text:
The Justice Thought & System & its Morals?
Namo Buddhaya!
Here are my questions regarding justice systems & their morals:

Would it be skillful & moral to report someone to a principle, a police
  officer, or any sort of authority when someone is being hurtful to
  others (such as killing, bullying, etc.), knowing that reporting them will most likely cause them suffering
  e.g. expulsion from school, jail time, etc?
And also is justice skillful, moral and is incarceration moral,
  skillful in terms of the Dhamma?

Metta!

Wisdom over Justice and Justice vs. Skillfulness may be useful on this topic.

Justice system is driven by unskillful intentions, but a necessity to maintain society. Essentially any action rooted in hatred, greed or ignorance is not skilful. For many justice is a form of retribution for some action done by another which is based on hatred which and unskillful root.
If you are judge you are expected to judge justly.
Reporting crime one needs to weigh the karmic consequences one may willing to bear and impact or betterment it brings.
If you are a witness brought forward by subpoena then you have to tell the truth. In many cases of coming forward to report a crime may not be skilful if it is motivated by hatred, greed or ignorance. Generally when coming forward one has sympathy towards the victim and hatred towards the perpetrator.

'Dhamma' means 'that which upholds' society & individual minds.
Without law, there would be chaos & anarchy.
Therefore, it is proper to report criminals.
The Buddha appeared to take it for granted society punishes criminals. For example:

And what, mendicants, is the fear of punishment? It’s when someone
sees that the kings have arrested a bandit, a criminal, and subjected
them to various punishments—whipping, caning, and clubbing; cutting
off hands or feet, or both; cutting off ears or nose, or both; the
‘porridge pot’, the ‘shell-shave’, the ‘demon’s mouth’, the ‘garland
of fire’, the ‘burning hand’, the ‘grass blades’, the ‘bark dress’,
the ‘antelope’, the ‘meat hook’, the ‘coins’, the ‘acid pickle’, the
‘twisting bar’, the ‘straw mat’; being splashed with hot oil, being
fed to the dogs, being impaled alive, and being beheaded.
AN 4.121

Morality in Buddhism is not harming yourself or others. If you make the choice to not report a criminal, this is an act of mental kamma that harms another. The scriptures say:

If you, Rāhula, are desirous of doing a deed with the mind, you should
reflect on that deed of your mind, thus: ‘That deed which I am
desirous of doing with the mind is a deed of my mind that might
conduce to the harm of self and that might conduce to the harm of
others and that might conduce to the harm of both; this deed of mind
is unskilled, its yield is anguish, its result is anguish.’ If you,
Rāhula, reflecting thus, should find: ‘That deed which I am desirous
of doing with the mind is a deed of my mind that might conduce to the
harm of self and that might conduce to the harm of others and that
might conduce to the harm of both; this deed of mind is unskilled, its
yield is anguish, its result is anguish.’, a deed of mind like this,
Rāhula, is certainly not to be done by you. But if you, Rāhula, while
reflecting thus, should find: ‘That deed which I am desirous of doing
with the mind is a deed of my mind that would conduce neither to the
harm of self nor to the harm of others nor to the harm of both; this
deed of mind is skilled, its yield is happy, its result is happy’, a
deed of mind like this, Rāhula, may be done by you.
MN 61

Criminal reap what they sow, as the Buddha taught:

He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed, and offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten
states:

138-140 Sharp pain, or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness, or
derangement of mind, trouble from the government, or grave charges,
loss of relatives, or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging
fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell.
Dhammapada

Buddhism is not Cultural Marxism, which protects the sexual immoral, the creators of pornography, the destroyers of families, genocidal Communists and co-tribal imperialists/colonizers. A Buddhist should not be meek & timid in using whatever moral laws of society are available to them.

Protecting the victims
The justice system exists in order to reduce crime and protect victims. It's important to realize that not only our actions can harm others, but also our inaction can cause harm.
Yes, reporting a culprit will most likely cause them suffering e.g. expulsion from school, jail time, etc. However, not reporting a culprit will most likely cause other people suffering through your choice of inaction. Reporting a bully or thief or rapist is necessary to protect other, innocent people from harm.

You might reflect that "beings are heir to their own kamma".
Ideally too it wouldn't be the case in society that "the cure is worse than the disease" -- perhaps it's better, when you're at school, better for a bully and for their victims, that a bully might learn justice and mercy early than not.
Incidentally, one of the Zen stories is The Thief Who Became a Disciple.
I'm not sure what you'd do, in a hypothetical case where you think that the "justice" is unjust.


text:
How to disambiguate between various meditation practices?
From what I understand, different schools of Buddhism teach different subsets of meditation techniques, or different variations of the same techniques. However, many meditation resources don't specify which technique is meant to achieve what goal, nor the source of the particular technique. There seems to be overlap and combination of techniques, e.g. observing and counting the breath in Zazen, vs. simply observing in Anapana. Some insist that you must sit a certain way, others say to just "sit comfortably." Some you must practice for two hours, morning and evening, others say 20 minutes is sufficient. Furthermore, some sources say that their meditation techniques are not compatible with others, e.g. S.N. Goenka says if you practice Vipassana, you must not practice any other technique (but, even more confusingly, he also teaches Anapana and Metta)
Could you help me understand the difference between these various techniques (how it's performed, what its goal is, advantages/disadvantages), their relationship to each other, and their origins?
Are there any important ones I'm missing from this list?

