text:
How to work with praise and blame?
What are the scriptural references to working with praise and blame from the Pali Canon?
I am specifically looking for answers with

Explanations on the significance of praise and blame, and how they relate to each other.
Stories on how to work with praise and blame.

Examples from outside the Pali Canon are also welcome (other traditions, or non-scriptural), but preference will be given to answers that match the above.

What are the scriptural references to working with praise and blame from the Pali Canon?
Due to space, I'll answer with some excerpts but bear in mind that the full texts should be read for a better understanding:

(1) Bhikkhus, when an uninstructed worldling meets with gain, he does
  not reflect thus: ‘This gain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is. (2) When he meets with loss … (3) … fame … (4) … disrepute
  … (5) … blame … (6) … praise … (7) … pleasure … (8) … pain, he does
  not reflect thus: ‘This pain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is.
“Gain obsesses his mind, and loss obsesses his mind. Fame obsesses his
  mind, and disrepute obsesses his mind. Blame obsesses his mind, and
  praise obsesses his mind. Pleasure obsesses his mind, and pain
  obsesses his mind. He is attracted to gain and repelled by loss. He is
  attracted to fame and repelled by disrepute. He is attracted to praise
  and repelled by blame. He is attracted to pleasure and repelled by
  pain. Thus involved with attraction and repulsion, he is not freed
  from birth, from old age and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  dejection, and anguish; he is not freed from suffering, I say.
“But, bhikkhus, (1) when an instructed noble disciple meets with gain,
  he reflects thus: ‘This gain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He thus understands it as it really
  is. (2) When he meets with loss … (3) … fame … (4) … disrepute … (5) …
  blame … (6) … praise … (7) … pleasure … (8) … pain, he reflects thus:
  ‘This pain that I have met is impermanent, suffering, and subject to
  change.’ He thus understands it as it really is.
“Gain does not obsess his mind, and loss does not obsess his mind.
  Fame does not obsess his mind, and disrepute does not obsess his mind.
  Blame does not obsess his mind, and praise does not obsess his mind.
  Pleasure does not obsess his mind, and pain does not obsess his mind.
  He is not attracted to gain or repelled by loss. He is not attracted
  to fame or repelled by disrepute. He is not attracted to praise or
  repelled by blame. He is not attracted to pleasure or repelled by
  pain. Having thus discarded attraction and repulsion, he is freed from
  birth, from old age and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  dejection, and anguish; he is freed from suffering, I say.
“This, bhikkhus, is the distinction, the disparity, the difference
  between an instructed noble disciple and an uninstructed worldling.”
-AN 8.6, Worldly Principles (2)

"'It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and
  then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
  attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning,
  not by one who is not discerning': Thus was it said. And in reference
  to what was it said?
"There is the case where a person, suffering loss of relatives, loss
  of wealth, or loss through disease, does not reflect: 'That's how it
  is when living together in the world. That's how it is when gaining a
  personal identity. When there is living in the world, when there is
  the gaining of a personal identity, these eight worldly conditions
  spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly
  conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, blame, praise, pleasure, &
  pain.' Suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through
  disease, he sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes
  distraught. And then there is the case where a person, suffering loss
  of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, reflects:
  'That's how it is when living together in the world. That's how it is
  when gaining a personal identity. When there is living in the world,
  when there is the gaining of a personal identity, these eight worldly
  conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight
  worldly conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, blame, praise,
  pleasure, & pain.' Suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or
  loss through disease, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not
  beat his breast or become distraught.
"'It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and
  then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
  attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning,
  not by one who is not discerning': Thus was it said. And in reference
  to this was it said.
-AN 4.192, Traits

Gain and loss, disrepute and fame,
  blame and praise, pleasure and pain:
  these conditions that people meet
  are impermanent, transient, and subject to change.
A wise and mindful person knows them
  and sees that they are subject to change.
  Desirable conditions don’t excite his mind
  nor is he repelled by undesirable conditions.
He has dispelled attraction and repulsion;
  they are gone and no longer present.
  Having known the dustless, sorrowless state,
  he understands rightly and has transcended existence.
-AN 8.5, Worldly Principles (1)

Not to gain or loss
not to status or honor,
not to praise or blame,
not to pleasure or pain:
      everywhere
they do not adhere —
     like a water bead
     on a lotus.
     Everywhere
they are happy, the enlightened,
everywhere
un-defeated.

-Thag 14.2, Godatta

He whose doctrine is [judged as] demolished,
     defeated, by those judging the issue:
He laments, he grieves — the inferior exponent.
     "He beat me," he mourns.

These disputes have arisen among contemplatives.
     In them are elation, dejection.
Seeing this, one should abstain from disputes,
     for they have no other goal
     than the gaining of praise.

He who is praised there
     for expounding his doctrine
     in the midst of the assembly,
laughs on that account & grows haughty,
     attaining his heart's desire.

-Sn 4.8, To Pasura

As a single slab of rock
won't budge in the wind,
so the wise are not moved
     by praise,
     by blame.

-Dhp 81

Your quotes are being converted to code coloring - use the greater-than sign for quotations

Do you mean the difference between the references in code and ones in quotes? I used the first two in quotes since they are in prose and don't require special spacing. The last four was in code because they are in verse and do require spacing. With code, one can preserve the spacings. Or do you mean something else?

no, the colouring is only on my mobile I think; it looks okay on desktop. You can also use br for quotes, but Thanissaro's spacing is more difficult; nbsp would work I think.

Indeed. I remembered about character entities only after I had already made this answer. I'll be using them within quotes in future versed references I give.

I think a good way to address that is by tracing back paise and blame, checking were they come from, think about the 2nd noble truth, you will clearly see both come from attachment to reputation.
So, instead of fighting praise and blaime it will be more effective to put some effort on solving the root causes of them, your ego, your desire for a good reputation, for hearing praising words.
If you let go of your ego, you will immeditatly let go of all suffering caused by blame, I know this is not an easy thing to do, that is why we call it a path, you need to make effort, it takes time, but this is the right way. Mahayanas will focus on emptiness as a way to realizing that, Theravadins will have other nice ways of dealing with it like analysing Anatta for example, but at the end of the day it all comes down to attachment to reputation and the "ignorance" we have that creates such attachments.

Thanks for the answer. This question is more related to references (to help in teaching) than advice (to me), and the teachings available for discovering where we hold on to the fear of blame and the desire for praise. I read a book by Pema Chodron a few years ago, with wonderful advice on methods working with praise/blame (and the other three pairs, don't recall in writing) - so I wonder whether there are places to find in any of the traditions, to work with these challenges.

Hi, I tried to touch that in the a answer (emptiness for mahayana and anatta for theravada are the key words), but I'm not sure about methods, based on the books I have read from theravadas they usualy focus on studying suttas and meditating about it, it is different from Pema's approach, you will probably not find a sutta in her books, her books are more open to the public in general, easier to digest, I believe both approachs are good and can work, it depends on the reader, each one has a style. Im sure more answers will pop up :)

Simple, Krishna in Bhagavat Gita says "Do your work,Do not expect the results".When you are very much mindfully doing a work you would not worry about the results.When you do not worry about the results there won't be any expectations.Normally if you have done a very good job,you would expect an apppreciation(or recogonition).Praise come to picture here.When you have screwed up,then you would try to escape from the blame or try to make things up.The answer is simple.To be in peace with the work you are doing at the present.So that you would not care whether you are praised or blamed.You would be peacefully that you have mindfully enjoy

This answer looks like it's from the Hindu perspective rather than Buddhist. I won't vote down just yet but maybe the answerer could refocus the question from a Buddhist perspective

Since in Buddhism.SE, the expectation was answers from Buddhist perspectives. Also, asking from references from the Pali Canon should have made that clear. Furthermore, the reasons behind asking is not to discover where praise/blame are held onto, but instead what teachings are available to further any work and deepen understanding - still from a Buddhist methodology.

Sorry down voting. I don't believe this is from a Buddhist perspective

Cool!! I posted this just to add some clarity to your understanding.I accept that was not from a Buddhist perspective and thought would have been helpful.Cheers!


text:
Is there evidence of a Buddhist influence on Greek Stoicism?
Stoic philosophy seems to share a lot with Buddhist wisdom.  Since Zeno of Citium (generally credited as the founder of Stoicism) is said to have lived a couple hundred years after Siddhartha Gautama, it seems possible that some cross pollination of ideas may have influenced the development of Stoic philosphy.  Is there any evidence (other than the similarities in philosophy) that this happened?

