text:
Occasional doubt in Buddhist Teachings
For about two years now I have been reading about Buddhism (Theravada) and have been trying to meditate and contemplate the Buddhist teachings. From this I have experienced some calm and a feeling of well being in my life but sometimes I feel doubt in this and fear that maybe I am deluding myself. I have been skeptical of religions for a long time but for past couple of years I have "experimented" with Buddhism since I found some agreement between Buddhism and positive psychology. How can I deal with these moments of doubt?

Might it help to say what kind of thing you're doubting (or what belief you think might be deluded), and why?

no problem with doubt, unless you are unsure if you are harming yourself [or others] in some way. if the latter why not take a look at the path of purification? it may help you be sure that what you're trying to do has worthwhile antecedents

These moments of doubt is exactly when you are making the choice to be happy or not. If you trust your own hope for the best and go for it, without reluctance, you will progressively arrive at a place when you get enough evidence that it works, and the doubt will melt away. Just don't cling to the pessimistic leg of the ambiguity fork, out of fear.

Abhidhamma is the answer for doubting person (vicikicchā-mind-factor just arise with pure moha-mind).
Commentary said that in 3 pitaka:

Vinaya-pitaka is for alobha-meditation.
Sutta-pitaka is for adosa-meditation.
Abhidhamma-pitaka is for amoha-meditation.

Why?
One must leaves every lay's asset, lobha's object, for observing vinaya in vinaya-pitaka. So, vinaya-pitaka is for alobha-development (ordinate to observe monk's sīla).
One must leaves every kāma-loka's senses by jhāna, for living like bhrahmma-deva, like anāgami done. Kāma-loka's senses are causes of dosa, too. Therefore anagāmi, who abadoned paṭiga-anusaya (dosa), abandoned next life in kāma-loka, too. And sutta is very less description, very short, and very less question, when compare with abhidhamma, because buddha taught sutta for the listeners who had experiences in upacāra-jhāna, appanā-jhāna, or upacāra-jhāna-like (ditthi-caritta [uggaṭitaññu & vipacitaññu]). Samahitam cittam yathabhutam pajanati (Good concentrating practitioner will see the truth). So, suttanta-pitaka is for adosa-development (concentration-meditation).
Buddha taught abhidhamma to sāriputta very long description and sāriputta taught paṭisambhidāmagga & niddesa very long description, too. Also, there are millions questions in those canons. Because buddha and sāriputta taught abhidhamma-pitaka for the listeners who have a ton of questions, low concentrating in meditation object, and too much doubts. So, abhidhamma-pitaka is for amoha-development (wisdom/understand-meditation).
So, if you want the answers for every doubts, full-course  abhidhamma-study is required by your doubt. Everything in abhidhamma must can analysis their own reasons (causes and effects). So, your doubts can not doubt anymore, after you understand throughout  abhidhamma.

It seems like you are afflicted with one of The Five Hindrances called Doubt.
From Gil Fronsdal, we find a description of doubt below, quoted from here, and he differentiates between "hindering doubt" and "questioning doubt".

Doubt as a hindrance is a mental preoccupation involving indecision,
  uncertainty, and lack of confidence. It causes a person to hesitate,
  vacillate, and not settle into meditation practice. Its simplest
  manifestation can be a lack of clarity about the meditation
  instruction, which may be settled quickly with further instruction.
  More dramatically, doubt can involve deep, fiery inner conflicts and
  fears stirred up by the practice. All along the spectrum, doubt can
  keep the mind agitated, perhaps simmering in discursive thought and
  feelings of inadequacy. Alternatively it can deflate the mind, robbing
  it of interest and energy.
“Hindering doubt” is not the same as “questioning doubt.” Doubt as a
  hindrance leads to inaction and giving up. Questioning doubt inspires
  action and the impulse to understand. It can, in fact, be helpful for
  mindfulness practice. A questioning attitude encourages deeper
  investigation. It is a healthy doubt that can overcome complacency and
  loosen preconceived ideas.
Hindering doubt takes many forms. It can be doubt in the practice, in
  the teachings, in one’s teachers, and, most dangerously, in oneself.
  Doubt may not appear until one is actually beginning to practice. A
  person may spend months happily anticipating a meditation retreat
  only, upon arrival, to doubt whether it is the right place, time, or
  retreat to be on.
Doubt is often accompanied by discursive thinking. Sometimes thoughts
  can appear reasonable and convincing enough to mask the underlying
  doubt prompting them. But regardless of whether it is reasonable or
  not, the discursive thinking can interfere with the meditation
  practice and so confirm doubts that the practice is not working. In
  other words, doubt can be self-fulfilling.

If you have questioning doubt regarding the teachings, then you should start investigating deeply.
If you have hindering doubt regarding the teachings, read below and further on the website.

Once hindering doubt is recognized, there are various ways of working
  with it. Occasionally a period of careful contemplation may resolve
  the doubt. When doubt involves uncertainty about the practice or the
  teachings, it is helpful to study, learn and reflect on the Dharma
  itself. Asking a teacher or having a talk with a dharma friend may
  also help in this regard. Having a clear understanding of the Buddha’s
  teachings on what is skillful and what is unskillful can go a long way
  toward overcoming doubt.
(snipped)
Finally, it can be helpful to remember something that inspires you in
  the practice, such as a teaching, a person, or some experience you
  have had in the practice. Bringing this to mind may remind you of why
  you are doing the practice and how much you value it. It may gladden
  the heart enough to clear away the clouds of doubt. It may even
  encourage you to rededicate your efforts to transform everything into
  your path to freedom, including the hindrances.

I was born into a vietnamese family, so buddhism was a natural part of my life. Maybe it's due to karma I was reborn into my situation, meaning I maybe believed in my past life, so was reborn into a situation where the belief was present?
As for you, I don't know. I am a Theravada Buddhist these past years (different from the Mahayana Buddhism upbringing of mine). You could try visiting buddhist temples of non-Theravadan lineage -- like Vietnamese Mahayanist temples -- just to experience it, and maybe even learn meditation from them (I suggest learning breathing meditation from them). The experience in the Mahayana temples may make you happy, maybe give you faith in Buddhism in general; and if you learn breathing meditation -- in your lower abdomen -- from them, that may give you great happiness...
The differences in the teachings between Mahayana Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism can then be worked out. This was what happened to me. It wasn't planned. I went with Theravada Buddhism later. All I've said is one way it could be done, but don't know if it would turn out good enough in the end -- like for me it did. But note again: it was not planned; but what I'm doing is giving you a "plan" based on my life.
Okay, that was just a "plan". Let's get right to Theravada Buddhism. Here is a good book on Theravada Buddhism to maybe help you sort out your doubts:
'Good Question, Good Answer' by Bhante Dhammika
https://www.bhantedhammika.net/good-question-good-answer

Doubts mean that you are looking at the same problem in different angles... isn't' that so. For example,

There can be no right or wrong answers to most of the questions you have and you really have to keep making mistakes and follow the path your heart chooses. Same with the things in Buddhism...

I was and probably still am a skeptical person. A couple of tips: Don't force yourself to believe in anything (especially far reaching goals like enlightenment and rebirt etc because you cannot prove them to yourself). Rather, test the teaching out step by step and do not digest to much teachings at once. Practise certain meditations like loving kindness in a step by step manner and see if you feel better. Read for example the first five or so paragraphs by the dhammapada and look if they make sense and stay there for a couple days or weeks to gain confidence.. make much of them.. cultivate it (bhavana). If doubt arises talk to yourself and remind yourself that everything can be criticised and to seek for the ultimate truth is a waste of time.. if you judge a person is that ultimate truth? No? Is science ultimate truth? No, also constantly changing. And keep in mind that whenever someone criticises something or you do it by yourself you should only allow or regard it if it's 1. constructive and 2. your have a good replacement at hand, otherwise it's a waste of precious time and mentally draining. You could ask yourself for example: What are reall the disadvantages of loving kindness? Almost none. What are the disadvantages (both long and short term) of not meditating, being kind, chasing worldly things.. Isn't the mind causing most suffering? Have an internal dialogue and do so repeatedly. This comes from my own experience.


text:
Why did Buddha praise the vedic Agnihotra as the foremost sacrifice?
Why Buddha praises the vedic Agnihotra as the foremost sacrifice and the Gayatri mantra as the foremost meter in the Pali Canon?

aggihuttamukhā yaññā sāvittī chandaso mukham.
Sacrifices have the agnihotra as foremost; of meter the foremost is
  the Sāvitrī

"On the Buddha's Use of Some Brahmanical Motifs in Pali Texts"

Your quote is not from theravāda-pali canon.

@Bonn Which quote?

Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ

@Bonn when did I say it is from Theravada pali Canon? Are there any mantras in that Canon?

@Bonn You're interested only in Pali Canon? Okay then I will ask you. Why the Buddha praises the vedic Agnihotra as the foremost sacrifice and the Gayatri mantra as the foremost meter in Pali canon?

I answered below.

I think this is merely an attempt to find a Buddhist endorsement to Hindu rituals. You have to give up Hinduism if you want to practice Buddhism. This faith by endorsement thing won't work at all.

Your quoted text is from M.N. Selasutta, that buddha taught to selabrahmaṇa:

aggihuttamukhā yaññā sāvittī chandaso mukham.
Sacrifices have the agnihotra as foremost; of meter the foremost is the Sāvitrī

So, buddha didn't taught veda. Buddha just use selabrahmaṇa's knowledge, veda, to teach him the last line:

puññaṃ ākaṅkhamānānaṃ, saṅgho ve yajataṃ mukha’’nti
Saṅgha is the best foremost of wholesome-mind developers.

