text:
What can be done when one is having difficulties establishing a regular practice?
I just can't manage to maintain a regular practice, not even a short one. From a buddhist point of view, what can be done?
I went on retreats, I sat a few days in a row at home doing meditation, I tried to do small meditations, but I just can't sustain a practice.

I edited the question title to better reflect its nature. Please roll-back if not suitable. Maybe you could also explain a bit about what especially you find difficult, regarding continuity and persistence in the practice.

This happens when you have a mistaken idea that practice is something separate from your normal life. But meditation is only 1/3rd of the practice, the top of the wedding cake (shila-prajna-samadhi). Most of the practice happens during the day, in what some of us Buddhists semi-jokingly call "post-meditation".
I think meditation looks important to Westerners because it seems to follow familiar functional pattern: do something and get the result. "Leave the rest of your Buddhist B.S. superstitions to the uneducated ancients. I will focus on THE practice." But Buddhism does not work this way. Without right context meditation is useless.
What is the context in Buddhism? The context is removing obstacles to enlightenment, from coarse obstacles, to middling obstacles, to subtle obstacles. You can't remove subtle obstacles until you remove middling obstacles. You can't remove middling obstacles until you remove coarse obstacles. Meditation is a tool that is used for working with subtle obstacles.
What are coarse obstacles? They are coarse biases, coarse illusions, coarse preconceptions, coarse hangups. How can you identify them? By their effects -- production of strong emotions during the day.
Every time you feel strong emotion (e.g. longing, irritation, frustration, resentment, contempt, insult, disgust, anxiety, aversion, strong timidity) - or about to feel strong emotion - therein is attachment (=bias, illusion, preconception, hangup). That's the moment when you should switch your context from whatever it is that you are grasping at, and pause and look at your attachment. At such moments it is right there, like an elephant in the room. What's interesting about attachment, subjectively it always looks legit, it always seems right, appropriate, justified. But that's the way it tricks the rational mind. It may even be attachment to humbleness, attachment to open-mindedness, attachment to kindness, attachment to fairness - any of the good things. But when it becomes all-important it turns into a demon and starts generating judgement, aversion, conflicts, blinding emotions, and bad karma. So as soon as you see the emotion arising - you should step back and identify the attachment / preconception. Then you should let it go while focusing on your recommended anchor:

if you are very mental, focus on your body - esp. lower abdomen and feet. Do you feel any tightness or burning or blockage? Do you feel other parts of your body or are they numb?,
if you are very emotional, focus on your breathing - is it fluid or jerky or blocked?,
if you take real-life situations very seriously, imagine the time of your death,
if you are an earthly person, remember that you exist in the infinite Universe with its worlds, which existed for billions of years and will exist for billions of years into the future,
if you often feel helpless or frustrated getting your point across, remember behavior of Buddha or your teacher.
in any case, let go of your attachment and change your point of view to either very low level (physiology of your psychosomatic expressions and the mechanics of the imprint-based associative cycle) or very high level (the perspective of "God").

When you practice like this you can't forget to practice, there is no problem "establishing" practice - every time there is an obstacle in your life it comes as a reminder to practice!
In the same vein, when you notice yourself getting too happy, too self-righteous, enjoying yourself too much, being too puffed up, doing too well - you should pause and check if there is an attachment at play. When you're doing this right, there should be a feeling of balance, some feeling of ambiguity or open-endedness. But with this I am getting into advanced territory... Anyway.
This is what the practice should be on initial stages, this was my main practice for many years - this and the overcoming of spiritual materialism - before I was even introduced to Buddhist philosophy of anatta and shunyata - and only after I mastered those two conceptually, was I introduced to (shikantaza) meditation.
So yeah like I said, to any Westerner jumping straight into meditation I recommend at least five years of preliminary "shila" practice working with attachments (coarse obstacles), then five years of "prajna" practice studying -- and applying! -- anatta and shunyata to remove middling obstacles, and only then the practice of "samadhi" aka meditation.

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

I think the answer to your straggle has very much to do with your personality.  I will try to give you some general directions and hopefully you will find them beneficial.
Until this moment of your life, what was the best way to get you to accomplish something your consider of some value?
In general, one can have an intrinsic motivation for pursuing something ( that person sees the importance of that thing, or that person enjoys that thing, or sees the progress that he makes etc) or is motivated by an external factor to engage into something ( one goes to work for the paycheck at the end of the month etc). In you case, what is your motivation for pursuing a meditation practice? ( in my case, for almost three years, in every book on Buddhism there was always the theme of meditation and it just got me so curious... I've read how to do it, I've found out I was terrible at it and I wanted to get better, so I kept doing it; and I got to this point where I can't wait to get to the meditation cushion - but I'm sure this too shall pass ;)). From what I understand about you, you know how to do it, but do you know WHY you do it? The point is, try to identify and to work on your motivation. If, in general, you have an intrinsic motivation for your practice, then when you have doubts, revue your motivation, work on that. Like it has been said by others, you can also meditate on the doubts you have - that is still solid practice. But if you still can't get to meditate even if you see it purpose, that you need a good discipline - set a time daily for your meditation, and just do it.
Beside motivation, I recommend you look carefully to the expectations you have about your practice. For your, what constitutes a good meditation? Could it be that you expect to FEEL like meditating before you start to mediate? Can you ignore your disposition and just start your meditation? Can you meditate on your  feelings about meditation?
If you have a teacher you can talk to about this things, would be fantastic. If you don't, just try to understand what's going on everyday with your practice. Maybe looking carefully onto your motivations and your expectations about your practice will bring you more insight. I hope it will.
May you find a relief for your straggle! May your practice flourish! Be well!

Most people come to meditation with the understanding that sitting is a mind/body practice.  I mean, I think it's fairly easy to see the role the body plays in sitting.  We sit upright to keep our minds upright.  A stable body makes for a stable mind.  Stilling the body stills the mind of thought and allows the jumping off point for deep concentration.  What I think a lot of people miss initially, however, is that while meditation is a mind/body practice, for quite some time it's going to be almost exclusively a bodily practice.  It's going to have a lot more in common with going to the gym or staying on a diet than it will with Bodhidharma staring at a wall in deep absorbtion.  I'd even say that it is only when you have addressed your bodily formation with earnestness that you can really start a direct approach on your mind.  I think right now you are concentrating entirely too much on the latter at the expense of the former.  Let me explain...
Buddhism is a sequential path.  In suttas like the Samannaphala and in texts like the Visuddhimagga, the Buddha outlines a gradual training that passes through bodily/verbal discipline and virtue (sila), suspension of and abandoning of the mental hindrances (samadhi), and the use of a collected mind to penetrate and eradicate the defilements (panna).  While it is true that each phase of the path informs the other, on a more practical level it is important to address these phases in the order they are laid down by the Buddha.  You simply can't access a higher phase with any success until you've developed some skill at the one that preceded it.
Let's looking at this practically.  Any recovering alcoholic will tell you that those first 24 hours are the hardest to remain sober for.  They require summoning an enormous amount of will power.  They are also the most important and pave the way for any further development.  An alcoholic can't address the reasons for their addiction until they've suspended the symptoms.  Likewise for Buddhism, I think anyone who's been at this for a while tell you that those first couple of years are also the hardest but are also instrumental in laying the foundation for further progresses in the Buddha way.  The struggle of developing a consistent sitting practice teaches you so much more than how to watch the breath.  The lessons you learn are invaluable and will be applicable all throughout your practice.  These are not lessons that you can learn through rumination or reading the sutras.  They can only be won through the sweat and tears of your body.
It's actually kind of funny that you write of not seeing any benefits.  Believe it or not, the beginner's phase - that time when you are addressing the body and preparing it to work for your mind - is when benefits are the most obvious.  Now is when you can actually quantify your successes.  You can measure your sitting streaks.  You can add a minute to your meditation timer here and there.  If you are counting your breaths, you might begin to notice that you are getting to six and seven instead of just two or three.
Your work right now is getting your body onto the cushion and learning how to sit with consistency.  Don't worry about anything else.  Physical effort alone is transformative in ways that few people appreciate.  While it might not look like it, I can assure you that your efforts to sit alone are causing deep changes in your mind.  One day, and if you apply yourself to taming your body it will come sooner than you think, you will be ready to address your mind directly and access those states that have been eluding you.


text:
Is there awareness of impermanence during the formless meditations
Is there awareness of impermanence during the formless meditations?

Experience of the formless-ness has no attributes, words or expectations.

so is that a no? i'm not trying to identify anything

formless - lack of space or physical attributes to describe
impermanence - lack of time - timeless-ness
How are you to first become aware of them?
How will you or anyone communicate such an experience to another.
If you have tasted 10 kinds of fruits, I can describe to you possibly an 11th if it has some attributes that I can associate with those 10.
Guna- Attributes - Nir-Guna - Without Attributes. :)

If you choose to see things as they are or investigate the Dhamma. Since in the 8th Jhana there is a residue of Perception and Feeling hence you should direct your observation to understand the impermanence of feeling or impermanence of what is felt if you what to develop insight into the 3 marks of existance.
A person taking the Arupa Jhana route attains the final goal by going though Nirodha Samapathi (cessation of perception and feeling)
See: Raho,gata Sutta for further details.

