satipatthana Sutta, the most-used one, and if you know
  how to meditate, you can say “yeah, parts of that are a pretty good
  description of what we do.” (Other parts are nothing like what people
  do now. I think that’s important, as I’ll explain in a later post.) If
  you had no idea what meditation was, the Sutta would not seem like
  much of a guide.

Your prospect of getting straightforwardly useful meditation instruction from the text itself is bleak, unless you want to repeat what people like Mahasi Sayadaw did (and they spent lifetime studying and refining the technique). (I am sorry you had bad luck with your previous teachers.)
It is even more the case for devising progress metrics. Theoretically, there are 3 trainings in buddhism (sila, samadhi, panna) which are to a significant extent orthogonal. There are some traditional metrics (8 jhanas (pre-buddhist AFAIK), 16 insight stages (later commentarial), 4 paths (Buddha original)) but there is often little agreement on what they actually are, including among people who devoted significant time to studying them (see e.g. Shankman's The experience of Samadhi; or online discussions in communities like dharmaoverground.org; see also what unnamed Pa Auk monks say about Mahasi's sotapatti certificates -- there is a great deal of rivalrly and "we are right, you're wrong" attitude) let alone some codified assessment procedures. You've seen some of that, I guess.
"Progress" is not a monotonic (not to say constant) function, more happy now does not necessarily mean better off long-term. The goal of Buddhist practice (as I understand it) is freedom from suffering, some say "freedom in the midst of suffering" -- implying it is not absence of suffering but rather a different way of relating to it.
One of the universal characteristics (3C is Buddha), anatta, means uncontrollability, and it is also a characteristics of your practice. If your task is to have your practice under control, odds are that you will suffer because the practice simply does not care about what you want :)
Do a long Vipassana retreat; walk the path from where you are right now, before you dream about what your ideal path is.
(PS If you want to read original texts, you have to get over words like "enlightenment", they are really there.)


text:
Buddha statue of European/white likeness?
Do Buddha statues exist that portray Buddha as a person of white or European likeness? Where would I find them?
(Not sure what other than "white" or "European" to call it; you are free to correct me.)
If not, why not?
(I would like to explain in a few words why I am asking that question, but find it difficult to pin down the right words. It has something to do with the feeling of familiarity or likeness, and just plain fun of entertaining the idea that the Buddha can look like all the other people that are typically around me all day long. Plus, whatever drives people to make cover versions of songs, just seen as a "cover version" of the typical Buddha statue.)
EDIT: Replaced the word "caucasian" with "white", because this should be less offensive.

Not sure what other than "caucasian" or "European" to call it; you are free to correct me
How about "white" or "white-skinned"? The term "Caucasian" comes from outdated racist terminology, I personally find it offensive.

There are no reasons to be fired up about race. He presented a legitimate question and his tone of writing was clearly not intended to be offensive. In Christianity, you will find an asian Jesus, black Jesus, white Jesus, middle eastern Jesus, hispanic Jesus, etc... which is used to help different races relate with Christ. Madoc is merely asking to find the same association (in Buddhist terms) by finding a white Buddha. I see no problems with that.

@michau I am sorry to have offended you. My intention was to use the term in the same way that it is described in Wikipedia. As I have no disagreement with the term "white" in this context, I shall replace the term.

My impression is the original Buddha statues were of Greek origin. Try google 'Greco-Buddhist art'.

The original Indian Buddhist art (below) did not depict a 'personal form' but usually showed a wheel, tree, footprint or empty space as a symbol of the Buddha. This is probably because the Buddha famously said:

"Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

It seems that there are so many interesting things to know about Buddhism that even such a trivial question such as mine can lead to interesting observations. Thank you!

I have add to the answer.

Just to add to the above, it is unknown what the historical Buddha looked like, and it is a matter of debate if he was, indeed, one particular person. There are conjectures based on the Suttas and so on, but none of those are essentially good enough to make a strong conclusion on the subject.
So the ordinary response has been to make him look like whatever you like, and which helps you in your practice. The Buddha could look occidental, african or aryan and as long as the image was useful, it would be fine.
In the end, its about the practice and the result. The Buddha would probably be the first to say appearances are unimportant, and in this sense you don't get points for "getting it right".

I believe Sakaya (Buddha's clan) were Aryan (not the same context as Nazi would use it).  And per sutta where Buddha explained his physical features, he said his eyes were complete green (this is up for academic debate because "complete green" in Pali could mean pitch black.  Wiki says they were deep blue.
Here is modern day real Aryan race

While this is not a strict answer to the question per se, this actually blew my mind a little! I never knew this about the historic Buddha. Your answer is making my question a little less trivial. Thanks for pointing it out!

You're welcome.    He also said his skin was like gold.  This too is up for interpretation.   But with support from other sutta, i believe the idea of beatiful skin tone at the time was not too white nor too dark.   My take is that Buddha had tan skin.  But for sure he shaved his head.   In many sutta, it was one of the insults to Buddha by those of others beliefs.   Said to Buddha as he was walking "stop right there you bald headed monk, stop right there you thug!"
Ah.  I meant to put this on a comment.

They have a Shakyamuni rupa at the Vajrasana retreat centre in Suffolk, England that has white/European features. It’s a Triratna retreat centre (used to be Friends of the Western Buddhist Order).