This last line is the real buddha's teaching. Your quoted line, veda, was used by buddha just as a simile, as a tool to make selabrahmmaṇa understand the last line.
Your quote is similar: it references an example of brahmaṇa-people's best thing, to show sela-brahmaṇa how the last line is the best. Only that last line is the buddha's teaching; your quote is just a borrowed example, which buddha borrowed from brahmaṇa's veda, to teach  sela-brahmaṇa the last line.
How can you teach a new language to a foreigner? You use their already-known language to teach them new language, right? That is what buddha did.

What's the connection with the last line and my Agnihotra quote?

Your quote is the similar example of brahmaṇa-people's best thing, to show sela-brahmaṇa that how the last line is the best. So, just that last line is the buddha's teaching, your quote is just a borrowed example that buddha borrowed from brahmaṇa's veda to teach  sela-brahmaṇa the last line.

Buddha has clearly praised  Vedic things except animal sacrifices. It's just that you're oblivious to it. You're reinterpreting what Buddha actually meant there.

No, no where in theravāda tipitaka-pāli and commentary-pāli looks like you said. I recite, memorize, and research tipitaka-pāli for many years. I never saw something like you said.
When you use current government-made stuff, it doesn't mean you supporting or agree with this government.

Isn't samyutta nikaya part of pali Canon?

Your quoted text is the part of pāli, but the meaning of it doesn't mean buddha  praised Vedic things. It is just an example for comparison.

I don't know how Samyutta nikaya is classified? Samyutta Nikaya 111? What does this mean?

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23846/can-someone-explain-the-difference-classification-and-referencing-between-englis

@OnkarKarambe Apparently the phrase is used in two or three suttas, including SN 111 and MN 92. Bonn referenced MN 92 (in Pali): here is an English translation of MN 92 if you want to read the whole sutta. The connection is, the sutta says, "[Like] the fire sacrifice is the chief sacrifice ... the Communities of Bhikkhus is the chief to those desiring merit." If he'd been talking with a race-car driver instead of a brahman, he might instead have said "Like the Ferrari is the fastest car" oslt.

@OnkarKarambe The Ajanna Sutta is a good example. The Buddha first spoke about the nature and behaviour of an excellent breed of horse, and then used that as a simile to explain the nature and behaviour of an excellent monk. It doesn't mean that the Buddha is an expert on horses, or is giving advice about horses. The Parable of the Poison Arrow and the Parable of Simsapa Leaves are more examples of Buddha's use of similes and metaphors. The house builder in the Dhammapada is another good metaphor.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
can you help translate dhammpada 183?
Would love to get a word by word trnslation to this verse dhammpada 183
Verse 183: Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.
i mean what every word means   -   and yes im a bit lazy to do it not that important  but i guess some people here know pali and it will be easy for them to do  -  if it takes more than a few minutes than leave it ... its still beneficial people see this verse which i think is great
i just seen that  sabba in the first word Sabbapapassa  means "all"
and "ku salassa"    is  kusala   meaning good ?  is it made of two words ?
Sabbapapassa akaranam
ku salassa upasampada
sacittapariyodapanam
etam buddhana sasanam.
taken from this link  :
http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=183

Click here and hover over the words with the mouse.

It dosnt show a translation or anything when i hover over the words  (nice link non the less so thanks)

To make Thiago's suggestion work I think you need to enable the online dictionary:1) scroll to the top of the page 2) click on the "triple bar"options button on the left end of the menu bar at the top of the page 3) click on "Controls" 4) select "Pali -> English" as a lookup language. It should say "downloading dictionary" and "The lookup dictionary is now enabled. Hover with the mouse to display the meaning."

Sabba - all
pāpassa - of the evil/sin/
akaraṇam-non-doing
kusalassa-of the wholesome
upasampadā-acquiring/undertaking
sacitta-own mind
pariyodapanam-purification
etam-this
buddhāna-of the Buddhas
sāsanam-teaching/dispensation
Note that “assa” means ‘of the’ (genitive singular)

and "pāp" means sin or evil ?

Pāpa -- "evil, wrong doing, sin"

@breath To use the PTS dictionary: 1) Type in the first few letters of the word you're searching for, enable "Search entry words only (not definitions)", and select "Words starting with  (Example: bud)" 2) If you don't find a result try again with fewer of the initial letters 3) Beware that vowels like a and ā are different 4) If you don't get a result and if the word begins with a, try searching for the word without the initial a.

Why is there a sabba=all   before  papassa    and not before kusalassa ?
maybe the first sabba  means also the wholesome actions as well and not just the word it is attached to (papassa) ?

Yes, you can take as applying to both. There can always be a little ambiguity in sentences (in any language).  Wisdom of the reader/translator is also involved in finding a reasonable. For example: if the sentence were “the removal of all evil, the cultivation of the wholesome...”, one could ask “What’s ro be cultivated? all wholesome or only a few...”. For example, in the translation that you provided near the top of the question, “all” is left out entirely. The meaning doesn’t really change much.

just wondered if there  might be some deep meaning to the reason there was all to one of them  - or it just applies to both   ....    thanks for the reply

@breath It's verse (poetry) -- maybe that's a reason for the number of syllables.

What about this idea :  that one should avoid all types of bad actions but dosnt have to do all types of good actions   ?  seems like a good explanation why there is an all just before the unwholesome and not before the wholesome  ....  is that also what you wrote gotamist when you wrote :

" one could ask “What’s ro be cultivated? all wholesome or only a few...”"

I am very nice to see your question. There are at least 2 elements too deeply understand whole tipitaka, 1. tipitaka in original pāli and 2. strong memorizing that whole tipitaka-pāli.
Your doubt can not clear by word by word translation, but it will clear by deep understand each pāli-word's description.
So, I will give you word by word translation, and a link for each pāli word's description. It looks like commentary and abhidhamma, but the fact is pāli-words link each other by themselves. I just show that pāli-relationship to you:

sabba-pāpassa akaraṇaṃ, kusalassa upasampadā;

Whole-unwholesome-mind (whole 3 akusala-mind-types and whole 5 akusala-mind-factor-types=14 akusala-mind-factors with 13 general mind-factors) is not doing (by practitioner),
Whole-wholesome-mind (whole 4 kusala-mind-types, and whole 4 kusala-mind-factor-types=25 kusala-mind-factors with 13 general mind-factors) is done (by practitioner);

sacittapariyodapanaṃ, etaṃ buddhāna sāsanaṃ.

Own-mind is perfect done to be pure (by perfect practiced arahanta-ariya; arahatta-phala [best magga-kamma's vipāka]),
This every sequence, 3 sequences, is teaching of every buddha.

khantī paramaṃ tapo titikkhā, nibbānaṃ paramaṃ vadanti buddhā;

Khanti, Enduring, is the best of mind-practice (when you break up endure-meditation, the other meditations will finish, too).
'Nibbāna is the best (of all above line)' every buddha said the same.

na hi pabbajito parūpaghātī, na samaṇo hoti paraṃ viheṭhayantoฯ

Especially (for to be a monk), no any the breaking-up person (=monk who is enduring to breaking above whole-unwholesome-mind) hurts the others,
No any the peace person (=monk who is enduring to meditate peaceful path such as above whole-wholesome-mind, arahatta-phala, and nibbāna) attachs the others.

anūpavādo anūpaghāto, pātimokkhe ca saṃvaro;

(Endure to) Don't damn or hurt  anyone (by mettā meditation and karuṇa meditation),
(Endure to) observe in (5 types) saṃvara (=4 pārisuddhisīla);

mattaññutā ca bhattasmiṃ, pantañca sayanāsanaṃ;

(Endure to) be a person who (know how to) eat smart in foods,
(Endure to) be a person who (know how to) suffice for furniture;

adhicitte ca āyogo, etaṃ buddhāna sāsanaṃฯ

(Endure to) make an effort to meditate adhicitta (concentration meditation),
This every practice (above) is teaching of every buddha.

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


text:
Can someone explain the difference classification and referencing between english tipitaka and thai tipitaka?
It is very hard for me to find english translation tipitaka online, because it's classification look like very difference from thai and burma tipitaka.
Also, english translation tipitaka online have not all tipitaka part. Many part of pāli canon looks lost from english translation.

Is this question is a duplicate of (already answered by) the topic Tripitaka Section Numbering?

Thank you. Should I delete this question?

It's isn't necessary to delete it. SE suggest that this kind of closed-but-not-deleted topic can be a useful signpost to future readers. If you searched for something and didn't find it before you asked this question, the next person who does the same search as you did will find this question (and thus be directed towards the topic which answers it).


text:
Best way to develop different meditation practices (simultaneously or not)
I got introduced to Buddhist meditation through the practice of meta and the cultivation of the four bramaviharas. It was going well but I decided I needed the ability to separate my ego and my will. For this, I thought vipassana would be the right tool. After doing some readings, however, it became apparent that to properly do vipassana I would have to develop my concentration with samadhi. At this time I almost solely do samadhi concentration meditation.
I am a lay person and feel I don't have time to do the different meditation sessions per day, one each for meta, samadhi, and vipassana. Yet I see benefits in them all and would like to master all three.
Do you have any guidelines on how to incorporate different styles of meditation into my practice? Is it best to stick with one for a while, then move on to another? Is it best to rotate on a daily basis? Is it best to do a combination of all three in one sitting?
Also, the question can be repeated for meditating on the four bramaviharas. Is it best to do them one by one, all at once, or something else?

