text:
Role of IQ in attainment of stream entry
I quoted below, the words of Ven. Dhammavuddho, who stated that, according to SN 55.5, to attain stream entry, one must have focused attention (yoniso manasikara) when listening to the true Dhamma from true men (ariyans) and contemplating on it. After that, they must practise the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma.
They can have focused attention, only if the five hindrances stop habitually obsessing their minds. Two types of persons pass this criteria - one who has attained the first jhana and one who is highly intelligent (has high IQ). Both can concentrate their minds effectively.
My questions are:

Is the role of IQ as stated above, found in the suttas? (reference request)
How could not-so-intelligent persons compensate for their lack of IQ, if they want to understand the Dhamma and attain stream entry?

In the YouTube video entitled "Characteristics of a Sotapanna", Ven. Dhammavuddho Mahathera stated (with some paraphrasing):

Now we look at another Sutta - SN 55.5. ... It is mentioned that there are
four factors or conditions for stream entry - sotapattiyangani. First,
association with true men - sappurisa. Second, hearing the true
Dhamma (Saddhamma). Third, focused attention or proper attention (yoniso manasikara). And fourth,
practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma -
Dhammanudhammapatipatti.
The first one is association with true men. The word sappurisa also
means ariyans - those who understand the true Dhamma. Because they
understand the true Dhamma, you can hear the true Dhamma from them.
The second condition - What is the true Dhamma? ... if it agrees with
the Buddha's words in the Suttas, then it is the true Dhamma. ....
The third condition, this word - yoniso manasikara, which I translate
as focused attention. Sometimes they say careful attention. This word
means that when you listen to the Dhamma, you are focused on listening
to the Dhamma. In other words, at that time, you don't have the five
hindrances. If that is so, then you can understand the Dhamma and
attain stream entry.
So who are the people who do not have the five hindrances? In the
suttas, it is stated by the Buddha that as long as a person has not
attained piti and sukha which are secluded from unwholesome states,
which are secluded from sensual pleasures, the five hindrances will
obsess him and obsess him habitually.
So, there are two types of persons who do not have the five
hindrances. The first is the one who has attained the first jhana
(i.e. he who has attained piti and sukha). When a person has attained
the first jhana, he has eliminated the five hindrances and the Buddha
says that the five hindrances no longer obsess that person habitually.
So there are two conditions if a person has the hindrances. Firstly,
it obsesses your mind, it enslaves your mind. Secondly, it is
habitual, it is very often there. ... When a person attains the first
jhana, these hindrances reduce to a very low level. ...
The other type of person who does not have the five hindrances habitually obsessing his mind is an intelligent person - the person
with a high IQ. Normally, a person born with a high IQ, he has good
concentration and that was obtained from previous lives. A very good
example is Albert Einstein. ... (some example of Albert Einstein) ...
It shows that he had great concentration. So, people who are
intelligent, they are able to focus their mind. That is very
important. A scatter-brained person cannot be an intelligent person -
the mind is so scattered.
These are the two types of persons. One, because of previous lives,
he's born very intelligent - he can focus his mind. The second person
is one who has attained the jhanas.
The fourth condition - practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the
Dhamma. So he keeps practising the Dhamma and he will attain stream
entry. Now this fourth condition may not be necessary for some people.
We find in the suttas - many people when they listen to the Buddha,
speaking the Dhamma, even for the first time, they attain stream
entry. The Buddha confirms this. But some people after they have
listened, it doesn't click immediately. They go back and they think
about it and then it clicks. And then they understand the Dhamma and
attain stream entry.
So this practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma is after
he has listened, he starts to recall the Dhamma or investigate more of
the Dhamma. And then after some time, then the pieces fall into place
like a jigsaw puzzle. And then he sees the Dhamma.

In my carefully considered view, yoniso manasikara is a dynamic term referring to the various ways we can apply our receptivity towards the teachings, not just in a focussed way.

The quote seems to be equating IQ with concentration: it says, "Normally, a person born with a high IQ, he has good concentration and that was obtained from previous lives."
I suppose that sounds plausible -- that, to be intelligent, someone must be able to concentrate -- but I guess that's a personal opinion of the author (not "universally valid"), and has exceptions to the rule: I suppose that instead intelligent people may be conceited, for example; or lazy, or etc.

There's a bit in the Path to Purification about the six kinds of temperament, which says,

One who "possesses understanding" is one of intelligent temperament.

According to that definition, perhaps it's a truism (perhaps "understanding" erases the hindrance of "skeptical doubt").
I don't really know what Pali word is equivalent to "high IQ"?

There's a word cakkhumā which I think is used often: usually translated as "with good eyesight", but occasionally translated as "intelligent".
I think it means, more or less, "with little dust in their eyes" -- able to "see" or perceive the dhamma.
According to the PTS dictionary:

Cakkhumant (adj.) [cakkhu+mant] having eyes, being gifted with sight; of clear sight, intuition or wisdom; possessing knowledge (cp. samantacakkhu) D i.76 (one who knows, i. e. a connoisseur); cakkhumanto rūpāni dakkhinti "those who have eyes to see shall see" (of the Buddha) D i.85, 110, etc. -- Vin i.16; S i.27; A i.116, 124; iv.106; Dh 273; It 108, 115; DA i.221; DhA iii.403; iv.85. -- Esp. as Ep. of the Buddha: the Allwise S i.121, 134, 159, 210; Sn 31, 160, 992, 1028, 1116, 1128; Vv 125 (=pañcahi cakkhūhi cakkhumā Buddho Bhagavā VvA 60, cp. cakkhu iii.); Vv 8127.

I guess that may be related to "right view" (and eventually "wisdom") though, perhaps more than concentration.

I guess that to better understand the original quoted sutta (forgetting for the moment the Venerable's explanation of it as "high IQ") it would be good to investigate the meaning of yoniso manasikāra.

High intelligence could also be a prerequisite for fabricating endless destructive taught. So, I don't think its right to say IQ is a criterion. It's not intelligence which is needed, but virtue.
Visakha, the great female supporter was only seven years old, when the Buddha visited her birthplace... Though she was so young, she was religious and virtuous. As such, immediately after hearing the Dharma from the Buddha, she attained the first stage of sainthood.
So, It's not the intellectual capacity of Albert Enstaine which is needed but been virtuous and faith in the teaching.

Not sure about the suttas, but in Milindapanha it is said:

“What is the reason that a child under seven years of
  age is unable to attain insight? For a child is pure in mind
  and should be ready to realise the Dhamma.”
“If a child under seven, O king, could feel desire
  for things leading to desire, hatred for things arousing
  hatred, could be fooled by misleading things and could
  distinguish between wholesomeness and unwhole-
  someness then insight might be possible for him. However, the mind of a child under seven, O king, is feeble
  and the unconditioned element of nibbàna is weighty
  and profound. Therefore, O king, although he practised
  correctly, a child of under seven could not realise the
  Dhamma.”

So some level of IQ beyond "feeble" seems to be a requirement. Not sure how high it needs to be though. Anecdotally from my teachers, some types of high intelligence (the ones leading to conceptual proliferation, papanca) may actually get in the way.

According to AN 6.87, one of the characteristics of a person who will be able to understand and practise the teachings of the Buddha with skillful qualities, is that they are "wise, bright and clever".

“Mendicants, someone with six qualities is unable to enter the sure
path with regards to skillful qualities even when listening to the
true teaching. What six? They murder their mother or father or a
perfected one (arahant). They maliciously shed the blood of a Realized
One (Tathagata). They cause a schism in the Saṅgha. They’re witless,
dull, and stupid. Someone with these six qualities is unable to
enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities, even when
listening to the true teaching.
Someone with six qualities is able to enter the sure path with regards
to skillful qualities when listening to the true teaching. What six?
They don’t murder their mother or father or a perfected one (arahant).
They don’t maliciously shed the blood of a Realized One (Tathagata).
They don’t cause a schism in the Saṅgha. They’re wise, bright, and
clever. Someone with these six qualities is able to enter the sure
path with regards to skillful qualities when listening to the true
teaching.”
AN 6.87

The Pali phrase here is "paññavā hoti ajaḷo aneḷamūgo".
"jaḷa" and "eḷamūga" are opposites of "ajaḷa" and "aneḷamūga".
From the Concise Pali-English Dictionary:

pañña: [adj.] wise; endowed with knowledge. (in cpds.). || paññā (f.) wisdom; knowledge; insight.
jaḷa (adj.) slow; stupid. (m.) a stupid person.
eḷamūga: [m.] idiot.