It's hard to answer these kind of things with a negative but I'm going to be bold and do that with caveats. I haven't heard of Stoicism itself being directly influenced by Buddhism but.....
There is evidence that Indian Philosophy was influencing Greek philosophy
The founder of skepticism Pyrrho travelled with Alexander the Great into India and was said to have studied philosophy there. One of his subsequent central concerns was  ataraxia (freedom from worry) which to my mind seems to have parallels with the doctrine of liberation as espoused by Buddhism and other Eastern traditions
A specific example of an advocate of east/west cross pollination of ideas is Thomas McEvilley in his book the Shape of Ancient Thought. He contends that modern thought is actually influence by Eastern and Western traditions and there was a rich cross pollination of ideas. He goes right back to the Pre-Socratic and says that with the exception of Thales, these philosophers could (would???) have been influenced by Eastern though as mediated through the Persian Empire.
Looking at it the other way, the transfer of ideas certainly happened the other way around. The Questions of King Milander detail a dialog between a Buddhist Monk and a Indo-Greek king thought to have been Menander. So it's very evident that a dialog was happening between east and west.
So generally the conclusions could be that there was no direct influnce but if the Pre-Socratics and/or the Skeptics were being infuenced by Eastern thought then Stocism itself would have been influenced by those philosophies. The influences doesn't need to be direct to by present and relevant.
We might not/never know
We probably lack direct evidence for this kind of transfer from the Stoics in particular. Philosophers such as Aristole do name check their influences in their texts (and then go on to say why their own ideas were so much better). I'm not aware of any direct referencing to Buddhist or other Eastern traditions in Greek texts.
That said the transmission of ancient texts is clearly very incomplete. I find it fascinating that we have lost much (all??) of the work of Chrysippus one of the main Greek Stoic thinkers. I heard it said that if his works had have come down to us then Chrysippus would have been a philosopher know to us in the same way as Plotinus or even Plato and Aristole.
So that said the eveidence of direct influence could well be there. Given that writings of major thinkers in the Stoic tradition are lost it can't be said what else is in there.
It might not just be the Stoics
I'm personally not convinced that the Stoics would be the best candidates for a heavy Buddhist influence. There is a lot in Stoicism such as their logic and physics that I would struggle to fit into this framework. To my (naive) mind the Skeptics have more similarities or even the Neoplatonic thinkers or even the Pythagoreans. I could even make a (bad) argument for Epicuricans if we consider the central place of spiritual community - though that's really pushing it to an almost crazy extent.

Just to comment on my own answer. I've given this a go though I'm not the expert at all. I just don't want the question to go unnoticed as it is such an interesting topic. I welcome all corrections and additions to this

I'm late to the party.  There's a book on the similarities and connections between Pyrrhonism (Ancient Greek "Skepticism") and Vedic philosophy.  The historical connections are Indian, the ideas expressed are Madhyamaka Buddhism. You can read the book in its entirety here: http://www.e-reading.link/bookreader.php/134630/Pyrrhonism.pdf

The presence of Greek kingdoms in (what are now) Afganistan, Pakistan and India after the time of Alexander, implies that the evolution of (some schools of) Buddhism was to some extent (small or large depending on what scholar you ask) influenced by Greek thinking. So, it might be that Stoicism influenced the evolution of Buddhism (but then there must likely have been some common ground in terms of thinking already for this to have happened).
HQ

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

Well there was the Indo-Greek kingdom and many of the Greeks living there were Buddhist. This kingdom existed before stoic philosophy came about, so there is a possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Hair of the Buddha
How much is known to support, to refute, or to expand upon the following viewpoint?
The Buddha shaved his head like all his bhikkhus.
Supposed reasons to backup this viewpoint are:

There are references in the Pali Canon where someone calls Gotama a shaven-headed recluse.
There are other references, like in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta (MN 26), where The Buddha explains that he shaved his head when he went forth.
Buddhism arose during an an-iconic period, so depictions of the Buddha were frowned upon.
Artistic depictions of the Buddha are relics of the Ghandara Buddha-statues, created long after the Buddha's death.
This representation was spread to other Buddhist regions over time.

Quite curious what can be said about this topic.

Related question Is there any significance to shaving the head?

Actually, the orthodox view is that he cut off his hair with a sword when he went forth and it settled itself into ringlets which never grew back and hence he never needed to shave again; this according to the Nidanakatha of the Jataka commentary:

Next he thought, "These locks of mine are not suited to a monk; but there is no one fit to cut the hair of a Future Buddha. Therefore I will cut them off myself with my sword." And grasping a simitar with his right hand, he seized his top-knot with his left hand, and cut it off, together with the diadem. His hair thus became two finger-breadths in length, and curling to the right, lay close to his head. As long as he lived it remained of that length, and the beard was proportionate. And never again did he have to cut either hair or beard.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits006.htm

This is contrary to the what the suttas say. Could this have been a later addition to justify the already extant Greek statues? Also is not the duty of a the Buddha's personal attendant to shave the Thathagatha's hair? We know that the Buddha's body did age and decay as told in the Mahaparinibbana sutta, so to then believe that his hair and beard did not grow after he cut it as a Bodhisatva seems contrary as well.

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


text:
Are there any specific stories or talks where Buddha discussed using mind altering substances other than alcohol?

It goes without saying that alcohol makes you mindless. Theres debate about pot creating conditions for enhanced mindfulness in SOME individuals.

My question is not "is it okay". I know what to expect.
Are there any specific stories involving Buddha on the subject of someone ingesting an herb or something, specifically to be mindful... and how that is bad.
I'm asking for the story or stories.

I'm not sure why anyone at the time of the Buddha would think that ingesting a substance would induce mindfulness.

i find it hard to believe there isnt a story or two about a "sage" or something ingesting an herb for a different experience for some reason... and if anyone is familiar with them im sure you are bhante, being as familiar with the tipitika in its entirety as you are.

and maybe not so much induce mindfulness per say so much as bring it into sharper focus than what typically is experienced.

Well, the vedas talk about ingesting soma, but not for mindfulness, I don't think.

what do they say about it? and what is soma?

Bodhidharma discovered/brought tea to China. It's this self identifying Buddhist's favorite drug.

im suprised there arent any stories in the texts about herb! or even psychedelics.

Using a mind altering substance to be more mindful is like if you have a scale with weights on it, what could you add to the scale to make it weigh less? You can not add to the scale anything to make the scale weigh less.

The 5th precept deals with more than just alcohol. Taking anything leading to heedlessness is not acceptable. This is well explained in "THE FIVE PRECEPTS" which is a very good read on the 5 precepts.

The fifth precept reads: Surā-meraya-majja-pamāda-ṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi, “I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented and distilled intoxicants which are the basis for heedlessness.” The word meraya means fermented liquors, sura liquors which have been distilled to increase their strength and flavor. The world majja, meaning an intoxicant, can be related to the rest of the passage either as qualified by sura,meraya or as additional to them. In the former case the whole phrase means fermented and distilled liquors which are intoxicants, in the latter it means fermented and distilled liquors and other intoxicants. If this second reading is adopted the precept would explicitly include intoxicating drugs used non-medicinally, such as the opiates, hemp, and psychedelics. But even on the first reading the precept implicitly proscribes these drugs by way of its guiding purpose, which is to prevent heedlessness caused by the taking of intoxicating substances.

No. The dharma is about returning to your buddha mind or original mind unaltered. The use of mind altering drugs goes directly against the return to the unaltered mind literally by definition. I would venture to say that Mind Altering things (ie. TV/EGO/DRUGS/External Attachments) are what the middle way and the dharma are trying to be free from.

I find it hard to believe there arent some stories in there about those sorts of things. If it mattered much I'd look but oh well... just curious.

Why do you find it hard to believe? The Buddha really only spoke about the middle way and the path to liberation from attachments. When it came to things that did not add to the dharma he typically did not speak about them.

not necessarily that he told, just maybe mention that (for example) some sages, or something, maybe even from another tradition... just an occurance. Doesnt matter, take care, thanks for the effort.

maybe the question is, why do you find it so hard to believe?

Are you asking yourself? I did ask the question "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" I am kind of lost by what you mean here. If you are asking me, I do not find it hard to believe.

no as in why do you find it so hard to believe it IS there... anyways, take care.

Once again, I do not find it hard to believe or have any level of difficulty in belief in the matter. I guess I do not understand the point you are trying to make. I am sorry if I am not understanding you correctly.

actually it seems you are really misinterpreting my question entirely, i do have a general knowledge of what the Buddha did and didnt speak on. So yes i understand the basics... which is what you described in your answer. There is a lot of controversy on things so as i dig deeper, being still steeped in humanistics, thats where my curiosity sparks.