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Help Center with useful resources that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

Ideally what you should be doing is a different kind of Ānāpānassati Meditation. What almost everyone will try to do is the "breath mediation” or “mindfulness of breathing”.  Very few of us know that Ānāpānasati is infinitely more deeper than just focusing on one’s breath.
In many suttās it is described as assāsa/passāsa, which conventionally means taking in / putting out of something, and particularly to breathing in / breathing out. My advice to you is to take “So satōva assāsati, satōva passāsati” to mean “He maintains his mind on dhamma (what is beneficial) that should be taken in (kusala or moral) and those that should be gotten rid of (akusala or immoral)”.
“Assa” is same as “āna”, and “passa” is the same as “āpāna”. When  “sati” is added for being mindful of that, it becomes ānāpānassati. So, from now on, what ever that you do, wherever that you go, from the time you wake up, and until the time that you go to bed, try to be selective in taking in “good things” and throwing away “things that are not beneficial”. That is where mindfulness comes in. That cannot be done with breath.
That means basically all the time! One just needs to be mindful of one’s actions, speech, and thoughts, and stop bad ones and cultivates good ones.
Try to be like a “rukkhamūla”. “rukkha” is “tree” and “mūla” is the “root”; even though the top of a tree sways back and forth with the wind, the tree trunk close to the root is very stable. Thus take “rukkhamūla gatō vā” to mean getting to a stable mindset. Get into a calm and stable mindset that is devoid of greed, hate, and ignorance; keep a modest attitude without any sense of superiority; be forthright and honest, and keep the mind on the main object of cooling down the mind”. That can be done anywhere, a formal seated meditation is not needed, even though that could be helpful.

The first thing that must be said is that metta, the Brahma-vihara, samadhi, and mindfulness meditation (vipassana) are closely related and are major practices of Theravadin Buddhism. Metta, of course, in one of the four practices of the Brahma-viharas. And the practice of mindfulness meditation has the purpose of bring psychological insight into karma (sankhara), including the sankhara or origins of the Brahma-vihara deep within the unconscious mind. The proper practice of mindfulness meditation requires achieving a state of upacara samadhi. For some people, the practice of samadhi helps a person develop the state of calm needed to achieve upacara samadhi. According to traditional Theravadin Buddhism, the practice of mindfulness meditation is the only practice that facilitates progress towards Enlightenment. Of the four Brahma-viharas, only the contemplation of compassion is directly conducive to gaining insight into the karma of other people, the kind of knowledge needed to help relieve the suffering of others. This is the view of Theravadin Buddhism. Mahayana and Zen Buddhism have different views.

Having provided a traditional reply to this question, I see a need to address the phrase “the ability to separate my ego and my will.” This phrase is probably a (mistaken) reference to the notions of anatta (no self) in Theravadin and Mahayana Buddhism. Part of the problem of understanding anatta is that the two notions are very different from one another. According to Peter Harvey, in his book, The Selfless Mind, the Self (atman in Sanskrit) was “not a personal ‘self’” and was beyond the experience of an “empirical individuality.” In fact, the experience of this atman could be achieved only through samadhi. The objective of Hindu meditation was to experience this Self. According to Theravadin Buddhism, this experience of Self was an illusion because it was experienced as having no cause. (All objects experienced in the state of samadhi appear to be without cause, an illusion created by the experience of only one object at a time, a property of samadhi.) This experience of Self is not an experience of ego, which is the experience of a personal or empirical self. In order to defeat this notion of atman, the Buddha merely needed to point out that the self experienced in ordinary life, in a state of upacara samadhi, or even through one of the siddhis, was a composite and/or product of interacting factors. In essence, the Buddha was advising people to not bother looking for this Self because it did not exist to begin with.
But this is not the view developed by Nagarjuna of Mahayana Buddhism. For Mahayana Buddhism, the personal or empirical self is a serious problem that can be overcome only by an experience of sunyata (emptiness or absolute truth) while in a state of samadhi. Hence, according to Mahayana Buddhism, the existence of an empirical self or ego is merely a relative truth and not an absolute truth. It is important to observe that the belief in an “ego” or a “will” is in the realm of relative truth and both beliefs are false in the realm of absolute truth. The belief that anyone has “the ability to separate my ego and my will” is therefore not true from the point of view of either Theravadin or Mahayana Buddhism. It is entirely possible, of course, that it may be considered to be true from the point of view of another religion or philosophy. Such a consideration is beyond my expertise.
Just for the record, the concept of ego is a reference to object causality while the concept of will is a reference to process causality. All mental and bodily actions can be viewed from the point of view of either concept of causality. In the case of object causality, we talk about a person as the cause of his or her actions. In the case of process causality, we talk about a sequence of cognitive processes starting with perception, various decision-making processes, the selection of a best action plan, and ending with the performance of a particular action. In essence, object causality (ego) is merely short-hand for process causality (will). Viewed in this way, trying to “separate” the two does not make sense.


text:
Did Pudgalavada Buddhists claim the the "person" existed between lives and / or in one life?
Did Pudgalavada Buddhists claim the the "person" existed between lives and / or in one life?
The Pudgalavadins were an old school of Buddhists who thought there was a person. I'm currently unclear whether that is ultimately, in the sense that Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists use the term 'ultimate'.
They debated about this with e.g. the Vibhajyavada sect, which I think later became Theravada Buddhism. You can read about the canonical dismissal of it in Theravada Buddhism in the 1st chapter of their Kathavatthu.

To clarify, one of my links say

It is this self, they maintained, that dies and is reborn through
  successive lives in Samsara, continuing to exist until enlightenment
  is attained.

Is this the same person, each life?

The article you quoted says, "It is this self, they maintained, that dies and is reborn through successive lives in Samsara, continuing to exist until enlightenment is attained."

@ChrisW i didn't quote the article. a more reliable source would be good, but thanks :)

'continuing to exist' definitely suggests that the same "person" exists, each life. can't remember my motivation for this question now!

I would not go as far as to call Pudgalavada "a school", as with most early Buddhism there were people who held certain position, that later received a name and was used for comparison with mainstream traditions.
If I remember correctly, Pudgalavadins claimed that person exists for all practical intents and purposes, so I think that means conventional existence, not ultimate. You should be able to find more details on Pudgalavada in Ch. 9 of Abhidharmakosa-Bhasya of Vasubandhu. See this for a quick summary - pp. 89-91:

The Pudgalavadins introduce the notion that persons are conceived on the basis of the skandhas as fire is conceived in reliance upon fuel without being other than or the same in existence as fuel.
  Pudgalavadins assert that in addition to phenomena that are conditioned & unconditioned (samskrta/asamskrta),
  impermanent and permanent (anitya/nitya), the 12 ayatanas, the 18 dhatus, etc., there are, in addition, phenomena that are
  inexplicable (avakrtavya). For the Pudgalavadins, conventional realities may be substantially established (as they are for the
  Vaibhasikas) or inexplicable. Inexplicable entities are entities without separate identities – they are neither the same as, nor
  different from, the skandhas. The Pudgalavadins reject the logic that everything is either substantially real or substantially
  established. Inexplicable persons are conventional realities insofar as they are conceived in dependence upon the skandhas,
  but ultimately exist insofar as they exist apart from being conceived. Persons are single entities without separate identities, an
  inexplicable unity.
  The Pudgalavadins maintain that the person is perceived through an inexplicable
  perception incidental to a consciousness perceiving its proper object. It is an inexplicable perception because it is neither the
  same nor different from the perception of the object.
  The basic attitude of Vasubandhu, and others, toward
  the Pudgalavadins is that in their theory of persons, it can appear that the person is substantially real, despite attempts by the
  Pudgalavadins to refute this attribution.

Mahayana, in particular Tibetan Nyingma tradition, insists that to say that person conventionally exists still leaves the mind grasping after the person, so more for didactic than for analytical purposes they say that there is no person is the right view. See "Mipham's Beacon of Certainty" (Mipham uses the traditional rhetoric of "snake", "vase" etc. but what he means is person, or entity in the broad sense)
Also see Satyasiddhisastra of Harivarman pages 67-74 for various other views around Pudgala and their refutations. As of late I consider Satyasiddhisastra a key text providing the missing link between Early Buddhism and Mahayana, with Abhidharmakosa and Mulamadhyamakakarika correspondingly on one and the other sides of the divide (conceptually, not chronologically).

Thanks for the comment, and I (think i) agree with the 2nd paragraph. You didn't totally answer my question, though, which is about rebirth and life.

Updated the answer with sources, plz see above.

I'm not very familiar with all the technical terms or schools things, but many of the Early Buddhist Schools original works are preserved in the Chinese Canon, such as, doctrine of Vibhajyavada sect should be found.
But to another half of your title question:

...the “person” existed between lives and / or in one life?

Xuanzang's (玄奘 602–664CE) Karika on the Eight Consciousness has this piece:
去後來先作主翁. Means, the Alaya the last leaving the dying body and the first entering the concoction when life conceived. However, in other Sutras, the Buddha did stress that he hesitated to teach about this higher teaching for those unfitted would mistakenly grasping it as the Self, he only taught it to the qualified. Thus, Alaya shouldn't be simply equated as a "person", in this sense.
Nagarjuna clearly analyzed in his Madhyamaka, that saying there is Self or there isn't Self both are wrong.
There is huge misunderstanding about "mind stream" in convention Buddhist scholastic discussion; related to the Anatman/Anatta notion. Thus it inevitably caused awkward and unnecessary argument about if there is rebirth or not. This is mainly due to the incomplete understanding by referring to the incomplete teachings. If, those scholars or conventional Buddhists have the access to the Mahayana Canon, especially the Chinese, they shouldn't have this doubt. The mind stream never ceases, whether live or dead. Yet the mind stream also never is a stream, like a stream filled fully with water. It's more like the blinking light-bulbs on the X'mas tree, because they are blinking so fast, it gives you an illusion the lights trailing from end to end, like a stream of light. This is my metaphor why it appeared there a person. One is able to understand properly if one read and got the meaning from the higher teachings preserved in Mahayana Sutras.

i'm more or less in agreement, i think

glad you got it :)

i kinda didn't, but i do now. i don't practice much. gratefully.


text:
When you get a nightmare could the message in it be right?
Some people have the ability to have for-spelling dreams. Imagine that someones'face changes into a devil and making a nightmare of it, could this be a dream revealing to the dreamer some information about other peoples state.
Or can only demons'revealing dreams which are calm contain true messages?
So this question concerns people who are usually gifted with visions etc.