Mindfulness meditation
Zazen
Vipassana / insight meditation
Anapana
Metta / loving-kindness meditation
Tantric meditation
Walking meditation
Mind clearing (not sure the right name for this - instead of picking an object of meditation like the breath, the goal is to achieve a state of complete thoughtlessness)
Samatha
Transcendental meditation

(I think some of these might be special cases of others, but it's not clear to me)

In short you can think about the techniques as they accord to development of faculties. It will make it a lot less confusing.

It appears unclear to you because you have not comprehended the essence of the Buddha's teachings.
The Buddha did not teach any 'techniques'. The Buddha taught to abandon craving & other unwholesome mental states.
When the mind is as pure as it can relatively be, it will automatically 'meditate' upon subtle internal object, such as breathing & feelings.
'Techniques' have been developed by puthujjana who cannot comprehend the teachings.
When you comprehended the essence of the Buddha's teachings, you will be able to distinguish the nuances of the various puthujjana techniques.
For example, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa said:

Now we shall deal with the organized systems of insight training,
  which were not taught by the Buddha but were developed by later
  teachers. This kind of practice is suitable for people at a fairly
  undeveloped stage, who still cannot perceive the unsatisfactoriness of
  worldly existence with their own eyes, naturally.
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/budasa-handbook/budasa08.htm

The above said, to reply directly to the question:

Western/American/Jewish 'mindfulness meditation' in the West is not something Buddhist because it has no moral foundation nor does it engage the entirety of Buddhist wisdom. It is merely an attempted suspension of 'judgment' or 'bare (zombie) awareness'. In real Buddhism, the word "mindfulness" means "to remember" to apply the Teachings, which include the moral teachings (refer to MN 117). In real Buddhism, 'mindfulness meditation' is called 'Satipatthana', which means 'establishing mindfulness'. There is no difference between Satipatthana & Anapanasati. The Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) says Anapanasati perfects Satipatthana.
Zazen is an attempt to abandon the 'putthujjana yogic techniques' developed in later day 'Puthujjana Theravada', often called 'Mahavihara'. Zazen 'just sitting' is intended to be the abandoning of craving, as the Buddha taught. However, for those who cannot make their mind truly free from craving & thus SILENT & QUIET, Zazen will result in just sitting with wandering thoughts & amorality, as often done in USA Zen.
Vipassana / insight meditation is a worldly Burmese attempt to separate vipassana (a fruit of the Path) from the totality of the Path. Vipassana appears to be Burmese students mostly brainwashing themselves with mantras such as 'rising, falling, rising, falling'. In the real Eightfold Path, both samatha (tranquillity) & vipassana (insight) are dual fruits of concentration (samadhi) developed in tandem (refer to MN 149). The Dhammapada says there is no wisdom without concentration & no concentration without wisdom therefore there is really no such thing as vipassana alone (despite one Pali Sutta from 8,000 illogically saying there is).
Anapana is a non-sense taught by the Burmese/Indian Goenka school. In the Pali suttas, Anapanasati is a complete practice that fulfils the Seven Factors of Enlightenment (MN 118). The Buddha said Anapanasati was his own meditation dwelling (SN 54.11).
Metta/loving-kindness meditation is both a preliminary practise used to end the hindrance of hatred (refer to MN 118) and also a practise of Enlightened People to interact with society. Metta in or by itself does not lead to Enlightenment. Metta is a supporting practise of the main Anapanasati/Satipatthana/Noble Path practise.
Tantric meditation is a Hindu term brought in Mahayana Buddhism. Refer to Dalai Lama's/Jeffrey Hopkin's book called Tantra in Tibet. 'Tantra' was used in Mahayana Buddhism to create both practices and terminology to attract a wider audience.
Walking meditation is one of the 4 postures mentioned by the Buddha for meditation. There is no need to change the method of practise for walking meditation. The Burmese style of slowly 'lifting, touching, placing, etc' is just another puthujjana technique. Proper walking meditation is walking with a mind free from craving & clinging. An adept practitioner simply practises Anapanasati when walking.
Mind clearing to achieve a state of complete thoughtlessness is close to the abandon of craving the Buddha taught but not completely. The Buddha's meditation, while basically thoughtless, also has mindfulness & ready wisdom governing it. The Buddha said (in AN 10.58) mindfulness governs all dhamma practices (satādhipateyyā sabbe dhammā). While a different question in itself, MN 43 is a sutta that distinguishes between meditation on: (i) nothingness; (ii) themelessness; and (iii) emptiness of self.
Real samatha, together with vipassana, as already explained, is a fruit or result of concentration (samadhi). It is not a practise but a result of practise. However, puthujjana technique creators separate samatha from vipassana because most puthujjana practise "wrong" or "suppression concentration", which can bring a sleepy tranquil result, like being stoned on low grade marijuana. These stoned puthujjana call their suppression meditation 'samatha'.
Transcendental meditation ('TM') is Hinduism. This said, in real Buddhism, the very important word translated as "transcendent" or "supramundane" is "lokuttara". The heart of Buddhist meditation is "non-attachment", which is the meaning of "lokuttara" ("beyond the world"). In the Anapanasati Sutta and also in SN 48.9 & 10, the Buddha said Right Concentration has the quality of "vossagga" or "non-attachment". This is transcendent meditation. However, this is not called: "Transcendental Meditation". It is "transcendent meditation", as written in the Satipatthana & Anapanasati Suttas and SN 20.7, as follows:

That is why on that occasion a bhikkhu abides... mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. MN 10; MN 118

Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves. SN 20.7

Thank you for the thorough detail, this is really the answer I was hoping for and I expect will be deeply valuable for future readers here. Could you clarify one bit: you say that anapana is nonsense and anapanasati is the complete practice. I had heard these two words before but assumed they meant the same thing - what differentiates them?

'Anapanasati' means the continuous 'establishing mindfulness'. 'Mindfulness' ('sati') means 'to remember to keep the mind' free from unwholesome states. When the mind remains empty of unwholesome states, due to the quiet of the mind, the mind will start to automatically connect with the breathing, which brings other results once the breathing refines greatly, such as rapture, happiness, a lucid mind and deep insight. In Anapanasati, the priority is sati (mindfulness); which means keeping the mind free from craving. In Goenka 'anapana', the priority is watching breathing.

@Dhammadhatu Thank you for a very interesting rundown of all the different flavors of meditation. I wanted to ask you about point 9, since my prior understanding is that samatha and vipassana precedes samadhi. If it's the other way around, then i wonder what precedes samadhi as a mean to attain the others? Grateful for your clarification!

I agree with Dhammadhatu in that the different meditations seem confusing when you don't know what it is all about.
When you know the underlying principle, you know how these different meditations actually approach same thing from slightly different angle, and you see how they try to explain something that is hard to explain in words, and emphasize what they think are the most important points of that.
And I'm telling you right here and now, what this principle is. It is about dukkha, origination of dukkha, cessation of dukkha, and path leading gradually to cessation of dukkha. I know this sounds so standard and abstract as to almost make no sense, but I swear this is what it is about.
In our life with our every choice and every action we either generate more dukkha (either right now, or increase its odd in our future) or we ... well ... we simply don't create it, or at least reduce the odds of it happening.
This is what all types of Buddhist meditation about, all of them, without exception. They all are various ways to just... Well... They are all exercises at not creating dukkha. Some are more direct and some roundabout. Some more straightforward and some more implicit. But they are all about same thing, essentially. Not creating dukkha.
And how is dukkha created? Whenever in your mind there's craving for things to be other than they are, or in other words there's conflict between "is" and "should", or in other words there's discord - then there is dukkha. And correspondingly when there is no craving, no conflict, no discord - there's no dukkha. And then there's coarse craving, coarse conflict, coarse discord, coarse dukkha -- and various degrees of more subtle craving, subtle conflict, subtle discord.
So meditation is about somehow solving this problem. Removing craving, conflict, discord. Naturally, there are different ways to approach this. Some do it gradually. Some try to do all at once. Some use more force, some are more gentle.
Usually, there is understanding that craving for things to be other than they are, conflict between "is" and "should", and discord - are implicit in our frame of reference, in our evaluation, in our perspective. So most meditations involve some sort of technique that conditions (or unconditions) one's perspective, in order to change the basis for evaluation. Other techniques try to remove all evaluation altogether. In any way, it's all about dukkha and cessation of dukkha.
If you think about it, not all methods are appropriate for all situations. If dukkha is generated by more coarse conflict, then cruder methods work better. If dukkha is generated by subtle inner discord, then very tricky techniques are required. Since most practitioners make progress starting from coarser and then to more subtle, it makes sense that different techniques are appropriate depending on where you are on your individual ladder.
However, many meditation methods are not aware of where they fall. They are often taught in isolation of the broader context, so people don't know what they are doing and why. This is a problem.
If you understand the big picture, you can just sit down and practice. You don't need lenghthy explanations. You don't need to study all these different methods. You can just sit and watch your mind, and try to figure out the problem of dukkha all by yourself. It actually works better that way.
Just sit down and watch:  here is dukkha, this is how it feels, this is how it looks, this thing, this thought, this mindstate has an element of dukkha, and I can see it very clearly.
Then sit and try to see, this is how this dukkha originates, this is the craving for things to be different than they are that it comes from. This is the conflict between "is" and "should" that it comes from. This is discord that it comes from.
Then sit and try to do it. Here's when I let go of this craving for things to be different than they are, this dukkha no longer originates. Here's, when I reconcile the conflict between "is" and "should", here's when I remove inner discord, the dukkha ceases to arise.
Then this particular dukkha is gone, but something is still bothering us, and so we go on to the next iteration. This bothering is a piece of dukkha. I can see it very clearly.
And so on, all the way to Nirvana. It's kind of simple when you get what it is all about.
All meditations in your list, essentially do the same thing, except they don't explain it step by step like I did, instead they just say, "here is exactly how to stop dukkha: watch your breath, and if anything, including dukkha, comes up, come back to breath" (Anapana) or they would say "just label everything that comes up, without judging" (Vipassana) or they will say "just sit. there's no need to change anything, just sit" (Zazen), or they would say "sit and believe that you are a Buddhist deity, and learn to really feel it" (tantric), or they will say "sit and try to love everyone and everything (metta)", or they will say "sit and do nothing until you get lost in thought, then read mantra and come back to doing nothing" (transcendental), or they will say "walk and pay attention to every tiny detail of your walking muscles" and so on and so forth. But now you get it - all of these are just their tricks to stop making dukkha. When you know what it is about, you don't have to blindly follow any of that. You can sit down and practice your own real Buddhist meditation, in accordance with Noble Truths.