In summary, to perceive the following:

Taste: Tongue
Sound: Ears
Sight: Eyes
Object: Touch
(cant remember the 5th sense.. need some sleep.. will add later )

That which is formless & beyond all attributes cannot be 'sensed' or perceive using a Sense of the Body (or even an Xray or Infra red vision).
That which has no form, is infinite & all pervasive cannot be measured like an physical object with 'defined' dimensions.
It 'comes' as an experience. :) It's not something you can switch on, on demand; Unless you are enlightened - Then you already know that everything is infinite. At that point your senses & your body and everything else is just a virtual construct.

what is an experience without form tho? i was wondering if it was (like) waking up from a deep sleep with some important new understanding, rather than an experience at that moment with a duration beginning and end

You will know it when you experience it. Please read the link you posted - the infinite cannot have measure and measured by the framework of your mind, it is beyond mind - When you go beyond mind, form, beginning, end, attributes within & experience it, you will not have to ask this on a forum.
Meditation is very personal experiential you can read all you want about it and it will not help an ounce. And if/ when you experience it, you will know but be hard pressed to describe.

More for you to read about the same in different words - http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5309/when-during-meditation-we-forget-where-we-are?rq=1

I thought this might be relevant:
The formless meditations are part of the imageless realm arupa-bhava. According to Stefan Anacker in his book on Vasubandhu

formless meditation is still one pointedness of citta toward an examined range of events... the imageless realm comprises any state where all senses except the
  mental consciousness are suspended... the first five consciousnesses
  no longer perceive their object

Emphasis mine. I find the idea of citta without any sense consciousness at all completely baffling! I think that unless your canon explicitly says, probably best to make up your own mind.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why did Mahayana leave out the Pali Canon?
I'm quite familiar with Theravada and Zen but I can't understand the historical reasons for not keeping the original Buddha's teaching as a core.
The schools do not contradict each other, so why reinvent a wheel?
And also the Pali Canon feels more explicit. For example Heart Sutra of Avalokiteśvara is beautiful but it will not make as much sense to a newcomer as reading a Nikaya or two.

It did not. The Canon is an integral part of Mahayana, has always been.
In Chinese Mahayana, the Canon is included in the form of Agamas (translated to Chinese). In Tibetan Mahayana, the Canon is a part of Kangyur (translated from Chinese or Sanskrit to Tibetan). Most of those are the same sutras as in Pali, just with slightly different wording. Some are rather different, and shed new light on the teaching. Some are even more "explicit" (clear, straightforward):

"It was a dark night, raining lightly, with flashes of lightning. The Buddha said to Ananda: "You can come out with the umbrella over the lamp." Ananda listened, and walked behind the Buddha, with an umbrella over the lamp. When they reached a place, the Buddha smiled. Ananda said: "The Buddha doesn’t smile without a reason. What brings the smile today?" The Buddha said: "That’s right! That’s right! The Buddha doesn’t smile without a reason. Now you are following me with an umbrella over a lamp. I look around, and see everyone doing the same thing."

...

"At that time, Mahakasyapa stayed for a long time in a deserted meditation place, he came to visit Buddha, with long hair and beard, wearing old torn clothes. At that time, the Buddha was explaining dharma, surrounded by many people. The monks saw Mahakasyapa coming from afar, and were contemptuous of his appearance: "What kind of monk is this? Dressed in such ragged clothes, looking so uncouth." The Buddha knew what was on their minds, and he said to Mahakasyapa: "Welcome! Come share my seat. Now I am going to find out who became a monk first, you or me?" Those monks were shocked, their body hair stood up, wondering among themselves. "How strange! This respectable monk
  was offered to share Buddha’s seat."
Then, Mahakasyapa put his palms together: "Most respectable one, the Buddha is my master. I am the disciple."
The Buddha said: "True, true. I am the master. You are the disciple. Why don’t you sit down and make yourself comfortable?"
Mahakasyapa touched his head to the Buddha’s feet and sat aside…"

...

"Listen carefully and think. I will explain it to you. When the eye meets the matter, and you become aware that the matter is desirable, then practice detachment. If, on the other hand, the matter is undesirable, then practice non-avoidance… In this way, you will know that your desire arises from your eye meeting the matter, and this realization will make it cease…like a drop of water on an extremely hot iron ball, it will evaporate in an instant…"

These were extracts from Samyukta Agama. According to the sutra commentaries in the Yogacara-bhumi Shastra, the Samyukta Agama was the earliest agama collection. See my answer here for links to the full sutras.
Now, you have to understand that Mahayana sees itself as a living tradition, concerned first and foremost with the spirit of Dharma, not its letter. So from Mahayana's perspective to understand the point, the taste, and the style of teaching is much more important than to memorize the matrika-s. So in Mahayana making up new texts to convey the point in a new way suitable to the new generation of students in the new country is totally acceptable and even desirable. The Chinese and Tibetan people are very different in character from Indian - and so the outer wrapping on the medicine of Dharma had to be adapted to make it more attractive to them. The medicine itself is the same, just a different wrapping.
I suspect that modern Western people (Americans and Europeans) are more like ancient Indians than like ancient Tibetans or Chinese. So naturally the agama-sutra-style teaching is more appealing to us than the long-mahayana-sutra-style or the tantra-style. But whatever style teaching we take, it is critically important to understand that the point of Dharma applies to our immediate living experience, not to some far-fetched fantasy.
As one translation of Heart Sutra says:

Far beyond mistaken fantasy, at last there is Nirvana.

"I suspect that modern Western people (Americans and Europeans) are more like ancient Indians than like ancient Tibetans or Chinese.."
This is far from the case, both Mahayana and Tantra were originally developed within India. In fact all three type of schools early Buddhism, Mahayana, and Tantric Buddhism arrived in China, with the Mahayana winning out in China. It's clear that even in India the rather technical aspect of early Buddhism was not appealing to the mass, hence Mahayana and Tantra developed to fulfill this need.

True, but doesn't change my point. Proto-Abhidharma was mainstream at about same time as other analytical schools of Indian thought, while Tantra got mainstream in an entirely different historical period, when analysis was no longer the main obsession. Chinese Chan and Nyingma were a lot less analytical by definition. Western discourse is very much rooted in Greek-style rationality, the likeness of which might have influenced North Indian schools for centuries  following Buddha's parinirvana.

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


text:
Can a arahant recognize the spiritual attainment of others?
Can a arahant recognize other arahants?
Can a arahant recognize stream winners, once-returners and never-returners?
Can a arahant recognize the spiritual attainment (and conversely, the defilement) of others?
If a arahant is able to recognize other arahants, then we may be able to reliably establish a recognized group of arahants in our time, who can be the lead teachers of the sangha worldwide.

Like a sort of Buddhist version of Linked-In? ;)

No.  It is a quality in Buddha among humans only. However, Tissa Brahma God has this quality too.  Ven Moggallana was curious about this and went to Tissa god and asked him if all beings in Brahma world had this quality.  Tissa Brahman said not all beings in the brahman world had it, but only few.  Tissa Sutta
Buddha said there is no measuring tool to measure others' attainment level (such as one Arahat in Buddha's time that used profanities- one may still use profanity after liberation because force of habit not mind with defilement, etc )
Another sutta I remember which do not remember the reference talked about one Arahat who had never met Ven Sariputta before.  They met for the first time and has conversation in form of question answers (Ven Sarriputta asked another answered).  After a few minutes, they both realized that each other reached some mile stone in their progress but they didnt know which level.  They knew each other by talking.  From that Sutta, Arahat may have a clue about the other but not 100% sure.
Dharma spoken by Buddha should lead us and Sangha world wide.

That other sutta is probably Ratha-vinita Sutta: Relay Chariots

Depending on our freedom from delusions, we can recognize conditions of equal or lesser purity.
It's like looking through glass: if other's glass is dirtier, you can see that, but if it's cleaner, your own dirt doesn't allow to recognize that.
Also, it's not possible to get consensus among practitioners, because many of them have delusions and misrepresent their qualities and qualities of others. Some teachers disagree with each other, some claim awakening out of ignorance, some have large following despite poor qualities etc.
In some Buddhist traditions people try to establish systems of quality control based on opinions of authorities, but it doesn't really work.
Buddha didn't set such system. He said:

Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

my favourite quote, and the 1st i heard... thanks ! :)

@user3293056, and one of the most breathtaking suttas...

In Udana 7.2, Ven. Sariputta (the Arahant) tried to teach Ven. Bhaddiya without realizing that he too was an Arahant.
The Buddha saw this and exclaimed the verse, describing Ven. Bhaddiya:

He has cut the cycle, has gone away to freedom from longing. The
  dried-up stream no longer flows. The cycle, cut, no longer turns.
  This, just this, is the end of stress.

This shows that the Buddha could recognize who is an Arahant, but not another Arahant.


text:
Where to do a 'Rains Retreat' in South Korea?
I would like to attend a 3 months "rains retreat" (Kyol-Che), in a Zen (Seon) temple in South Korea. I would have to go to a temple where they give instructions in English, though.
'Mu Sang Sa' Temple  (which I hope is way cheaper for monks) seems to organize two 3 months retreat a year. Do you know other places?

In his book, "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist", Stephen Batchelor, Spiegel & Grau, Random House, 2010, describes his experience of doing just this in 1981.  Batchelor's first Zen retreat was at Songgwangsa, under the guidance of Kusan Sunim, and he stayed until 1984, a year after Kusan Sunim's death.

Thank you for answering. Beware that this article suggests that few people at the temple speak English in depth (and according to his book, in 1981 Stephen Batchelor seems to have been the first English-speaker there). The article mentions Hyon Gak Sunim as notably English-speaking (but perhaps he too was only visiting Songgwangsa and not permanently there).