Do you want an answer from any specific school of Buddhism?

No, any school would be ok.

How would a "correct" answer be picked here?

There's a Theravada answer to the general topic here: What do buddha taught about dreams?

Maybe, maybe not.
Negative dreams indicate evil or negative thoughts inside of you.
Interpreting dreams is mentioned as a Wrong means of livelihood for monks (DN 2 and elsewhere).
If you want to have no negative dreams practice cultivating, developing, and pursuing loving-kindness towards all beings (metta).
It is mentioned as one of the 11 advantages of developing loving-kindness (metta):

"Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release
  (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of
  loving-kindness (metta), by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by
  constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as
  a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by
  living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into
  practice, and by establishing them. What are the eleven?

He sleeps in comfort.
He awakes in comfort.
He sees no evil dreams.
He is dear to human beings.
He is dear to non-human
  beings.
Devas protect him.
Fire, poison, and weapons cannot
  touch him.
His mind can concentrate quickly.
His countenance is
  serene.
He dies without being confused in mind.
If he fails to
  attain arahantship here and now, he will be
  reborn in the brahma-realm.

(AN 11.15)

Therefore try to concentrate and pervade your entire body and mind with loving-kindness on a daily basis to gain these 11 advantages.

For your title question:

When you get a nightmare could the message in it be right?

The short answer is no.
I'm not very clear about your elaboration in explaining the title.
What dream is, is that the fragments of concepts and experiences left in the memory re-associated themselves without immediate sensual organs' input, during sleep. Dharma Master Xuanzang (玄奘法師 602–664CE) has very profound explanation on how this happened with his neat Karika on the Eight Consciousness of Yogacara teaching.
In short, dream or nightmare is your mind's contriving and unreal. Yet, due to dream happened without the sensual input's limitation and censorship, therefore, it's not confined in spatial-temporal. In this sense, it could have fore-telling function, or reveal the true meaning of past experiences. It's very rare though, required quite a purified mind.
On the other hand, other dimension of beings could penetrate into a mind in dream which dwelt in the same dimension, therefore, what your "demons" could be this type of thing. However, it's only your mind allowed it's manifestation. But in dream your mind, normal people, is helpless in controlling it. Thus, you will be frightened, they seemed able to harm you, etc. This could happen in meditative stage, for the same reason; for you are accessing your mind, disconnecting from your body. The inside is the outside, the outside the inside. But it's even more rare, very very few people could really do meditation this day, except gleaning a little bit of relief and comfort by sitting without thinking, or doing nothing, compared to the hectic daily life. The teaching of meditation is lost.

In Zen, specifically as it relates to the Yogacara school, there is the concept of the alaya vijnana.  This is said to be the root consciousness of the individual.  To give a very quick gloss, this root consciousness contains within it all sense impressions (e.g. the five senses, the mind, etc.).  It holds them as a kind of potential energy that in turn can influence everything from our reactions, to our thoughts, and even our physical form.
In the dream state (as well as within deep states of meditation) the alaya vijnana is more accessible.  The patterns that emerge in dreams or in visions are the language of the root consciousness.  While they do convey "truth" in a sense, there is one caveat to working with them - the discursive mind is utterly unsuited for ferreting out their "meaning".  As with koan practice (and koans are very much like dreams), the more we ponder and ruminate over our dreams, the further away we are from the "meaning" that our root consciousness is attempting to express.  If we are to explore our dreams at all, they should be approached with a mind purified by jhana practice.

Keep in mind that dreams are your conscious and subconscious talking, they are essentially you speaking to yourself and can reveal how you feel about things on the subconscious level.
The Bardo of the dream state is said to be "double-deluded" meaning our day to day lives are an illusion, but the dream state is doubly so.
However, there is a Tibetan practice called dream yoga that turns the doublely deluded dream state into an opportunity to practice

To benefit from doing dream yoga a practitioner should realise the dream-like nature of
  appearances. They should also have a proper and strong motivation and the determination
  to use the dream state in their practice. Normally, if you experience drowning in a dream,
  fear arises. In dream yoga practice, you can change that condition by first recognising you
  are dreaming and then by performing extraordinary activities, like miracles. Being able to
  do this is a sign of success in the practice of dream yoga, but success depends very
  much on your previous accumulation of positive actions. In other words, success depends
  on your mundane activities which in turn get reflected in the dream state.

Some more resources on Dream Yoga can be found here, and here


text:
Increases in Physical Energy, Virya
I had conjectured that a few things could increase my energy. Lately, I wonder about physical and mental energy. I thought of reading as expending effort, but I realize now reading is mostly a mental activity. Aside from physical activity, what activities can help with energy? Here, I ask specifically about:

Meditation's effect on physical energy and vigour
Any other activity potentially linked with energy and vigour: possibly chores, activities involving movement, activities not involving movement, etc.

Thank you.

The Kusita-Arambhavatthu Sutta (AN8.80) provides eight grounds for the arousal of energy. In the original Pali version, it appears that the word used is "viriya".

"There are these eight grounds for the arousal of energy. Which eight?
"There is the case where a monk has some work to do. The thought
  occurs to him: 'I will have to do this work. But when I am doing this
  work, it will not be easy to attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't
  I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the
  attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is
  the first grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has done some work. The thought
  occurs to him: 'I have done some work. While I was doing work, I
  couldn't attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I make an effort
  for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he
  makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the
  reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized. This is the second grounds for the arousal of
  energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has to go on a journey. The
  thought occurs to him: 'I will have to go on this journey. But when I
  am going on the journey, it will not be easy to attend to the Buddha's
  message. Why don't I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of
  the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the
  attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is
  the third grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has gone on a journey. The
  thought occurs to him: 'I have gone on a journey. While I was going on
  the journey, I couldn't attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I
  make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the
  reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the fourth grounds for
  the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a
  village or town, does not get as much coarse or refined food as he
  needs to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: 'I, having gone
  for alms in a village or town, have not gotten as much coarse or
  refined food as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is light &
  suitable for work. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the
  attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is
  the fifth grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a
  village or town, does get as much coarse or refined food as he needs
  to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: 'I, having gone for
  alms in a village or town, have gotten as much coarse or refined food
  as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is light & suitable for
  work. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized?'1 So he makes an effort for
  the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is
  the sixth grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk comes down with a slight illness.
  The thought occurs to him: 'I have come down with a slight illness.
  Now, there's the possibility that it could get worse. Why don't I make
  an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the
  reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the seventh grounds for
  the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has recovered from his illness,
  not long after his recovery. The thought occurs to him: 'I have
  recovered from my illness. It's not long after my recovery. Now,
  there's the possibility that the illness could come back. Why don't I
  make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained,
  the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the eighth grounds for
  the arousal of energy.
"These are the eight grounds for the arousal of energy."

If you consider the ability to concentrate the mind, as a kind of mental energy, then according to the Mettanisamsa Sutta (AN11.16), metta or loving kindness is one way to gain mental concentration easily:

"Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release
  (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of
  loving-kindness (metta), by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by
  constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as
  a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by
  living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into
  practice, and by establishing them. What are the eleven?
. 1. "He sleeps in comfort. 2. He awakes in comfort. 3. He sees no evil dreams. 4. He is dear to human beings. 5. He is dear to non-human
  beings. 6. Devas (gods) protect him. 7. Fire, poison, and sword cannot
  touch him. 8. His mind can concentrate quickly. 9. His countenance is
  serene. 10. He dies without being confused in mind. 11. If he fails to
  attain arahantship (the highest sanctity) here and now, he will be
  reborn in the brahma-world.

Buddha shared his experience eating one meal a day before noon from Bhuddali Sutta

...experience few afflictions, few ailments, lightness, power, and a pleasant abiding....

tho in pali, Buddha didn't use Virya, he used "balañca".  I think it matches your question well as it means physical strength. Maybe "lightness" from sutta matches "vigor" from your question?  thanks

In this translation, it's "strength" instead of "power".

thanks.  i saw that too.  question seems to be about physical energy but , Virya is mentioned there.   to me Virya, viriya means towards more of mental strength (or even motivation) than physical strength as in sutta AN8.80 you mentioned in your answer.  Hopefully our answers are enough to cover the question.   Also came to mind was five benefit from walking mediation, but after refreshing my memories, they seem to be around increasing stamina than physical strength.  anyway, i think we give decent answers.

@DeanA Walking meditation, in my experience, does increase mental energy. I don’t have the resources to back it up with the Pail Canon or talks by learned ones, just from what I’ve encountered. I do respect and agree with your comments too.


text:
Possible Potential Buddhist
I come from a background where my interpretation of the world naturally fall as into the reductive methods of its determination and have subsequently had an interest in mathematics and physics which are a pinnical of this reductive process and a major approach of the western world. Now I don't now if This natural approach I have is a function of western conditioning in education.
I am able to concieve of its opposition as that of wholism which its source is Persian and eastern and have had personal revelations along these lines. Like when a tree falls in the woods. There is no sound because physically sound is the interpretation of pressure differences in the air that the consiousness is provided with and is personal to that consiousness etc. That may be a reductive view.
My question is iam at a crossroads in life and iam not certain in which direction I should take, with my age I should be mature enough to a sensible descision but I have had supernatural experiences like that that make the path I should take a difficult choice. Iam adult and should need no guidance but iam at a loss lol

Hi, welcome to Buddhism S.E. You might find useful to read this post for new users.