Other sutta references:

Someone with five qualities is able to enter the sure path with
regards to skillful qualities when listening to the true teaching.
What five? They don’t disparage the talk, the speaker, or themselves.
They’re wise, bright, and clever. They don’t think they know what they
don’t know. Someone with these five qualities is able to enter the
sure path with regards to skillful qualities when listening to the
true teaching.”
AN 5.152

Someone with five qualities is able to enter the sure path with
regards to skillful qualities when listening to the true teaching.
What five? They don’t listen to the teaching bent only on putting it
down. They don’t listen to the teaching with a hostile, fault-finding
mind. They’re not antagonistic to the teacher, and not planning to
attack them. They’re wise, bright, and clever. And they don’t think
they know what they don’t know. Someone with these five qualities is
able to enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities when
listening to the true teaching.”
AN 5.153

“Mendicants, the appearance of six things is rare in the world. What
six? A Realized One, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha. A
person who teaches the teaching and training proclaimed by a Realized
One. Rebirth in a civilized region. Unimpaired sense faculties. Being
bright and clever. Enthusiasm for skillful qualities. The appearance
of these six things is rare in the world.”
AN 6.96

This is a misunderstanding of the notion of IQ. Perfectly understandable — Dhammavuddho is a buddhist monastic, not a cognitive psychologist — but worth reflecting on.
Focused attention is (perhaps) a feature associated with high IQ, but that has more to do with the nature of IQ testing than any deeper spiritual issue. IQ tests measure one's ability to pick out and analyze patterns. For instance, I once watched an acquaintance struggling with a logic puzzle — one of those things where one has to put oddly-shaped blocks together so they form a perfect cube — and I was confused about why he was struggling with it. I could see a pattern that he could not; I could not see why he could not see it. But note that this wasn't a matter of the capacity for focused attention — he was quite focused on the task — but a matter of focusing attention on the correct aspects of the problem at hand. In that sense it's like seeing the man (or rabbit) in the moon, or one of those optical illusions that is first a vase and then a pair of faces. One doesn't see it and then one does, for no readily apparent reason; something beneath the thinking mind seems to suddenly 'grasp' the task and reorganize one's perceptions.
Many intelligent people are spiritually inept, because they have trained their focused attention on all the wrong things. We might think about lawyers here: lawyers are generally quite bright, but have dedicated their careers to defending and promoting the selfish, ego-bound, materialistic desires of their clients. The work of a lawyer is bound up with presenting illusion as solid, factual truth; their focused attention is fixated in entirely the wrong direction (from the Buddhist perspective).
The 'intelligence' of a Buddhist lies in being open to that moment of conceptual reorganization, of waiting for something underneath the thinking mind to grasp what's going on and shift one's perspective. Those whose focused attention is fixated (a fixation implicit in the concept of tanhā), miss that moment of natural 'grasping' because they are intent on grasping something else entirely. IQ can be a help or a hinderance.

The Intelligence Quotient measuring mental acuity does not apply without Emotional Intelligence and Empathy (capacity for Compassion).
https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/article/serial-killers-iqs-ranked
On a positive note living sustainably in the forest away from numeracy and arithmetic, one still a good chance for reaching the first level of enlightenment.
Cultivate in harmony

Achieving high IQ test scores is coextensive with the ability to maintain focused concentration of one’s attention. As that ability develops, the potential to achieve higher scores also develops. That this ability is a sought after result of meditative practice does not exclude the possibility of being born with this ability, or being nurtured to develop it, but without traditional training in meditation. I feel that these points are self-evident.
Thus, a high IQ test score does not obviate the need for the ability to focus and concentrate, rather, it evidences that ability.
But the flip side of that—not having high IQ scores—does not evidence an inability to focus and concentrate, because you may not be interested in the problems presented, desiring instead to study the Dharma. Last time I had an IQ test, I didn’t see any Dharma questions in it.

Is the role of IQ as stated above, found in the suttas? (reference request)

MN 26

And then I, monks, having understood Brahmā's entreaty, out of
compassion surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I,
monks, was surveying the world with the eye of an Awakened One, I saw
beings with little dust in their eyes, with much dust in their eyes,
with acute faculties with dull faculties, of good dispositions, of bad
dispositions, docile, indocile, few seeing from fear sins and the
world beyond.
Even as in a pond of blue lotuses or in a pond of red lotuses or in a
pond of white lotuses, a few red and blue and white lotuses are born
in the water, grow in the water, do not rise above the water but
thrive while alltogether immersed; a few blue or red or white lotuses
are born in the water, grow in the water and reach the surface of the
water; a few blue or reel or white lotuses are born in the water, grow
in the water and stand rising out of the water, undefiled by the
water; even so did I, monks, surveying the world with the eye of an
Awakened One, see beings with little dust in their eyes, with much
dust in their eyes, with acute faculties, with dull faculties, of good
dispositions, of bad dispositions, docile, indocile, few seeing from
fear sins and the world beyond.

Then the first people who the Buddha choose to teach are Jana-practitioners...

Then it occurred to me, monks:
‘Now, to whom should I first teach this Dhamma? Who will understand
this Dhamma quickly?’
Then it occurred to me, monks:
‘Indeed this Āḷāra the Kālāma is learned, experienced, wise, and for a
long time has had little dust in his eyes. Suppose that I were to
teach Dhamma first to Āḷāra the Kālāma he will understand this Dhamma
quickly.
Then devatās having approached me, spoke thus:
Lord, Āḷāra the Kālāma passed away seven days ago.’
So knowledge and vision arose in me that Āḷāra the Kālāma had passed
away seven days ago.
Then it occurred to me, monks:
‘Āḷāra the Kālāma has suffered a great loss. For if he had heard this
Dhamma, he would have understood it quickly.’
Then it occurred to me, monks:
‘Now, to whom could I first teach this Dhamma? Who will understand
this Dhamma quickly?
Then it occurred to me, monks:
‘This Uddaka, Rāma's son, is learned, experienced, wise, and for a
long time has had little dust in his eyes. Suppose that I were to
teach Dhamma first to Uddaka, Rāma's son? He will understand this
Dhamma quickly,’
Then, monks, devatās, having approached me, spoke thus:
‘Lord, Uddaka, Rāma's son, passed away last night,’
So knowledge and vision arose in me that Uddaka, Rāma's son, had
passed away last night.
Then it occurred to me, monks:
‘Uddaka, Rāma's son, has suffered a great loss. For if he had heard
this Dhamma, he would have understood it quickly.
Then it occurred to me, monks:
‘Now to whom could I first teach this Dhamma? Who will understand this
Dhamma quickly?
Then it occurred to me, monks:
‘This group of five monks who waited on me when I was self-resolute in
striving, were very helpful. Suppose that I were to teach Dhamma first
to this group of five monks?

How could not-so-intelligent persons compensate for their lack of IQ, if they want to understand the Dhamma and attain stream entry?

Do as much as the concentration meditation as they can. At pa-auk they meditate full time for 2-7 years.
The insight meditation is very in detail, so the very strong wholesome minds are required to access them all in right relativity.