There's The Hwa Gye Sa International Zen Center. I know nothing of it but its web site (i.e. that it's "international", Zen, next to Seoul, and has retreats with an application form and an email address); and that in 2007 Hyon Gak Sunim was teaching there.
It also a page with three or four links to other places (one of which is Mu Sang Sa).


text:
Which school is right for me?
Apologies in advance if this is something you see often.
I've been interested in Buddhism for a year now. I've read what I could find and do intend to read more. It seems Buddhism is like a tree, with each branch representing a different sect, and each leaf representing a different school. I'm not making sense I bet. Anyway, since I'm 100% new to Buddhism and realise I don't know up from down regarding it, maybe someone here can set me straight.
I'm asking which sect/branch would be right for me. I can't find much information on the differences, as the articles I've read emphasize the sense of community across all sects and schools. Which is fine! I'm not here to create a schism. Just here to start on the path that is best suited for me. I'm big on self-improvement, so I guess a sect with that emphasis would be best for me. More information if requested.
Thanks again.

previous attempts to answer similar questions were not very successful - the first question in this vein goes back to this site's first month (http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/57/what-are-the-main-differences-between-the-theravada-mahayana-and-vajrayana-bran). Yours makes it even more difficult by adding your personal character as factor we know nothing about.


text:
Has any Buddhist meditator claimed that the mano-vijnana has a base to differentiate it from the other consciousnesses?
Has any Buddhist meditator claimed that the mano-vijnana has a base (I don't mean that in any technical sense) to differentiate it from the other consciousnesses?
If so, what is it called, and when is its action suspended?

Could you edit the question to increase clarity regarding what kind of base we are talking about and what you mean when writing "I don't mean that in any technical sense"? Thank you.

According to the Theravada Abhidhamma Mental Consciousness (mano-vijnana) is heart based. This is what Buddha realised through his meditation. Other consciousness arise with the respective faculties and the base, e.g. eye-consciousness with the eye.
It is suspended when you are in Nirodha Samapathi and in Bavanga consciousness. Also perhaps in Pala Samanapathi if this result in a momentarily entering Nirodha Samapathi but not very sure on this as there are different view on this.

In my limited and paltry understanding, the mano-vijnana or the "sixth sense according to the Buddha"  is [just] another sense-consciousness linked with a sense-gate.
That sense-gate is gateless.  Just like all your senses.
The gateless gate.
Streams.
Mind is the hub of these six streams -- the hub of a wheel is Mind and the six spokes are the different sense-consciousnesses.
All sense-consciousnesses can become "suspended" in penetrative insight and samadhi.  Your sense-consciousnesses get suspended when you sneeze or when you have an orgasm.  Even the "thinking" sense consciousness.
I hope that helps.
Anyway, these words, upon your realizing their meaning, will not be an accurate reflection of your understanding (they do not accord with the Ultimate truth) but perhaps they may be helpful in getting you closer to a breakthrough.


text:
Diminished volition
This article titled The Theory of Kama says,

Volition, or Will (tetana), is itself the doer, Feeling (vedana) is
  itself the reaper of the fruits of actions.

So feelings are the fruit of will and of actions.
Is the the converse also true: does diminished volition and not-acting create karma that will have a neutral sensation?

i'm thinking of dreams tbh, but the question seemed of general interest

Can someone explain the down vote on this?

The sensations are decided by the motivation of volition behind "non action" which on its own is an action.
Diminished volition can occur in a Vipassana partitioner who is seeing sensations arising and passing with no clinging or aversion hence not creating Fabrications / Formations / Sankara. This on its own right is wholesome hence this produces Piti followed by Passaddhi which is generally initially pleasant (Piti) and then more neutral (Passaddhi).


text:
How different is the lifestyle of male monks from that of the female monks?
Lifestyle means the daily activities carried out, the monasteries, the rules and regulations, etc.
If there are more than one types of the traditions, then please focus your answer on Tibetan Buddhism.

in the West, in Asia, or in both? Any of the for Tibetan traditions, or one of the four specifically?

Asia specifically

Thank you. I shall work on answer and delete this very comment later (because it will no longer be relevant). Any of the four Tibetan traditions, or the four?

Would be nice, if you can answer about the four traditions. :)

Bhikshuni Thubten Chodron founded Sravasti Abbey in 2003. It's based i the US, not Asia, but Venerable has her education and tradition from Asia (education India/tradition Tibet).  Male and female monastics train together there as equals—brothers and sisters supporting each other on the Dharma path.
They write a lot on their site about monastic life in general, see more: http://www.sravastiabbey.org/about/index.html
"Ordination in the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition" is an article from H.H. The Dalai Lama on both male/monks and female/nuns. http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/ordination-in-the-tibetan-tradition


text:
Can anyone recommend some guided anapanasati resources on the Web?
I'm trying to take my practice back to the beginning in the hopes of energizing it and I think this might be helpful.I currently don't have access to a teacher so some Web resources would be great particularly some guided mediations that I could follow.

Preferably turned into a community wiki

The best is to go to directly to the Sutta or what the Buddha directly had to say about it. There are 2 good translations by Piya Tan:

Anapanasati Sutta
Anapanasati Sutta, Trilinear edition

A more detail explanation of the Sutta is available in Mindfulness with Breathing: a Manual for Serious Beginners, 2nd edition which does a wonderful detailed explanations. (Don't use the 1st as this is a poor translation.) In addition there are some lectures by Budddhadasa Bikkhu: Anapanasati by Ven. Buddhadasa.
For the very basics have a look at: Mini Aanapana.
Also

Anapana Sati Sutta by Bhante Vimalasiri
Anapana Sati Sutta by Ven. Bikku Bodhi

would be helpful guides.
Also you can try to locate a more formal retreat like through: http://www.dhamma.org/en/index or http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/ which will solve the issue that you do not have a teacher.

I used to think that "guided" meditation was a superficial thing. Now I know that that view isn't very true...There are some very "not superficial" guided meditations out there that are made by some serious meditation teachers. Off the top of my head there is Gil Fronsdal's guided meditations(only "Anapana" was searched for...he has a ton of other guided meditations and talks.)
   Joseph Goldstein, Ajahn Brahma, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Jon Kabbat-Zinn and many others I didn't think of are all great at giving guided meditation like Anapana, Vipassana and Metta. To find more guided meditations(all these teachers do not charge money), you can google the teachers name in quotes plus "guided Anapana". Here is a bunch of guided Anapana by Gil Fronsdsal:
http://www.audiodharma.org/talks/?
search=Anapana

also This book compiles  Buddhawajana (exclusively Buddha's words) regarding Anapanasati.  It's free.    Buddhawajana anapanasati


text:
How did this material world come into existence if the ultimate reality is voidness?
Okay, I know that anything that come into existence has a cessation..
So, how did this world of suffering begin?
Or, if you say it never began and it's ever existent, why would it need to exist?
What's the cause that's made this material world?
If you say that the cause is the Karma of a being, how come Karma come into existence? (By existence, I mean to ask why does Karma exist?)
What's the ultimate cause or factor for existence or emergence of corporeality?
I'm not trying to argue or quarrel, but I'm searching for answers from the point of view of Buddhism.
I accept that these kind of questions and answers doesn't lead to cessation of pain or suffering, as the Buddha said, but I'm just eager to know :)

Buddhism does not answer such questions, since they do not lead to Nibbana. The Buddha said himself, that he teaches only the cessation of suffering.
It's not that these questions are not important or interesting, they certainly are, but they will not lead one to Nibbana. They will only distract and agitate the mind, leaving it unfit for practice.
If you really want to know the answers to these questions, not only intellectually but experientially, then you have to become a fully enlightened Buddha (Sammāsambuddha). Then you will be able to know everything, that there is to know.
The questions you mention, fall under the "Four Imponderables (Acinteyyas)":

The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, as follows:
The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha];
The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana];
The [precise working out of the] results of kamma;
Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about.

These are questions that the Buddha did not answer. Only a fully enlightened Buddha can know the answer to these questions and the questions themselves.

Is there really some reason to think that a "fully-enlightened Buddha" will or can know the answers to this or any question like this? Why? Shall we accept their contention for it once having said they won't speak on it?

The answer to this question can be found by undertaking the practice of insight meditation (together with the rest of the Noble Eightfold Path).

Looks like you misunderstand Shunyata (Voidness, Emptiness, Hollowness). Shunyata is not nothingness, it is lack of solidity. It is interdependence. Famous Zen teacher Thích Nhat Hanh coined a new term for this, "interbeing". In Emptiness, everything is relative, so there is no absolute reliable reference point you can measure everything against.
So the question of coming into existence is irrelevant. Existence and non-existence is a term that applies to individual phenomena. But in context of studying the true nature of things - Emptiness - individual phenomena are not truly individual - they are interdependently arisen and interdependently existing. They appear when their causes and conditions come together. They exist while their causes and conditions are together. They disappear when their causes and conditions go apart.
This world of suffering is a subjective world, a set of experiences, that arises in dependence on causes and conditions - just like any other phenomena. The main condition for the world of suffering is ignorance. Particularly ignorance of Emptiness.
The history and evolution of this material world is a subject of study in the fields of physics and astrophysics. This is not what Buddhism is about.
Karma is the chain of causes and effects, coming from beginningless times. Individual karma exists because of appropriation of these causes and effects as "I", "me", "mine".
The material cause of corporeality of living beings is a subject of study in the fields of biology and genetics. This is not what Buddhism is about. The phenomenal cause is self-identification with a living organism.

Quoting this: "The history and evolution of this material world is a subject of study in the fields of physics and astrophysics.", my question is not "HOW" things came, but "WHY" things came initially.. According to my view, there must have been a period or time where there would have been no cause and no effect, maybe before the world came.. So, at that time, what would have caused the interdependent arising or interdependent existence of material world, and why interdependence would/should have arisen at that time? Thanks BTW for your answer :)

"there must have been a period or time where there would have been no cause and no effect, maybe before the world came" - but why?

What else could have be been then, before the existence of the current existence? All can I think of what could have been existed that the beginning is 'nothing', because 'something' cannot suddenly come into existence from 'nothing'

According to Buddhism, there is no single "something" with well-defined spatial or temporal boundaries - just a bunch of Emptiness/Interbeing - without beginning.