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


text:
Does the lifespan get shorter or longer ?
Maybe i misread this but i read again now that in buddhist view life span will become shorter and shorter until 10 year life span
did i misunderstand somehthing ?  it seems that the lifespan is getting bigger and not shorter

In Buddha's time the life span is said to have been 100 years and there were several theras who touched even 120 years e.g. Ananda and Maha Kassapa. In fact Bakkula thera is said to have lived 160 years, he had ordained when he was 80. But we rarely hear anyone passing 100 at present.
A well-respected monk in Sri Lanka (late Ven. Nauyane Ariyadhamma) has mentioned that the life span reduces by 10 years in each millennium. Judging from that, the 10 year period should occur roughly in 7500 years from now. Who knows what can happen within this period.
The causes of illnesses and therefore, the reduction in life span according to Buddhism is mentioned in Cakkavatthi sutta.

Thus, brethren, from goods not being bestowed on the destitute poverty grew rife; from poverty growing rife stealing increased, from the spread of stealing violence grew apace, from the growth of violence the destruction of life became common, from the frequency of murder lying grew common, from lying growing common, evil speaking grew abundant, from evil speaking growing abundant, adultery grew common, from adultery growing common abusive and idle talk grew common, from abusive and idle talk growing common, covetousness and ill-will grew common, from covetousness and ill-will growing common, false opinions grew common, from false opinions growing common, incest, wanton greed and perverted lust grew common, finally from incest, wanton greed and perverted lust growing common lack of filial and religious piety and lack of regard for the head of the clan grew great.
From these things growing, the life-span of those beings and the
  comeliness of them wasted, so that, of humans whose span of life was
  two and a half centuries, the sons lived but one century.
  DN 26

The essence of this is that for the life span to increase, human qualities also have to improve, advances in medication and increase in the standard of living alone will not be enough.

The idea that lifespan was longer in ancient times is nonsense, and has been throughly debunked, disproven, and so on. Over and over again.
Any monk or nun who states something like this, that they somehow "know" that lifespan has "decreased" is bullshitting you in order to seem "magical" or "wise". Don't fall for that nonsense.
At best, the average lifespan in ancient times was the same as now, but that isn't what we find when we investigate. Universally, Human beings are now, on average, living much longer than in ancient times, and this has been proven over and over again by the careful analysis of human remains.
It is true that we have found some surprising outliers in ancient bones.. ages that seem to be upwards of 75 and greater. But nothing whatsoever that shows that anyone has ever lived 160 years, and the averages are in the 40s and 50s. And lets not even discuss infant and child mortality, which was 5 in 6 back in the good old days.
There is simply no hard evidence for age expansion or contraction, and the insistence that modern man is somehow "degenerate" is a dangerous idea that seeks to place 2000 year old ideology ahead of current life in order to create power structures.
In other words, it is a con game. Please do not fall for it.
And yes, human average lifespan has gotten longer, although it seems to have plateaued.. aka stopped growing.

there is a sutta talking about the lowering of the life span in the digha nikaya  i dont remeber which exactly - and i think there it also talks about the 10 year lifespan

Yes, and suttas talk all sorts of nonsense, which is designed for an illiterate, uneducated people and their needs. We need to be discriminating, and not worship texts, is my point.

The suttas speak of people in general living longer a long time ago, then speak of it happening again in the future. There are researchers that believe the first human to live to be a thousand has already been born. There is no reliable way of knowing what happened in the distant distant past. Also there is no theoretical limit of the human lifespan.

It comes from the prediction in DN 26 Cakkavatti Sutta, but The Buddha doesn't give an exact specific amount of years when it would happen or say if it would happen to everyone.
The prophecy in DN 26 is that the children of the humans that have a lifespan of a hundred will eventually have lifespan of ten-years-old:

"Among those of a ten-year life-span no account will be taken of
  mother or aunt, of mother's sister-in-law, of teacher's wife or of
  one's father's wives and so on--all will be promiscuous in the world
  like goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, dogs and jackals. Among them,
  fierce enmity will prevail one for another, fierce hatred, fierce
  anger and thoughts of killing, mother against child and child against
  mother, father against child and child against father, brother against
  brother, brother against sister, just as the hunter feels hatred for
  the beast he stalks" (Cakkavatti Sutta, DN 26)

The prediction then states that eventually the lifespan would go up from there up to 80,000 years:

"The children of those whose
  life-span is twenty years will live to be forty, their children will
  live to be eighty, their children to be a hundred and sixty, their
  children to be three hundred and twenty, their children to be six
  hundred and forty; the children of those whose life-span is six
  hundred and forty years will live for two thousand years, their
  children for four thousand, their children for eight thousand, and
  their children for twenty thousand years will live to be forty
  thousand, and their children will attain to eighty thousand years."
  (Cakkavatti Sutta, DN 26)