Please discuss (or try to clarify this question) here.

My teacher always insisted, there's no conflict between Buddhism and the rational world, no conflict between Buddhism and the scientific method. He said, one can be saint and a successful businessman. The Buddhism's teaching on karma, emotional intelligence, and the nature of phenomena, are all continuation of the rational approach we know from western discourse.
The only difference I know of is in the goal. The implied goal of mainstream culture these days is what's known as success: personal and professional realization. The goal of Buddhism, in Theravada school is the peace of Nirvana and in Mahayana school is the endless service to the world and people. And yet, my teacher said, you can have it all: peace, service, and realization.
The only choice we have, he said, is to try and achieve something greater, and what can be greater than spiritual realization? The other alternative, the life of mediocrity, is not a serious choice.

If you're just starting out then I'm not sure you need to make any strong choices. You could go on a temporary retreat where the teacher guides you to learn how to guide yourself.

Everyone needs guidance. The Dhamma is all about guidance. I wasn't even on the path to being an adult until the guidance of the Dhamma.

The Dhamma is all about science. I never new the reductive method until I practiced reductive insight meditation.

Staying in the outer world with no method to understand the inner world is perfect conditions for suffering. The Dhamma is a scientific way to transcend suffering. One doesn't have to give up much in the beginning. I mean, the whole teaching is just that: Learning how to let go.

Sometimes a highly intelligent, or highly developed mind could find it hard to sustain in the mundane world. The antidote is cultivating compassion. It's impossible for a mind keep striving for higher and higher pure intellectual understanding of the world, man, and life. It will backfire. Maybe there is a safety valve embedded in the totality of this whole mass of existence, that the cosmos could leap into being, explosion, collapse and re-exist again. When you find stifled by your intellect and reason, it's always a sign you should go back down and land on the earth, care about the simple ordinary life and surrounding, including other beings. This is the way of acquiring wisdom.
I believe the Buddha was a very very intelligent man, it would be unbearable for him to live in the world if he didn't cultivate compassion.

Thanks for your answer iam quite a grounded individual and intellectually i think we'll above average but knowing that I do not take advantage of the difference I have with others and in contrast are altruistic the fact of which I have pride in, and qualities like that I value and regard as being personally successfull. In your answer you say going back to earth to the simple things, this approach I adopt and surround my self in ordinary people because I value the compassion and caring attitude these people have, but would u say Buddhism can also enable me more personal success?

I guess your 2nd "personal success" is about success in the world, which could imply social status, material, interpersonal relationships = friends... etc. Buddha's teaching is about living life in the correct way, if things are done correctly, they would generate good fruits. So yes, it will be inevitably leading to personal success, given right enough amount of time and practice. I always like to make the simile of compassion with compass, like a magnet, it will guide the right direction, also like magnet, it will attract, means, people will be attracted, so are all other things :)

Through experience and observation I know I adopt a manner that gives me personal success but I may have mislead u in my question success judged by the majority of the world by status and the material I know this is an inescapable consequence of the world and a weakness within it and is not the 2nd success I may have inferred but from your answer I guess likewise the personal success I measure is similar to yours and I may have allready achieved it. I meant would Buddhism allow me spiritually and personally to become more whole than my judgement has determined not through social status.

I have felt a similar sort of conflict between scientific rationalism and some aspects of Buddhist thought. I find this quote from the 14th  Dalai Lama really helpful

Don’t try to use what you learn from buddhism to be a buddhist; use it
  to be a better whatever-you-already-are.

For me the conflict comes from trying to be a Buddhist and getting hung up on what one does and doesn't need to believe and accept be a part of this religion. If you are conflicted than don't worry and don't be a Buddhist. But do learn from Buddhism and try to put it into practice in your daily life if that's what you feel is right. Jack Kornfield similarly says

Don't be a Buddhist, be a Buddha

which I think points to the same thing (no reference - sorry; he just said it a lot in his podcasts)

Thanks I guess that makes it possible to follow Buddhist practice and not out and out declare it I feel I could hardly compare my self and personal to the achievement of Buddha and any subsequent incarnation but I agree replication of another is not personal and therefore I think the dalai lama quote is useful in just extenuating an individuals current determination and breathing new light and adding colour using Buddhist practice along with the palate that's always been there. Any particular source to extend this palate would be appreciated because I don't know where to start.

Honestly -if there is one near I would just go to a Buddhist centre/template near to you and speak to them. The good thing about Buddhists and Buddhist sympathisers is that there are all pretty nice welcoming people happy to talk - well that's my experience. I've just changed cities and centres but the new lot are are welcoming as the old - it's FPMT (Tibetan) so very outwardly religious but again very happy for people that don't fully identify (or ever will) as Buddhists to attend. Hope that helps or happy to chat further in the chat rooms here

it's as simple as that lol guess I'll Google it then I felt there was a minority of followers in the West and there was a minor culture that presents itself here and it would be difficult to become a part off anyway thanks for the insight lol

There are four branches of Buddhism. Theravadin, Mahayana, and Zen Buddhism are three branches that have come to the attention of the West, Pure Land Buddhism much less so. All four offer very profound teachings of the Buddha, but have very different psychologies, values, practices, and views of Enlightenment. You must pay attention to your intuitions and feelings if you are to select one of these paths to Enlightenment. Far be it for me to try to influence your choice. However, with regard to your cultural experiences of the value of mathematics and physics, I can say that Theravadin psychology comes closest to being scientific in the sense that it is a strictly causal theory that, at least in principle, could be translated into a scientific theory. At the same time, I need to say that, just as modern physics is very difficult to understand, so also is Theravadin psychology difficult to understand and not needed to practice mindfulness meditation. In all four branches, practice is the key to progress. The choice is yours to make. I am not qualified to advise you on the nature of Hindu (Persian) branches of contemplative theory and practice.


text:
Meditation itch
Yesterday during my meditation I had a very persistent intense itch in my ear for what felt like the entire 40 minutes. I tried to just notice the itch and not react by scratching it. As soon as the bell went I had a good scratch. Afterwards I just really  couldn't see what the point was of sitting doing this. The itch was just a distraction and I felt I would probably have been better off just scratching it to begin with instead of wasting 40 minutes resisting it. Can somebody please help me get some clarity about this.  Meditation just feels so pointless a lot of the time for me.

Yes, meditation is pointless, just like everything else. That is the point :-)

It may seem like a small matter, but even the slightest movement during meditation can be a very disruptive act.  It all depends on the depth of your practice.  Initially, your mind is pretty much the equivalent of a racing torrent.  As your mind stream crashes around on the jagged stones of your hindrances, hang ups, and other obstacles, you aren't going to notice if a boulder or two happen to go rolling into the water.  But let's compare that to a more developed mind.  Here, the current is slow, the water deep, and the surface is tranquil.  Even a feather alighting on the water is going to send noticeable ripples.
In a sense, this is the very essence of samatha meditation.  The calmer the mind, the more apt you are to have insight into your own subtle afflictions.  Moving around, even slightly, can really disrupt that process.  The best thing to do when you are facing physical discomfort is to radically accept what it is arising and follow your breath fully to the end.  If you are open and fully attentive, those minor discomforts will vanish.

The attitude to meditation varies by school. In Mahayana, we don't do the "just notice itching, itching" piece.
Instead, I was instructed to set the mind at ease, the sort of mood you find when you finally get a vacation after a long year, and have a good stretch in  a chaise longue on the beach. It's like "pheeeew, finally, I have the moment to myself to get back to my senses". You stop chasing problems and desires like a hamster in the wheel, you take a deep sigh, you come back to the present moment, and you finally take a look at your surroundings and yourself. "Where am I? What's going on? What the hell was I doing all this time? Let me just sit down and get back to my senses." Then you hang in this state until the thoughts and memories inevitably come up. When they do come up, you don't let them carry you away too much, but you don't forcefully ward them off either. You have the strings of your guitar somewhat relaxed but leave enough tension for the music to play. When you notice the thoughts have carried you away, you just smile (you don't have to - I smile because I find it funny every time) and notice this fact (you don't actually say "thinking" or "thoughts" nor say it in your head, you just realize you got distracted). And then you bring yourself back to the beach and the chair and your vacation mindstate. This works like a laundry machine for the mind. You go back to the slow stable self (the sitting part), while letting other parts of the mind process the suppressed issues (the bubbling up part) and you let the two layers integrate (by mildly watching for distractions and coming back).
Specifically in your case, I would scratch my ear or adjust my posture etc. For me, meditation is coming back to my vacation, not a torture.

I agree, and I would usually make reasonable adjustments in meditation. We used a seat that had back support, because sitting for two hours or more was not uncommon (when we wished to). But I noticed that if I made one adjustment then a steady stream of distractions, itches, pains etc would follow, so it takes some self-discipline to regulate it. Sometimes it was very warm, sometimes cold (easier to deal with), sometimes noisy outside (bark bark bark for hours)...

Sure, there's an element of discipline. After all, you're meditating, not just spacing out.