I think high iq is like having good eyesight.
In the dhamma-training the predominant insight faculty might allow to 'target' as in 'see the dhamma' more quickly, that as in that one 'sees the point', intellectually grasps the teaching and due to this understanding the mind can be directed to the deathless element even after the 1st jhana and this realizes the unsurpassed release sannavedananirodha. I say it might allow because someone lacking in wisdom might outwork the other or just train smarter if well instructed. All things being otherwise effectively equal the one with quick discernment will see the Dhamma more quickly and by that understand consciousness.
Pannavimutti are type of Arahants with predominant insight faculty. They skip the arupa jhana and rely only on the rupa jhana and the cessation principle for destruction of taints by seeing with wisdom.
The understanding of the dhamma has to mature based on meditation, extremely high iq won't guarantee seeing, there might be some blocks such as bias and personal fixations. One of quick discernment has to do the same work in regards to heedfulness and attending to the teachers message.
I think that one with slow wisdom has these obstacles;

prone to wrong views and speculation
sadness and worry about not knowing

#1. I think learning about foremost wrong views is good. Admirable comraderie is essential.
What i would do is simply learn sutta, memorize the essentials and cultivate faith and concentration, wisdom will follow.
High iq can overrated. It's like having good eye sight, it is a waste if there is nothing nice to see or if nobody shows you the path to nice things. There is a reason why iq doesn't directly correlate to seeing the Dhamma.
One who isn't very quick in wisdom but is good hearted, of steadfast faith, easy to admonish and with wise friends, he can be expected to realize the goal.
Imo far too few people admit that they might not understand much if any of the complex dhamma that is hard to see. I think they aren't doing themselves any favors and they can make things a lot easier for themselves by recognizing their strengths & weaknesses.
#2. One can keep this to a minimum and have a lot of faith and joy on account of the Teacher, Dhamma and The Sangha. Again, admirable comradery will outsource a lot of these issues for one such as this.
Also one should recognize speculative lines of reasoning and the doubt. One should learn that ''if either of two is true; then the foremost wrong view is that 'maybe this is true and maybe the other is true''.
One should focus on avoiding becoming fixated in wrong view.
Here the learning of Sutta expression is crucial, don't even pay attention to what most people say as it seems like 99% of people have no clue and many think they do have a clue and of those who do have a clue only a few are perfected in expression and don't do mistakes that will confuse people.

It took lots of worldly self-tribe-preoccupied people with high IQ, such as Albert Einstein (who initially but later regrettably lobbied the US govt), to build the atomic bomb. Robert Oppenheimer proclaimed, from the Bhagavad-Gita:

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Today, there are all sorts of people with high IQ working in military & financial industries. IQ is obviously unrelated to stream-entry.
What is related to stream-entry is a pre-existing dispassion or disenchantment towards the world & the capacity (which includes fearlessness & strength) to let go & abandon 'self'. What is related to stream-entry is a sensitivity towards suffering.
If IQ was required for stream-entry then stream-entry itself would be a mental thinking exercise, which is not the case. Stream-entry requires non-thinking rather than thinking. This shows how tenuous Dhammavuddho appears to be.

Exactly, IQ has nothing to do with it.

I agree totally. Intelligence is not a unitary phenomenon. A mathematical genius could be a horrible physicist. An architect could be at a loss to understand the nuances of surgery. Even high profile criminals are highly intelligent. What matters is the capacity to understand the subtleties of dhamma which has nothing to do with the above types of intelligence. Call it what you may, it is far removed from the verbal and nonverbal tests that define our conventional intelligence. Isn't there already a beautiful word- 'wisdom' , panna- that describes this capacity to understand dhamma?

From William Hamilton, Saints and Psychopaths.
Notes:

moron used to be a technical term for person with IQ 51—70.

Jack Engler co-authored the book Transformations of Consciousness which (IIRC) includes his study as a chapter; the subjects were guided in the practice by Dipa Ma, disciple of Mahasi Sayadaw and Anagarika Munindra.

"englithtenment" in the text refers to stream entry (see context).

3.2.23. Intelligence and enlightenment
Other things you need not worry about are lacking intelligence and education. One of Dr. Jack Engler’s research subjects was a moron. Although it took this lady a very long time to retain the meditation instructions, once she understood them she very quickly became enlightened. She was still a moron, but at least she was an enlightened moron.
There is one negative aspect to being intelligent or highly educated. The problem is that discursive and analytical thinking has a very negative effect on being able to develop a calm and concentrated mind. Intelligent and educated people are very prone to thinking about things. The essence of vipassana meditation is to develop a profound examination of objects of consciousness. Thinking is not observation. The more advanced your practice becomes, the less logical or reasonable your objects of perception become. It is essential to develop the ability to profoundly examine and penetrate into objects of meditation without thinking about them. Intellectuals, as a group, progress in meditation more slowly and are less likely to be successful. However, I know several people who have a Ph D, MD or other highly educated status and have become enlightened.


text:
What is yoniso manasikara and ayoniso manasikara?
As suggested in this answer, it is a good idea to investigate this further.
What is wise reflection (yoniso manasikāra) and unwise reflection (ayoniso manasikāra)?
Yoniso manasikāra is also translated as wise attention, appropriate attention.
Why is yoniso manasikāra important? What is it used for? How does one practise it?

The way my teacher explained it to me, we can either be masters of our mind, masters or information (=wise attention), or our mind can be our master, information can be our master (=unwise attention).
In the second case, we let our minds push us around. We allow information to make us think about things whether it's good for us or not. Things that are negative, or things that are useless to think about, things that make us feel bad. Our mind tells us: "see this? Because this is so and so, you have lost, there's no hope", etc. We let our negative inertia maintain ourselves in maimed and injured condition. Or, "see this? you must want this." - as is the case of lust or envy. We eat all kinds of informational junkfood without being selective. Or we let our rational mind, our logical mind, take us down the path of conceptual proliferation and fruitless quasi-intellectual speculation. We get fooled by information into believing that we must come to certain conclusions, that we don't have a choice.
Yoniso manasikāra is Emotional Intelligence. We decide what to think and how to think it - in order to feel stronger, healthier, and motivated. We actively decide what not to pay attention to, so negative mindstates cannot enter our minds. We don't let "Mara", devas, spirits, memes, advertisement, etc. and other informational viruses, to enter our informational space uncontrollably and do whatever they want to us. We are actively responsible for our mental hygiene.
We know the noble truths, so we know how attachment to expectation mismatch causes dukkha and makes us weak, and how being blameless and having no inner conflict makes us happy and strong, so we actively exploit this mechanism.
Moreover, we decide how to frame our thinking, what context and coordinates to choose. Because reality is an interpretation we make, choosing a mental framework is choosing a reality. We choose reality in which we are happy and can make others happy. We don't choose reality in which we are miserable and make others miserable.

I think Ayoniso-manasikara Sutta clearly show what inappropriate and approprate attention means.
Quoted below is the Sutta
("Ayoniso-manasikara Sutta: Inappropriate Attention" (SN 9.11), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 30 November 2013):

I have heard that on one occasion a certain monk was dwelling among
  the Kosalans in a forest thicket. Now at that time, he spent the day's
  abiding thinking evil, unskillful thoughts: i.e., thoughts of
  sensuality, thoughts of ill will, thoughts of doing harm.
Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for
  the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses,
  approached him and addressed him with this verse:

From inappropriate attention
    you're being chewed by your thoughts.
    Relinquishing what's inappropriate,
    contemplate
    appropriately.
Keeping your mind on the Teacher,
    the Dhamma, the Sangha, your virtues,
    you will arrive at
    joy,
    rapture,
    pleasure
    without doubt.
Then,   saturated   with joy,
    you will put an end
    to suffering & stress.

The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.

A good response for your question can also be found:

In this discussion: Pali term: ayoniso manasikāra
In this Glossary of Pali terms (which quotes from 10 suttas in which ithe term is used)

In my understanding yoniso manasikara is attention at the origin, the source.
For example the Buddha used yoniso manasikara when he contemplated "what is the cause of death" - "birth is the cause of death"
In daily life we would look at anger, in a ayoniso way, getting caught up in it. But if we would look at in in yoniso way, we would check how it arises, why, where, and what is angry, what is hurt.