Question closed... i noticed Soma was a link in Ven.Yuttadhammo's comment.
Apparently soma is ancient slang for something widely speculated on being either an amphetamine or entheogen.   Its probably both.
The link Ven.Yuttadhammo shared had an excerpt;
        "The Graeco-Russian archeologist Viktor Sarianidi claims to have discovered vessels and mortars used to prepare Soma in 'Zoroastrian temples' in Bactria. He claims that the vessels have revealed residues and seed impressions left behind during the preparation of Soma. This has not been sustained by subsequent investigations[19] Besides the residue of ephedra, the archeologists discovered the residues of Poppy seeds and Cannabis. The vessels also had impressions created by Cannabis seeds. Cannabis is well known in India as Bhang and sometimes Poppy seeds are used with Bhang to make the ritual drink Bhang Ki Thandai."
So i would imagine it was much like today, different strokes for different folks... or mix and match.
So, since it was obviously (which i already basically knew) available... and mentioned... the question is answered.
Thank you Ven.Yuttadhammo
Sadhu Bhante

Soma isn't Buddhist: it's Vedic.


text:
Mindfulness during sleep
I have heard that monatics in many cases sleep as little as 4-5 hours per night. In what way do they train, to reduce the amount of sleep needed for nightly restitution?
Are there methods of training to remain (increasingly) mindful while sleeping?

Dantabhumi Sutta

@RobMacHugh Thank you. Would you care to elaborate in an answer, extracting relevant passages as quotes?

Lucid dreaming is not as hard as you think. Honestly when I first started to lucid dream I used this article. https://medium.com/how-to-lucid-dream/50-ways-to-make-lucid-dreaming-easier-370d0313acc0 Hope you like it, I bookmarked it for easier access.

Those are two questions. For the first one: what I know personally from retreats, intense practice (formal and perhaps informal as well) during the day reduces the need for sleep down to 6, 5, 4 hours / day. I imagine that having sustained high mindfulness makes this permanent. My sense of it is that one doesn't spend energy on mental gossip, and that lot of tiredness does not come simply because the first impulse is acknowledged and let go, like anything else.

Once the practitioner attains certain level of mastery in meditation and mindfulness, their sleep acquires a character of meditation. It's not like they don't sleep at all, but they do retain certain level of deep awareness during their sleep.
Specifically, when they see a dream, they know it's a dream. They remain aware of their body lying down on the bed. They remain aware of the content of their consciousness no matter how disjointed it gets during a deep sleep. If something happens around them, they wake up easily to provide their help if needed.
From my personal experience I can say this has gotten increasingly true for me over the years of practice.
As far as specific methods, stopping internal dialogue and mental gossip really helps mindfulness.

Thank you - my experience is the same, increasing mindfulness over the years has brought more and more experiences of a certain degree of "awareness during sleep" - if it is simply that, then patient endurance is the key, I suppose. /\

Dreaming is one of the 6 bardos or liminal states in Tibetan Buddhism. There complete list is

the Bardo of This Life
the Bardo of Meditation
the Bardo of Dream
the Bardo of Dying
the Bardo of Dharmatan (luminosity of the true nature)
the Bardo of Existence

In the Tibetan tradition it is possible to work with the dream bardo by practicing dream yoga. It is linked to lucid dreaming but brings a lot more to it. It is perfectly possible to train yourself to lucid dream and I know a few people that have - so it seems very reasonable that advanced practitioners could work with and extend this technique.

I heard about monks that are mindful when they are sleeping but those monks are higly trained.to reduce the number of you sleep,you could increase the length of time you do sitting meditation.people sleep because they want rest and re_energise.in meditation body can rest and re_energise.so longer you do sitting meditation,less sleep you need.

I'm sitting here wondering if there's a country somewhere where breaks in words are traditionally joined with underscores

Lol typed it from my phone.these things are just conventions.

I believe the point here relates to meditation and the monastic life. We (lay people) deal with so many problems and so many distractions that our minds are overstimulated, more important than that, we don't practice a lot of meditation, therefore our minds require a lot of time to rest, this is easy for one to see, when you are anxious you don't sleep well.
A monk deals with problems and distractions too, but I believe not as many, not with the intensity we deal living in a big city. They study a lot, keep the monastery running, give dhammatalks etc... but the level of stress is different in such activities, also they practice a lot of meditation, so their mind is usually more sharp, calm and focused, requiring less time to rest.

Point taken, although lay life comes in many forms, not only busy city life. ;-) There are lay people with few distractions (for instance, just not having TV helps, regardless of location), and for each of us, using the experience presented to us each moment is what we have available to work with.

In Tibetan buddhism there are a set of practices calles the six yogas of Naropa. They are specially important in the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism.
One of these yogas is called the Dream Yoga and its purpose is to develop awareness during your dreaming time.
The masters of this meditation never lose counciousness.  When they go to sleep the know they are falling sleep.  Later they recognize that they are sleeping without dreams. Then they recognize their dreams and are able to modify them as they wish. Finally the wake up are are able to remember everything that happened during their sleeping time.
To do the six yogas of Naropa you need advance training and be in retreat.  Usually you are required to do at least one meditation retreat that lasts three years, three months, three weeks and three days.
You definitely need a teacher, this is not something you can learn by reading.
Best luck in your meditations.

An Arahat does not sleep like a normal person. He may give rest to the body but in doing so is fully aware hence not asleep. This is a natural consequence of reducing impurities of the mind.
Even if you are not an Arahat, Vipassana Meditation will make remove impurities of the mind so you will need less sleep. There is no special training to reduce sleep or be aware during sleep other than regular Vipassana Meditation. If your mind falls into Bhavanga then you cannot be aware or mindful or have the right type of attention.

Another enemy is laziness, drowsiness. All night you slept soundly, and yet when you sit to meditate, you feel very sleepy. This sleepiness is caused by your mental impurities, which would be driven out by the practice of Vipassana, and which therefore try to stop you from meditating. You must fight to prevent this enemy from overpowering you. Breathe slightly hard, or else get up, sprinkle cold water on your eyes, or walk a little, and then sit again.
...
Similarly, when you go to bed at night, close your eyes and feel sensation anywhere within the body. If you fall asleep with this awareness, naturally as soon as you wake up in the morning, you will be aware of sensation. Perhaps you may not sleep soundly, or you may even remain fully awake throughout the night. This is wonderful, provided you stay lying in bed and maintain awareness and equanimity. The body will receive the rest it needs, and there is no greater rest for the mind than to remain aware and equanimous. However, if you start worrying that you are developing insomnia, then you will generate tensions, and will feel exhausted the next day. Nor should you forcefully try to stay awake, remaining in a seated posture all night; that would be going to an extreme. If sleep comes, very good; sleep. If sleep does not come, allow the body to rest by remaining in a recumbent position, and allow the mind to rest by remaining aware and equanimous.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N. Goenka
Also see: Suppati Sutta

Please avoid posting duplicate answers. If you think that the same answer fits more than one question, then maybe vote to close questions as duplicate, or add a comment to the question which says "See also the answers to this question".

I drafted this so it fits as an answer to both question. Does not mean both this is the same question. Different question merit separate answers. As person posting I should be able to use parts or in full anything I write to compose other answers. Also this limits effort on my part. I do not see any value to write the same facts using different wording to just for the sake of keeping it different.

It might be more helpful to the OP if you post a comment to direct their attention to the related topic in which the original (only) copy of your answer can be found: because they see your answer and also other answers on that topic. Also the SE system posts a moderator flag when answers are copy-and-pasted so I presume that's behaviour they want to discourage ... or more specifically a result (multiple copy-and-pastes of an answer) then they want to discourage.

This is basically not the way that is advocated by SE. See: http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/2002/295

Being mindful means being awake to the present moment. When you are sleeping and/or dreaming you are not awake nor are you awake to the present moment. I do not think that there are any monks that are mindful when sleeping.


text:
What is the exact number of jataka tales?
What is the exact number of original jataka tales? If we look around we see Jataka tales, panchatantra, Esop's fables and many others are all mixed up. Where can I read original Jataka tales online?

What is the exact number of jātaka tales?
The Khuddaka Nikāya counts 547 Jātaka Tales.

Where can I read original Jātaka tales online?
At Sacred Texts there are 6 translated volumes that contain all of them.


text:
Is there a Vipassana meditation in the Mahayana tradition?
I was brought up in the Theravada tradition and have little knowledge on Mahayana. Recently some of my friends participated in a Mahayana retreat and praised it highly. One of them even claimed that Mahayana is for practical Buddhists and Theravada is for rituals and ceremonies etc. So I got a bit curious about this and started searching on Mahayana. But I couldn't find the answer to my main question.
As Vipassana meditation is the core of Theravada which finally leads to the end of suffering, can someone tell me if there exists such a meditation technique in Mahayana as well?