Friend, you are asking the question of all questions.
Even if I would be explaining to you in eternity how this material world came into existence, you would not know how this material world came into existence.
Even if I used the most profound poetry of all the universe and you would be listening to this very same poetry in eternity, you would not know how this material world came into existence.
There are times when the mind is confused with research: "I'll try to find out how this material world came into existence." and the answer is never found.
There are times when the mind is confused with wrong view: "Oh I know how this material world came into existence!" and the answer is never found.
If I were to give you an answer, I would just confuse you.
In confusion, you'll never find the answer to your question.
That's why the answer to your question must be silence. Nothing else but silence.
There is a path which will lead you to the answer you're seeking.
And what is this path?
It's the path leading to the cessation of suffering.
When suffering and its cause are fully known and this very same cause is removed, everything is known, even the answer to the question you're seeking.

I will jump in and you can downvote if my answer is not suitable, I am not in a Buddhist tradition. But perhaps it offers something for the Asker, and maybe for others. It might not be part of the Cessation of Suffering as such, but when a question lodges in someone's awareness, often it is good to simply address it and move on.
One of the leaders of a retreat I attended that I found helpful said, "The Void can't know itself." That is a statement to ponder. I find it to be useful. It speaks to the arising of Experience (all that we see) from non-experience. As I read the answers that were already posted, I realized something new. Andrei gave a very good answer that addressed the several questions of the Asker, and he said (if I may quote him) "The main condition for the world of suffering is ignorance. Particularly ignorance of Emptiness." As I read this, my thought was:
The Void knew nothing at the beginning, because there was nothing to know. So, "wishing" to know, it created Experience. But it could only proceed in ignorance, for every step of the way, it knew only what it had learned so far. Thus, Ignorance is unavoidable and inevitable at the start, and we must learn to overcome it.
I hope that this is a helpful contribution. Peace.

Your answer seems to be like the answer given by the Vedas of Hinduism.. The 'Void' that you use turns out to be like 'God' in the Vedas. As far as I know (or understood) Buddhism, it doesn't seem to tell anything like "The Void can't know itself.". Thanks for your time BTW :)

I didn't study Hinduism, or the Vedas. Perhaps there is a relationship there, but I am indifferent to the idea of whether "God" exists as a being of any sort, or if there is simply infinite potential in the Void - including the potential for awareness, and self-awareness. It really doesn't affect anything one way or the other, and as you might be saying, pursuit of a supreme being can be a digression from self-knowledge. (or a help)

"It really doesn't affect anything one way or the other, and as you might be saying, pursuit of a supreme being can be a digression from self-knowledge. " Thanks :) Maybe that is why Buddha neither wanted to talk about Its Existence or Its Non-Existence.. Great!

I am always happy to dispense great wisdom : )

Okay, I know that anything that come into existence has a
  cessation..
So, how did this world of suffering begin?

By creating everything.

Or, if you say it never began and it's ever existent, why would it
  need to exist? What's the cause that's made this material world?

Creation- Create 'objects' as relative to the 'subject'.

If you say that the cause is the Karma of a being, how come Karma come
  into existence? (By existence, I mean to ask why does Karma exist?)

It's relations.

What's the ultimate cause or factor for existence or emergence of
  corporeality?

Same reason used to create or emerge that gives feeling of existence.

I'm not trying to argue or quarrel, but I'm searching for answers from
  the point of view of Buddhism.

In Buddhism main reason is 'Avijja' and the process is 'patichchasamuthpada'.

I accept that these kind of questions and answers doesn't lead to
  cessation of pain or suffering, as the Buddha said, but I'm just eager
  to know :)

By questioning can get rough idea of the solution. By practicing  the correct path will lead to cessation of creation(patichchsamuthpada).

"By creating everything." -What created everything ?
"Creation- Create 'objects' as relative to the 'subject'." Where did 'subject' come from when there was nothing?
"It's relations." - What relation can it have before/during there was nothing?
"Same reason used to create or emerge that gives feeling of existence." Where did that reason arise from when there was nothing?
Sorry for too many questions, but I don't seem to get it

@GokulNC Take 'Table' as an object. From what it create(relative to)?

@GokulNC Gosh, you must be an NT. You sound exactly like my friend the other day... "Mind is not Buddha. Knowledge is not the Way." So, in order to know, stop trying to know, the mind cannot grasp the mind.

Mind is create relative to objects('Namarupa'), and objects create relative to Mind('Vinnana'). In the presence of delusion('Avijja')... Those who know about tables will see tables.

About the beginning of Suffering
Here's the thing that you must understand.
There are certain things that Lord Buddha tried and ignored.One of which is the beginning.One like you Lord Buddha took interest in the matter and tried looking back at the beginning,i'm sure you know that lord Buddha's mind is the fastest.Lord Buddha looked back in time so long there is no number in our current number system to be given (that time is often given in a form of an idiom).Lord Buddha came to a conclusion in the end that the time itself is too far old,so old that it would be a huge waste of time to look back completely. Then Lord Buddha continued to add that the immense time he looked back is not even close to a Beginning,and said any normal being trying to reach the answer of this question would most likely end up going crazy.Lord Buddha instructed his followers to never try to find a beginning to the suffering,because it doesn't profit the way to nirvana and can't be reached.
About Karma
Karma is not a variable in physics.I know we talk about things like time coming to existence but the reality is unlike time karma does not need anything for it's existence.For example when Buddhism talk about destruction of this universe (Buddhism has explanations and predictions about the end of this universe and the new beginning),The human realm will have its destruction along with the destruction of Brahma and Deva realms,Even many hells will see the end.But a single hell would still be functioning (You see ,everything else is no more but karma still exists.) Buddhism describe Karma as nature (Like Temperature/Gravity) because it is how things happen (things need it but it doesn't need things).Because Karma is not a thing made of materials it is a function.
Refer these links...
http://mahamevnawa.com/Amadahara_FrnDw/Mp3_JeewanandaThero/65_Lokawaboda_Sutta.mp3
http://mahamevnawa.com/Amadahara_FrnDw/Mp3_JeewanandaThero/57_Life_Forever.MP3

One answer to the question "How did this material world come into existence" might be that the world comes into existence as a result of Pratītyasamutpāda.
Part of that theory is The Twelve Nidanas:

The Twelve Nidanas are a series of causal links that describe the process of samsaric rebirth and the arising of dukkha. In reverse order they also describe the way to liberation from samsara.[note 2] When certain conditions are present, they give rise to subsequent conditions, which in turn give rise to other conditions, resulting in the cyclical nature of life in Samsara.

The Twelve Nidanas include:

Ignorance      (Pali: Avijjā)
Mental fermentations/volitions       (Pali: Saṅkhāra Sanskrit: Saṃskāra)
Status consciousness     (Pali: Viññāṇa)
"Name" and "Form"        (Pali: Nāmarūpa)
The six senses       (Pali: Saḷāyatana)
Contact      (Pali: Phassa)
Feelings     (Pali: Vedanā)
Cravings/longings/desires        (Pali: Taṇhā)
Clinging to      (Pali: Upādāna)
Generation of factors for rebirth       (Pali: Bhava)
Birth       (Pali: Jāti)
All the sufferings

One point of view I think is that the world comes into existence because of birth.

Ultimate reality isn't voidness, it has both the character of voidness and the character of things - in Shitou's terminology 'sameness' and 'difference'.
See his poem 'Sandokai': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandokai

Bhante Punnaji explains that what are are activities (events) are assumed as entities (in the process of recognition).
When we talk about the world we're still thinking in terms of entities. Not in terms of processes.
What is experienced in the world is sensations, feelings and the pictures that appear.  From sensations, feelings, and the picture, in the process of recognition, conceptual entities are created.
The Buddha only talks about how these 5 come about (picture, sensations, feelings, impulses, and perception) and how they cease.
As I understand, the thirst and passion that occur dependent on them lead to existence, birth, death, and all the suffering in life.

There is good reason that the Buddha is said to have been silent on this matter. There is no evidence that there was a coming into existence, rather an indiscernible precursor of states without apparent origins. We can see these states receding into the past, but we cannot see any indicators of origination.
Therefore, until such a time as relevant evidence is presented supporting any such manifestation, there is no need to attempt to explain it, mark its timing, or fit it with any other topics relevant to the Dharma.

How did this material world come into existence if the ultimate reality is voidness?
By touch (of avijja - not knowing as things realy are), phenomenas experiances comes into play.
As for the subsequences:
Thing exist is one extrem, things do not exist another, aviding extrems, the Tatagathas teaches the middle path.

Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of bestial topics, making a great noise and racket. They saw Anathapindika the householder coming from afar, and on seeing him, hushed one another: "Be quiet, good sirs. Don't make any noise. Here comes Anathapindika the householder, a disciple of Gotama the contemplative. He is one of those disciples of Gotama the contemplative, clad in white, who lives in Savatthi. These people are fond of quietude and speak in praise of quietude. Maybe, if he perceives our group as quiet, he will consider it worth his while to come our way." So the wanderers fell silent.
Then Anathapindika the householder went to where the wanderers of other persuasions were staying. On arrival he greeted them courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the wanderers said to him, "Tell us, householder, what views Gotama the contemplative has." …Views … Having seen this well with right discernment as it actually is present, I also discern the higher escape from it as it actually is present."

Why? Because

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison …

And at least

"What is the All? …

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


text:
Does Buddhism allow for true randomness?
Is the law of dependent origination completely deterministic? If everything is dependent, there should be no true randomness. The current mainstream view of the physicists is that true randomness does exist, that is, it is something inherent to the reality, and not just our uncertainty about the current state of the world. In other words, they believe that there is such thing as a true source of randomness. Is this viewpoint incompatible with the Buddhist doctrine? Or does dependent origination allow for some degree of non-determinism?