Great answer. Sometime one needs a hammer, sometimes a screwdriver.

I cannot express how huge a realization this answer was for me. I had been getting lost in all the descriptions of different practices, which I found difficult to apply myself because I could not understand their purpose. Whenever I follow something, I want to know what the goal is, because maybe I can find a way to that goal that works better for me, personally. This answer showed me that goal, which reconciles what I've heard about meditation practice with what I'm reading in the Pali Canon. Buddhism is starting to make a lot more sense.

OP: S.N. Goenka says if you practice Vipassana, you must not practice any other technique (but, even more confusingly, he also teaches Anapana and Metta)

What is said by Goenka is that you should choose one technique and stick to it. If you choose the technique he teachers you have to follow the instructions properly without adding or subtracting or mixing with other techniques even other techniques called Vipassana.
In Goenka's practice one of the main objective with noble silence, not using any verbalisation or visualisation you are trying to:

reduce conceptual proliferation
reduce the use of Paññatti

Even some other Vipassana techniques use verbalisation like:

seeing, seeing, hearing, hearing, etc.
rising, falling, rising, falling, etc.

Labelling is nama pannatti. Also see the following quote:

The abdomen rising and falling is pannyatti, seeing the abdomen is still pannyatti (name concept), only the movement is paramattha. [Knowing as the] abdomen or sitting, shapes, forms, are pannyatti. Only the pushing, movement, thrusting into motion is paramattha (absolute truth).

Know The Mind - Know Mano
If you mix this with the technique which one hand is trying to reduce pannatti with that you mixing in a technique which requires and relies on nama pannatti or labelling. Mixing the two is like trying to turn to the left with one hand and the right with the other at a T-junction. The outcome would be the car will not turn and an accident will ensure.
Techniques like Transcendental Meditation uses mantra and Tantric Meditation uses visualisations. This interferes with the working of the technique taught by Goenka and generally the working of Vipassana as these techniques are also in the realm of Paññatti.
Zazen uses conceptualisation in kōan which again is Paññatti and conceptual proliferation, hence why in Goenka's courses it said not to mix any of these then practising the technique taught by Goenka.
All the techniques using Paññatti is tilted towards Samantha in varying degree. Use of Paññatti blocks wisdom (Paññā) in varying degrees. Some purely develop mastery over the mind (Samadhi) and no wisdom (Paññā) while others develop some level of wisdom (Paññā) in tandem. Techniques like Ānâpānasati (Ānâpāna,sati Sutta) Kayagatāsati (Kaya,gatā,sati) develops both mastery over the mind (Samadhi) and wisdom (Paññā). Here Samadhi is also developed but not at the expense of Paññā since there is no Paññatti involved.
Vipassana tries to develop insight into citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbāna which are paramattha dhammas which are in line with reality. Paññatti is conceptual or concepts which in most worldlings subjected to delusion. So in doing Vipassana one should try to distance oneself from using Paññatti as much as possible.
In Samatha meditation, one uses a conceptual object like a coloured disc in Kasina or a being or a group of beings in Metta, to develop concentration. In most of the Samatha meditation techniques Paññatti is used. But you can use Vipassana also to develop concentration without Paññatti.
Not all techniques work the same and the goal is also different.

OP: There seems to be overlap and combination of techniques, e.g. observing and counting the breath in Zazen, vs. simply observing in Anapana.

There are seeming similarities but the working of the techniques may differ. Even in Theravada commentaries, there is a counting technique for Anapanasati, but this is not pure Vipassana but more Samatha and you are dealing with Paññatti.
That is why in Goenka's courses it is said not to use counting. A beginner may find it easy to use counting but after a certain point, it blocks insights into paramattha dhammas, as counting is Paññatti. If you use counting or labelling one should drop this as soon as possible after you have established some level of concentration and mindfulness to the level you do not need it anymore. (E.g. If your legs are not in the best of health you might use crutches to walk but once they are healed you do not need crutches anymore.) But if you are looking to maximise benefit from the fixed time you have for meditation it is the best to dive into pure Vipassana (without Paññatti but balanced with Samadhi) practice which can give insights quickly.

OP: ... (but, even more confusingly, he also teaches Anapana and Metta) ...