Mahayana is not a single tradition. It is a variety of forms the live teaching has taken as it was internalized by people belonging to different cultures and lifestyles over ~2600 years of the realization-transmission cycle.
The same direct experience (of Enlightenment) is introduced in different ways. Everyone agrees it is about seeing (aka insight) and cultivation (aka liberation), but how exactly the two are approached varies wildly.
The method of vipassana (insight meditation) is radical attention to present moment, with experiences interpreted in context of Buddhist teachings. We could say vipassana relies on three activities: the study undertaken before meditation, the active-watching during meditation, and the review in post-meditation. That's it, there is nothing magical about vipassana. It's all about what you study, and what you pay attention to, and how you connect the two.
Before you can do active watching, you have to tame your mind and make it into an instrument of insight. The same taming also serves as a pre-realization part of liberation-cultivation (remember, it's not just insight, there is also liberation). This preliminary meditation is known as samatha, but it really is not that different from vipassana. The only real difference is in the level of skill, familiarity, and insight. This is like with learning to play guitar: first you do scale exercises, then you play whole pieces, then you improvise. In all cases you are playing the instrument, the difference is in your sensitivity and control. Samatha is mostly about tranquility, vipassana is mostly about insight -- but there is no one without the other.
Not all schools of Mahayana differentiate between samatha and vipassana. Most Zen schools (I believe) teach one meditation, zazen (did you know "zen" is the same word as "jhana"?). This is like giving student a guitar and saying: here, learn to play this. No scale exercises, no sheet music. This is accompanied with plenty of very deep oral instructions on what a good music sounds like, but no specific mechanical exercises. I'm simplifying to make a point. Most teachers do provide some guidelines (e.g. basics of anapanasati; common mistakes etc.), but the emphasis is definitely on self-learning.
While in Theravada the pendulum seems to swing almost too far the other way: "Teacher, but when are we going to play music?" -- "Forget about music, dummy, and focus on your study and exercises, that's where music comes from!"
In Tibetan schools practice and study seems to be pretty balanced. They do differentiate between shamatha and vipashyana at beginner stages and speak about "unity of shamatha and vipashyana" at more advanced stages. As far as specific techniques, at least in some schools (Gelug) Tibetan vipashyana takes analysis of the four jhanas as its object of investigation. Four jhanas are also approached in context of Generation Stage meditation, while what you know as satipatthana in Theravada can probably be compared with Completion stage meditation in Vajrayana... And then there are Mahamudra and Dzogchen, which are like playing jazz improvisations...
Much of it depends on the student and on a particular teacher. An enormously talented student can learn playing just by watching a teacher, but most of us need gradual instruction. Some teachers believe in analytical understanding, others think technique can only come from drills, while yet others believe it's all about the feeling etc.

Yes, it's called vipaśyanā and it's employed by several different schools.

Thanks for the link, it has very little information though. Is it safe to say that except Tibetan Buddhism (Vajrayana, Mahāmudrā and Dzogchen) there's no such practice in Mahayana schools? Is it only the Samatha meditation that other Mahayana schools teach?

Every monastery teaches differently; you can't really generalize like that.

Google "Mahamudra". Enjoy. I happen to follow a Karma Kagyu Tibetan Buddhism tradition of mahamudra. There are lots of flavors for lots of individual tastes but it's all the same. Good stuff. (Heck, even Hinduism's Advaita is good stuff.) Enjoy!

It seems to me the Mahayana is more about rituals and such:prayer wheels, manadala's, medicine bowls, prayer flags. Plus there are too many esoteric "secretive" teachings where one has to receive empowerment from a lama I guess. It's all good but I feel Theravada tradition contains the heart of Buddha's teachings

Well... I think you are talking about Tibetan Mahayana here. Rinzai Zen is Mahayana and is very austere. As is Ch'an.  Perhaps Tibetan Mahayana is very parochial, but Zen/Ch'an is not.

In Mahayana the objects of vipashyana are not the three characteristics as they are in Theravada, however, they are shunyata, or emptiness. In Theravada vipassana one investigates impermanence, selflessness, and unsatisfactoriness of all phenomena. In Mahayana one investigates emptiness of all phenomena, which is a development of the three characteristics. There are different views of emptiness which disagree on details, but essentially are the same enough. Madhyamaka Prasangika view is generally considered the definitive view of emptiness. Also, the mind itself is also the object of investigation, and Mahayana has developed a very useful model of consciousness and the mind.
The Heart Sutra reveals a very useful vipashyana meditation: Investigate each skandha and discover its emptiness of identity. "Form is empty, emptiness is none other than form, Sensation is empty, emptiness is none other than sensation..." and so on.

@dmsp - "Mahayana is for practical Buddhists and Theravada is for rituals and ceremonies etc" this statement was misunderstood by you. I was also in that retreat, nobody said something like that. There was a question about how you compare different schools of Buddhism. Though it was not explained w.r.t. meditation aspects, the main difference between schools is the traditions and ceremonies you do. But the core teaching (4 Noble Truths, 8-fold Path, etc.) remains the same. By the way, you also can't say that all teachers in Mahayana/Theravada follow the same way of teaching.

In Theravada you can say all teachers and students should practice Vipassana meditation if they want to attain nibbana. However, there can be different ways of doing it like sathipattana, anapanasathi etc. That's why I wanted to know what method is used by Mahayana tradition to achieve this.
BTW that statement wasn't misunderstood by me. He actually said that. I have proof :)

The views of:

"I was brought up in the Theravada tradition and have little knowledge
  on Mahayana. Recently some of my friends participated in a Mahayana
  retreat and praised it highly. One of them even claimed that Mahayana
  is for practical Buddhists and Theravada is for rituals and ceremonies
  etc. So I got a bit curious about this and started searching on
  Mahayana. But I couldn't find the answer to my main question."

And:

"It seems to me the Mahayana is more about rituals and such:prayer
  wheels, manadala's, medicine bowls, prayer flags. Plus there are too
  many esoteric "secretive" teachings where one has to receive
  empowerment from a lama I guess. It's all good but I feel Theravada
  tradition contains the heart of Buddha's teachings"

These views are both understandable given the respective situations:
I live in a Theravada Buddhist country (Thailand), but is a practicing Mahayana Buddhist (Chinese of Chan lineage). The reason both perspectives - that the other side is more practical, can be observed is that, a Theravada Buddhist community is often very conservative, and as such can get completely out of touch with lay people. Monks for example often chant in Pali for a lay funeral service while doing very little to teach the lay people the Dharma. I have attended Thai funerals where people start zoning out while the monks chants in Pali, a language ordinary Thais do not understand. Some disrespectfully chatted away with their friends during service. Some even start browsing their phones! Your average Thai religious participation involve making some donations during special Buddhist festival dates. On the other hand, my personal practice involves weekly chanting service at the temple, as well as many social participation. Lay Buddhists chant along in Chinese Mahayana Buddhist texts, which are understandable to the Chinese audience.
One of the preoccupation of Mahayana Buddhism is the development of upāya - skillful means. That is, how to teach the difficult to understand Buddhadharma to the masses, as well as various students at different stage of the path. Employing various strategy such as rituals for participation, conceptual aids such as Pure Land Buddhist teachings, group chanting involving the lay people, the use of repetition of mantras. Many teachings are also simplified to be relevant to needs of the lay Buddhist. The Tibetans for example heavily use seemingly mystical rituals as well as magnificent art and architecture to inspire the interest and faith of the people. (Their art is one of the finest in the Buddhist world). Modern Buddhist organization even hold similar youth functions and camps similar to those done by Protestant Christianity to engage young people.
This is not to say that there aren't temples on both sides that do not reach out to people, nor that Theravada do not employ skillful means. The emphasis is just different, and in my personal opinion many Buddhists societies have grown way too lax and take the Dharma for granted. Some very successful modern oriented Thai temples such as the Dhammakaya even came under heavy criticism for being 'too big', 'unorthodox' or even downright accusatory 'cult-like'. From my understanding, their success boil down to: having large lay participation by holding big events, teaching meditation to lay people, and having monks who are highly disciplined and walking in a very mindful orderly manner. Unfortunately this practice is deemed 'strange and cult-like' by those who do not actually understand the Dharma and are used to un-orderly behavior from monks.

And what about Vipassana meditation? The question asks, "Is there a Vipassana meditation in the Mahayana tradition?"

I presume that question is already answered by other members..

The base of the pillar of the answer to this is probably what is called "Silent Illumination" or Yuganaddha.
Silent illumination comes from the integrated practice of shamatha (calming the mind) and vipashyana (insightful contemplation) called yuganaddha (union), and was the hallmark of the Chinese Caodong school of Ch'an. It therefore means one is practicing with both a calm mind and "questioning observation."
The Caodong school is very interesting, and is the predecessor of the Soto Zen school. It is a very esoteric school, which is probably why it almost vanished, as its ways were not popular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caodong_school
So, since Zen is Mahayana, I believe this is where you should look.