Extended discussion in the chat...

Dependent origination is not the same as determinism, and is not incompatible with the hypothesis that some things occur truly randomly.
You may take a look at the question about free will - Buddhism does not say there is no free will. Also the question about dependent origination and right effort may be of use - the following part of the accepted answer shown that it doesn't exclude the possibility of non-determinism:

When dependent origination is taught in the suttas, often what seems to be stressed are, literally, conditions, not causes as we often understand them (eg. agents that actively produce or directly contribute to a result)


text:
Is raping a male arahant or a non-arahant less immoral/less serious than raping a female arahant?
I've read the following passage and I wonder if it really implies what it seems to imply.

The  gravity  of  the  offence  is  determined  by  the degree  of  lust
  motivating the action and the qualities of the person against whom
  the  transgression  is  committed.
  When  the  lust  is  very  strong,  even  incest and rape can be committed, the most serious being the rape of a female Arahant.

http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/PDF_BuddhismCourse/11_%20Five%20Precepts.pdf
If it does, why is raping a non-arahant less serious? After all, the lust is equally harmful in both cases, but in the non-arahant scenario the rape is additionally harmful to the psyche of the victim, which wouldn't be the case for an arahant. So why the act that has more negative consequences is considered less serious? And why are men and women treated unequally in this regard?

The passage doesn't imply that at all. It's just that homosexual misbehavior or other abnormal ways of breaking the 3rd precept are not discussed here.
Gravity of the offence also depends on the purity of the being who's subjected to it. Not on how he/she deals with it. It's similar to how merits of giving dependent on the virtuousness of the recipient. Not on how much he/she craves for what is given.

This sort of an offence doesn't have any difference on gender but the act itself.An arahant is a person who is higher than the everyday person because that person who we as Buddhists consider holy has reached nirvana and therefore contains no anger (Patigha),Temptations (Thanha),Confusion (Viyapada).Because of this reason they are equally great and gender plays no role in this (Being Male or Female doesn't matter),So the offence is equal among genders.But there is a difference,If you take someone who is not arahant the offence becomes different.Why?Because a non arahant monk (again being Male or Female doesn't matter!)is less great compared to an arahant,therefore the Bad karma generated by it would still be very bad but less powerful compared to what would happen with an arahant. Please note that unlike religions like Christianity,Buddhism pays no attention to a persons sexual attraction so this Homosexual or being straight notion doesn't matter at all.Mainly because Karma doesn't recognize gender as an variable it is only a natural mechanism of you actions causing consequences.All the circumstances mentioned above in your question causes extremely lethal karma and most likely a person committing such an act would not see another day (In reference to a story mention about a female arahant being raped by a young man).

Could you clarify a bit?
"Bad karma generated by it would still be very bad but less powerful compared to what would happen with an arahant" -> Nothing would happen with an arahant, as karma has no influence on him/her, would it?
"extremely lethal karma and most likely a person committing such an act would not see another day" -> It is not clear whether extremely lethal karma is actually bad. After all, death is just a change, just like any other change that happens at every moment of people's lives.

Here is the detailed explanation.Nothing happens to arahant,Yes that's true.What i meant was,if a person rape and arahant that karma would be higher compared to what would happen if he rape a non arahant.And about the rapist dying part,He is not just dying.As mentioned in the story he will instantly be born in a hell with a life expectancy which would surpass Billions of years.So it is not any normal thing.Thank you for the comment.I hope what was lost in translation is now clear to the users. @michau


text:
Good pair of earmuffs for meditation
I am looking for a pair of earmuffs to wear while meditating that are effective at reducing noise and comfortable to wear for at least 2 hours. Does anyone have any recommendations of brands that they have actually used?
Note: I would like to preemptively state that I am in no way interested in any answer that has to do with noticing my aversion to noise or doing vipassana; anything along these lines does not answer my question and will be down-voted.

Is there are certain price range you are looking for?

@Lanka, I would ideally like to pay about $30 USD but if someone has used more expensive ones that they thought were excellent I would want to hear about that as well.

Earplugs are no option? You'll get plenty of those for 30$.

@Dawnkeeper, more expensive in the long run. 200 pairs for $30 might last half a year.

I don't find earmuffs or ear plugs effective enough for blocking sounds so I use earphones and white noise. I'm not pushing these particularly but this is what I use for blocking noise while mediating. I've bought these Sennheiser ear canal head phones and I play white noise through them via this android app. That pretty much blocks all sound out and I don't find the white noise distracting during meditation. The ear phones also have the advantage of being comfortable enough to sleep in so if you suffer from insomnia or snoring bedfellows then it can be a godsend.
It's not the cheapest solution but it does work for me. There are cheaper in ear head phone such as these but i don't find these as comfortable to sleep in but they do work fine for meditation so that would cheapen this up. Also there is a free version of the white noise app which would make it even less expensive but I'm a believer in paying for software if I like it even if the free version is almost as good (which it is). I don't know versions for other phones but there are also white noise cds as well if you don't have access to a smart phone.
Hope that helps

When I have my Etymotic ear canal heaphones in with some sort of noise playing, I'm functionally deaf to the outside world. The ones that look like foam ear plugs that people working with extremely loud equipment are best.

Update: I purchased Clear Armor 34db Highest NRR professional earmuffs online and have been happy with them. They block noise very well but it took me a little bit to get used to them comfort-wise for long periods. I can definitely sit for an hour without any serious discomfort.

Can you hear your breathing and heartbeat? I find that distracting when I have ear covers on (like the ones used on a rifle range, I used them with loud power tools). It makes me feel like an astronaut in a bad movie. I guess it would assist in "focusing on the breath"!

I have not noticed either (-:


text:
What difference is there in reciting and listening to mantras?
When reciting or listening to mantras such as Om Mani Pade Hum, what difference does it make when either listening, reciting or both?

The esoteric vibrations are what its all about. This is why the best mantras are in their original language (usually Sanskirt) not the transliterated and especially not the translated versions.
To answer your question: How much stronger would the vibrations be if you say it with your voice than your mind? Much much stronger. You are basically doing a magic summoning spell, summoning good karma and asking for the respective forces to help you. The more in-sync you are with the vibration the more likely they will be able to "hear"/feel your call and help you.
At higher stages of focus, where you are doing it mentally and you can ignore everything else, it does not make much of a difference because the focus is the same and the vibrations have already sufficiently transformed the body.
Thus, do it loudly verbally, using it as your focus.
Once your focus is developed (jhana) then you can do it silently.
I would recommend "How to mantra" by William Bodri for more esoteric information in regard to this subject.

If these mantras did not exist, what vibrations would provide the same result? How do mantras "help" you?

The esoteric vibrations such as "ohm" would provide the same result. Learn about the "six healing sounds."
Mantras like "keys" or "passwords" to create a doorway to the deity that is helping you. Without creating this doorway, the deity could not help with your karma as easily.

Reciting increases the concentration of just listening.
Other benefits of reciting are listed in these Buddhist Mantra FAQS:

What are some of the benefits?

Development of intent, focus and concentration
Improved breathing patterns and improved health
Sonic healing, similar to the way cats and dolphins use sound for healing and keeping healthy
Development of attributes or experiences associated with specific mantra
A graduated system of improvement. In particular through assessment of needs and provision by teachers specialising in mantrayana

Could be everything, could be nothing. Everything depends on you. You could recite one million mantras without meaning anything and viceversa. Only counts what you get from it.

Hi Rodzun and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like.


text:
Is emptiness interdependence and interrelationship?
Emptiness is described in a number of ways however i am interpreting it as interdependence and interrelationships. Is this an appropriate understanding?

More or less, in first approximation. Kinda. Well, not really. There are multiple levels of realization of Emptiness:

Understanding things as inherently impermanent.
Understanding things as made from infinitely nested parts and not having an internal "core" that makes them what they are, or internal "soul" or "engine" or "control center" that makes them function as they are.
Understanding things to be temporary combinations of causes and conditions with label stamped on top.
Understanding things as having no well-defined spatial boundaries if you consider that many parts of the environment that the things exist in are necessary for things to exist.
Understanding things to not have strict temporal identity retained from one moment to another.
Understanding things to be very loosely defined approximations.
Understanding things to be phenomena dependent on observation context and scale, therefore dependent on the observer for their delineation and designation.
Understanding that the observer that delineates things, is also a temporary arrangement of causes and conditions, that came as a result of an interaction of a large number of factors over a long period of time.
Understanding that the phenomena and the perceiving subject(s) are not separate entities but more like a sea of factors affecting and defining one another.
Understanding that phenomenal experience at moment to moment level arises in dependence on the above factors temporarily forming some configurations and ceases in dependence on the above factors moving on.
Understanding that phenomenal experience is a very loosely defined set of approximations, with labels stamped on top.
Understanding that existence at large does not have a single reference point other things/phenomena are defined against.
Understanding that even these feeble attempts at defining Emptiness are very approximate - and at best can merely point person in the direction of the infinitely complex soup of phantoms that is the existence.
Understanding the implications of the above to our day to day lives and our spiritual quest. (There are multiple sublevels here)
Internalizing all the above to the point when one no longer needs to think about it to have it be the basis of ones modus operandi.
Understanding that Emptiness is only a f***ing concept.
Going beyond all considerations about Emptiness.
Going beyond the beyond.
Going beyond the beyond the beyond.
Having no attachments to going or not going whatsoever.
Having no attachments to no attachments.
Having no attachments to no attachments to no attachments.
!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! :)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! :)
$#&$^&#^$&#^@$$^&%#^&$%&$%#^&$
OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! :)
let's see if I can help someone else get it.