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


text:
A person of integrity (Sappurisa Sutta)
In the Anguttara Nikaya 4.73, the Buddha said that a "person of integrity" possesses these four qualities:

when asked, does not reveal the other person's bad points and when pressed, speaks of the other person's bad points not in full, with omissions.
when not asked, reveals the other person's good points and when pressed, speaks of the other person's good points in full, with no omissions.
when not asked, reveals his own bad points and when pressed, speaks of his own bad points in full, with no omissions.
when asked, does not reveal his own good points and when pressed, speaks of his good points not in full, with omissions.

I have paraphrased here, but the above is basically my understanding of the sutta.  My question is how this can be considered an honest answer, or how someone answering this way could be considered a "person of integrity".  I am thinking about a job candidate that has given a reference.  If the reference answers in the way a "person of integrity" should answer, they would omit vital negative information and would furthermore only reveal that negative information when pressed.
I am having trouble understand how these "shifty" and "slippery" answers are those given by a person of integrity and would appreciate someone clarifying these points to me.

This is an interesting point. My (Asian) teacher explained to me that integrity as a concept has a different meaning in Eastern culture.
We in the west often assume that integrity = honesty. But really if you think about it, integrity is the opposite of corruption. Integrity is being true to the right values. In the Eastern society permeated by Mahayana Buddhism social harmony is such primary value. So integrity in this sense means, being committed to maximizing the social harmony and well-being. Even at the expense of technical scientific honesty.
In the examples from the sutta, Buddha praises a man who deemphasizes other's faults, emphasizes other's virtues, emphasizes own faults, and deemphasizes own virtues. This is part of integrity in the above sense.
In Mahayana, upaya or expedient means is something that can be technically not true but practically of value, and so is preferred to naked truth that is often not palatable or even harmful.
My personal opinion is that The Wheel has rolled too far down this path, and I would like to correct that by being a little more upfront about things, but I still have to recognize that things are not always as black and white as our passion for brutal honesty would like us to believe sometimes.
Your example with job references is obviously not a scenario the historical Buddha had in mind. I'm not in a position to give universal guidance on a topic like this, but when I have to serve as someone's reference, I try to give a balanced response. Meaning, instead of unloading my subjective opinion of the person ("the truth") as if it was final, I try to be cautious with my conclusions, especially the negative ones, and give the person benefit of doubt. Which is sort of what the Buddha said.

Thanks for your interesting answer. I like the idea of integrity as an antonym of corruption. I need to learn more about the concept of upaya.

I guess it depicts a person who is not in the habit of saying disparaging things about people, and is reluctant to.
Perhaps it implies that there's normally no benefit in saying something 'bad' about anyone, that doing so isn't profitable, benefits no-one, would be malicious, isn't said at the proper time (i.e. right speech).
Maybe that is especially true within the sangha (the sutta is addressed to monks).
Perhaps the example you gave (a job reference) is one of the rare times that might count as being "when asked, when pressed with questions". In that case you might "speak of another person's bad points not in full, not in detail, with omissions", for example suppose you were to say, "he may not be the best candidate for that job", and maybe add an observation which supports that statement.
In a competition, even saying only good things about a person might not get them hired:

I know that academics usually try to write only positive letters, and decline to write if they have nothing good to say, but that's evidently not enough in the corporate world. Anyway, candidates often end up damned by faint praise.

I think that when you read the sutta you should probably understand it as being counter-balanced by an unwillingness to actually lie, even "when pressed with questions". Even so you can decide whether to answer, how to answer, how much to answer, what to answer, etc.

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I see now that my example of a job reference is somewhat unique, akin to testifying in court, as opposed to the normal conversation one might have with one’s neighbors in a more mundane context. In that light, the sutra has a more relatable message.

Yes. An even bigger difference might be that it's addressed to monks and not simply to "neighbours in a mundane context" -- it may be principally a mote in thy brother's eye kind of message (there's doctrine about "conceit" being a fetter -- see also "just a monk" at the bottom of this answer). But I don't think it's meant to encourage deceit.

To add to @ChrisW 's excellent remark on interviews, people who call your references already account for the positive bias in what they are going to hear (after all, it was you who provided the reference). So, they are not going to be misled. This art is apparently so well practiced that "you will be lucky to get this person to work for you" is widely understood to be a negative statement! Another example to consider is your own resume.Do you list all your failures and qualities that make you ineligible? Doesn't the employer know that about all resume-writers? Would you say you're lying?

This sutta is about bluster. If you reveal or omissions to bluster by māna, you are no integrity.
Commentary commented like this, too.
There are the same sutta that have an example at the end that compare between fresh bride and senior bride doing with her husband's family:

Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, vadhukā yaññadeva rattiṃ vā divaṃ vā ānītā hoti, tāvadevassā tibbaṃ hirottappaṃ paccupaṭṭhitaṃ hoti sassuyāpi sasurepi sāmikepi antamaso dāsakammakaraporisesu. Sā aparena samayena saṃvāsamanvāya vissāsamanvāya sassumpi sasurampi sāmikampi evamāha: ‘apetha, kiṃ pana tumhe jānāthā’ti. Evamevaṃ kho, bhikkhave, idhekacco bhikkhu yaññadeva rattiṃ vā divaṃ vā agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajito hoti, tāvadevassa tibbaṃ hirottappaṃ paccupaṭṭhitaṃ hoti bhikkhūsu bhikkhunīsu upāsakesu upāsikāsu antamaso ārāmikasamaṇuddesesu. So aparena samayena saṃvāsamanvāya vissāsamanvāya ācariyampi upajjhāyampi evamāha: ‘apetha, kiṃ pana tumhe jānāthā’ti. Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, evaṃ sikkhitabbaṃ: ‘adhunāgatavadhukāsamena cetasā viharissāmā’ti. Evañhi vo, bhikkhave, sikkhitabban”ti.

There's a translation of that here:

Bhikkhus, from the night or day, that a young wife is brought along, her shame and remorse should be well established towards the father-in-law, mother-in-law, her husband and even towards slaves and workmen. -In the meantime, living together and won over their confidence, she would tell the father-in-law, the mother-in-law or her husband, -leave that alone, what do you know about that.
In the same manner bhikkhus, from the night or day a certain bhikkhu left the household and became homeless, his shame and remorse should be well established towards bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, lay disciples male and female and as far as the novices in the monastery -In the meantime, living together and won over their confidence, he would tell, his teacher, or even his preceptor, -leave that alone, what do you know about that.
Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train thus: We should abide with the mind of a recently brought young wife.

According to dictionary entries on "sappurisa", this word means "righteous person" or "good person" or "worthy person".
This word is apparently equivalent to "ariya", which means "noble; distinguished" and "a noble man; one who has attained higher knowledge".
Also, according to a brief summary of this sutta (AN4.73) in this dictionary entry:

The unworthy man (asappurisa) always speaks what is discreditable to
  another, never what is discreditable to himself, and always sings his
  own praises. The worthy man is just the reverse.

Therefore, this sutta teaches that a good person does not maliciously speak ill of others behind their backs, and does not conceitedly sing praises of himself.
Job candidate and references would be in a different type of context, where a referee is expected to be truthful, but without malice. For this, the Vaca Sutta (AN 5.198) is more apt:

"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not
  ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which
  five?
"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken
  affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of
  good-will.
"A statement endowed with these five factors is well-spoken, not
  ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people."

Here, when a potential employer calls a referee, that would be the "right time". The referee should speak only the truth (both positive and negative facts), but he should do it in a way that is not malicious, but with good will towards the job candidate and the potential employer.
For example, I can say, "Mr. John Doe tends to struggle with learning new things, but he does diligently put in effort to do so. I think if you give him more time, he might achieve the required level of competency in his new job, although I cannot make any guarantees." Such an answer is truthful, balanced, benevolent, and neither tarnishes nor embellishes the reputation of the job candidate.
On the other hand, I could say, "Mr. John Doe is not able to learn new things, and no matter how much he tries, he never gets it. He is a stupid and useless fellow. Don't waste your time and money by hiring him." Such an answer is malicious, although, possibly truthful.

Clarification can come from looking at the fourth precept of the ten precepts, which requires the novice monk or nun to “refrain from lying.” In traditional Theravadin Buddhist practice, a monk or nun aspires to not only refrain from lying but to actively practice the opposite of lying. This practice consists of actively valuing truth, honesty, and the well-being of others. Such values have a multitude of consequences in real life. For example, to value truth is to seek truth and to be honest includes being honest with oneself. If a monk or nun is to seek truth and to be honest with oneself with regard to being actively concerned with the well-being of others, then three practices necessarily follow: (1) One must aspire (strictly speaking, precepts are aspirations rather than hard rules) to practice the awareness of the views, feelings, motives, and experiences of other people, so that one can take into account their well-being. (2) One must aspire to practice the awareness of the impact of one’s actions upon others and making appropriate adjustments. And (3) one must aspire to practice actively looking for ways in which one can be helpful to others. In the Suttas, the Buddha addressed many specific situations. In order to takes into account the many seemingly contradictions found in the Suttas, it is traditionally assumed that the Buddha was often addressing special situations.

Althought one might argue that's not the way of integrity: to search for holly people to use them for ones cheap jobs is not a very integrity undertaking, as the use of Dhamme for wordily gains naturally would bite back. So what do you think: is it a noble deed to risk that you are angry simply to keep you from bad ways of thinking and corrup use of Dhamma?