You're welcome. :-)  If you are curious about Soto Zen, the Tassajara group is quite popular, and has a large presence in California. A very good friend of mine is a practitioner there and is convinced they have more substance than many others.


text:
Does any modern Buddhist sangha still support slavery?
Also, in the ordination rules ceremony slaves are excluded from the possibility of ordaining. ref. Has any modern sangha made a point of allowing current or former slaves to ordain?
Historically landed Buddhist monasteries have owned slaves. ref At least this appears to be over.
UPDATE: Ancient slavery and modern slavery look different. Modern slavery generally is tolerated, but officially illegal. Example include prostitution in Japan, where immigrant women often can't quit or flee their "employeers" because the police won't assist illegal immigrants or "guest workers" trying to do something else on a guest visa.
Also, a theme in ancient restrictions in joining the sangha was that someone who owed someone something (not necessarily full on slavery) wasn't allowed to join (e.g. need to get permission from parents and spouses). So would a modern sangha turn away a soldier who had deserted or dodged the draft?
Or even further down the spectrum of slavery-- what if someone was just heavily in debt to their boss, bank and so on?
I'm particularly interested in what the modern institutions are doing. I'd google it myself, but I'm mostly find references to how the situation was long ago.

A buddhist that support slavery cannot be a real buddhist, this is completely against the Dhamma

Given that slavery is illegal in most if not all of the modern world... what sort of answer are you looking for?

@yuttadhammo The question on Buddhist institutions involvement in war got an answer ref http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2791/did-buddhists-ever-actively-participate-in-a-major-violent-conflict/2795#2795 I'll update my Q with 2 modern scenarios-- military desertion and white slavery in Japan.

Following are some of the requirements for ordination which are relevant to this question.

Must never have committed any grievous crimes.
Should be of good reputation.
Should not be in debt.
Not subject to government service.
Having permission from parents or guardian.

So prostitutes may not be accepted as they are not of good reputation.
Immigrant workers who are unable to find other work may not be accepted, if they are just looking for a means of getting free food and easy life. People who are in debt won't be accepted as per conditions mentioned above. A deserter may not be accepted as he can be seen as still subjected to government service or someone who is evading the law of the country. But he might be accepted in a different country. A child will not be accepted without the consent of parents. A wife may not be accepted if she is still legally married to someone and does not have his permission.
Buddhist society recognises only four groups. Monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen. Lay people can never be slaves to the Sangha as whatever support they provide is alway voluntary. Also, the Sangha would not recommend slavery, even if it's an accepted practice in the society. Ex: Prostitution is an accepted practice in some countries. But not ordaining a prostitute doesn't mean that the Sangha recommends prostitution.

The "should be of good reputation" is curious.  Did the Buddha lay down this rule some time after the admission of Angulima to the order?

@Tharpa It may have been introduce after the time of Angulimala.  In any case, I believe these are general guidelines for ordination. They do not apply to the Buddha as he can see who is capable of attaining enlightenment on any given day. I believe that
supersedes most rules.

Regarding being in debt:  You cannot become a monk if you are in debt.

It is a partial answer to the question, which asks, "Or even further down the spectrum of slavery-- what if someone was just heavily in debt to their boss, bank and so on?"


text:
What are some special meditation techniques and/or objects that have been used to develop mental abilities?
What are some special meditation techniques and/or objects that have been used to develop mental abilities to the point of almost being super powers or super human? Not necessarily  "super-mundane" as ESP but something along those lines. There is a lot of controversy in searches but I can not find any specific references. I could read the suttas myself but I am looking for direct tipitika, Buddha involvement.

Do not do this. It will only cause sorrow to you.

In ancient India (mostly in southern parts of India) there are people called "Sittars". They possess many super-human powers like foreseeing the future (not just predicting it), alchemism (like converting any metal to gold), super-healing abilities. There are many written manuscripts which are still available but many of them of in Ancient Tamil. They have also written about many techniques which if practiced properly will give us super-human abilities.  Do not think of "Wolverine"-like abilities, but the sort of abilities that normal people cannot think of. It is rumored that they still exist in the western ghats of southern India and that they are in a form of light. I do not know how it is linked to Buddha but I firmly believe Buddhism has its core roots and values derived from Hinduism.

interesting, i cant seem to find anyhing about them on a google search... but it actually sounds familiar. any links?

Hi @A Nonimous, you can start from  link 'this'.

One of the teachings of my own tradition is the use of inner imagery after overcoming bias. Our inner accuracy improves once we learn to identify what is biased and what is not, and this could be called 'clairvoyance' by most, though this doesn't necessarily mean you are seeing what is there.
It is also said that siddhi meditations develop human superpowers, as well. But in the case of siddhi, there is a lot of esoteric learning that has to happen first, some of which is lost to time.

Most Masters won't speak or initiate student directly. This kind of abilities come naturally along the way, as fruits. The Master will only help the dedicated student growing up, and once some vibratory path are achieved, the Master might on a subtile way guide his student with this kind of new abilities.
So, in the tradition, this happen naturally behind the scene and there probably no practice nor techniques that exist.
Further more, focusing on this kind of goal might be a tricky path, since the only aim is to recognize the Absolute True Nature within yourself and everything around.


text:
Can Buddhists be good workplace leaders?
Many people that start to meditate and follow the Dhamma become more tolerant, less attached to reputation, more "easy going" and treat all with loving kindness, this can create an opportunity for people to abuse them, miss deadlines, reduce the quality of the work etc...
That said, how should a Buddhist behave to balance loving kindness with leadership skills that sometimes requires you to be not so "nice" to get the work done, imagine if you have tried loving kindness before but it did not work, only made the person abuse you more and take advantage of your compassion.

From a more practical position, here are some reflections. I am sure others have their won approaches.
First of all, place importance on one's own practice. Kindness can be applied in situations that call for firmness or other actions perceived as unpleasant. Being kind to the person or people one is leading is always possible (even though we all fail at times), and important to distinguish from approval. We can accept the person without approving of their actions.
Another suggestion is to avoid speaking and acting out of anger (or any type of aggression). This is where the practice becomes so important, because the more, the deeper, we practise, the more we are able to accommodate.
To quote the Dalai Lama

Do not let the behavior of others destroy your inner peace.

As they say, ´Being a pacifist does not mean being a passive-ist´ - there is nothing stopping correction of behavior (coming late, abusing others, and the rest of the long list), but the opportunity is always there to do it with kindness towards the person. Even if you have to fire somebody for not doing their job properly, you can have compassion for them and try to be helpful.
Should you be presented with anger from the person or people you lead, trying to see their view also helps, especially in discovering the underlying cause of the anger (the attachments, and so on).
On the practice part, specifically on handling ill-will (anger and other), here is a note from the Pali Canon (Access To Insight):

Six things are helpful in conquering ill-will:

Learning how to meditate on loving-kindness;
Devoting oneself to the
  meditation of loving-kindness;
Considering that one is the owner and
  heir of one's actions (kamma);
Frequent reflection on it (in the
  following way): Thus one should consider: "Being angry with another
  person, what can you do to him? Can you destroy his virtue and his
  other good qualities? Have you not come to your present state by your
  own actions, and will also go hence according to your own actions?
  Anger towards another is just as if someone wishing to hit another
  person takes hold of glowing coals, or a heated iron-rod, or of
  excrement. And, in the same way, if the other person is angry with
  you, what can he do to you? Can he destroy your virtue and your other
  good qualities? He too has come to his present state by his own
  actions and will go hence according to his own actions. Like an
  unaccepted gift or like a handful of dirt thrown against the wind, his
  anger will fall back on his own head."
Noble friendship;
Suitable conversation.
— Commentary to Satipatthana Sutta

These things, too, are helpful in conquering ill-will:

Rapture, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);
Faith, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
Rapture and equanimity, of the factors
  of enlightenment (bojjhanga).

As a summary, I would like to reiterate that we can always have kindness for the person, for the situation, and for our own reactions (they are based on conditions, after all) - allowing for increasing acceptance with more practice.

I think there are a couple of assumptions implicit in this question that I would like to respectfully challenge as I answer it
Buddhists are 'nice'
This is a live issue in the sangha where I practice. Buddhists aim to be compassionate and also they try to align themselves with the world as it really is. That's not necessarily the same think as nice. I've read many stories about grumpy and even confrontational Zen masters. I could also quote Chögyam Trungpa on this point

When we talk about compassion, we talk in terms of being kind. But
  compassion is not so much being kind; it is being creative to wake a
  person up

So not necessarily nice
Leaders are nasty
Again this is a common opinion in the workplace but one I think we need to challenge. When we look at Alan Sugar pointing with (mock) anger at an unlucky apprentice on TV and shouting 'You're fired' there is a tendency to assume that is the only way to get things done.
Honesty, hard work, commitment and talent are the not the preserve of the nasty. I really thinlk that if you are a practicing Buddhist in the workplace it's one of the most amazing thinks you can do to model another way. Think Aung San Suu Kyi and Dame Stephanie Shirley not Machiavelli and The Art of War.
How does Buddhism help?
Just from my own experience here's how Buddhist practice has helped me deal with difficult workplace situations and understand people's motivations as you work with them and potentially lead them

You're just a bit less stressed. It's not the point of meditation but it's a happy side effect that it just helps manage stress without resorting to shouting at your colleagues, computer or vending machine.
You can spot and work with your own reactions. When you become angry you might be able to spot this quicker before you really raise the temperature of a difficult situation. Or even if you do get visibly angry the come down is quicker and it's easier to apologies and make nice. I have had cause to make nice on quite a few occasions rather then descend into self-justification.
You understand people more. Previously I found workplace behaviour baffling. But when I understood that people were defending their own (misguided) sense of self then that made things a lot more tractable. It was illuminating really.
You've a code of ethics. This helps when faced with dilemmas such as perhaps being asked to lie to clients etc... You've got a really useful backstop to prevent you just going down the wrong path. Business is based on trust and you'll find it easier to maintain that trust.
The job isn't everything. You've got another life and set of principles to guide you. If you lose you position or even job then things will be difficult but I really believe that practice will help.
You will be driven less out of fear and more from an authentic connection with the task and the people you are working with. It's easier to make the right decisions in those circumstances.