Proper (Sujato)/careful (Bodhi) attention starves the five hindrances and feeds the seven factors of awakening. Conversely, improper (Sujato)/careless (Bodhi) attention feeds the hindrances and starves the awakening factors. Ajahn Brahm often translates yoniso manasikāra as "the work of the mind that goes back to the source".
SN46.51 gives examples of how to apply yoniso manasikāra within the framework of the four right efforts.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Metta phrases about safety in ancient and modern times
Background
I've been practicing with metta phrases adapted from the Visuddhimagga, and i've seen the same thing in other places: Part of the meditations focuses on safety, which is perhaps not as relevant in our modern world where we are better protected from physical injury than in the ancient times
(Example: "May i be safe and free from injury")
Question
I'd like to find an alternative to metta mediation phrases related to physical safety so that the phrases that i practice with are more relevant to me and others
What i've found so far
So far i've been thinking about maybe exchanging phrases about physical safety to mental/emotional safety, or a feeling/perception of safety. In our modern society many people are suffering from anxiety

Grateful for any help you can give

Yes, feeling safe is important. Sounds like great idea for Metta.

Could you quote the phrase[s] you're questioning? Are they these (and aren't these about more than only physical safety)?

I don't know if I'm missing something but it sounds like you want to be partial to just the people that you know, the people who are in your area or you think we live in some kind of  utopia for some reason.
I mean, it doesn't sound like you are talking about all of us on Earth 2018.
Have you heard what's going on in  Myanmar lately? No physical injury there to receive your metta? What about  Detroit Michigan? Did you hear how North Korea feeds it's defecting soldiers or punishes it's prisoners? Have you heard what's going on in Afghanistan? Have you heard of the rising threat of World War 3 breaking out? What about all the drought and starvation going on in 3rd world countries? What about all the rioting? What about all the hurricanes, wildfires, tsunamis, tidal waves and earthquakes? What about global warming?
Besides, people are injured all the time no matter how free the medical benefits are or how advanced the technology is.
Although, with today's medical technology a company has cured hepatitis C...if you can afford $100,000-$300,000. In the USA there is no free health care for all so just having no money can result in unnecessary suffering, death & injury.
What about the physical injury danger police officers, firemen and soldiers go through?
Aren't  prison inmates, gang members, drug dealers, alcoholics, drug abusers, intravenous drug abusers and prostitutes all at high risk for physical injury?
What about football players, race car drivers, stunt doubles and fraternity pledges?
Are you sure we are more safe than the time of the Visuddhimagga?
Even if it is true that  physical injury happens less now, why would physically injury be any less relevant?
Remember also the world's population is far greater than ancient times. Doesn't that make far more people to potentially get physically injured?
I would send metta concerning both physical and mental injury safety.
May all beings be safe from physical injury.
May all beings be safe from mental injury.
-Metta

In Ajahn Brahm's YouTube talks, he said a lot of western monks in Thailand used to injure their feet when walking barefoot. His teacher Ajahn Chah said they had stupid feet. He advised them to watch carefully where they are walking. This is also a kind of mindfulness practice. This is the first lesson of safety - do stuff cautiously and with concentration.
But what about dangers that you cannot control? Ajahn Brahm has a catchphrase for that too! "Relax! Everything is out of control".
If you're still afraid, you can try this from the Dhajagga Sutta:

I also say unto you O monks — if any fear, terror or hair standing on
  end should arise in you when you have gone to the forest or to the
  foot of a tree, or to an empty house (lonely place), then think only
  of me thus:
"'Such Indeed is the Blessed One, arahant (Consummate One), supremely
  enlightened, endowed with knowledge and virtue, welcome being, knower
  of worlds, the peerless trainer of persons, teacher of gods and men,
  the Buddha, the Blessed One.' Monks, if you think of me, any fear,
  terror, or standing of hair on end, that may arise in you, will pass
  away.
"If you fail to think of me, then think of the Dhamma (the Doctrine)
  thus: 'Well expounded is the Dhamma by the Blessed One, a Dhamma to be
  realized by oneself and gives immediate results, a Dhamma which
  invites investigation and leads up to Nibbana, a Dhamma to be
  understood by the wise each for himself.' Monks, if you think of the
  Dhamma, any fear, terror or hair standing on end, that may arise in
  you, will pass away.
"If you fail to think of the Dhamma, then think of the Sangha (the
  Order) thus: 'Of good conduct is the Order of Disciples of the Blessed
  One, of upright conduct is the Order of Disciples of the Blessed One,
  of wise conduct is the Order of Disciples of the Blessed One, of
  dutiful conduct is the Order of Disciples of the Blessed One. This
  Order of Disciples of the Blessed One — namely those four pairs of
  persons, the eight kinds of individuals — is worthy of
  offerings, is worthy of hospitality, is worthy of gifts, is worthy of
  reverential salutations, is an incomparable field of merit for the
  world.' Monks, if you think of the Sangha, any fear, terror or hair
  standing on end, that may arise in you, will pass away. What is the
  reason for this? The Tathagata, O monks, who is arahant, supremely
  enlightened, is free from lust, free from hate, is free from delusion,
  and is not liable to fear, terror, fright or flight."

Your understanding in that phrase is lacking. So if you practice your understanding up more level, nothing is necessary to change or to request, because you can notice the explanation by yourself, after you recite nd recite the briefed phrase.
1st reason
Many phrases in tipitaka, abhidhamma, and commentary were taught in brief for easily memorizing of the practitioner, because in ancient theravāda tradition we orally memorize our kammaṭṭhāna-phrase before we meditate follow it.
So, what you want to do, the explanation of the brief phrase, is what the practitioners generally do in every meditation types. We do it until the meditation will be level up.
Also, this is the reason that why we already have the abhidhamma and ancient commentary in buddha time, too. Because in buddha period, there has not just the educated people who can enlighten at the fist time ever they listened dhamma. But there also has too many uneducated people who cannot understand and cannot enlighten, too. So they need the very deep explanation,  which sāriputta had to answer to them because the buddha promoted him as the teacher of enlightenment in AN ekakanipāta ekapuggalapāli, such as appeared in M.N. mūlapaṇṇāsaka mahāgosiṇgasālasutta which every etadagga go to sāriputta's home to listen the very deep dhamma (the explanation) from him.
2rd reason
So, what you need will appear after you recite and recite the memorized ancient phrase again and again (parikamma).
For the example: when you secondly recite "May I be safe", the "your trying-to-safe-your-self effort" will little by little appear to you, such as when you try the vegan food to avoid ass injure by a hard shit, the secondly recited word will appear to you "this is what I recited 'May I be safe', this is giving happiness to my self, then I should do this giving to the other to meditate mettā", etc.
3nd reason
"Mettā to practitioner self" is just a preparation, it is not meditation.
In the path of purification, loving kindness meditation section, wrote:

when the practitioner doesn't know how to mettā, he should mettā to himself, before meditate mettā follow the tipitaka. "May I be happy, free from suffering hatred, difficulties, and troubles, and may I live in happiness!"

It is because the uneducated practitiner can easily notice giving-happiness-to-himself mind by this way. When he know what is mettā, then he can let the  giving-happiness-to-the-others mind arise.
Read pāli cannon in pāli language is better, I recommend.

OMG Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche would be so proud of you, for the "ass injure by a hard shit" - best example ever! No sarcasm, I really mean it.

Is it bad example? I am not sure. I have not a good one in conversation sentence, especially in english conversation. You can tell me what is it should be.

"Mettā to practitioner self" is just a preparation, it is not meditation."- No, metta IS for the practitioner

The Vissudhimagga says that? There are no metta beams effecting other people. It's all for the practitioners benefit. Giving merit is all for the practitioner as well. The practice is a trick of the mind. Just thinking that way makes the practitioner full of metta. Especially if the practitioner knows mindfulness.

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


text:
Does the will to live cease after enlightenment?
What would motivate an enlightened person to continue living? It seems like once somebody attains enlightenment, other than teaching, there would be no reason to continue living.

Correct. Other than teaching, generally there would be no reason to continue living (although there could be other compassionate reasons, such as looking after parents).

Attaining enlightenment is like running out of gas while driving. The car does not stop immediately and the driver has no desire to hit the breaks to forcefully stop it. Just  like how the car stops when the momentum runs out, enlightened beings expire when their life runs out naturally.