Some people think that the lifespan of 10 years already happened in the past temporarily and now we are in the age when the lifespan will go up from 80 to 160 but others think that the lifespan will soon go down to 10 years briefly then back up eventually.
Of course there probably will be a global food crisis in the future (which means the lifespan would go down dramatically) but then it would probably go up from there.
"A scientific model has suggested that society will collapse in less than three decades due to catastrophic food shortages if policies do not change." (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/society-will-collapse-by-2040-due-to-catastrophic-food-shortages-says-study-10336406.html)
Without food people kind of die, so the life expectancy would go down dramatically if a food crisis breaks out.
According to modern scientists, there is no fixed theoretical limit on the lifespan (Gavrilov, L. A.; Gavrilova, N. S. (1991). The Biology of Life Span: A Quantitative Approach. New York City: Starwood Academic Publishers. In Gavrilov, Leonid A.; Gavrilova, Natalia S.; Center on Aging, NORC/University of Chicago (June 2000). "Book Reviews: Validation of Exceptional Longevity" (PDF). Population Dev Rev. 26 (2): 403–4).
Many researchers already believe that humans will eventually live to be thousands of years old in the future.
"We will be able to live not just a little bit longer, but a lot longer, and to look younger as well. We are on the verge of a number of separate medical breakthroughs that together will allow us to live to 150. These technologies will definitely be available" (Harvard Medical School genetics professor Dr. David Sinclair, http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/aging-researchers-immortality-Aubrey-de-Grey/2015/04/16/id/638926/)
The prediction is that the lifespan will first go down to ten briefly then up to twenty to forty to eighty to one sixty, etc...until eighty-thousand.
My personal opinion is that the food crisis not simply possible but likely. So much evidence shows us that it's going to happen yet so few humans are prepared for it. Right now I envision the world population in the 2200s as 500 million or less.
I'm sure if you told someone in the year 2000 that the food price index would be more than double in ten years they wouldn't believe you.

You heard it right. According to Buddhism life expectancy getting shorter.

did i misunderstand somehthing ? it seems that the lifespan is getting bigger and not shorter.

No. In this period of time, it looks like lifespan getting bigger. But it's an illusion. It look that way because of modern science and technology. Not actual lifespan getting bigger. It only because modern medicines and safe environment. Not because human lifespan getting bigger. Ones these medicines disappear from the world, lifespan(fake) will drop very fast. (like by 10-20 years).

will become shorter and shorter until 10 year life span

Yes. But not in 100 or 200 years. It takes 1000 and thousands of years.
And then happens grate destruction of human race.
Then life expectancy grow again passing even 100,000 to Asanka. This process take like million of years.
System of modern science and society began only in like past one 1000 years. But actually modern science only began like 250 years ago. So this fake life expectancy growth happened only in this 250 years. And this will continue little longer. Then it will drop.
As mentioned by others, only like 10 years get drop during 1000 years period. So one cannot see the result from just 250 years.

Modern science can also be a reason for this drop of life expectancy. Because people in nowadays don't live long naturally, but with medicines, antibiotics and other outer chemicals. So actually natural strength of human body (medicinal) getting low(no fight, no strengthening). Due to over use of medications. Body doesn't fight with outer causes, artificial chemicals do. So DNA doesn't improve over time to match the outer enemies.

Life expectancy don't jump like 100 to 90 to 80 or 100 to 200 to 400. It's a gradual process.

Normally, one would not believe such claims as above. That's because human lifespan is very short. It's like explaining 50 year old man 1 month old bee(honeybee life expectancy ~= 1 month),

how much long have he lived or

teaching what a year(normal 365 days year) is or

explaining what solar eclipses are.

Honey bee won't believe anything man says.

The statement, "Lifespan of human is growing and will become 100 years" needs extensive research and proof. Honestly, I didn't read it in anywhere so far yet. But how about what we see everyday; the condolence columns in newspapers, tombstones in cemeteries, all is saying that we lived only around 70-80 years. I rarely see someone lived for 90 years and over on them. Now people usually says "you are very long live" when we see someone who is over 90.
The idea of "Human lifespan is growing" might come from Mathematical estimation. We experienced wars in our history. Young people died in Europe and many other areas. Mathematically lifespan may be lower in past centuries due to these events. Comparatively, now the lifespan is higher than that but it will not be over 100 years.

i didnt say 100 years   it says it will become 10 years -    which means shorter
and people especially in western world are living longer due to improvement in health treatment

If science and technologies cannot promise 100 years lifespan to human, then it is very hard to prove that "lifespan is growing" because 100 years is very first hope to current human lifespan to next level. But instead there are more chances to reduce human lifespan, for example pollution, new diseases, compromised high tech dangers to daily life (like chemicals, metropolitan living standards), mental disturbances (anxiety, stress). Currently, we do not exactly see that human lifespan will reduce to 60-70 but do we really have strength to persist for next generations to generations?

Yes it increases from 10 years to 84000 years and then decreases to 10 years again repeatedly and gradually


text:
What can be done about wanting to change things in the present that you can't?
I've practiced meditation, and a lot of it seems to be about not dwelling in the past, or waiting for a future which may not arrive as we expect.
But what about the present?
The deal is relatively trivial or trite; I want someone to say something: apologise. Actually, any sane person would want the same, given the (past) behaviour or this person. All the same, it seems of overwhelming importance whenever I let my thoughts wander.
And while it is pretty trivial, when my thoughts do wander in this way, I believe that everything in my life is great just as it is, except this, which is making me want to give up completely.
It seems a little wrong to say just don't think about it. Is there any other option?