In longer courses he does mention about the other techniques also through he does not teach them in detail. Goenka does not say not to use other techniques but says don't mix in other techniques, especially when you do not understand the techniques behind the techniques, as this will have unintended consequences.
In 10 day course what is taught is:

Anapana
Vipassana / insight meditation
Metta / loving-kindness meditation

Anapana is also a type of Vipassana, but the practice in 10-day courses are the 1st few steps in Anapana (there are 16 steps) which is more Samatha than Vipassana. In Sati’patthāna Sutta and Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta only the 1st 4 steps in Anapana are covered. In Goenka's courses, one concentrate on the 1st few steps to develop Samadhi and then switch to Satipatthāna practice to develop Paññā, as found in Sati’patthāna Sutta and Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta.
Metta is also a type of Samatha Meditation.

OP: many meditation resources don't specify which technique is meant to achieve what goal,

In the context of Buddhist meditation, there are 40 subjects of meditation (Kammaṭṭhāna). These are divided into

Samatha for concentration and mastery over the mind
Vipassanā for wisdom

The goals of the different type of meditation are different.
In terms of the 3 fold training the 40 subjects of meditation (Kammaṭṭhāna) can be classified as:

morality (Śīla) - recollection of morality (Śīla)
mastery over the mind (Samadhi) - Samatha
wisdom (Paññā) - Vipassanā

Also, suitability differs from person to person:

The Pali commentaries further provide guidelines for suggesting meditation subjects based on one's general temperament:

Greedy: the ten foulness meditations; or, body contemplation.
Hating: the four brahma-viharas; or, the four color kasinas.
Deluded: mindfulness of breath.
Faithful: the first six recollections.
Intelligent: recollection of marana or Nibbana; the perception of disgust of food; or, the analysis of the four elements.
Speculative: mindfulness of breath.
The six non-color kasinas and the four formless states are suitable for all temperaments.

Source: Kammaṭṭhāna

OP: Some you must practice for two hours, morning and evening, others say 20 minutes is sufficient.

Different techniques may have different times to give results. In the context of Vipassana meditation, more particularly the technique taught by Goenka, you need to practice:

5 minutes after waking up - helps to keeps you mindful until you may start your morning session
1 hour in the morning - helps to remove defilements accumulated overnight
1 hour in the evening - helps to remove defilements accumulated during the day
5 minutes before sleeping - helps to remove defilements accumulated after the last session and maintain some mindfulness during the night until you fall asleep and / or when you wake up.

Thank you for directly addressing the confusions that I have - I now understand the motivation for much of what I learned at the Vipassana course by S.N. Goenka. I think I have one remaining confusion: if Pannatti is subject to delusion, what is the advantage of practices like counting? Is there ever an appropriate time to use them, e.g. if one is not practicing Vipassana?

For a novice, it might be helpful to have a little better concentration. But one should drop it as soon as one is established in mindfulness. In 10-day courses, it is adviced not to do any counting as this will impede the progress of Vipassana (Insight) a bit and you have to maximise benefits for the time in retreat.

There are really just two aspects of meditations in Buddhism, as seen in Kimsuka Sutta:

"Suppose, monk, that there were a royal frontier fortress with strong
  walls & ramparts and six gates. In it would be a wise, experienced,
  intelligent gatekeeper to keep out those he didn't know and to let in
  those he did. A swift pair of messengers, coming from the east, would
  say to the gatekeeper, 'Where, my good man, is the commander of this
  fortress?' He would say, 'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central
  square.' The swift pair of messengers, delivering their accurate
  report to the commander of the fortress, would then go back by the
  route by which they had come. Then a swift pair of messengers, coming
  from the west... the north... the south, would say to the gatekeeper,
  'Where, my good man, is the commander of this fortress?' He would say,
  'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central square.' The swift pair of
  messengers, delivering their accurate report to the commander of the
  fortress, would then go back by the route by which they had come.
"I have given you this simile, monk, to convey a message. The message
  is this: The fortress stands for this body — composed of four
  elements, born of mother & father, nourished with rice & barley gruel,
  subject to constant rubbing & abrasion, to breaking & falling apart.
  The six gates stand for the six internal sense media. The gatekeeper
  stands for mindfulness. The swift pair of messengers stands for
  tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana). The commander of the
  fortress stands for consciousness. The central square stands for the
  four great elements: the earth-property, the liquid-property, the
  fire-property, & the wind-property. The accurate report stands for
  Unbinding (nibbana). The route by which they had come stands for the
  noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right
  action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration."

The two are tranquility (samatha) and insight (vipassana). And these are not really two different types of meditations.
Suppose you have a camera which you take photos with.
If your focus, steadiness, aperture width, shutter speed and other parameters are not set correctly, then you can't take a good photo. That's what samatha is for.
Then you need to point your camera at the right subject to get the right photo that you desire. That's the aspect of insight (vipassana).
So, you need both these aspects. Point the camera at the right subject and tune the parameters, in order to get a good photo.
Also from Dhammapada 372:

There can be no concentration in one who lacks wisdom;
  there can be no wisdom in one who lacks concentration.
  He who has concentration as well as wisdom,
  is indeed, close to Nibbana.