"Ceasing the will to live" sounds depressingly suicidal. That's not a good description.
Dhammapada 203-204 describes Nirvana as the highest bliss.
You could say that the craving to enjoy life and, the craving to do or become something in life ceases.
When you look at your remaining years of life, and think that "in the next years or decades, I can travel to many countries, spend more time with my family, enjoy different types of food, build a career, become successful, raise my children to be successful etc." - well, that kind of thinking and emotions cease after enlightenment and is replaced with the peaceful bliss of the moment.

No, the will to live does not cease after enlightenment.
Firstly, we have to define what it means to have a will-to-live. Arthur Schopenhauer, he been the first who coined this term, defines the will to live as a drive or conscious reason to live this life (not future life), the will to live this life not the will of becoming after death which the Arhat extinguished. So, someone who doesn't possess the will to live will stop eating or even breathing as Zeno did and depart from life, but it's not so with an enlightenment person they have a reason to maintain this life.
As you pointed out an enlightened person will maintain his/ her life to teach others or if they can't teach they will remain in the world to ease the suffering of others by helping them to avoid the picks of pain and pleasure which are the worst enemy to a man seeking liberation.

Does will cease? No, it is the opposite, the will is all that remains. As my teacher said, once you "see" the emptiness, you have no reason to live, no reason to die, all you have from that moment on is your will, made strong through years of practice.

After Nirvana, that is the real enjoyable life, a state of supreme knowledge. A connection with cosmic consciousness and a cheerful acceptance of people and situations comes once we transcend in our practice and experience the inner world which is beyond the experience of senses and emotions. True bliss is in the company of such evolved souls. That serves the to the purpose of life. It's an enjoyable journey.

I'm not sure what is meant by "the will to live", but whether one has that view (or any other view!) consciousness continues no matter what. If by "losing the will to live" you mean the state of mind right before someone commits suicide, it is important to understand that simply ending ones life will not extinguish the consciousness nor the karma that impels one to take further birth. Moreover, an enlightened being's mind is in no way comparable to the mind of someone right on the verge of suicide.
The Buddha or other enlightened beings are no more capable of ending their consciousness than any other being. Mind and consciousness continue after the break up of the body. Further, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas work tirelessly for the benefit of sentient beings. This is why the Buddha taught the Dharma and continues to manifest in countless ways to benefit transmigrating beings.


text:
What is arupa jhana (5th jhana)?
When  meditation experience mind  without body loss sensation about the environment  where I am and feel like  mind is in the sky by hearing voice  of birds.is it a jhana?

There is no sound in jhana (Kathāvatthu).

So what is that?


text:
Can I say my Dhamma is Kamma?
I bear the brunt of my Karma. Nobody else. Self is so clearly elucidated by the theory of Kamma. Whatever I did in the past is responsible for what happens to me in the present and future. Effect of Kamma on self can not be neglected and I think I am nothing but a consequence of my Kamma in the past.
My question is: can I say my Dhamma is Kamma? If yes , can I also say Sabbe Kamma Anatta?

I pay homage to the Buddha, my Karma and the Sangha.
I pay homage to the Buddha, the Karma and the Sangha.
I don't know...
I never heard anyone refer to the Dhamma as a possession or something that is spoken of  dualistically  like karma (my good dhamma, my bad dhamma). So just grammatically it doesn't really fit.
Really, these are just words. Ultimately we don't possess anything and there is more to the Dharma than just karma.
On the other hand, concepts in Buddhism fit together with such incredible grace that it can sort of seem like one concept is the same as the next concept but from another perspective or in another context.
I hope I'm not misunderstanding your question and I hope this helps.-metta

Thanks for the answer, You have not misunderstood. If Kamma is not Anatta then Kamma can not be Dhamma becasue Sabbe Dhamma Anatta.

Doesn't Mara follow bad Dhamma?

@DheerajVerma I think the word "Dhamma" has at least three meanings: 1) "any thing" 2) "anything that's taught or conceived of" 3) "everything the Buddha taught." Buddhists usually use it (and understand it) in the 3rd sense as meaning Buddhavacana ... so I find it confusing when you talk about "my dhamma" and "bad dhamma".

I think it can be helpful to ponder how one concept relates to another concept. Mara? I would put it like this:    Mara tries to stop the Dhamma and tries to redirect us from the direction of liberation. Mara doesn't follow Dharma. Dhamma can't be bad. The closest thing to bad dharma would be "incorrect Dharma".

Ok. Mara follows incorrect Dhamma but so we can say correct and incorrect karma. I say Mara follows a Dhamma because as you said Dhamma is anything that is taught or conceived of... Mara follows what it conceives of.

See, your thinking is dualistic. If there is good Dhamma then there has to be bad dharmma...this is a tool of Mara.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

There is no incorrect Dhamma either, if I said that I was wrong.

In AN 5.57, we can find a wholesome way or skillful way to think about your relationship to your karma:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished.
“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
  owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
  origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
  the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
  that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
  their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
  kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
  whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
  this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
  and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
  and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.

Sabbe Kamma Anatta if true means this kamma of Dhamma discussion is impermanent, changeable and cause of suffering. Therefore this discussion can not regarded as me, or mine or myself. One thus develops revulsion towards such kamma and becomes dispassionate about such discussion. In other words Sabbe Kamma Anatta means one should ignore or become dispassionate about this discussion and all discussions. Which means no learning can take place.

@DheerajVerma I don't see how your comment is related to ruben2020's answer.

@ChrisW ruben20220 edited his answer. He had said Sabbe Whatever Anatta which is wrong I guess.


text:
Is meat eating a possibility?
I have been vegan (no animal products) for over 5 years but recently have encountered many health issues (unable to digest many plant protein, leaving no viable protein to eat), including some meat in my diet seems to be the only option (I can't tolerate any grains or beans anymore).
I would try to source as ethically as I could, but it does of course, still involve the killing of another.
Is there any way this is acceptable? Or should one sacrifice their health, if necessary?

Related: Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?

Related: Eating meat and buying meat

Related: How is Vegetarianism morally superior to eating meat in a Buddhist context?

if you must take meat, then do so with thoughts of harmlessness.
Consider if it's even the slightest bit possible that herbivores were designed by nature to take inedible cellulose and become an edible source of nutrition for other beings. You can let them fulfill this role without wishing them harm.

If you eat vegetables or grains, it can indirectly cause the death of animals like snails and earthworms, due to clearing of land, ploughing, pesticides, weeding etc.
If you wear clothes made of cotton, it can indirectly cause the death of animals like snails and earthworms, due to clearing of land, ploughing, pesticides, weeding etc.
If you use banknotes made of paper, or buy or use anything made of paper, it can indirectly cause the death of animals, when trees got chopped down for the manufacturing of paper.
If you use any plastics or fuel for your car or banknotes made of polymer, it can indirectly cause the death of animals due to drilling for petroleum and gas.
If you throw rubbish away, it can indirectly cause the death of animals, because some of that trash ends up in the sea or landfills.
If you buy anything metal (including all electronics), it can indirectly cause the death of animals due to mining.
If you drink treated water from the tap, it can indirectly cause the death of small animals from the process of filtration and chlorination.
If you use electricity, it can indirectly cause the death of animals from the process of clearing land for building hydroelectric dams, or the billowing of smoke from a plant that burns hydrocarbons.
When you pay any kind of taxes, even indirectly e.g. through purchasing goods, the money from it may be used by the government to buy weapons and train soldiers for killing humans.
Basically, the Buddha taught that to break the first precept, you must have the intention to kill and then actually kill. This applies to directly causing the deprivation of life. For e.g. hitting a mosquito would be directly killing it.
By buying frozen meat or vegetables from the supermarket, or using paper or banknotes or wearing clothes or drinking treated water or using electricity or using electronics (including the computer or smartphone you are reading this on), you did not have any intention to kill anyone and you did not in fact kill anyone. Therefore, you do not break the first precept this way.

I have a question about your conclusion. You say "you did not have any intention to kill anyone and you did not in fact kill anyone". But if all of the things on your list are true (and I agree that they are) then if you do A with intention, which you know with certainty will result in the death of being B - aren't you killing being B with intention? Please help me understand why not. Thank you.