There is only now, the present moment. There are thoughts about the past, fantasies about the future that are arising in the present moment.
What must be done is to become aware when such a thought do arise, and to observe that thought, objectively. Without investigation or analysis, without reacting, by simply turning, holding and sustaining your attention to what has just appeared, just at time of its duration.
You will realize that when you do this, the thought will simply disappear, it will vanish.
Ultimately it is only a thought, nothing more. The problem is that we create more out of it. The desire to control what is out there will only lead to your own misery. Let it go, give it up.
Have you ever heard about satipatthana / vipassana ?
This should help you, friend.
http://en.dhammadana.org/vipassana/what_is_it.htm

Very relaxing comment :) +1 for the simplistic yet clear message.

Your idea of not being able to change things in the present is not quite correct.
You can always change yourself in the present moment. Always.
It may be difficult, or seem impossible, but the entire practice of Buddhism and Meditation is about this one, simple thing.
My answer to your question is "Change Yourself". This is not to say you should either accept OR reject any condition your are currently experiencing.. this is to say change and then see how that affects your view of your experience.
Rinse, repeat. This is The Path.

One simple, effective, answer would be to ask why you think this way. Are you e.g. using it as an excuse?
Trying to find out why you want to change something may be one everyday way in which you can then learn to do otherwise.

How does this answer the question "What can be done about wanting to change things in the present that you can't?"

@anon I deleted your other answer, which was a dupe of this. If you want to add to the original answer, you can click the edit link. The other users will undo the downvotes if they see the answer improved.


text:
How to handle contrition
I've hurt a beloved one a lot. I've done something which is unforgivable to this person and the contrition is eating me up.
Contrition is, of course, a essential part in learning and preventing mistakes from beeing done multiple times.
However, my regret is blocking me, I can't think about anything else.
Has Buddha told us anything about this?
Of course I have to, and already do, a dialoge with this person.
However, how should I handle this within myself?

a similar question was asked at http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17332/how-can-i-make-amends-with-the-one-i-wronged you may find the answers relevant

In suttas Buddha says this to people feeling remorseful about their past: there is no use worrying about the past you can't change. Focus on acting with skill going forward.
One of the most underappreciated techniques in Buddhism is weaving useful narratives. This is when you tell yourself a story about yourself in a way that induces and sustains the good states of mind. The story can't be a lie though! -- so before you can do it, you have to actually repent/reconcile/resolve to not let it happen again.
So the first step is to actually finalize the internal decision: what shall you do differently from now on. Then you should let some time pass to give you a chance to act in the new way. And then you can say hey, I have not committed the same mistake for such and such time, I think I am good now. Simple, right?
Check out the story about Angulimala and a Pregnant Woman. It illustrates this principle brilliantly.

You have to practice maitreyi (loving-kindness) towards yourself. It's much easier for us to forgive others than it is for us to forgive ourselves. However, it's very important that we show loving kindness towards ourselves as well.
You should determine to not to make that mistake again. Regret is one of the five hindrances which prevents you from achieving nirvana, so practice loving kindness towards yourself and let go of the regret.
Look up the story of Angulimala. The following books by Ajahn Brahm are brilliant as well:
Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook,
Opening the Door of Your Heart.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
How I can live longer as well as peaceful by doing practices taught by Buddhism?
How I can live longer and healthier as well as peaceful by following practices taught by Buddha, Buddhism and Sanga?
I like to live long as a normal person (not being a monk). Live long here, I means if possible 100 years. If not, 90s. If not I like live longer than average of people at least.
I like to live longer but I don't want to lose the opportunities of -

Having many things to see which make me cheerful and pleasing.
Listening music which make me pleasing.
Smelling good things and fragrances.
Savour what I like and people says the best things I can have in life.
Touch of aesthetically pleasing woman, touch of delicate fabrics

I would like to follow the practices, rules, dos and don'ts said by Buddha or Buddha's teachings or from Sanga or from a Buddhist monk. The goal I like to achieve is to live longer and heathy (practically live much more longer than current generation like 100 years, 90-100 years). Is it possible instance that I can achieve if I am passing my teenage years? Or If I am not, is it possible for age of child or new born baby by applying teachings, guidance, practices and care by Buddhism, he/she can live longer and healthy for the rest of his/her life?
Can you point me out any reference about living longer and healthier from Buddhism teachings, book of monk, audio/video recording, web link or Suttas?

Here is a list of a few things you can do to live a longer and healthier life.

Meditate: Stress will make you age quicker and die younger.
Eat vegetarian meals: Most meats will cause inflammation which lowers your life-span.
Intermittent fasting or only eating for the first half of the day. This will help you keep thin, slow down your metabolism (the idea is animals who have slower metabolisms live longer than those with faster), and your body has the chance to clean out it's system.
Put aside yourself and help others. Helping other people makes you active, social, younger, and happier.
Simplify your lifestyle. Buddha always encouraged his followers to live a simpler life, why? Because it helps you live longer by lowering your stress and finding happiness.
Finish all your work in the morning so you can rest in the afternoon. This is a pretty common practice in the monasteries.
Don't Procrastinate! Buddha encourages us to keep up with our work so we don't add unnecessary stress to our lives.
Buddha gave us a purpose in life which helps you live longer. We're not just piles of flesh waiting to die.
Many Buddhist sects believe in early to bed, and early rising. Life becomes much easier when following this pattern of living. Stress decreases significantly! Less stress means a healthy body.