I just might end up using some of the conceptual concepts especially Understanding that Emptiness is only a f***ing concept. Seriously though, what did you mean by not having an internal "core" that makes them what they are, or internal "soul" or "engine" or "control center" that makes them function as they are?

Primarily I was referring to anatta vs. cartesian theater (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater)

I would say yes, it is a [seemingly] valid understanding.
Usually, from a Madhyamika-Prasangika point of view, it is stated that:

The meaning of emptiness is dependent-arising; and the meaning of dependent-arising is emptiness.

See Tsongkhapa's Ocean of Reasoning, page 501... Geshe Lhundrup Sopa's Steps on the Path to Enlightenment, page 138, and so forth.
A simple example is as follows: the person is merely imputed in dependence upon any of its aggregates. The person is neither intrinsically one with her body (or any other aggregate), nor intrinsically different from it, but is labeled in dependence upon it. When I see John's body, I say "I see John", when I hear John's voice, I say "I hear John", when John's body is in the garden, I say "John is in the garden", and because his body is ugly, I say "John is quiet ugly". This is because John is imputed (and exists) in dependence upon that which he is not (he is not his body, he is not his voice, and so forth) but without which he would not exist. The meaning of emptiness [of inherent existence], according to Madyhamika-Prasangika, is that if you look for it with a mind analyzing the ultimate, you will not find it.

In Nagarjuna's Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning, it says:

It is said to be by the supreme knowledge of suchness, The seeing of
  dependent-arising, that what Is dependently produced is not
  [inherently] produced.

Dependent arising is called 'the king of reasoning' because it leads to a correct understanding of emptiness and avoids the two extremes.
According  to Prasangika, they are three types of  dependent-arising. It is a tenet unique to Prasangika.

Causal dependence. Example: a seed and a sprout.
Dependence in relation to parts. Example: short and long.
Dependence on name. The meaning of which I explained in relation to John.

What do you mean by that if you look for it with a mind analyzing the ultimate, you will not find it? Is it not with the mind realization is attained?

I also didn't quite follow the example of Dependence in relation to parts.

@Motivated An eye-consciousness is a conventional cognizer. It 'apprehends', it 'finds' a conventional truth. Say you seek to understand what a cup really is. A mind analyzing the ultimate might engage in analysis called '4 essentials' for instance, and ask "Is the cup its color? Its shape? The material it's made of?... Is it cup intrinsically different from any of these?"

What such a mind (of ultimate analysis) finds is an absence. It didn't find the cup in any of its part, independently from them, and so forth. It found the absence of true existence. The mind analyzing the ultimate indeed finds, and therefore realizes (as you say), emptiness.

@Motivated Dependence in relation to parts: your body (as a whole) depends on its parts (which it is not). You hand (as a whole) depends on its parts. Even space depends on its parts (north, south, east, west). Emptiness depends on its part (its basis, its divisions, etc). Your hand is empty of inherent existence because it depends on your fingers.

Thanks. If i understand it correctly, everything has an interdependency and interrelationship. It is also my understanding that one cannot know all the interdependencies and interrelationships. If this is correct, what does realization provide?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Emptiness as Sunyata or Sunnata?
It has many meanings, Buddha used this term in meditation (jhana) and Nirvana.   Jhana is conditioned so it is interdependence, where nirvana is not.


text:
Having trouble meditating long sessions (Physical pain)
I like to meditate but because of me being new to it i guess, it is hard for me to meditate more than ten minutes.
I have no trouble concentrating only got some physical pains, that occur during long sessions of meditation.
Can someone please help?

What kind of meditation are you practicing?

I am a Buddhist following Theravada meditation practices.(Anapanasathi,Vidarshana)

For beginner 10 minutes is OK. It will improve gradually.

What is Vidarshana?

It is a Meditation taught in Theravada.It is based on the core of buddhism.It tries to change your mind to stay focus in mindfulness at all times. To learn furthermore please refer this link   @Uilium                     http://mahamevnawa.lk/inenglish/

That sounds like Vipassana.

Vidarshana is another word for Vipassana

Basic Buddhist meditation is not difficult to learn, although it may take a lifetime to get it right. You can start today with only a few things. You already have a willing mind. Over time, meditation will help you maintain a clear mind and a peaceful outlook on life
1.Get a pillow or soft cushion to sit on.
2.Find a reasonably quiet room or outdoor space.
3.Sit down on the mat or cushion.
4.Let your hands rest one in the other on your lap, palms facing upwards, or place your hands palm up on your knees with your thumb touching your second finger.
5.Close your eyes and start to count your breaths.
6.When thoughts come into your mind, try not to follow them.
7.For a beginner, try to meditate for just a few minutes -- 10 minutes or so is a good start.
8.If you decide to continue with meditation, you may wish to invest in meditation cushions, prayer beads (malas), incense and perhaps some decorations to create a meditation area in your home.
9.if you still can't count your breaths you can listen to flow of water which is available in audio format for 10min,15min,20min, in internet .
I hope this link will help you the most.
http://www.wikihow.com/Practice-Buddhist-Meditation

Welcome to Buddhism SE! Please note that we generally don't like link-only answers here because if the link goes dead then your answer becomes worthless. Could you please summarize the contents you linked too in your own words?

@Theravada No problem, have a nice time.

Are you using a posture that is too strenuous for you? For example, trying to sit in a lotus position, when you have never done it before?
If so, use an easier posture:

a chair that allows you to sit in an upright or balanced way,
folding your legs one in front of the other in the "Burmese posture" with a cushion or folded towel to support your backbone
a bench

Be careful of pain. Some pain is comes from restlessness and disappears the moment you move, and it is OK- you can even use it and study it, as a way of getting to know dukkha and impermanence. But if the pain endures after your sit (especially if it is in your knees), use an easier posture. Don't try so hard that you injure yourself permanently.
If you are new, and you're doing 10 minutes, and you're doing it every day, then you are starting very well.

You have to relax body and mind. This way you can avoid physical pain and meditate for long hours even without any physical movement. This is by creating mind states which contain Kāya (body) and Citta (mind) Lahutā as Chetasikas.
The achievement of this you can practice meditation on the wind element (expansion contraction feeling tied to inhalation and exhalation process) or passing you consciousness or attention in a zigzag manner though any heavy, gross, solidified or painful areas or just simply being consciously aware of the  sensation in itself. Also developing continuous and recurring attention on a particular object might be of help as this creates bodily pleasantness when closing on the the Jhanas. Also smiling mildly helps as it creates pleasant feeling in the body and mind.


text:
Buddhism in ancient Arabic regions
In the age of king "Asoka", the expansion of Buddhism reached Arabic countries. Does anybody know what those countries are called now?
Can anyone provide details about what happened to those places / Temples ?

See also Buddhism in the Middle East

Very interesting question. Thanks for asking it.

Thank you.I got a good answer from "ChrisW" but a lot is still out there,like what happened to those places. @Lanka

Wikipedia's Ashoka article includes this map:

Its western border is the Seleucid empire which appears to be where modern-day Iran is (note that Iran I think might be ethnically Persian rather than Arabian).
It also includes modern-day countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan (which are Islamic but not exactly Arabic).
This map is labelled "Buddhist proselytism at the time of king Ashoka (260–218 BCE)":

It shows Buddhist proselytism reaching (beyond the Maurya empire) to Alexandria (which is in modern-day Egypt), and Antioch (modern Turkey).
This may not be "expansion of Buddhism" though, it's more like "envoys from the Buddhist empire".

I agree, very nice. Good to see some historic background and thorough research.


text:
Tips to improve mindfulness in daily life
Does anyone know any new  beginners ways to improve mindfulness in
daily life?

If you meditate regularly, the mindfulness in daily life will increase automatically. Perhaps a useful tip may be to have an activity - e.g. brushing your teeth (as suggested by a teacher in the tradition of Jon Kabat-Zinn) or showering, that you always try to do mindfully, that is, by just being aware. This is not a substitute for meditation, but it may be a way of assessing whether you are mindful at that time. SN Goenka says that it can be helpful if you are mindful when you fall asleep and just after you wake up, just observing sensations on your body and nothing else.


text:
Is it moral to trade goods?
If I for example buy cheap products from china and sell them with a higher price to other people in a different country in ebay - is this really wholesome?
This kind of career, isn't really helping society in anything, correct ?
Any other views on this subject is welcome.

If I for example buy cheap products from china and sell them with a higher price to other people in a different country in ebay - is this really wholesome?