@GVCOJims When you use treated water or buy vegetables, you are not intentionally killing insects right then and there. They were already dead long before. When you buy frozen meat at the supermarket, you are not intentionally killing animals right then and there. They were already dead long before you showed up at the supermarket.

@ruben2020 when you buy meat, you are creating market demand for meat products, which will create motivation for meat producers to supply that demand by killing more animals, the dead meat doesn't simply appear in the supermarket, it was produced to meet market demand that you create by buying it. It is true that practically everything you do or consume will have some impact but I can't think of one activity closer to killing an animal directly than eating meat, that's because the only reason for consuming meat nowadays is for pleasure (unless it is some health condition like OP's)

@igrossiter Market demand was discussed in this question.

My thought on this is that;
Buddhist precepts are taught as one follows so that he or she would not feel or
experience unwholesomeness. Having unwholesomeness mind could affect one's mind, therefore affect one's meditation and vipassana (seeing things clearly).
I am myself a lay person who try to follow a good path in this life. Mostly now, I try my best to avoid taking meat or only little amount, if I could especially those from animal industry. But if somebody offer them to me, I sometimes take little of it. Or if those meat are left-over, and I am hungry, I most likely take them.
Those are my thoughts for now. Not sure if it would help. Apologize in advance. This is  probably my first comments and English is not my native-language.
Thank you,

I very much agree with you. I'm not strict vegetarian, just for easy daily living, but it would be very good if I'm. But I would :)

Just to be clear, not all Mahayana schools prescribe vegetarianism. It is widely understood that Buddha originally allowed meat, and for practical reasons in some regions of the world such as Tibet, meat is invariably more accessible than vegetables or grains.
In Tibetan Buddhism, vegetarian diet can be prescribed as part of the purity catharsis practiced in Kriyayoga-tantra. In this approach, the student's attitude of purity is effectively maximized until it culminates in realization that attachment to purity is itself a form of impurity.
In a more broad sense, Buddhism recognizes that all phenomena are deeply connected and interrelated in a multitude of different ways, including various energy-donorship, symbiosis, and food-chain relationships. In this context, the act of eating someone or being consumed by something larger, is seen as part of the natural order of things, taken with sacred awe and heartfelt appreciation.
We still try to minimize the suffering of others, if we can / when we can. But we also understand that we inevitably play our role in incurring suffering; we understand that we can't be perfectly sterile, and this makes us feel humble and more connected with other imperfect beings. This change of attitude is known as "warmth" and is understood to be a sign of growing Realization.

Yes. The Dalai Lama is not a vegetarian, for health reasons. Another factor is the practice of the begging bowl. It would be unskillful to demand of those practising generosity to provide vegetarian. That said, it is most probably better karma to be vegetarian. Disclaimer, I am not vegetarian.

There's a Wikipedia article, Buddhist vegetarianism, which says that doctrine (view) varies from one tradition to another, and from one person to another.
I don't know if it's possible to add to that, except personal opinion.

Is there any way this is acceptable?

Yes.

Or should one sacrifice their health, if necessary?

Perhaps not? I'm thinking that doesn't sound like the "Middle Way" applied to food, and instead sounds more like a Jain practice.
If it helps you might find that a compromise is possible, e.g. to eat meat sometimes; or milk product, fish, or eggs, etc.; or, depending on where you live, perhaps a product like quorn.

I admire vegans, would be my ideal one day. Or even better, no need for "daily food" any more if I wish, one day.
I believe you a Theravada practitioner; if not, at least more aligned and accessing to Theravadin Pali Suttas. That's even more adored, for listening to compassionate heart and discernment than subscribing to words and preaching.
Likely the health issues you encountered not resulted from vegan meals, but the plant products are polluted, genetically modified, left them no longer having the same nutrients any more. If you read articles, the GMO soya bean contained 70% less nutrient (protein) than the original bean our grandpas eating. The soil polluted too, also pesticides and chemical fertilizers... you may read those articles about Monsanto, ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Dreyfus. Also, in ready-made vegan products like noodle, flour dough, bread... beancurd, are usually loaded with plasticizer, or GMO corn or GMO corn syrup giving volume or texture. It could result in nutrition imbalance. Better you add nuts, mushrooms, or some plant roots/fruits with great nutrients to your diet. The Chinese are very good with this eating for health knowledge, recorded in many Classical Texts of Chinese Medicine. Herbal plants such as types of Ginsengs, Angelicas (Dāngguī), wolfberries and Jujubes with great nutrients are commonly added in cooking to enhance health. However, possible some people with special body types not suitable to be vegans.
To my knowledge, every type of meat has it's equivalent in plant. Example, cashew nut = kidney (like in English kidney pie), chestnut = chicken meat, mushroom = meat (pork or beef, just flesh), walnut = fat of meat... So without meat, we human can still have the nutrient same as meat provided by plants.
If not, then for Chinese Mahayana, in Sutras I studied come to my understanding, that a lay-Buddhist can have the Three-Clean-Meat (三淨肉). That is the meat, a) not seen the killing, b) not heard the killing, c) not suspected the killing... not done for you in purpose. However, it seems this Three-Clean-Meat a Bhikkhu's meat in Theravada. Normally, buying ready prepared meat in the supermarket is OK. Although, lay-Buddhist the true Dharma follower not supposed to boast over the meat-eating, should take it as a necessary progression to the more ideal, i.e., being vegetarian. It's particularly disgraceful and condemned, if a Buddhist praised meat-eating, or encouraged other to eat meat. For those who taken the Bodhisattva vow, i.e., the Upāsakas (居士), then they should be vegetarian (unless health issue); so are the Bhiksus, unless they practicing Dhūta (頭陀行), i.e., going for alms round accepting what's given. These Dhūta-guna Bhiksus are normally Hinayana practitioners.
Some would like also some dislike, if I stated Theravada is not Hinayana. Hinayana practitioners are also one branch in Chinese Buddhism (which I admired, for their concentration on Dhyana with great Sutras teaching the practice, only in Chinese Canon). The great translator of Chinese Sutras Kumarajiva (344–413 CE) was a Hinayanist later turned Mahayanist, according to recorded documents. I think Kumarajiva had no idea what was Theravada though. Further, I don't find any equivalent records in the Five Vinayas of the Early 18 Buddhist Schools preserved in the Chinese Canon, that credited the Pali Vinaya of reporting the Buddha once eating meat offered by a general out of pity, another suspected meat eating offered by Uppalavannā the gift of 500 cow-robbers. If someone could enlighten me when the Pali Vinaya written and what the origin of it (such as to which early 18 Schools it related), would be a great interest to me. These are commonly used by some Theravadins (luckily not all) to credit meat eating, further contriving the ludicrous accusation of Mahayanist the Devadatta offshoot. Buddha condemned Devadatta advocating vegetarian only because Devadatta taken the Brahmin/heretic's doctrine that not eating meat granted one to be born in the Brahma world. This of course obviously was not Buddha Dharma. But one with fair mind would never mix up as that Buddha condemned vegetarianism.
For Tibetan Buddhism, the Tantric practice likely required meat eating, like in Ganacakra (eating Five Meats: human, horse, elephant, dog and beef), which a secret practice supposed not revealed to the public and uninitiated. It's understandable Dalai Lama will need to eat meat, for health reason; he is a Tantra Master, giving Kālacakra empowerment. Although not sure the Five Meats are still the same ingredients in Lamaism, or modernized? On the other hand, due to geographical condition, some people have to rely on meat as their main food source, I would assume Tibet is such place, also Mongolia. I heard that Khenpo Tsultrim Lodrö (who I like) and his Tibetan Buddhist School is revolutionizing for vegetarian practice.
I think I've given more than enough details, and fair accounts, on most of the arguments on vegetarianism of Buddhism, which I hope would be beneficial for the OP to make good choice, so are those who got the same doubts. Often fair accounts are not always liked.

welcome :). i would suggest checking your vegan diet ingredients. like non-GMO soya is always better. if you can access to Chinese Health Medicine knowledge, you may be able to adjust and enhance the diet. also, vegetarian is a natural inclination, better listen to your body. if you connect to the Buddha/Dharma, you will also be easier to be vegan, like studying Sutras, meditation, chanting Mantras/ Verses...