I like this parable, as it clarifies the purposes of samatha and vipassana in an easy way. Upvoted!

This is an interesting thread as it clearly shows the confusion and contradictions in modern Buddhism-By-Common-Agreement. Despite the claims of sincere but misled Buddhist practitioners, Siddartha Gotama, an awakened human being taught a single meditation method for a single purse - to increase Jhana - to increase concentration.
The Buddha taught meditation as one factor of an Eightfold Path. It is from a well-concentrated mind the wise disciple is able to develop the refined mindfulness necessary to hold in mind all eight factors of the Path. In this way once is able to develop profound understanding and truer vipassana - introspective insight -  into impermanence, not-self, and dukkha and end ignorance of Four Noble Truths.
This alone establishes profound Right View and an unwavering calm and peaceful mind. The Buddha’s direct path is free of the magical and mystical speculative “dharmas” that only continue ignorance.
Here is an article that explains the problem of modern Buddhism-By-Common-Agreement: https://becoming-buddha.com/modern-buddhism-a-thicket-of-views/
Here are articles that explain Right Meditation - Jhana Meditation: https://becoming-buddha.com/right-meditation-samadhi-jhana/
Here is an article that explains Four Noble Truths: https://becoming-buddha.com/analysis-of-four-noble-truths-the-sacca-vibhanga-sutta/
Here is an article that explains the Eightfold Path: https://becoming-buddha.com/magga-vibhanga-sutta-analysis-of-the-path/
Peace.
John Haspel
Becoming-Buddha.com
 https://becoming-buddha.com/

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Was the Buddha a pessimist?
I learn from sources the Buddha and his teachings is often associated with pessimism. Is there any historical accuracies which can confirm this as a fact.

Both is required, householder, and timeless, not a history-tag. Affirming the Truths of the Heart: The Buddhist Teachings on Samvega & Pasada may bring householder clearance.

Asking for "historical accuracies", I guess you're asking for citations or for references to historical scripture which might confirm or deny the association with pessimism -- and so I changed the tag to reference-request which is for questions which are asking for a (scriptural or perhaps historical) reference.

Is it important that someone should read the linked articles before answering the question? If so can you reference or quote whchever especially-important paragraph[s] (or questions or definitions) in them that you were asking about? Or do you want people to just answer off the top of their heads, based on their existing understanding of what Buddhism is and what pessimism might mean?

Yes I would appreciate a reference or quotation from the documentation supporting an answer.

I meant: in the article which you linked to, is there something -- e.g. one paragraph of it in particular -- that you want to ask about? Because the article itself answers your question, doesn't it? And it's too long to address every detail of it; so is there some detail in it that you want to ask about?

If you're enjoying life, with a happy and supportive family, cheerful and dependable friends, with good health, good income and a luxurious lifestyle, you would find the Buddha a pessimist.
Why? The Buddha says in SN 56.11:

“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it
  is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by
  delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for
  sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination.

So, you who are enjoying life, would experience aversion at the Buddha's words that apparently want to take this joy of life away from you.
So, it is not the Buddha who is the pessimist. Rather, YOU are the pessimist, or rather when you read the Buddha's words, the pessimistic emotion appears in your mind. It's your aversion to the Buddha's words.
On the other hand, if you have bad family relations, no friends, chronic pain and suffering from poor health, no money etc. then the Buddha would appear to be an optimist to you.
Why? It's because you are experiencing aversion from the painful situation in your life. So, the Buddha's words below from SN 56.11 would provide solace and comfort to you, that there is a way out of experiencing (mental) suffering. So, you get relief from your aversion. And that's optimism. YOUR optimism.

“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering:
  it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same
  craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it,
  nonreliance on it.
“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the way leading to the
  cessation of suffering: it is this Noble Eightfold Path; that is,
  right view, right intention, right speech, right action,
  right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

When you look at the Buddha's words, whether you feel that he is an optimist or a pessimist, is actually a reflection of your own state of mind.
Coming back to the first case, where you're enjoying life, with a happy and supportive family, cheerful and dependable friends, with good health, good income and a luxurious lifestyle.
How can we change your mind so that you think that the Buddha is an optimist?
Read the following from AN 5.43:

For one desiring long life, beauty, fame,
  acclaim, heaven, high families,
  and lofty delights
  following in succession,
  the wise praise heedfulness
  in doing deeds of merit.
Being heedful, the wise person
  secures both kinds of good:
  the good in this life,
  and the good of the future life.
  By attaining the good, the steadfast one
  is called one of wisdom.

Voilà! Now the Buddha is an optimist to you.
Also read this answer for the question "Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business?"

Thank you for enlightening me!

The Buddha was a realist who preached about reality as it is. Optimising is a mindset where one thinks that conditions are better than what they actually are. Pessimism is the opposite, where one thinks things are worse off than what they actually are. Realism is the middle ground where one accepts things for what they actually are, without undue focus on only the negative or positive aspects of reality. The Buddha Dhamma teachers to reality as it is a teachers a path to see reality as it is.