This is but a few practical tips given by Buddha, with external sources (supporting) the reasons for why you should follow them. I hope this helps and have a wonderful day!

It's simple, if you like a long life, abstain from killing any living being.

This is the way, student, that
  leads to long life, namely, abandoning the killing of living beings,
  one abstains from killing living beings; with rod and weapon laid
  aside, gentle and kindly, one abides compassionate to all living
  beings.
  MN135

If you want a healthy life, abstain from harming any living being.

This is the way, student, that leads to health, namely, one
  is not given to injuring beings with the hand, with a clod, with a
  stick, or with a knife.
  MN135

A long live doesn't necessarily mean being happy all the time. Moreover, you can't control how long your live will be ("Live is uncertain, Death is certain."). So being concerned about how long your going to live isn't that useful, because it's not really up to you. If you want to know how to live most healthy, you'd need to ask a doctor or somebody else. But even then you have no assurance.
If you want to use the Buddha's approach, you might need to reconsider your goals. You say you want to live as long as possible and to have as much pleasure in your live as possible. Your actual question probably is something like "How to live as happy and peaceful as possible?", but you're already assuming that having a long and pleasant live is what leads to happiness and peace.
According to Buddhism it is wrong view to believe that the more pleasant experiences you have, the happier you will become. The hard truth is that pleasant things don't lead to lasting happiness. You can test this out: If you're listening to music it's quite pleasant, there is no  doubt that this pleasure is a kind of happiness. But try listening to the same music for 3 hours (or longer), are you then still happy? If nice music was the cause of happiness, then the more you listen to it, the happier you should get, because this is how cause and effect work, right? But in reality it's not like this. In fact you probably would get quite agitated and frustrated after listening that long to the same music without break.
The whole point of Buddhist teaching is that if you make your happiness dependent upon the things you experience (pleasantness of sights, sounds, smells, touches, tastes and thoughts), then suffering will follow you inevitable. Because pleasant feelings change and you can't control what's pleasant and what's not.

from  Āyussa Suttaṃ  AN 5:125-126  , this sutta is straight forward teaching us how to have longevity.  i haven't found English translation that I totally agree with but here is my best:
5 dhamma for longevity for here and now.

know to add some comfort to life.
Moderation in that comfort.
consume food that are easily digested (no details given.  Probably varied from person to person)
move within right time (IMO, know your body'schedules and keep it regular, like when to exercise, when to sleep, when to eat etc.. ) other words, keep routine schedules that are agreeable with your body.
practice like Bhrama god (stay with equanimity as much as you can).  (minimize stress level)

Nyanaponika Thera said (I don't know if he's quoting the Suttas or not),

Non-delusion is a condition of longevity, because one who is undeluded will know what is beneficial and what is harmful, and by avoiding the harmful and resorting to the beneficial one will have a long life.

See also this Transcript: Amitayus Sadhana practice (which is Tibetan long life practice).

The Dhammapada says:

"Health is the most precious gain and contentment the greatest wealth.
A trustworthy person is the best kinsman, Nibbana the highest bliss."
(Dhammapada, Verse 204)

If you want to live long (as long as the aeon or kappa) you should try to develop concentration (iddhi power).

And the Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed,
practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and
brought to perfection the four constituents of iddhi power could, if
he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of
it. (Maha-parinibbana Sutta, DN 16)

Scientists claim that there is no theoretical limit to how long humans can live (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span#In_humans).
For me personally what I do is concentrate and hold the feeling that "really in reality I'm fully completely healed of all negative health conditions".
What happens is after a few seconds of holding this feeling my nose becomes unstuffed, vision improves, and I feel tingling vibrations coming out of my body.
Of course the majority of humans can't hold a feeling or thought uninterrupted for even 5 seconds, let alone, a minute, 10 minutes, or an hour, but The Buddha claimed to be able to for up to seven days (168 hours) (MN 14).
If you don't want to lose opportunities then become well-developed in body, virtue, mind, discernment:

"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment?
There is the case where a certain individual is
developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
dwelling with the immeasurable.
A trifling evil deed done by this sort
of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part
barely appears for a moment." (Lonaphala Sutta, AN 3.99)

Realistically everyone in general has intentionally or unintentionally done evil deeds, so it's best to develop those four things.


text:
Is the Buddha nature nothingness or the Dharmakaya?
In a lot of Buddhist literature you will find passages suggesting that our Buddha nature is actually "nothingness" or "emptiness". I was wondering if this was true? I'm starting to doubt this claim because of the Dharmakaya. The Dharmakaya is one of the three bodies of Buddha which is transcendent. While some say that the Dharmakaya "is" nothingness, others claim that it is neither part of space (emptiness and form) nor time. The idea is that everything, including nothingness (emptiness), originated out of the Dharmakaya. It's an impersonal force which holds everything together, originated everything, and maintains everything through a transcendent state.
My question: What is the proper understanding of the Dharmakaya and it's relationship with our Buddha nature? Is it the Buddha nature or not?