The Lord Buddha taught that his Dhamma, when placed in the heart of an ordinary run-of-the-mill person, is bound to be thoroughly corrupted, but if placed in the heart of a Noble One, it is bound to be genuinely pure & authentic, something that at the same time can be neither effaced nor obscured.
So as long as we are devoting ourselves merely to the theoretical study of the Dhamma, it can't serve us well. Only when we have trained our hearts to eliminate their 'chameleons' — their defilements — will it benefit us in full measure. And only then will the true Dhamma be kept pure, free from distortions & deviations from its original principles.
— Phra Ajān Mun Bhūridatto

Something one sould always think first. When it is daid that a ariyan person does not encover one others deeds, it needs to be understood that such is meant for cases where it might be of no long time benefit for you. Of course it's just a admirable friend who would take on all means to bent you on the right track.
One should not forget that within a certain community shame is a usual tool for taming. And there are less cases where the Buddha but also his disciples relealed the faults. Actually, because certain communities started to stay silient just to have foolish harmony, the Buddha made an explicite rule that revealing of bad things have to be done.
At least gatherings and joining together is simply done for the purpose to learn.

Staying Uncomfortably
Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, “These worthless men, having spent the Rains uncomfortably, claim to have spent the Rains comfortably.
“Having spent the Rains in cattle-like affiliation, these worthless men claim to have spent the Rains comfortably.
“Having spent the Rains in sheep-like affiliation, these worthless men claim to have spent the Rains comfortably.
“Having spent the Rains in heedless-affiliation, these worthless men claim to have spent the Rains comfortably.
“How can these worthless men undertake a vow of dumb silence, the undertaking of sectarians?
(Mv.IV.1.13) “Monks, this neither inspires faith in the faithless …”
Having rebuked him and given a Dhamma talk, he addressed the monks:
“The vow of dumb silence, the undertaking of sectarians, is not to be undertaken. Whoever should undertake it: an offense of wrong doing[2]

Back to your potential worker: if trying to use a hooly person for foolish things, for cheap business, for inhonest ways, not only that he might be incapable but also would possible try to make you a better person.
Althought there is actually no real obligation to help others not be follish if one is able to get not involved, good people, if they are given ways, do their best.
Of course fools misunderstand such, easy eseemate them as their enemies, like foolish children disrespect their patient mother.
Once again, know people who act in accordiance with your wordily gains and people who see not shameful thing in using Dhamma for such purposes, as people of not a little integrity. They are incapable, even if having heard the Dhamma, to distinguish proper time and occation, alway up to make you a cheap favor for cheap gain.
There is a different between Ox, dogs, slaves and a liberal person of holliness. No need to talk about the matter if a wordlig likes to use a Noble One. Nothing than demerits...
So not only in regard of the questioner, but also in regard of the moderators here, it would be proper to see the faults, confess them and feel ashamed, if there is a little bit of integrity within them.
[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:
Where does the Dalai Lama say '... be a better whatever you already are'?
One of my favourite Buddhist quotes is from the 14th Dalai Lama

Don’t try to use what you learn from buddhism to be a buddhist; use it
  to be a better whatever-you-already-are.

Amazing. But does anyone know the wider context of this quote. When did he say it and what was the talk i.e. can someone get a fuller transcript of the teaching?
Many Thanks

I think I found a reference to the source and it sounds more accurate. This is from Amazing Grace by Kathleen Norris -- it is relating an Inter-Faith dialog some years before the writing of her book in 1999 and here is the quote.

A report asked the Dalai Lama what he would say to Americans who want to become Buddhists,
"Don't bother" he said, Learn from Buddhism if that is good for you. But do it as Christians, a Jew or whatever you are. And be a good friend to us.

The quote was cleaned up by someone a long time ago and now though the sense is the same the quote is wrong.  It should not have quotation marks.
And "whatever you are" is in the next paragraph.

Apparently it is from some talks from decades ago. In many talks to secular audience His Holiness address the issue of compassion. You can improve your compassion through meditation and lower you suffering and that of others. These is the ideal and goal of practice for many Buddhist, adepts of other religions and atheists with empathy. I haven't found exact transcript but you can look up another wisdom of H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet https://www.dalailama.com/the-dalai-lama/biography-and-daily-life/questions-answers


text:
Different meditation approaches within Theravada
I talked to a monk at a Thai Theravada based monastery recently and he told me that they primarily use breath meditation and jhana to gain awakening.  And then there are other traditions, like yours, that emphasis vipassana to gain awakening.  To me, they seem like completely different paths.  Do you know why it is that different monasteries within the same regional tradition of Theravada have completely different approaches?  Are they equally useful in gaining awakening?

Actually there are 4 ways and they are all valid Theravada techniques. Problem occurs when misinformed people start saying only one of these techniques is correct.

Insight preceded by tranquility
Tranquility preceded by insight
Tranquility in tandem with insight
by settling the mind with regard to the Dhamma.

Read the Yuganandha Sutta for more details


text:
Has any Buddhist philosopher claimed space is ideal because it is a whole?
Has any Buddhist philosopher claimed space is ideal because it is a whole, and wholes can't be real?
With emphasis on space, not what takes it up, except perhaps to say they're "in" space likes parts in a whole, and / or the contents of a whole.

In Theravada space is listed as one of the primary elements like earth, water, fire, air, space, consciousness.

Would not any abstraction be ideal? ...time, space ...

Space (akasha) is one of those dharmas that were debated by Early Buddhist schools.
Some counted space as an unconditioned dharma along with Nirvana, and some did not. If I remember correctly, Theravada does not, and most other early schools did consider space unconditioned.
Then within that, there was argument whether a certain dharma can perform a function (whether its "real" or not - being able to participate in causal chains was considered an important characteristic, which later was denied equivalency with ultimate existence - things can perform function even though they are empty of real existence). This argument included akasha, some said it can cause results and some said it can't.
Some said akasha is only an absence of objects etc. All this messy debating about dharmas, in my opinion, is what led to eventual emergence and popularization of Emptiness philosophy and praxis of prajnaparamita. Declaring all dharmas to be mere conceptual designations/imputations, was an elegant way out of endless debates.
I do not remember who specifically spoke about "whole" vs "parts" but there was a line of analysis that was born somewhere in the period between Abhidharma and Madhyamaka, that showed that all spatial entities are designations, because they have "sides" (left/right/top/down) - and since they can be subdivided, they are therefore constructed, therefore are generalizations attached to a construct, hence not real. You find this point still cited in various Tibetan commentaries explaining the various facets of Emptiness.
Sorry, nothing specific here, hope it helps at all.


text:
Using music to uplift mood and alleviate depression
Music can be used to uplift one's mood and alleviate depression, as depicted in this article:

In Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness American author William
  Styron's autobiographical account of his struggle with depression he
  describes how in desperation he planned to shoot himself, but at the
  last minute he heard the music of the German composer Johannes Brahms
  and this saved him.
His life began to mean something and he found solace in the
  melancholic and uplifting moods of Brahms's German Requiem.

In other religions like Christianity (like this song) or Hinduism (like this song), music (both lyrics and melody) is used to boost one's devotion to God, and could be uplifting too.
However, in Buddhism, this is against the seventh of the Eight Precepts:

I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going
  to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and
  beautifying the body with cosmetics.

The Gitassara Sutta (AN5.209) also states:

There are, bhikkhus, these five drawbacks of reciting the Dhamma with
  a sustained melodic intonation. Which five?
Oneself gets attached to that intonation, others get attached to that
  intonation, householders get angry: 'Those ascetics who are followers
  of the Sakyans' son sing in the same way that we do!', there is a
  break in concentration for those striving [to produce] musicality, and
  the upcoming generations imitate what they see.
These, bhikkhus, are the five drawbacks of reciting the Dhamma with a
  sustained melodic intonation.

Questions:

Is it ok to use music to induce positive states of mind, especially to uplift one's mood and alleviate depression?
If music can be used to uplift one's mood, then why is it considered unwholesome and against the seventh precept?
How does music cause attachment or craving?

Is it ok to use music to induce positive states of mind, especially to
  uplift one's mood and alleviate depression?

Yes, if you are a layman and if you are not observing the 8 precepts.

If music can be used to uplift one's mood, then why is it considered
  unwholesome and against the seventh precept?

'Uplifting' here means inducing pleasurable thoughts/feelings. Even Marjuana can do that. Some people eat sweets to uplift themselves. Uplifting doesn't mean wholesome. It's important to note that hearing music by chance does not break the precept. Listening intently breaks the precept.

How does music cause attachment or craving?

Music is sound that is pleasurable. Wanting to hear pleasurable sounds is a sign of craving.

I think that experiencing pleasurable things is not a problem so long as they do not become habits. If your choice remains free, you may do as you choose. Life is long and was not meant to be a funeral march. We all have to make many decisions on how best to sustain life, and remaining interested and caring is vital.

Experiencing  pleasurable sensations is not the issue. Liking them is the issue.


text:
Would Siddhartha Gautama have agreed with modern forms of Buddhism?
Siddhartha Gautama accepted as its close disciples some secular.
They had the same chance to gain enlightenment, without practicing rituals, and without believing in everything he said or did.
Looking at the big picture can show that Siddhartha's truth doesn't hide behind idealism or practicing specific rituals. By it's nature it is everywhere, and it's findable in everything.
The Truth could be in any ritual or practice.
So isn't it out of context to create massive religious groups like we can see in modern Buddhism ?
Isn't it against the nature itself of the truth, to mass share a specific view of it ?