I could go on but I won't bore any further.
But
I think the problem isn't that Buddhists won't make good leaders but they might not want to. From my experience leaders are highly driven people and one of the things that drives them is ego. But if a Buddhist could step up I really think they'd find their practice a real help.

The final words of your answer were great, most business leaders are driven by ego and money, 2 things not so appealing for a Buddhist...but do you think a Buddhist should give a bad feedback that can hurt someone but is true?

@konrad01 I do really. Of course ones owe motivations need to be examined and it needs to be done from a compassionate mind if at all possible but I personally wouldn't lie to save someone's feelings. I think we have a duty to truth and also to other people in the workplace. If someone for instance needed to stop slacking off then i would tell them as hard as that is. Dependant origination shows us that we are all connected. One persons unhelpful actions at work will affect others

@konrad01 it's a very hard situation though and takes a degree of fearlessness on the managers part. I'm assuming you are in a similar (managers??) position. If you are then really good luck with it - it's not an easy thing for anyone

I have never found a "not so nice" leader to be a very good leader. A good leader knows how to lead without having to resort to not being nice to his or her followers.
A great example of a Buddhist leader would be Siddhārtha Gautama.

but remember, Buddha only led the people that decided to come to him, We at work must lead people that may not want to be there or is not happy at all with the situation, people that want to be somewhere else but is there to make a living

Maybe one should lead in a way that helps people become happy and want to be there in the present moment. Not everyone who followed the Buddha liked him or wanted to follow him initially.

Friend, it sounds nice, but not 100% practical, sometimes you face hard decisions in this modern world, I am not sure there is always a way to conciliate the Buddhist view with the executive view, people simply abuse you if you are very nice with them. I think sometimes you need to make a choice.

I do not see how you can not merge the two. I work in software development in Florida. What exactly do you have trouble with? Hard decisions and Buddhism go hand in hand. In fact I would say that the practice of Buddhism is all about facing hard decisions. If people are abusing you for being nice then you probably should seek a less hostile environment, in my opinion. I find most people do not abuse people who treat them with respect and compassion. I guess my point is that there must be some underlying issue here besides Buddhism and leadership. It sounds like you are suffering at work.

Hi, I am not talking about myself, it is more a general question, I have been to Florida, people are very professional there, maybe it is easier, but imagine a Company with a lot of competitivity in a country with just a few jobs, perhaps in this scenario people will abuse you for being nice and not so competitive in the traditional way

Being a Buddhist should not mean you are a complete push over. A good leader is going to be both hard and soft but neither hard nor soft. You can cultivate such quality through Buddhism, so I think Buddhism is enormously valuable for leaders.


text:
Euthanasia for animals
Killing and harming are against the first precept. I understand that an important part of the practice is being mindful at the time of death, but do animals have this capacity?  Would it be better to end their suffering if they are dying anyway? I saw an animal suffering on the way home and this came to mind.

When it is ethical for humans to put each other out of their misery without informed consent it will be ethical to put humans out of their misery too.* (with all the regular caveats about the brain dead, people with living wills etc)

From a Buddhist Standpoint I think it is not right to do so, also I don't think Kamma will be neutral only because the animal is suffering, I think the best thing to do is let nature follow its course being gentle with the animal, supporting if possible

The precepts are frequently understood from a a Western perspective as "do not [kill]", similar to "thou shalt not ..." as in Christianity. However, this type of dualist view (either one or the other, right or wrong) is not taught in Buddhism. Therefore, the key in translation of the precepts to "undertake the training to refrain/abstain from [...]" (related question).
The difference may appear subtle, but whereas undertaking the training to abstain from killing means an avoidance whenever possible, the "do not do this" view can imply don't do it, or else ... - and if broken, one will be punished or similar.
Also related to killing oneself (related question), since each of us is a living being, killing oneself is on par with killing other beings - Buddhism very much equates all living beings (animals, humans, self, other) as just living beings, worthy of compassion and therefore worthy to be kept alive (not killed).
However, this is a practice/training we undertake, and we undertake the intention to act kindly and compassionately towards all living beings. The importance lies in cultivating the wisdom to tell the difference in each moment, and so an action of killing could be performed despite one's full awareness of the resulting karma, simply out of compassion for a living being (ending suffering, would be the supposed intent).
Although not with animals, but related to the precept, even the Dalai Lama agreed that it was reasonable to kill Osama Bin Laden, saying "if something is serious … you have to take counter-measures". We can each have our own view on that (read article), but the point is to apply mindful wisdom and compassion in each situation.
Related writing:

Can Killing A Living Being Ever Be An Act Of Compassion? (PDF)

In summary, undertaking the training to abstain from killing, along with the other precepts, were established by the Buddha to help people act as the Arahants do. Without having attained Arahantship, the best each of us can do is practice to the best of our abilities, in each moment.

We had a worst terrorist leader called Prabhakaran who lead a terrorist organization called LTTE. They killed tens of thousands of people. Children and women were recruited to be suicide bombers. Once I asked a well respected Theravada monk here on what should be our attitude towards him? Isn't it reasonable to hate such a person? He said no and that we should practice Metta towards him like a mother's Metta towards her only child.

@SankhaKulathantille agreed, have Metta for him, for Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, all animals, humans, all beings - we are all in varying states of suffering. Hate does not do anything to others, but defiles our own minds and causes our own suffering.

Yea, just mentioned that to contrast with Dalai Lama's views.

Being mindful all the time is an important part of the practice. Not just at the time of death. But if you have a wholesome thought at the time of death, your next birth will be better.
Whether it's human or animal, what makes you think killing will relieve a being from suffering? It could be born in a worse place. Your action is based on a big assumption or at worst, annihilationism.
In any case, if killing ended suffering, Lord Buddha would have preached it as the fourth noble truth, instead of the noble eight fold path. :)

Or the opposite. If we generally believe in a better world then this answer does not fit with that. Glass is half empty.

No we generally believe it's easier to get into hells. You might wanna read about the 31 planes of existence. Hells are said to be the most crowded realms.


text:
Is it possible to have a romantic relationship without attachment?
Is it possible to have a romantic relationship without attachment? Just based on pure love and with equanimity?

The Attachment Tag needs a definition. I added it to the Question, because it seems like the key point. (I am guessing that we would not use Iyanla VanZant's definition.)

@nocomprende Buddhist terminology is translated into English. Still (perhaps especially in the tag definition) I think we should prefer to use specifically-Buddhist definitions of these words; for example "attachment" in the Buddhist sense is described here and here and here.

Why did you use the phrase "romantic relationship" and not just "relationship"? and what do you mean by "Pure love". The closest to pure love is like a mother to her only child. This is then not romantic.

Is it possible to have a romantic relationship without attachment? Just based on pure love and with equanimity?

I won't say that all relationships must end; but if a relationship doesn't end, one of the partners will die.
When we knew that my partner was dying, I think then we both/each experienced more love and less attachment than we had previously.

Perhaps that is inevitable, the only sane response to dying.
Or perhaps we were fortunate, we allowed each other that experience towards the end.
Perhaps we were unfortunate, we didn't allow each other that experience when we were younger (and instead had less love and more attachment during our earlier life together)

Sankha might be right: we might have been better to have been friends than to have "loved" each other.
I'm not sure about Rabbit's answer; that answer says, "our natural state is non-discriminative love", but a typical, old-fashioned "romantic" relationship is perhaps discriminative and exclusive: it says, "I will love you and no-one else" (or, "I love you in a way that I don't love anyone else").
A famous saying about love is, "love is when the other person's happiness is more important than your own." I suspect that love can cause attachment, which makes happiness more difficult, and makes your happiness less under your own control. You give your partner control over whether you feel happy: you allow them them to hurt you (and they feel hurt by you).
Whether it's "possible" to have a "romantic relationship, without attachment, just based on pure love and with equanimity" presumably varies from person to person. Maybe it becomes easier as you get older and if you become wiser.
Now after my friend died I still remember her. Perhaps I remember her without "attachment", i.e. without hurting myself by wishing that things are other than as they are. When I (still) dream about her, which I did last night, I feel less conflict between the dream (of her being present) and reality (her having died).
I suppose the above doesn't seem like a strong recommendation.
I suppose that on the plus side, if you are able to eventually (and it might take years or decades, if you're ever able to at all) overcome your many faults, it gives you an opportunity to help two people (you and your partner) to experience that love.
It might matter, whether you and your partner have the same "values": whether you value the same thing. For example, do you both value "relationship without attachment" and "love with equanimity"? Buddhism? If so perhaps that's a friendship, a community. If not, an unequal or one-sided relationship.