For those who delight in sensuality & attachment, the Buddha was a pessimist.
For those urgently searching for inner peace & happiness that is independent from worldly reliance and conditions, the Buddha was the supreme optimist because Nibbāna in the here & now is the highest happiness and the highest state a human can reach in terms of mental development.
That the Buddha revealed there is actually a complete end of suffering that can be found in this life is actually something supremely optimistic.

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

Well kind of.
There are other teachers and religions that think something like "it always works out in the end, nothing can go wrong, it's always a happy story, happy ending".
Whereas one of the Noble truths is that "there is pain" or dukkha or acknowledging that pain or suffering really does exist rather than a denial that suffering exists like many other dhammas.
But the true purpose of the teaching is for the cessation of suffering, reaching the highest bliss, extinguishment of mental fermentations.
In my opinion The Buddha Gautama was more of an optimist who acknowledged the reality of suffering existing rather than a delusional denial.
When encountering lay people he often encouraged them to fulfill worldly desires in ways that generates merit and when discussing things with monks interested in achieving arahantship here and now he discussed more direct methods.
When debating against a sensual hedonist he thought The Buddha was a life-destroyer:

“Even if I was to see Master Gotama face to face, Mister Bhāradvāja, I
  would say to his face: ‘The ascetic Gotama is a life-destroyer.’ Why
  is that? Because that’s what it implies in a discourse of ours.”
...
“In the same way, sensual pleasures of the past, future, and present
  are painful to touch, fiercely burning and scorching. These sentient
  beings who are not free from sensual pleasures—being consumed by
  craving for sensual pleasures, burning with passion for sensual
  pleasures—have impaired sense faculties. So even though sensual
  pleasures are actually painful to touch, they have a distorted
  perception that they are pleasant." (MN 75)

When debating against an ascetic who practiced painful austerities the ascetic thought more the opposite that The Buddha was more of an optimist:

‘Reverend Gotama, pleasure is not gained through pleasure; pleasure is
  gained through pain. For if pleasure were to be gained through
  pleasure, King Seniya Bimbisāra of Māgadha would gain pleasure, since
  he lives in greater pleasure than Venerable Gotama.’
‘Clearly the venerables have spoken rashly, without reflection.
  Rather, I’m the one who should be asked about who lives in greater
  pleasure, King Bimbisāra or Venerable Gotama?’
‘Clearly we spoke rashly and without reflection. But forget about
  that. Now we ask Venerable Gotama: “Who lives in greater pleasure,
  King Bimbisāra or Venerable Gotama?”'
‘Well then, reverends, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can
  answer as you like. What do you think, reverends? Is King Bimbisāra
  capable of experiencing perfect happiness for seven days and nights
  without moving his body or speaking?’
‘No he is not, reverend.’
‘What do you think, reverends? Is King Bimbisāra capable of
  experiencing perfect happiness for six days … five days … four days …
  three days … two days … one day?’
‘No he is not, reverend.’
‘But I am capable of experiencing perfect happiness for one day and
  night without moving my body or speaking. I am capable of experiencing
  perfect happiness for two days … three days … four days … five days …
  six days … seven days. What do you think, reverends? This being so,
  who lives in greater pleasure, King Bimbisāra or I?’
‘This being so, Venerable Gotama lives in greater pleasure than King
  Bimbisāra.’” (MN 14)

According to The Buddha both sensual pleasure and painful austerities cause painful feelings.
The reason for avoiding sensual pleasures is to prevent the individual from experiencing painful feelings.
Because of impaired senses the majority cannot easily see the harm in sensual pleasures like how they can easily see the harm in inflicting physical pain.
But based on the suttas painful austerities are far more harmful in MN 71 The Buddha claims that almost no naked ascetic in the past 91 eons ever went to heaven after death whereas many seemingly normal lay people go to heavenly worlds after death. Also in AN 10.211 sensual pleasure is not listed as a something that ensures that someone goes to hell so it's probably more a rule for monks or those interested in achieving arahantship here and now.
If someone has a career or practice that yields painful feelings it's probably similar to a painful austerity.
The sammasambuddha Gautama preached for the welfare and actual supreme happiness of beings.

No such thing is found in the Tathagata, he was a realist if anything in as far as he explained phenomena as phenomena and the escapes as escapes.
Most people's worldview does not take into account the escape nor do they stop speculating about phenomena.
To some of these people only the immediately visible overlap between the Dhamma and 'existential depression' is discernable and is grasped with wrong view as being evidence of equality between the two. Hence the misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
A pessimist is closer to the truth than one with a rosetinted perspective but the pessimist is unable to put his observation into proper context so he becomes despaired and unmotivated whereas the Buddha attains the highest happiness and is comfortable without a ground for sorrow and his students are dilligent, balanced and highly motivated.

I say, that pessimism is the hinderance reffered to as doubt by others. But don't take my word for it, don't believe anything anyone tells you unless in makes sense to your own faculties and powers of discernment.   Doubt, and question everything!  Buddha said "question Everything, no matter who said it. Even is I have said it." This is someone who want you to find out the truth. Any teacher putting themselves beyond questioning should not be followed as a teacher. They want to conform you to their attachment to their egoic condition!
I say question everything especially if I Say It! Lol Find out!    Only the question about Buddha is not the right type of question and any answer is likely to be within the parameters of nonsense. Buddha is not the name of someone, it is a quality of enlightenment... But I do question how some monks and organization have and instill such suffering that everything will lead to suffering unless you exhaust existing. I wonder if this opinion, and the detachment is a cause of suffering and conflict in the world.  And if it is, so what? It is just so, and it is ok. Also perfect reality as it is. Theororetically...