There is a related statement in SN16.13, where the Buddha warns about the decline of his teachings, the true Dhamma, and the rise of counterfeit Dhamma. But at the end, he also gives some hints as to the way to preserve the true Dhamma:

"... When beings are in decline, and the true
  Dhamma is waning, then there are more precepts and fewer monks attain
  enlightenment. But there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma,
  Kassapa, till a counterfeit Dhamma arises in the world; but when a
  counterfeit Dhamma arises, then there is a disappearance of the true
  Dhamma, just as there is no disappearing of gold so long as no
  counterfeit gold has arisen in the world... The earth-element does not
  make the true Dhamma disappear, the water-element... the
  fire-element... the air-element..., But right here men of straw
  appear, and it is they who bring about the disappearance of the true
  Dhamma. A ship, Kassapa, may sink all at once, but it is not thus that
  the true Dhamma disappears. There are five contributory factors,
  Kassapa, which lead to the adulteration and disappearance of the true
  Dhamma. Which five? It is when monks and nuns, male and female
  lay-followers behave disrespectfully and rebelliously towards the
  Teacher,... towards the Dhamma,... towards the Sangha,... towards the
  training,... towards meditation.
"But when monks and nuns, male and female lay followers behave
  respectfully and deferentially towards the Dhamma,... towards the
  Sangha,... towards the training,... towards meditation, then these
  five things conduce to the maintenance, the purity and the
  preservation of the true Dhamma."

In DN16, the Buddha also commented on the various conditions, if observed, would lead to the growth of the congregation of monks and not its decline. But these are too long to be quoted here. I'll quote only the first set here:

"The growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline,
  bhikkhus, so long as they assemble frequently and in large numbers;
  meet and disperse peacefully and attend to the affairs of the Sangha
  in concord; so long as they appoint no new rules, and do not abolish
  the existing ones, but proceed in accordance with the code of training
  (Vinaya) laid down; so long as they show respect, honor, esteem, and
  veneration towards the elder bhikkhus, those of long standing, long
  gone forth, the fathers and leaders of the Sangha, and think it
  worthwhile to listen to them; so long as they do not come under the
  power of the craving that leads to fresh becoming; so long as they
  cherish the forest depths for their dwellings; so long as they
  establish themselves in mindfulness, so that virtuous brethren of the
  Order who have not come yet might do so, and those already come might
  live in peace; so long, bhikkhus, as these seven conditions leading to
  welfare endure among the bhikkhus and the bhikkhus are known for it,
  their growth is to be expected, not their decline.

Hence, it is not the size of the modern Sangha or congregation of Buddhists that is the problem, but rather it is whether they really follow the teachings or not.
The book "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. Shravasti Dhammika provides good information on how parts of the Sangha and the Buddhist World today may not be reflecting the original ideals put forward by the Buddha.

Excellent negative sample by Ruben.

The book "The Broken Buddha" by Shravasti Dhammika provides good information on how parts of the Sangha and the Buddhist World today may not be reflecting the original ideals put forward by the Buddha.

Not so much the content, but the ways and what for. A sample by own actions, obiviously unseen or to silly, or deliberately inhonest and uninformet. So Shravasti Dhammika and his deeds display well what the Buddha urgend, like quoted by Rubben in his answer.
Yet how could a corrupt heart, delight in becoming and sensuality ever see it's corruption?
People find together in accordiance to their tendencies, and one is not able to help them out while they don't see that their defilements are nouished by even the most clear Dhamma.
It's End-time-season of the Dhamma, and of course fools will still a long time write their Books, disrespecting the elders, their previous supporter, the Dhamma, formost the Vinaya, will live in improper dependency with householders, do them favors, use money and avoid forest an secluded modest live, meet up lanching in restaurants and write mass of entertainments...
As you see, by abroving the answer, calling this Shravasti: "Isn't it against the nature itself of the truth, to mass share a specific view of it ?"
No, that's Samsara and food for defilement, and as you see, you got caught faster as thought...
The more possibilities one has, to get away from "Buddhism" and "Buddhist" and their Dhamma-deals and find Dhamma-Vinaya and Dhammika (not just by name)
So much more than ever, its all up to your previous and current decisions if you might find a last grasp of the tripple gems those days. Don't be to fast, and be observant! What ever fits well to ones defilements can be seldom the heartwood.

People will sacrify in that, on and on, but this leads step by step more way from Nibbana into the deeps of Mara.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Ultimately, Buddha's method can take any form. It caters for group practice. It caters for individual practice. Once the truth is realized, it can be applied universally.

According to Theravadin Buddhist tradition some 500 Arahats attended the First Buddhist Council soon after the death of the Buddha. I do not know what truth is findable in everything, but it is most certainly not the truth of Theravadin Buddhism and it is most certainly not the truth of Mahayana Buddhism. The truth of Mahayana Buddhism cannot be realized without the experience of Sunyata (Emptiness) and the subsequent realization of Absolute Truth. The truth of Theravadin Buddhism is in the Buddhist psychology of sankhara, which along with Nirvana, is acquired through mindfulness meditation, which is not just “any” practice, but “the only way to Enlightenment.”
As for your last question, let us look at the facts. Considering that achieving Arahatship (Enlightenment in the Theravadin view) is so difficult, the sangha must have been a “massive group” to have had 500 Arahats among them. And concerning the “nature” of relative truth (there was only relative truth back then because Nagarjuna did not show up until several centuries later), we would do well to wonder what kind of truth brought 500 students to Enlightenment. Given the specific nature of the Theravadin teachings, the most likely relative truth that would qualify for such a role would be the psychology of sankhara. Relative truth or knowledge, including knowledge about sankhara, is based upon evidence. In this regard, the concept of sankhara is not an ideal. Even though an in-depth understanding of sankhara depends upon evidence acquired through the (knowledge-seeking) siddhi, it is nonetheless empirical (scientific) in nature. It is the nature of empirical knowledge that it is understandable to anyone who has the background knowledge of the context and evidence supporting a statement of fact. However, the notion that an empirical fact is “findable in everything” is nonsense.
Having suggested that the psychology of sankhara helped 500 Arahats achieve Enlightenment, it would be in violation of my vows as a Buddhist monk to be compassionate and to teach Buddhadharma to not provide at least a proper definition of the concept of sankhara. From a psychological point of view, a sankhara (schema) is a sophisticated system of beliefs, memories, motives, and other propositional attitudes that make it possible for us to makes sense of experience and to formulate action-plans that make sense to us. From a Theravadin point of view, sankhara are the causes of both suffering and Enlightenment. Mindfulness meditation provides a means by which we can revise unwholesome sankhara and to recover those sankhara that provide the awareness and the wisdom that make Enlightenment possible. Just for the record, understanding sankhara is a profound challenge for modern psychology to define and explain.


text:
In what sutta/suttas did Buddha stated "I never admire samsara/bhava"?
I have read it somewhere and can't remember now. Buddha told Bhikkus that he never admires a disiple who stops his effort after attaining "sotapanna" state. He should still work hard until he is completely clean and attains Arhat status.

There are suttas where the Buddha "spits" on birth AND death and there is a Sutta where the sublime Buddha explained Ven. Ananda, why he did not taught much about the blessing of sotapanna (so that they would strive further. A combination... my person doubts.

The thing you are looking for is probably a misinterpretation of this passage from Maha-Parinibbana Sutta:

... among these five hundred bhikkhus even the lowest is a
  stream-enterer, secure from downfall, assured, and bound for
  enlightenment."

And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish.
  Strive with heedfulness!"

Handa dani bhikkhave amantayami vo: Vayadhamma sankhara appamadena sampadetha.

And this one in regards to Samsara:

“Just as even a little dung stinks, so I do not recommend even a
  little becoming, not for so much as a finger snap”


text:
vipassana progress questions
Does a stream winner who practices vipassana tend to have a feeling being oblivious to most of things he thought was very important before.It's a feeling as if things don't really be marked in the mind as very important as it used to be. Is it possible to happen?

Dear sir thanks for the reply with lots of metta

It's possible but not necessarily a sign of having entered the stream. If someone engages is vipassana meditation for a couple of decades f.i. there can also be an increased lack of interest in things or forgetfulness. Just due to increased habituation of new ways and natural wear-and-tear of old habits which are no longer supported.
To be on the safe side: I would suggest to see it as a sign progress and of effective meditation rather than as a sign of being a stream-enterer.

Making self first = taṇhā, māna.
The reasonable truth for enlighten nibbāna, 4 sacca, is very important before for ariya. So, 4 sacca is called 4 ariya's sacca (4 noble truth of ariya; catu-ariyasacca).
If that ariya's conversation partner talking inside 4 ariya's sacca, that ariya must make his partner's word important before his word, because of suppurisa sutta.
But if  ariya's conversation partner talking out of 4 ariya's sacca. He maybe stop to talk with, or he will make his thought important before, if he think that he can teach his partner to enlighten.

It's a possible sign of progress, yes. If such would not arise, there would not have been much progress. How ever, it can be that such is based on eternally intelectuall reasoning, which could be possible even based on wrong view. Such might be even more worse than no progress or effect by vipassana.
It's good to assosiate much with people of right view, not tending to what ever extreme but see and teach cause and effect in proper ways.
It's usuall that those would tend to cross-question you often and of course people just knower of the Pitakas and even those who have mastered Jhanas might be not sufficent enought to be supporter. If there have been progress, one would not have that much difficult to figure out of whom might be a helpfull noble one.
Another sign of having made unchangeable progress is that one has no more doubt and has grown "independent" in regard of the Dhamma and way of practice. Of course useful merely literary knowledge he/she might still be able to nurish well in addition, but mosty just as good livelihood/ good entertaining of the mind.
A useful guide for further undertakings is this collection of Suttas: Into the Stream - A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening
Much success and mudita!

Sole dominion over the earth,
  going to heaven,
  lordship over all worlds:
      the fruit of stream-entry
      excels them.
— Dhp 178

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

Yes, I believe it's a sign of some progress. What kind of progress this is is a whole different story.
By important things you probably mean attachments to things that would typically seem important within an untrained, anxious mind, but due to proper understanding of impermanence and wisdom coming from the teaching - their importance and dependence in contributing to your well-being wanes away.