It depends on your goals: Some Buddhists follow the path of compassion (bodhisattvas) who try to minimize the amount of pain (bad actions+consequence) or maximize the good karma that results from their actions, for which pragmatic veganism (or ostro-veganism) is currently the way to go in terms of diet, because plants and bivalves cannot feel pain (the plants and bivalves still experience dukkha in the form of stress but it’s too a lesser degree since they are not cognizant or lack the senses or the Rupa needed to experience the sensation of pain.
I’d argue that plants experience the relatively least amount of Dukkha for living beings compared to bivalves, then animals, then humans (according to these perceptions). Of course, one also has to try to minimize collateral damage (dead insects, etc). The argument here is that, if a being lives compassionately, it is a gift to other sentient beings allowing them to reach Buddhahood/Nibbana/unconditioned/enlightenment or a lesser but better than mundane “heavenly” existence. Veganism/ostroveganism has the smallest net environmental impact and is what could help bring about what was mentioned, though one must do research into what one to eat or not to eat. Right Effort!
I understand why some Buddhists eat meat, but many of them who intend to do it for health reasons should switch to healthier and more ethical options like mussels or clams because 90% of them are sustainably farmed, they lack brains, and they contain the b-12, carnitine, proteins, and omega-3s human can easily get from animal sources (though I manage to get by with supplements and algal oil).
In a sense, good-will/benevolence is a Desire and the Buddha focused more on eliminating ill-will/cravings than promoting good-will/cravings if the goal is the unconditioned (Nibbana). Gotama did see merit though in good will (Ananda is an embodiment this), but restricted his compassionate actions to Buddhahood and teaching for earthly life. Compassion compels “me” to not seek full Buddhahood right away but to gradually live for the enlightenment of all creatures and make the situations/environments that make getting enlightened easier to arise (eradication of most disease etc), and seek a balance between the enlightenment and liberation/peace of the person writing this and those around him :)

Intetion is kamma and of course a "only" taking in a count that harm is directly caused by ones actions, agreement or even joy within harm, is bad kamma as well. Just merely ignoring things in hypocritical ways does not help one out. If an action harms, simply don't do it. It an action praises harm obiviously and agrees with wrong ways, simply don't do it.
If asking Should one sacrifice their health, if necessary? your heart might already know the answer. Health and long life and especially a life without much guilty feelings, are not really matters of the kind of food but how it has been gained, how it is received and how food is used as nutrition for live.
All beings require food and yet beings are in most cases food or suffer under the gaining effort of it by others.
So the more it can be seen as given or abounded the healthier it is at long terms. The lesser careless joy is found in eating but more seen as a need to propable get ride of desire for food at all, just to cross the desert, the more freedom of remorse will be felt.
So it's good to focus more on that rather then on any hypocritical thesis. Situations and possibilities are different for all beings but as a human being one has actually a big spectrum of possibilities most animals would not have.
Tend to what ever feels best for you and gives you rightly the most less reasons for remorse yet food needs to be used to cross.
And food does not end with physical food, and so it's good to always watch out who "gives" and with what intention and strings toward what is dealt.
The Four Nutriments of Life might be useful for liberating insight.

The four nutriments of life stand for the first truth of Ill; the craving for the four nutriments is the origin of Ill, the second Truth; the stopping of that craving is the cessation of the continued process of grasping for material and mental food, which is the end of Ill, the third Truth; and the Noble Eightfold Path is the way to that cessation.

If having tendency and possibility, a mind torward right resolve, make use of the possibility of the holly life and even the highest kind of livelihood for your own benefit and that of all others. Of course, again, possipilities and circumstances are different and according to previous action done individually.
And at least, there is nothing wrong in "just" eating what ever, especially if freely given and no harm has to be conformed by the act of taking or receiving. Cases are especially in a householders life different day by day and there is no way to generalize best ways outward the pillows given for the holly life, yet they can be adopted in cases, sometimes even good.
Trust a skillful heart (mind) when arising and doubt hypocritical ways of thinking, cut them of by simple ways of thinking right here and now when it is actually required. Stick firm by ways of actions in thoughts, words and speech which are not harmful.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Follow Theravada Buddhism. Then you can successfully work towards enlightenment regardless of your food preference.

Not a useful answer. And this is not about me.

You ask for a way. This is a way. It is about you. Otherwise why would you mention your health issues? :)

It's about reducing suffering of others'

What is the purpose of that?

@Sankha Kulathantille What kind of attitude is that? This doesn't look like a good serious question worthy of putting some thought into to you?

There are many questions about vegetarianism here. I do not wish to repeat same arguments over and over again. Basically it boils down to Mahayana followers saying that it is necessary to be vegetarian and the Theravada followers saying the opposite. So the answer to the question "Is there any way this is acceptable? " is to follow Theravada Buddhism.

@SankhaKulathantille. Please don't post such answers, asking or "advertising" to follow a particular tradition within Buddhism. Could you rephrase the first sentence in your answer?

@Sankha Kulathantille You can do better than this. The questioner is new to this forum and you expect Cloud to know what your talking about? You didn't want to make previous arguments so you decided to make the most general,  improper, superficial and holier than thou partial argument I have ever read? You think it might be possible that Cloud isn't trying to argue with you or anyone, but just has a problem and is looking for help? I can't believe that this is how you welcome a newcomer to this forum.

@Lanka It is a fact that Theravada school doesn't require you to be a vegan. If you see stating facts related to the question as advertising, there's nothing much I can do about it.

@Lowbrow This will let the newcomer know that not all schools of Buddhism require you to be Vegan and not all schools think that it is ethically wrong to eat meat. Most newcomers falsely associate veganism with Buddhism.

fair enough but  did you tell the newcomer? @Cloud (well, now he will see it)  :)

@SankhaKulathantille. It is not true that all Mahayana followers say that it is necessary to be a vegetarian. But you probably already know that.

@jacknad in general they do. If they don't, this question wouldn't arise

No need of big arguments. Veganism is recommended. But not compulsory  in Buddhism. The essence is respect for life and avoid intention of killing.

@danukashewantha Veganism is not recommended in Buddhism. Can you show a sutta where it is recommended?

@Lowbrow Thanks for your help. Some of the answers were really useful. It is still confusing and I guess there is no 'correct' answer, but at least I have some 'food for thought', which I can meditate upon :)

Veganism recommended is my personal statement. see my second statement not compulsory in Buddhism. I meant when you get access to plenty of fruits and vegetable and still you tend to consume meat items is just desire of the taste.

@danukashewantha you are making the same arguments which were answered multiple times in several other question on this site. Try searching for them. One purpose of this short answer is to avoid repeating same arguments :)

Is meat eating a possibility? Is there any way this is acceptable? This answer answers these questions of the OP, but in a few words. I don't see why the answer has downvotes.


text:
How did Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche justify drinking alcohol?
How did Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche justify drinking alcohol? How did his students justify his drinking? Is it possible an enlightened being could or would drink alcohol if they had been physically injured and had serious chronic pain? Like Rinpoche had chronic physical pain? What about strong opiate pain killers?

American culture & American students; similar to how today American "Buddhist" teachers promote "liberalism" (even though liberalism is contrary to the Dhamma).

There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in associating with evil companions, namely: any gambler, any libertine, any drunkard, any swindler, any cheat, any rowdy is his friend and companion.
DN 31

Are you saying that this is how he justified it? It's not clear: I think your answer isn't a sentence, it seems to be missing a subject and a verb.

Too bad people all can't be as terrific as us, huh? Maybe they are!

If that's liberalism, it looks like it's Tibetan liberalism rather than American liberalism, see Andrei's answer.

I read the old answer which seemed to claim a person can have abusive sex in the non-dual state. Personally, i can't imagine having sex with ego. Sex is based on perception of self, internally & externally.