See also Tathagatagarbha and dhammakaya

According to Yogacara, buddha nature is a seed in the mind basis of all. According to Madhyamika, buddha nature is the emptiness of the mind of a sentient being. It is not the dharmakaya.
Dharmakaya is divided into two (sometimes three): 1. the wisdom truth body, which is the omniscient mind of a buddha, and 2. the nature truth body, which is the emptiness of the mind of a buddha. We also call the nature truth body: 'emptiness [of the mind] without defilements' while buddha nature  is 'the emptiness [of a mind with] defilements'. Just like the emptiness of the table is not the same phenomena as the emptiness of the cup, the emptiness of the mind of a sentient being (i.e. a non-buddha) is not the same as the emptiness of the omniscient mind of a buddha. Therefore, we can not say that buddha nature is the dharmakaya or that an arya buddha possesses buddha nature.
Moreover, in no traditional text have I seen the dharmakaya qualified as 'transcendent'.

In the old Pali Buddhism, the word 'sunnata' ('emptiness'/'voidness') does not mean 'nothingness' (ākiñcaññā) or 'empty space' (ākāsā). It refers to the state ('ta') of being 'empty (sunna) of self' & 'anything belonging/pertaining to self'. 'Sunnata' was also used to refer to a state empty of greed, hatred & delusion.
Thus, everything in the universe without exception, including Dharmakaya, Buddha Nature, etc, are inherently empty of self & anything pertaining to self.
In other words, the term "our Buddha nature" is wrong relationship with 'Emptiness' & Dharmakaya since, in view of emptiness & Dharmakaya, Buddha nature is not "ours".

And what is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or
  into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of
  anything pertaining to self. This is called the emptiness
  mind-release.
MN 43

~~~

Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty.
Suñña Sutta