It depends on the intention / volition motivating the action. If the action is based in one of the unwholesome root defilements, namely Greed, then yes it is unwholesome.
If it is based in the wholesome roots of Renunciation, Good-will and Harmlessness, then no, it is not unwholesome. An example could be, that one tries to earn more money in order to donate them to charity or help beings in need.
If one just wants to earn more money for oneself, then you are right, it is not helping either oneself, other beings or society.
Another key factor is the consequences of ones action. One should ask oneself, what would happen if I payed the seller in China a larger salary? It might be more beneficial to pay them more, than to earn more money for oneself. If the seller needs the money more than oneself, then one could help that being by paying more for the goods.
If people have more money to cover their basic needs, then they will also have more time for spiritual / religious practice.

thanks fot the answer - i want to import "daruma dolls" to my country - im not sure if it will be helpful to people - i just thought of something i can import that will get me money
anyway thanks for the answer im happy people understood i ask this in a deeper level - and didnt answer "if you dont kill or sell drugs its ok"
(will write the same thing to two of the answers that i see at this moment which both are good)

A Buddhist who does only things that lead him toward nibbana, wouldn't do such things. But such a person would definitely become a monk. It is clear that there is a role for non-monks in Buddhism, and such people have somewhat relaxed rules - they aren't supposed to do only things that directly lead to nibbana.
I don't think it is possible to answer such a general question. I think most people wouldn't be able to buy some product directly from a producer in China. So I don't see anything wrong with increasing availability of some products in your country. I don't see anything wrong with selling the products at a higher price - if the customers don't buy directly from the producer and accept the higher price, it means that the intermediary service is useful for them.
But of course you need to answer some additional questions. What is your motivation? Do you want to spend the money on inflating your ego, or for the benefit of others? By buying those products, do you support exploitation of workers in developing countries, or do they have reasonable working conditions? Are the products you are selling going to be used for wholesome actions or not? By answering those questions, you will certainly see some unwholsomness or another. But as I said, while it would be out of the question for monks, non-monks have somewhat relaxed rules, and assessing whether one should go on with an activity is not easy. The laity is supposed to earn money - not least in order to give alms to monks. I don't know of any clear guidelines of how to weigh different factors against each other.
I think a good practical tip is to try to assess the wholesomeness of the activity after a long meditation retreat. You will be more likely to have a balanced and equanimous mind then, and will be more likely to assess it objectively.

thanks fot the answer - i want to import "daruma dolls" to my country - im not sure if it will be helpful to people - i just thought of something i can import that will get me money
anyway thanks for the answer im happy people understood i ask this in a deeper level - and didnt answer "if you dont kill or sell drugs its ok"
(will write the same thing to two of the answers that i see at this moment which both are good)


text:
How come SN Goenka thought that buying milk does not lead to suffering?
During the lectures on a 10-day vipassana retreat, SN Goenka made it clear that an action is unwholesome not only when it directly causes suffering - e.g. shooting at sentient beings, but also when it causes it indirectly - e.g. when one sells weapons.
How to reconcile that with the fact that milk and dairy products are available for eating during the retreats? There is no doubt that buying such products amounts to supporting the dairy industry, and causes suffering of farmed cattle.
Answers to this question suggest that eating meat or drinking milk is not wrong, as long as one does not kill the animal directly. It would mean that SN Goenka was wrong, and selling weapons is not wrong either. Do I understand it correctly?

This question can be considered duplicate of this question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/5948/471

I made the question more specific, to make sure that I understand that correctly.

It's all about the intentions of the individual.
According to Right Livelihood, one of the types of businesses that should not be undertaken is the business in weapons, which is "trading in all kinds of weapons and instruments for killing". These weapons are used for injuring and/or killing other beings. There is no other purpose for them. So, if you are a weapon salesman, then you have the intention of helping someone harm or kill other beings.
Another is the business in meat where "meat refers to the bodies of beings after they are killed ... also includes breeding animals for slaughter." Here, anyone participating in such a business have the intention of depriving other beings of their lives.
If you read this answer, it says that an actor can go to hell because he had the intention to inflame emotions in his audience, after inflaming emotions in himself.
On the other hand, if you read the story of the hunter's wife in this answer which is from Dhammapada 124, it is evident that the hunter's wife who brings her husband his weapons with the sole intention of obeying her husband, is not at all guilty of having the wrong intentions.
From the Theravada perspective, a person who goes to the supermarket and buys milk and meat that is on the shelf, is simply buying meat, with the intention of tasting this food. This person has no intention of depriving other beings of their lives. The animal was already dead, and this person did not choose the animal or instruct the butcher to slaughter a particular animal. Rather, this person is simply choosing a piece of dead meat off the shelf.
As Sankha wrote in this answer, even farming vegetables that are not organic, cause plenty of deaths by pesticides, land clearing and animal traps. But the person who buys vegetables has no intention to kill insects that die due to pesticides, which are used in the process of growing those vegetables.
Also, it is quite a popular idea in some cultures that you should buy a beggar food instead of giving him money, because he might use that money to buy alcoholic beverages. Then it would be your bad karma, if he becomes drunk using the money you gave him. This is not true according to the Theravada tradition. If your intention in giving money was to satisfy the beggar's hunger (because you believed him), then your karma would only be based on your intentions. But once you know the beggar's tricks, you would do better the next time by buying him food instead.

Why do you assume that a weapon/meat salesman has the intention to help someone harm people or animals? It seems to me that most of them have no such intention at all, their only intention is to make money, exactly in the same way that the only intention of a milk/meat buyer is to quench their thirst or satisfy their hunger.

Imagine that you are a weapon salesman at a licensed weapons shop in the United States, where the citizens have the constitutional right to bear arms. A customer walks in and wants to buy a gun, but does not specify what kind of gun. It could be pistol or shotgun etc. You might ask him, "What would it be used for? Hunting or self-defense?" If he wants a gun to hunt, you might explain all the features of a particular gun that makes it a great option for hunting. If he wants a gun for self-defense, you might explain why a certain gun is good for short range targets. Get it?

OK, I get it with the weapon salesman scenario. I still don't get it with the meat salesman scenario.

If you are meat salesman, you might instruct the butcher, "I want to increase my order next month from the usual 1000 chickens to 2500 chickens, because Christmas is around the corner. And please make sure that the chickens are fresh, fleshy and of good quality, otherwise my customers may not be happy."

@ruben2020 S.N. Goenka says literally in his discourses that buying meat and eating it because somebody else already killed it is just as wrong, because you are in fact giving cause for the killing. So the question stands.

@ruben2020 Also, I think nowadays women are held responsible for their own actions as they are in fact not obliged to obey men, nor is anyone obliged, in the end, to obey anyone telling them anything they do not want to do. So personal responsibility stands, as well.


text:
Trolley problem and its variants in Buddhist ethics
What choice does Buddhist ethics recommend when faced with the moral dilemmas present in the trolley problem? The problem has quite a few variants, here are the most important ones:

you are the driver of a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks toward five workmen who cannot get out of the way. To prevent their deaths, your only option is to divert the trolley onto a side track, but diverting would kill one worker on the side track.

Do you divert the trolley or not?

you are a surgeon, and five of your patients will soon die unless they receive organ transplants. The only way to save the five is to fatally harvest the organs from a sixth, healthy patient, who is unwilling to donate any organs

Do you kill the sixth patient or not?

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, a very fat man is right next to you. The only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

The further development of this example involves the case, where the fat man is, in fact, the villain who put these five people in peril.

Do you kill the villain to save five lives or not?

The trolley is running down the tracks towards five workmen, as in the first scenario. You can divert the trolley to a side track, but diverting would kill your mother, who is on the track. Do you divert the trolley or not?

The trolley question in particular gets criticized because it is so contrived and remote from ordinary application. Amazingly, it now has an application with self driving cars, who may need to be programmed to decide what to do in a difficult situation where a collision with pedestrians is unavoidable.

Bonus points will go to those who can provide the Buddhist stance on the extended version of the trolley problem :) http://existentialcomics.com/comic/106

same answer, part of samsara is choices are hard, maybe you can't easily choose your way out of samsara, you have to reevaluate your relationship with samsara (i.e. cultivate some equanimity about outcomes)

Traditionally, worrying about this kind of speculative problems is classified as  a form of delusion. Consider the following Zen story:
Huineng's Flag

Two Zen monks saw a flag wavering in the wind, and could not help having a philosophical debate:
  -- "It is the flag that is wavering," argued one monk.
  -- "No, it's the wind that is wavering!" insisted the other monk.
Huineng, who happened to pass by, overheard the two monks and remarked, "It's not the flag nor the wind that is wavering. Your minds are wavering!"

In this vein, the most enlightened way to solve the trolley problem would be to stop worrying about it.

People come across ethical dilemmas all the time, and are forced to choose the "lesser evil". If Buddhist ethics has a principled way of solving the trolley problems, the same principles can be used for solving actual ethical problems that happen in the real life. So my question isn't only motivated by theoretical or philosophical interest. Of course, your answer may be valid if what you are saying is "Buddhist ethics isn't based on any general principles and therefore gives no guidance about ethical dilemmas that aren't explicitly mentioned in the suttas".

I think Both Andrei volkov and @michau are right about this. Some questions are paradoxes even the answers only feed its complexity.

This comment on /r/Buddhism is a similar response to the same question. "Trolley problem would never exist, because nothing spontaneously forms into being. There is always causes and conditions that create existence..."

Well, to act or not to act, I usually go by with what Buddha told his son regarding wholesome or unwholesome actions.  1) first, determine intention, 2) evaluate results, and 3) compare it with the wise (is action blameless or blame worthy).  Number 3 really demonstrates Buddha's wisdom; since we don't live alone our actions should fit with others (the wise).

I will answer your questions in the order you have mentioned
1 :- Conditions

you are sure that all will die if you do nothing
you are also aware that changing tracks would kill one person
"So the paradox is if you do nothing you will gain bad karma for not
stopping a death but if you do change the tracks you might gain bad
karma"

Here is the solution
As Lord Buddha has clearly stated Karma is a product of conscious thought making choices.
Example :- You are walking on a pavement in the night and it's dark.Suddenly you feel that you stepped on something.You look closely and see that it's a frog and it has died on the spot.
Here you had no choice it was there and it was crushed by your foot.You were not having any thoughts about killing a frog, it just happened.This will not generate any karma because it wasn't an action you choose to do.