Quoting from "Treasury of Precious Qualities" by Jigme Lingpa, with commentary by Longchen Yeshe Dorje, Kangyur Rinpoche, with a foreword by H.H. the Dalai Lama:

Alcohol, the taking of which is a downfall according to the shravaka
  Pratimoksha and constitutes a fault in the bodhisattva discipline, is
  regarded in the Mantrayana as a substance of samaya that must
  always be present. The Guhyagarbha-tantra states:

Meat and alcohol must not be lacking
    For they are substance of accomplishment,
    Food and drink, essences and fruits
    And all that is a pleasure to the senses.

and also:

In particular, it is improper for meat and alcohol to be lacking.

It is taught that such substances are to be enjoyed by yogis who,
  by means of the practice of the stages of generation and perfection,
  are able to overcome the power of their thoughts—which at first
  seem so solid and real but which at length appear as the very deity. In
  general, this refers to the aspirational deity, for those who are on the
  path of accumulation; to the deity of wind-mind, for those who are
  on the path of joining; to the deity of luminosity, for those who are
  on the path of seeing; to the deity of the united level of learning, for those who are on the path of meditation; and to the deity of the
  united level of the Dharmakaya and Rupakaya, for those who are
  on the path of no more learning.
Practitioners of the inner tantras of the Mantrayana act without
  dualistic clinging, in such a way as to support their view of the purity
  and equality of phenomena. Through the skillful means of the
  generation stage, their own aggregates and elements, the universe
  itself, and all the beings that inhabit it arise as the display of the deity,
  mantra, and mudra. Such practitioners bless the substances of the
  sacred feast, or tsok offering, transforming them into amrita. And
  when they enjoy them, the alcohol is no longer ordinary; neither is
  their attitude one of ordinary indulgence. Within this state of great
  purity and equality, their perceptions are transmuted and they
  experience themselves as the deity and the alcohol as amrita. In such
  circumstances, yogis and yoginis are allowed to consume alcohol.
  They do not cling, out of self-interest, to ethical precepts concerning
  what is to be adopted or abandoned, regarding them as truly existent
  and immutable values, and they are not attached to their self-image as
  bhikshus and bhikshunis. Neither do they cling to the notion of
  altruistic generosity in the relative, materialistic sense, clinging to the
  idea of being Bodhisattvas. Yogis and yoginis who are thus allowed to
  partake of alcohol are not like Shravakas, who must repudiate desire
  because they have no means whereby defilements and sensual
  pleasures may be harnessed on the spiritual path. Neither are such
  practitioners like ordinary people, who, in the grip of negativity,
  accumulate actions that propel them into samsaric existence. Through
  the profound yogas of generation and perfection, all perceptions are
  transmuted. All appearances become the infinite mandala of deities.
  The samaya substances, alcohol and so forth, are enjoyed as amrita,
  and for that reason they may be consumed. Not only is no fault
  committed but merit increases, for yogis and yoginis who enjoy such
  samaya substances are in fact making offerings to the Three Jewels
  and the Yidam deity. It is thus that their accumulation of merit and
  their development of spiritual qualities are enhanced far more
  intensely than if they were to make offerings to the Sangha—the
  Sangha, that is, composed of monks and nuns confined to the
  pratimoksha discipline, or of ordained Bodhisattvas who strive for the
  sake of others but who as yet lack the view of purity and equality.

There's a chapter titled Alcohol as Medicine or Poison: in one of his books which is titled The Heart of the Buddha.


text:
Does "married adults living with parents in parents' house" count as breaching the third precept?
It's very common for unmarried adult Asians in Asia to continue to live with their parents. Some choose to move out once they're married, some people for some reasons choose to stay even after they're married.
One of the object of transgression of the third precept is having intercourse with those "protected by parents". My understanding is, generally speaking, protected children are underaged children, children who are vulnerable to unwanted advances and financially dependent.
In the case of a married adult couple who is already mature and independent but can't afford to buy a house therefore the adult child with his wife live with his parents in his parents' house, does this count as "protected by parents"? How should one determine the scope of "protected by parents" according to the precept?

I am confident that a married couple who live with their parents are not in violation of the precept against sexual misconduct. If anything the question would apply to the marriage decision (asking parents for consent), but certainly not sexual activity that happens after the marriage.
IMHO the point is that you need consent before having sex, and in the case of young people, you should not treat their own consent as acceptable because they are too young to decide, so any time you aren't sure, their parents should be involved in the decision. Honestly that sounds horrible either way, but we can imagine young people getting married and how the consent of parents would often be a factor in that union not being misconduct, especially in an ancient society.

But is living in your parents' house can be considered as a sign of dependency? What is the difference then with children who still receive support from their parents?

Once you become married, you are the guardian of your partner. So you do not break the 3rd precept regardless of where you live. Parents continue to support you out of the goodness of their hearts. It does not make them your guardians once you become adults. They can kick you out at any time and be in the right.

Her/his partner may provide support such as food and clothing but when it comes to dwelling it is not theirs, it is their parents who provide the protection. Are you saying the "protection" status is automatically ceased once someone gets married? Can you provide the source for this?

I doubt there's a Sutta that defines guardianship. Commentaries might have more information. Guardianship status is usually decided by the society you live in. By your logic, if you stay at your friend's house for the weekend, your friend becomes your guardian and you would have to ask for his permission to be with your own wife. :)

What if it was your friend who gave you a house to live out of friendship? Would you ask him permission to be with your own wife? :) If you don't have a house, you can go live in the streets like beggars. One you become an adult, any help given by parents don't make them your guardians.

Already answered in the previous comment

A house from a friend is a form of gift not a support as provided by parents. The concern is not about the permission but rather someone becomes an object of transgression because he still receives a dwelling support from parents.  "One you become" an adult", any help given by parents don't make them your guardians", did you mean "married adults" because AFAIK just because someone is an adult that doesn't guarantee him not receiving support such as food, etc from parents.

Support given by parents is also a gift. Parents are not obliged to do that.

To my knowledge, there are no teachings in the suttas that refer to sex outside of marriage as part of the Buddhist path. Every teaching about sex I have read is referred to in the context of marriage (e.g. AN 4.55; AN 4.53). Any sex outside of marriage is obviously motivated solely by lust (rather than mostly by compassion), which is unwholesome according to the suttas (MN 9, which states lust is the root of the unwholesome). Therefore, it is quite logical that any sex outside of marriage is a volition of the precept because it leads to hungry ghost, animal (AN 2.9) & hell realms (DN 31). Do we think a person that develops a habit towards unmarried uncommitted sex won't become a hungry ghost; similar to how men (who for some reason post on Buddhist chat sites) are often addicted to pornography?
DN 31 says parents show compassion & protection (security & safety) towards their children by arranging a suitable marriage. This is the meaning of "protected by parents"; that parents protect their children from becoming hungry ghosts & bringing shame upon the integrity of the family. Thus, that the children are married means they have been protected by their parents, regardless of where they live. For example, in the time of the Buddha, generally the married children lived in the house of the husband's parents. DN 31 says:

In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his parents as the East:
(i) Having supported me I shall support them, (ii) I shall do their duties, (iii) I shall keep the family tradition, (iv) I shall make
  myself worthy of my inheritance, (v) furthermore I shall offer alms in
  honor of my departed relatives.
In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion:
(i) they restrain them from evil, (ii) they encourage them to do good, (iii) they train them for a profession, (iv) they arrange
  a suitable marriage, (v) at the proper time they hand over their
  inheritance to them.
In these five ways do children minister to their parents as the East and the parents show their compassion to their children. Thus is the
  East covered by them and made safe and secure.

Didn't Siddhārtha Gautama live in his father's palace after he married (and before he went forth)?
But I haven't heard a suggestion that that was immoral (only that it was impermanent and not ultimately-satisfying).
It seems to me obvious what "protected" means. For example, in contemporary Western society when my girlfriend and I started "dating" each other as teenagers, that was with our parents' permission ... it's for example when you're living with your parents, and when you're going to be "out" you tell your parents where you're going, and who with, and what time you're going to be back, and who will be driving, and the parents can say "yes" or "no" or set conditions.
Also I guess that when you're married and living with your parents, parents have already said "yes".
Also I guess that "living with parents after marriage" is pretty normal, not modern -- maybe in a new house on the same land. I'd guess that rather it's the nuclear family that's relatively modern (and not altogether a good thing).