~~~

the unprovoked mind-release is declared the foremost. And this unprovoked mind-release is empty of passion, empty of aversion,
  empty of delusion.
MN 43

~~~

He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance'.
MN 121

The Awakening of Faith says that

that which is fully endowed with them [numberless excellent qualities] is called the
  Dharmakaya when manifested and the Tathagata-garbha when latent... Suchness or the Dharmakaya is not empty, but is endowed with numberless excellent qualities

So they're different names for suchness, the essence of mind, dependent on if we mean that the excellent qualities are latent or manifest.

Suchness in its nature is fully provided with all excellent qualities;
  namely, it is endowed with the light of great wisdom, the qualities of
  illuminating the entire universe, of true cognition and mind pure in
  its self-nature; of eternity, bliss, Self, and purity; of refreshing
  coolness, immutability, and freedom.

Dharmakaya is equivalent to Buddha Nature, God, Allah, Brahmin, etc.... the Ultimate source that is beyond existence and non-existence. The "Creator" (though it neither creates nor is created, it begets nor is begotten).
Emptiness is similar to it but it is not it.
Because emptiness is similar to it we cultivate peaceful mind until we achieve samadhi.
This is similar and brings us "closer" to enlightenment but nonetheless Emptiness is still falsity.
When we can initially let go of the peace of emptiness and leap beyond all Three Realms... then we are bodhisattvas... on the road to Buddhahood and learning to clear out the even more deep-seated attachments.
So basically the order of cultivation is:

let go of existence attachment (Desire Realm and Form Realm)
let go of nonexistence attachment (Formless realm)
abide in the Ultimate

I don´t think it is appropriate to compare Buddha Nature with Allah or God.  Buddhism is beyond duality and beyond the idea of a "creator" or "a begining".  Dharmakaya is not equivalent to Buddha Nature as very well explained above by Tenzing Dorje.

@carlos velasquez i am using pantheistic definition of such terms. I would rather believe that the original theologists/prophets pointed to this definition rather that some being who protects/punishes people


text:
How to do a long meditation of "death contemplation"?
because just thinking about it for a short time didnt have any effect on me   - how should i do a long death contemplation meditation ? like half hour or an hour  ?
should i repeat a mantra over and over again ?
And what to do when there are disturbances - should i focus on the words more strongly ?  where my attention should be ?
(doing death contemplation to gain a sense of urgency - chanda)

sense of urgency in Buddhism is called samvega, chanda in the context of spiritual practice would be wholesome desire

In the Tibetan Geluk tradition, contemplation of death would usually involve the two:

Analytical meditation on death
Placement meditation on a specific mind induced by analytical meditation

A beginner would start with 24 minutes meditation sessions. The point is to do it every day.
For instance, by engaging in analytical meditation on "death is certain, but its time is most uncertain, and at death only karma will follow", a mind of non-attachment to your goods will arise, or a mind of non-anger towards your so called-enemies will arise, or a mind of loving kindness for friends you are presently angry with will arise, or a mind wishing to practice dharma and a sense of urgency will arise.
When this or that mind arises, we are advised to take it to mind, concentrate on it, stay with it without analyzing anymore. This is to dwell in these "places" and familiarizing with it. Every time you dwell on non-attachment, you make it easier to dwell on it again. Moreover, every time you manage to make a mind of non-attachment arise, finding your way there (so to speak) becomes easier.
When you loose your object of concentration (be it a mind of love, non-attachment, urgency, etc) you engage in analysis again for it to arise again. The purpose is to find your way to these "places" and dwell on them again. We are very skilled in doing so with anger, feeding it, finding reasons to be unhappy and angry, and staying with it.
In the Geluk tradition, this type of meditation (alternating analytical and placement) are laid out in the Lam Rim (i.e. Stages of the Path). Venerable Karin Valham compiled an outline of it: Lam.Rim Outlines – Beginners' Meditation Guide. Whether you want to meditate on impermanence and death, or precious human rebirth, or suffering, etc. this is just food for thought.

I have some ideas:
For half an hour chant "closer"(or "closer to death") as you focus on a clock's second hand each time it moves forward.
Visualize yourself on your deathbed, I bet there are some good guided meditations out there that can help get those visualizations flowing.
I highly recommend guided meditations especially for beginners, even for advanced practitioners starting a new side practice as long as they are done by good teachers.

Have you actually considered working with the dead? Throughout Buddhist history both monks and nuns were encouraged to work with the dead. Here is a picture of a modern day monk blessing a deceased man.

This technique has been used ever since the beginning of Buddhism. The Buddhist monks and nuns are notorious for walking into Battles just to bless, pickup, and bury/burn the dead. It can be hard in the western world to find a morgue that allows people to do community service. Partly because it can be dangerous working with dead bodies, as well as strict religious protocols based on the religious background of the person who died. Morticians are required to have education in both theology and biology for this reason.  So what are possible substitutes you can use if your denied opportunities to work at your local  morgue?

Work with the dying, sick, and homeless. This will shock the reality of death into your life. It will rip your heart apart but eventually compassion, love, and wisdom will eventually follow. Mother Teresa practiced this lifestyle and eventually she became a saint because of it. This is the hardest teaching of the Buddha, but it is also the most rewarding. Remember to keep this in mind. Practicing Buddhism is far more beneficial for you and others, rather than just meditating on his teachings.

You can contemplate it starting with 10-15 minutes or so and see how it goes, you might need inspirational material so you have a foundational structure to begin with, to keep you busy, preventing you from running out of thoughts.
ie one could start out thinking along the lines
"Death will certainly come to me!"...Life is uncertain,Death is certain!... All that is Born must Die"
So one can spend some 3-5 mins on this before moving on to next theme.
Thinking about how other people could not escape Death and its inevitability, ie The Buddha, The Great Arahants, one's own dead friends & relatives, music or movie stars,  or other human or non-human beings for 3-5 mins before moving on to final stage.
Contemplating one's own death, along these lines "In many ways can death come to me..." and the drawbacks of going on to be reborn.
All of this should be done with Death potentially being close in mind, not 10 years or ten months from now, it can come before one finishes the meditation or this very day one can fall and die etc.
There is no need to divide it like this in stages but it will be helpful to develope the meditation and one can adjust it later as one wants. One can pick and choose which way one does it and overlap is natural between "the stages" and it will get repetitive if one finishes and starts from beginning for a "second lap".
So one should be picking the most appealing themes and dropping the stuff that doesnt do much for you after a while, elaborating, poundering and visualising, developing the meditation to last 30, 40, 60 minutes or longer.
I think one should make an accent on thoughts of compassion in regards to one's own body when contemplating death, the body is vulnerable and is very fragile as it is so one should take care of it. One should contemplate in spirit of compassion and appreciation of the body as a vehicle to Awakening.
This is a part i would not dare to neglect.
Thats all you need to do, keep contemplating it over and over, it will eventually lead to incredible fruits.
Look up both Maranasati Suttas 1st and 2nd, as i understand according to Sutta one is adviced to do it in the morning and in the evening.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