Finalization

In your scenario you must act quickly and change the tracks. But here is the catch,as you are doing it there should be this thought in your head.Saving the lives of those people.From there you hope for the best.But if you choose not to act at all you will gain bad karma for that.And here is a story given in Buddhism (I am sorry i cant point you a book of reference to this now because i cant remember.)
There was a man who made some sort of a nectar like honey out of a certain liquid extracted from a certain tree.One day he was doing his work normally and a fly came to his workplace.It started being a real pain to him so he tried to chase it away.He wasn't successful in his effort but unfortunately the fly ended up in the nectar that was boiling on the oven.He thought to save it but he stopped thinking "Fry now,this is your punishment for the trouble you caused me." So the fly died.This man after his death had similar fates for many lives.
About the expansion of the original question.
Even if the fat guy is a villain in this scenario it doesn't change a thing. Because Buddhism do not accept avenging,vendetta or eye for an eye justice. If he put those people in peril it is his karma to take with him.
There is an very special story that i would like to point out from Buddhism, this is a past story about Shyakyamuni Buddha (Gothama/current Lord Budhha mentioned in theravada).
When Buddha was a Bodhisattva one day he and his friend came across a similar situation.A tigress trapped in a deep hole has had cubs while being in it.It was clear that she was hungry and most likely cubs will be her food soon.So the friend went away to find a rope to get these creatures out (He is Maithree Bodhisattva {the next Lord Buddha}).But our Bodhisattva saw that there is no time left so he jumped into the pit. our Bodhisattva did this to save the lives of the cubs. He could have easily waited or let his friend jump instead of him. This was the incident that defined the order of the Buddhas of this era.
So the solution is clear.The Fat man has no value in this situation only you have.If there is a genuine concern to save the five people.The person himself must jump and save the people (Only if his body is capable,But if he take this on a positive note and just jump anyway even if he save these people or not he will gain a "Paramitha" [a very strong practice that is essential for nirvana]) so his effort will not be fruitless.
About the last
Same above applies here but this is very dangerous because this is your mother and it anything goes wrong you become "Hell bound".(Personally i would not take the risk)
This should not go without saying the last riddle you have given is too complex for a normal person no matter how smart he thinks he is.this is a one better left for an Arahant.
2 :- Conditions

The sixth person will not agree
The five will obviously die

"So the paradox is if the doctor take organs by force it would be bad karma, if he do nothing five people will die"
Here is the solution
You are not allowed to take anything from anyone by force as to Buddhism, so your options are to either convince the sixth to donate / Find an alternative supply / Use some of your own organs.

Finalization

You can't take organs by force so you should either give your own or find the organs from someone else.And if you can't save all even after giving up your own you will gain no bad karma from the people that you couldn't save. Because you have done the best and there are no more other solutions for this.

I like your answer best, because it doesn't just provide answers, but also the reasoning behind them and refers to relevant Buddhist stories. The only problem is that it is a bit unstructured, and I had to read through it several times. Perhaps it would be easier to read if it was split into 5 numbered points, with a separate answer to each of the problems?

I am the author if this answer as you can see User : michau asked me for a better formatting of this answer.I agree but i have no idea how to do it. I appreciate  if an elite user can do it without changing the information.

In the Jataka tales, a common answer to moral decisions was to commit suicide in a self sacrificing way, say by flinging yourself in front of the trolley or donating all your own organs. That wasn't a choice, so this is a sort of a dodge.
Next, Karma is the usual engine for explaining what ever is put forward. So if someone is faced with an impossible decision, it was their karma that got them to this position. Karma as a system of explaining right and wrong is pretty malleable, with enough rhetorical skill, you probably could justify any alternative.
The system of Karma is based on the idea that the universe is fair & rewards the right and wrong that you intuitively feel, that built in instinctive reaction. On that standard, the right answer is what ever your emotions or intuition urged you to do, so I guess mum would get preference over the strangers in a Karma system.
And finally, an enlightened Bodhisattva sometimes is described as acting automatically, without thought-- reflexively.  So again, the right action is to do what you reflexively would do in such a situation. For me, I can't imagine what my reflexes would do.
Either way, after you make a hard decision that results in harm, the next step in the Buddhist system is to repent-- to feel bad about it and resolve to not do it again. If we don't make a decision and don't repent the "bad karma" we create for ourselves, then we are on a slippery slope of not taking responsibility for our actions.
And finally, Buddhist moral thinking does have some math or pseudomath with respect to how much merit/bad karma you can get from doing this or that act. For the Buddhist writers that assigned numbers and ratios and ranks to the merit earned by this or that act (or bad karma earned), they were on the road to utilitarianism, i.e. the greatest good to the greatest number. I don't know if it was ever stated so clearly though-- the math of merit and karma also has the feel of rhetorical flourish.

+1 Even though you don't give clear answers on what to do in each situation (which is understandable, as it is unlikely that all Buddhists would agree on what to do), you give information about underlying principles of Buddhist ethics, which say how a Buddhist should make a decision in those cases.

Options for scenario 1 & 5: Practice Vipassana/Karuna/Upekka/Marananussati meditations; contemplate the danger of Samsara etc.
Options for scenario 2: Give your own organs and save some or/and whichever person dies first, take his organs to help others or/and do as in scenario 1
Options for scenario 3 & 4: Jump yourself or do as in scenario 1

Secnario 1 & 5: Is your point that there is no clear answer whether to divert the trolley or not, and every person needs to evaluate the situation himself with a clear and equanimous mind?
Scenario 3 & 4: The assumption is that you are not fat enough to stop the trolley, so it doesn't seem like a good solution. Scenario 2: If you are the surgeon and give your own organs, you won't be able to do the operation and you and all the ill patients will die.

No! You can pick any one of the options given for 1 & 5 as the solution. You don't get involved with the trolley. 3 & 4: If you are not heavy enough, do as in 1 & 5.  1: As surgeon, you might be able to remove some organs without killing yourself. If not, try the other options given

I still don't understand your answer to 1 & 5. I'm a trolley driver. You say I should start meditating. So I close my eyes, start meditating and contemplating the danger of Samsara, and it obviously doesn't lead to diverting the trolley, so the 5 people get killed. Is that your answer?

Yes, they get killed. Eyes opened or closed, you can do Karuna meditation and wish for those people to suffer less. Or you can simply do Vipassana like "seeing... seeing.. seeing.." or any of the other options mentioned.

Just came to me, all of these questions are about escaping  death as premise (the ultimate dukka).  Buddha searched for 6 years for a way to escape from it. What he found and told us that because of birth, death come to be.  The only way to truly escape death is when there is no birth.  Dependent origination is not a common knowledge (Asādhāraṇa Yanna).   Those who have not heard dharma would not know a way to escape death.  Trolley questions above ask us to apply our morality to escape death (of others) but the given choices are not ultimate solutions to ultimate dukka.

I think the point is that those people are going to suffer before they die, and the question is if we should let those 5 people suffer, or make another 1 person suffer instead.

Any answers to such questions would not reflect the truth.
Why is that so?
In every action there are more consequences as there are grains of sand in a desert.
There is no known beginning nor end. Uncountable are these consequences.
Deeply rooted are these consequences.
They spiral like a spider's web, interconnecting each with the other.
In the same way a single piece of sand at the top of a desert dune applies pressure to the entire dune, in the same way intentions create consequences.
Now, friend, by knowing all this, do you still think there is an answer to your questions?
Impossible is to give a correct answer.
If I were to give an answer, there would be no truth in it.
That's why I answer with this:
You should choose the action that creates less suffering.
But, friend, don't think too fast!
Remember, deeply rooted is each action. Huge can be its consequences. Enormous can be the suffering.
So, friend, choose wisely.
Only by wise decisions, suffering is extinguished.
Only by wisdom suffering is known. Its cause is known. Its consequences are known. Everything is known.
So, friend, study diligently and know things. Know the earth. Know the universe. Know yourself ...
As only by knowing, the path is known.
Only by knowing, the right action is known. Only by knowing, perfection is obtained.
By a perfected mind actions are known. Actions are understood. All consequences seen.
By a perfected mind and nothing else but a perfected mind everything is known.
So, friend, study diligently. Therein lies your answer.

I can answer one of these questions:

you are a surgeon, and five of your patients will soon die unless they receive organ transplants. The only way to save the five is to fatally harvest the organs from a sixth, healthy patient, who is unwilling to donate any organs.

I read some Buddhist doctrines about organ donation before I wrote this answer to 'Buddhism and organ donation' -- and I think it's safe to say that voluntary organ donation is permitted, but I do not expect that a Buddhist doctor would kill an unwilling human in order to harvest their organs.
I suspect that the ethics of the situation include:

If you kill a person then you're acting wrongly
If you're unable to save a person (for example if you see someone being carried away by a flood) then that's not a moral fault of the same type as if you had killed them

In the case of the people who die without organ transplants, you might see that as them working out their own karma (not a reason to kill the sixth, unwilling person).
Buddhism might help people to live and die, but it doesn't do that by killing people to steal their organs.

The 1st thing ins Buddhism is to look after one's well being. To protect to protect one's well being is to protect others. But in this problem you are protecting people at the expense of the other. Hence you will be breaking Sila, for which he conditions are:

i) The being must be alive.
ii) There must be knowledge that it is a living being.
iii) There must be intention to cause its death.
iv) Action must be taken to cause its death
v) Death must result from such action.
If all these conditions are fulfilled, then the precept has been
broken.

Source: FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA)

According to this article, this is how Tibetan Buddhist monks tend to solve the problem:

Xiang administered the footbridge variation to practicing Buddhist monks near the city of Lhasa and compared their answers to Han Chinese and American populations.  “The [monks] were overwhelmingly more likely to say it was okay to push the guy off the footbridge,” Greene said.

michau, and those interested (in possible release),
The training precepts - as ones protection to possible not listen to all kinds of defilements and do wrong in regard of the benefit of liberation - are by their purpose, not open for speculation so that they would serve their purpose and benefit.
It may lighten or make certain speculations irrelevant to be clear that one does not have any inherent obligation to "help" or "save", but this it self, the notion, is in fact an "obligation" out of unskillful gained debt, independency.
For a certain break of "contract", not fullfilling a certain "promise" for a more skillful purpose, see: [Q&A] Is changing your mind same as lying? Breaking promises
For precept of killing and generall, see answer in: Euthanasia and Buddhism
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]