That was a great answer, thanks for sharing your story!

Great story and explanation. Regarding the "values" correspondence at the end and one-sided or not, please see my contribution of an Answer.

"Romantic relationship" implies lust and craving. So the answer is no. If it is just Metta, it should be called a 'friendship'. Not a romantic relationship.

I tend to agree with you, so basically it is a choice we make, we know it will create suffering in the future, would you agree with that?

If the idea is to attain Nibbana as soon as possible, one should renounce lay life and become a monk. All these conflicts and difficulties arise when you try to practice the monk's life while being a lay person.

Brilliant comment

"Romantic relationship" doesn't necessarily imply craving, and it absolutely does not imply lust.

@tkp: Even the dictionary disagrees with you on this. :)

Unfortunately SE isn't a good forum for debate, so I'll resist the temptation to progress this any further ;-)

Too bad! I was going to ask you the difference between a romantic relationship and a friendship. :P

@SankhaKulathantille have you heard of Drugpa Kunley who liberated many women through sex? Being a monk is only one of many ways of reaching enlightenment...

@Rabbit: No I haven't heard of him and I don't know if he claims to liberate women through sex. But I have heard of so many Swamis who deceive women with such claims, just to get some cheap sex. Any sexual activity will only distance you from Nibbana(if that's what you mean by liberation).

@SankhaKulathantille He lived in 15th century and is one of the biggest masters in Varjayana. Tantric Buddhism involves practising on Buddha forms in union so sex is not a taboo at all.

I see! I follow the Theravada tradition and such beliefs have no place in Theravada Buddhism.

Love and attachment are two different things so if you purified all the attachment, you can enjoy the pure romantic love. The problem is that we all still have seeds of attachment and we strongly experience it when the love undergoes some changes.
Buddha teaches that our natural state is non-discriminative love. In our everyday lives, unfortunately, we don't experience that and it is usually when we fall in love we have a glimpse of that state. When we romantically love someone, all the people are nice, even those nasty neighbors seem approachable, the rain is liquid sunshine and obviously our prince/princess is a perfect Buddha. Loving someone means wishing all the best for that person. True love is not about ourselves, it is about the person we love - we perceive him/her on the highest level and we just want this person to be always happy and satisfied. If the loved one is happy - we are naturally happy as well.
Because we are not realised yet and we are full of disturbing emotions, the romantic love can get weaker with time and we start experiencing our everyday problems again. The neighbours are nasty again and our prince is annoying. Then we might also discover that our prince found another lady and he seems to be happy with her. And in this very moment we can ask ourselves - if I really love him I should be happy that he is happy with that woman, right? If your purest emotion towards this person is non-discriminative love, you will happily wish him all the happiness and set him free. If you feel great attachment, you will experience suffering because of that attachment.

+1 That early "romantic" love that weakens over time is often called limerance. Practically it serves a purpose to bring people together, but it doesn't characterize a long term couple relationship and staying together. In fact, relying on limerance too much can set unrealistic expectations thereby making the long term relationship vulnerable. That's one reason why some cultures' approach of arranging marriage has some distinct advantages over the typical western approach of "falling in love".

@tkp There is a thing (a concept, a word) called "limerance". That may not imply that "limerance", as defined, is what every person experiences or participates in.

If you remain strong, the love need not weaken.

Love is  mindfully enjoying each others company,listening to the each other and being in peace.If he/she suffers then you should take steps to bring peace back and vice versa.The ultimate goal of being in love is to be peaceful.Attachment is out of scope here because it either deals with the future or past.The present moment matters in love.Also there is nothing like true love or false love.Love is simply Love.So it is possible

Love is being non-attached and 'peaceful' in conflict also.

Of course. True love is full of happiness, compassion, joy, and equanimity. Non attachment is a condition of true love.

Even in a romantic relationship??

Several not-upvoted answers here so I am contributing. As a Hetaira Archetype personality person, I have a specific perspective on Relationships. To answer any question, we have to get people to define their terms:

Love - <To Will The Good Of Another> I use the definition from the Catechism (not because I am Catholic, but because it is the best wording I have ever found).
Romantic - <you get to know your partner a lot more intimately> I use the definition from the Urban Dictionary because it is concise
and appealing.
Attachment - (Tag on this site has no description - bummer) Well, this is the crux of the question then, so you-all will need to get to
work on it!

For me, with my personality type, non-attached love is my basic modality. But few people have this personality type, so relationships in general tend to be a mess. (For more info, you can search "Hetaira Archetype" and read the literature.) This personality type is a part of the nature of all humans, because it is part of core psychology (according to Jung and his followers). Everyone can realize it, so the answers saying that it is possible are correct. Good news!
So relationships and the love they express vary mainly in the level of  Intimacy. This is really what we are getting at. Why bother to be intimate? To get to know someone better. Why bother to get to know someone better? Mmm, getting warm. What is your motive for getting to know someone better? [answer for yourself] For Hetaira-people (found everywhere and doing all sorts of things) the motive is to care for someone in personal and intimate ways. Ways that others can not (being not developed and disposed to) or will not (due to apparent issues with other relationships and society at large) or should not (due to other constraints of the situation). IFF your motive and intent are pure - caring without attachment - then the relationship is positively-based. It could actually work. If not, not. You must be very strong in yourself already to live this way. Get strong!
Regarding it being one-sided, I would say that everything is one-sided, and we need only concern ourselves with our own choices. Leave the other side to the other person. A relationship is not ownership or control, so yes, as one Answer states: if they leave for someone else, be happy that they have flitted to a different flower! Your own values should be caring and appreciation, regardless of anything they do. Like a parent, but intimate in a different way.
My Meditation Teacher said that the basis for your actions - your motive and intent - are what matters, in this as in everything.

I see this progression of development: Learn to love self, learn to love another, learn to love a group (family, etc), learn to love many, learn to love all. If you stop at One, you miss most of the development process. Couple relationship is the first step!

I was just on the point of asking this Question today, but I got to Answer it instead.

@ChrisW: Swipe over the two words, Right-click, choose "Search Google for 'Hetaira Archetype' ". Look at the first ten things that come up - many are scholarly references. Read the one that should seem especially relevant to this post. Seems very easy to me. Let me know if that doesn't work as described?

When you say "Hetaira Archetype" I expect you mean, for example, as that is described here: Feminine Quarternity: Queen, Medial, Amazon, Hetaira
(Feminine Archetypes - A Quaternity)

"Love -- definition from the Catechism" I think that "love" is described in Buddhist vocabulary too, for example see here and the corresponding definitions/articles for the Pali words mettā, karuṇā, and muditā. I though Pali was quite clever to use different words for different types of love.

+1 It's a cool answer. I'd like to comment though that you wrote, "the motive is to care for someone". Whereas in this description the primary motive seems to be to "challenge" the male, perhaps to make him develop wisdom. Your "caring" for someone sounds to me like it could be mettā, karuṇā, and/or muditā; whereas in "challenge" I see relatively little of such being necessarily implied.

@ChrisW: I raised your point about personal vs more Community-based Hetaira outlook to my friend Alay'nya, who wrote a 500 page book on the female archetypes. The individual perspective is like what you are saying: a pair relationship of people challenging and interacting for fun and growth. But I see the side of Hetaira that exists to care for everyone in the Community, without choosing, excluding, being partial or making value judgments. Like the Avaloka / Kwan Yin ideal, but interacting personally. This is an indispensable part of making Community work, and existed 5000+ years ago.

With the rise of marriage 5000 years ago (as prosperity grew to where most people were not wandering laborers) The Open Houses were closed and the Hetairas were hunted down and killed (often by stoning to death, as in the Bible...) This went on until fairly recently but was long enough ago that mercifully, we have forgotten. Except that I have not. I am working on getting Sharluka's story published... You might wonder why I am anonymous and cover my tracks. The World needs this knowledge right now. OMG Lepidoptera!