What is meant by this description of a type of person in the suttas?
There seems to be this reoccurring phrase to describe a specific type of person in the suttas. For example in MN 45

"And what is the taking on of a practice that is painful in the present and yields pain in the future?"
"There is the case where someone is a cloth-less1 ascetic, rejecting conventions, licking his hands, not coming when asked, not staying when asked. He doesn't consent to food brought to him or food dedicated to him or to an invitation to a meal. He accepts nothing from the mouth of a pot or from the mouth of a bowl. He accepts nothing from across a stick, across a pestle, from two eating together, from a pregnant woman, from a nursing woman, from a woman lying with a man, from a food collection, from where a dog is waiting or flies are buzzing. He takes no fish or meat. He drinks no liquor, wine, or fermented drink. He limits himself to one house & one morsel a day, or two houses & two morsels... seven houses & seven morsels. He lives on one saucerful a day, two... seven saucerfuls a day. He takes food once a day, once every two days... once every seven days, and so on up to a fortnight, devoted to regulating his intake of food. He is an eater of greens, millet, wild rice, hide-parings, moss, rice bran, rice-scum, sesame flour, grass, or cow dung. He lives on forest roots & berries. He feeds on fallen fruits. He wears hemp, canvas, shrouds, refuse rags, tree bark, antelope hide, strips of antelope hide, kusa-grass garments, bark garments, wood-shaving garments, head-hair garments, animal wool, owl's wings. He is a hair-&-beard puller, one devoted to the practice of pulling out his hair & beard. He is a stander, one who rejects seats. He is a hands-around-the-knees sitter, one devoted to the exertion of sitting with his hands around his knees. He is a spike-mattresser, one who makes his bed on a bed of spikes. He is a third-time-in-the-evening bather, one who stays devoted to the practice of bathing in water. Thus in a variety of ways he stays devoted to the practice of tormenting & afflicting the body. With the break-up of the body, after death, he goes to a bad bourn, destitution, the realm of the hungry shades, hell."

I really don't understand what is meant by this. Can anyone please give a simple explanation or some reference to other translation or commentaries?

This describes someone who practices asceticism ... not a Buddhist who practice a Middle Way. The practices (the ascetic way of life or rituals) are onerous (refusing food, sleeping on a bed of nails, "devoted to the practice of tormenting & afflicting the body", etc.). What do you not understand about this?

@ChrisW So the details are not important, just the fact that one tortures oneself? I was quite irritated by the long list.

Can anyone please give a simple explanation or some reference to other translation or commentaries?
The sutta is describing four ways to practice:

"practice that is pleasant in the present but yields pain in the future" -- seeing no harm in sensual pleasures
"practice that is painful in the present and yields pain in the future" -- an ascetic life, which is "devoted to the practice of tormenting & afflicting the body"
"practice that is painful in the present but yields pleasure in the future" -- someone who is passionate/aversive/deluded and consequently experiences grief (in the present), yet lives the holy life
"practice that is pleasant in the present and yields pleasure in the future" -- someone who is not passionate/aversive/deluded, who is equanimous, withdrawn from sensuality, entering the four jhanas

What you quoted in the OP is a list of various (several) ascetic practices. I presume these were actual (current/contemporary) behaviour practiced by some people at the time.
There's a bit about Ascetism in Indian religions on Wikipedia.
Siddhārtha Gautama tried to practice austerities himself, but found it unhelpful; e.g. MN 36 describes many types of austerities he practiced, which end with his thinking:

But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'

That "other path" is the Middle Way which he tells to his five (former) companions when he meets them again after his enlightenment.
So the details are not important, just the fact that one tortures oneself?
They were presumably actual practices, which the sutta is listing as explicitly austere (unnecessary).
See also Dhutanga practices which are optional (regarding which this commentary says these are not extreme, and may optionally be adopted to further simplify a monk's life).
I'm not sure what the motive is or was for asceticism; I could guess (e.g. ascetism is also associated with devotees of Shiva), but with the Buddha stating that asceticism is fruitless (or, more specifically, is painful in the present and leads to hell in the future) I don't see much point in pursuing that topic.

I think ChrisW gave a clear and concise answer to your question. That is,

"This describes someone who practices asceticism ... not a Buddhist who practice a Middle Way."

I would like to comment on your follow up question by saying the details are un-important. There are many forms of asceticism. The description of asceticism Buddha is describing can be found in Indian asceticism (for obvious reasons), but the principle extends to all forms of asceticism. He is encouraging his followers to avoid living their lives in extremes, such as only craving pain and discipline while neglecting the natural pleasures in life. These natural pleasures he concluded are blessings because they bring us momentary happiness. On the other hand, he encouraged us not to live only for pleasure and lack discipline. You'll never achieve ultimate happiness if you can't let go of lower forms of happiness and practice self-control. Both will eventually lead to suffering, but if balanced, will lead to happiness and joy.


text:
Is there a contradiction in the translation of the Bhūmija Sutta?
The Bhūmija Sutta in the Nidanasamyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya appears to be a very important sutta for the Sri Lankan Mahavihara & Buddhaghoṣa school that came to dominate south east Asian Buddhism. For example, it appears that from the Bhūmija Sutta comes the rationale for the translation of the Dependent Origination terms 'kāyasaṅkhāraṃ, vacīsaṅkhāraṃ & cittasaṅkhāraṃ' as 'volitional or kamma formations' despite these terms being explicitly defined in a different manner in MN 44.
(Of note, monks such as Buddhadasa, Nanavira, Nanananda & even a certain work by Thanissaro have used the MN 44 definitions in their explanations of Dependent Origination).
The Bhūmija Sutta appears to begin by stating the Buddha does not teach as the "proponents of kamma" do, namely, maintaining that happiness and suffering are done by oneself or by another.
Yet the common translations then appear to later show the Buddha explaining that:

"...on one’s own initiative (sāmaṃ), Ānanda, one generates (abhisaṅkharoti) that bodily volitional formation (kāyasaṅkhāraṃ) conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise
  internally...."

More questionable is the different terms 'kāyasañcetanā' (as 'bodily volition') & 'kāyasaṅkhāraṃ' (as 'bodily volitional formation') appear to be translated in essentially the same way, as follows:

Ānanda, when there is the body, because of bodily volition (kāyasañcetanā) pleasure and pain arise  internally...with ignorance as condition...Either on
  one’s own initiative, Ānanda one generates that bodily volitional
  formation (kāyasaṅkhāraṃ)...

Now it should be noted the suttas, such as AN 6.63, clearly state that: "volition is kamma" & conform with the start of the  Bhūmija Sutta by starting happiness & suffering are dependent on contact.

"Intention (volition), I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech & intellect....Contact is the cause by
  which kamma comes into play."

Therefore, is there a contradiction in the translation of the Bhūmija Sutta where the "proponents of kamma" are refuted yet essentially the same doctrine of 'self-generated-kamma' is translated as the doctrine of the Buddha?

There's no such contradiction. Karma can indeed be categorised as prompted and unprompted as in if it was instigated by another or not.
What's refuted here is a person or a third party being able to create pain, pleasure or neutral feelings at will. Feelings arise due to contact.
Ex: One cannot say "let there be pleasurable feeling at the ear" and make it arise, if there's no contact at the ear. Even if one performs the physical act of playing a song, if one is deaf, pleasurable hearing won't arise since there's no contact.