There is no love in attachment. Whenever attachment is present in the mind, there is no love in that mind. Why is that so? Attachment comes from clinging. Clinging comes from craving. Craving comes from willing. Willing comes from ignorance. From ignorance comes suffering. Thus, there is no love in attachment. Attachment is suffering. The more a mind is permeated with attachment, the more there is no love in that mind.
There is love in non-attachment. Whenever non-attachment is present in the mind, there is love in that mind. Why is that so? Non-attachment comes from non-clinging. Non-clinging comes from non-craving. Non-craving comes from non-willing. Non-willing comes from wisdom. From wisdom comes liberation from suffering. Thus, there is love in non-attachment. Non-attachment is love. The more a mind is permeated with non-attachment, the more there is love in that mind.

Is it possible to have a romantic relationship without attachment? Just based on pure love and with equanimity?

Yes, but only if both partners are liberated from suffering while being together in a romantic relationship. If a person liberates from suffering while not being in a romantic relationship, that person will not seek romantic relationships anymore.
If one partner liberates while being in a romantic relationship, he will not seek romantic relationships anymore, but his current romantic relationship will change to "unconditioned love".
If both partners liberate while being together in a romantic relationship, they will not seek romantic relationships anymore, but their current romantic relationship will change to "eternal love". How is a relationship based on "eternal love" experienced? Beyond words.

I read this as a binary (black and white) description: either attachment and ignorance and suffering and no love (at all), or (complete) liberation and wisdom and love and no attachment.

Thx. Correct is: The more attachment, the more no love. The more non-attachment, the more love. I updated my answer.

First of all we should look at what makes LOVE
Love is in a group of emotions

Affection
Attraction
Caring
Appeal
Sex appeal

All these emotions have one basis and it is Attachment,
Without attachment these emotions are Impossible.
So are we incapable of caring for another without attachment?
No,
For example Lord Buddha was very kind to every being and had immense sympathy towards all living beings.
So we can have emotions like....

Sympathy
Kindness
Empathy

These kind of emotions do not need to have an attachment to arise.

So what is Pure Love?
Love is something that is more like a coin,One side is her appearance the other is her attitude or what we call how she is.
So does Pure Love exist?
Let's take a look at the two sides that makes the coin called love!
Physical appearance
His or Her physical appearance is something that has changed over the years which is changing even now and it will continue to change even into the future.
So the change is inevitable,The looks you love will change so much even for you it will be hard to imagine.All the attraction for the looks will fade out slowly in time.And now all you have is the way he or she is to like.Because without any beauty your mind will not be attracted to what it see.And you will adore the memories of the past you had together making an attachment so strong.
Decay,the true tragedy of life....

The attitude
You are the best example for this, look back and see how your attitude changed over the years.
 From home to school,
From school to college and from there to work?
Even you can't memorize it all now can you?
People change and that is something i don't have to explain.
So what's the solution?
It is OK to have relationships and my friend do not be afraid of having to attach yourself to someone because none of us are free from anything (Only an enlightened or an arahant is free from attachments,everyone else either attach or collide with everything they find)
If you are even considering someone to date you are allready attached, that is the truth.
Buddhism do not go against people having relationships.
Just remember People change how they look,walk & talk,literally everything changes and you will have to take it all like a man and lie with the understanding who you love and what that person is a forever changing thing and you will have to accept the fact that what you once saw in that person will most likely disappear in time.
Live with the understanding of things,You will allays have an attachment to him or her but if you are with the understanding that it is only a person who change and you are just like that too and if you understand the fact that one of you might have to say goodbye to the other (Even if you love each other that does not mean death waits for anyone) you will live a happy life and i assure you it will not be a major issue for anything.
May triple gems bless you!


text:
If a substance enhanced the ability to stay mindful, and didnt cause intoxication or carelessness, would it still violate the fifth precept?
this subject is so controversial i cant get a solid explanation.
i am retrying an attempt to find better advice on the subject of continuing unorthodox methods that are controversial if they are truly of benefit to the individuals practice. (even if they may commonly be detrimental to others.)

'truly of benefit to the individuals practice'? could you explain this point?

as in... it helps... with practice.

Given that the fifth precept specifically refers to substances that cause "intoxication and carelessness", such a hypothetical substance would of course not violate it, no.

I didnt think so. Thanks Bhante. I e been getting a lot of benifit from Monk Radio and all your videos, so thanks for that also... :0)

Food substances like Water, Carbohydrates, Fats, Sugar, Protein, Minerals, Vitamins etc. don't violate the 5th precept. They actually nourish the body, if taken in appropriate quantities. That is helpful for the development of the mind as well. Is there anything specific you are referring to?

oh i commented down there... new to the site.

Sati is not recollection. Sati is awareness. Buddhism promotes the right awareness. One can exercise the mind to increase memory capacity. While using a supplement for it does not break the 5th precept, it can cause an addiction. An addiction can be a hindrance to the progress in the path.

Recollection of being attentive to the four foundations of satipatthana might help give a better understanding of my meaning (or view of sati).

Such a substance already does exist, it is called Camellia sinensis also known as ... regular tea! This traditional drink of Zen-Buddhist monks stimulates the mind and enhances one's ability to stay mindful, without causing intoxication or carelessness.

The biographical tradition is littered with apocryphal tales about
  Bodhidharma's life and circumstances. In one version of the story, he
  is said to have fallen asleep seven years into his nine years of
  wall-gazing. Becoming angry with himself, he cut off his eyelids to
  prevent it from happening again. According to the legend, as his
  eyelids hit the floor the first tea plants sprang up; and thereafter
  tea would provide a stimulant to help keep students of Chán awake
  during meditation. (Wikipedia)

Sankha... what im specifically talking about is irrelevant. But the question clears up the use of all kinds of herbal supplements in oriental holistic practices. Take ginko for example... no intoxication, increases bloodtlow to the brain which is said to enhance mental capacity and aid in memory... Sati = Recollection... a faculty of memory.


text:
What are the physiological effects of mindfulness based meditation?
I was meditating on the breath recently and I noticed that my breath slowed to a significant extent (not a huge insight admittedly). So this made me wonder if anyone has measured the effects of mindfulness type meditations on the body while the person is meditating. For instance what is the affect on breath rate, blood pressure, heart rate, the hormonal system and so forth.

Neuro plasticity and meditation

Less in the formal science and more in the do-yourself, I was actually looking for gadges to measure all those things while meditating. Two that caught my attention were Spire (for breathing) and Emotiv (EEG) but I wasn't sure how accurate/useful these would be during the deeper, more calm body/mind states.

This is a bit technical, but shows the positive effects from meditating in some key hormones we produce related to health and stress. I was discussing it with my girlfriend (she is endocrinologist and not buddhist) and she was quite surprised with it.
If you want you can skip to the end of the text to see the conclusion

" Previous studies of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique as
  a possible means of countering effects of stress have reported altered
  levels of several hormones both during the practice and longitudinally
  after regular practice of this technique. In this prospective, random
  assignment study, changes in baseline levels and acute responses to
  laboratory stressors were examined for four hormones-cortisol, growth
  hormone, thyroid-stimulating hormone and testosterone-before and after
  4 months of either the TM technique or a stress education control
  condition. At pre- and post-test, blood was withdrawn continuously
  through an indwelling catheter, and plasma or serum samples were
  frozen for later analysis by radioimmunoassay. The results showed
  significantly different changes for the two groups, or trends toward
  significance, for each hormone over the 4 months. In the TM group, but
  not in the controls, basal cortisol level and average cortisol across
  the stress session decreased from pre- to post-test. Cortisol
  responsiveness to stressors, however, increased in the TM group
  compared to controls. The baselines and/or stress responsiveness for
  TSH and GH changed in opposite directions for the groups, as did the
  testosterone baseline. Overall, the cortisol and testosterone results
  appear to support previous data suggesting that repeated practice of
  the TM technique reverses effects of chronic stress significant for
  health."

source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9226731/

The Buddhist teaching revolves around 2 main pillars:

Stress
The way out of Stress

So the psychological effect of practicing mindfulness meditation is that your come out of stress. This in turn would have physical benefits also. Also 4 scientific studies on how meditation can affect your heart, brain and creativity gives reference to some research on the physiological effects of meditation. Also Slow down! Enjoy life touches on both physiological and psychological benefits. Always the physiological and psychological benefits are always interrelated as we are dealing with Namarupa.
Another aspect of Buddhist meditation is that when you do Vipassana, your old fabrication / conditioning / karma surfaces as sensations and then pass away. If the you have a physical illness which is either psychosomatic in nature or Karmic in nature there is a chance that it might be heal by the passing away of the Karmic conditioning which might be causing the disorder.
Following additional references also may be of value (This is more on psychology but this has a knock on effect on physiology):

Buddhism and Modern Psychology
Buddhist Meditation and the Modern World

Thanks for the answer but it's physiological not psychological so effects on body not mind. Appreciate that might be grey area but more thinking about blood pressure, breathing or perhaps the actual structure of the brain

Is this compatible with the question now?