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


text:
How are expectations and responsibilities seen in Buddhism?
These two things seem to be closely knitted together, sometimes contradictory and can be found especially in a professional setting. For example when a group of people work in a project, They have responsibilities - targets to achieve, deadlines to finish, works to do. They have roles to play.
Thus, it seems like a normal occurrence for the members to have expectations towards each other. It's a team work. The team cannot finish the project if the members don't do their jobs properly.
From the point of view of Buddhism, how does one should see/deal with this? In a teamwork, if you don't expect people to do their responsibilities and be content, the team might stall and it would impact everyone negatively. But if you expect, you are becoming attached to the person, wanting something from him/her.
Thanks!

Buddhism has two types of teachings: (i) worldly teachings; and (ii) non-worldly teachings. In the worldly teachings, a worker should do their job to the best of their abilities. In other words, Buddhism places expectations upon workers; just as monks must fulfil the expectations of their livelihood. The scriptures say:

The servants and employees thus ministered to as the Nadir by their
  master show their compassion to him in five ways:
(i) they rise before him,
(ii) they go to sleep after him,
(iii) they take only what is given,
(iv) they perform their duties well,
(v) they uphold his good name and fame.
DN 31

One meaning of the word 'dhamma' is 'duty' or 'practice'.

They must? Not from this comes that, with arising of this, that arises?

One of the best managers I ever worked with had one simple question at each meeting. She would ask:

What problem are we solving today?

Note that this question completely cuts off solution bickering as well as identity view. It's a marvelous real world strategy for laity.
From a monastic perspective, the elimination of identity view is critical:

An individual who is attached to their own views, holding them tight, and refusing to let go, extinguishes it by not being attached to their own views, not holding them tight, but letting them go easily. --MN8

Do this one simple thing at every meeting. Just ask:
"What problem are we solving today?"


text:
How can the sixth channel of dhatus be understood?
Could someone help clarifying the sixth channel of the eighteen dhatus - that is -  the mental objects (dharma-dhatu), the mental faculty (mano-dhatu)  and the mental consciousness (mano-vijñāna-dhatu)?
I’d be grateful for a more detailed description  of their nature and relationship, and if possible the relevant suttas that mention these.

OP: Could someone help clarifying the sixth channel of the eighteen dhatus - that is - the mental objects (dharma-dhatu), the mental faculty (mano-dhatu) and the mental consciousness (mano-vijñāna-dhatu)?

Here is a good explanation:

The element which is mano-dhatu or mind-element is nama. Mano-dhatu comprises the panca-dvaravajjana-citta (five-sense-door-adverting-consciousness) and the two types of sampaticchana-citta (receiving-consciousness) which are kusala vipaka and akusala vipaka. Thus three kinds of citta are mano-dhatu.
Dhamma-dhatu comprises both nama and rupa. Dhamma-dhatu is the cetasikas, the subtle rupas (sukhuma-rupas) and nibbana.
Mano-vinnana-dhatu or mind-consciousness-element is nama. It comprises all cittas which are not the dvi-panca-vinnanas and not mano-dhatu. For example, santirana-citta (investigating-consciousness), mano-dvaravajjana-citta (mind-door-adverting-consciousness) and the cittas performing the function of javana such as lobha-mula-citta are mano-vinnana-dhatu.
Panca-vinnana-dhatu (seeing-consciousness-element, etc.), the mano-dhatu (mind-element) and the mano-vinnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness-element) are: vinnana-dhatu (consciousness-element).
Dhamma-dhatu is not identical with dhammarammana (mind-objects). Cittas are included in dhammarammana, but not in dhamma-dhatu, since dhamma-dhatu is: cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. When cittas are classified as elements they are the seven classes of vinnana-dhatu, namely:
Panca-vinnana-dhatu (which are five classes), mano-dhatu (mind-element), mano-vinnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness-element).
Concepts and conventional terms (pannatti) which are included in dhammarammana are not dhamma-dhatu, because they are not paramattha dhammas. Only paramattha dhammas are classified as elements.

Abhidhamma in Daily Life by Nina Van Gorkom, Chapter 18 - Elements

OP: if possible the relevant suttas that mention these

This is found in:

Vibhanga
Dhatukatha

A physical eye, similar to a mirror, may reflect an external image/object in it. However, the mental property/element of eye consciousness is require for the mind to experience/know the external image/object/sight.
Similar to the physical eye, the mano-dhatu is the sense organ required for the mind to know things/objects that can only be sensed/experienced/known by mano-dhatu. The things/objects that can only be sensed by mano-dhatu include:

Feelings
Perceptions
Thoughts and defilements (moods, emotions, drives)
Consciousness itself
Truth, such as Four Noble Truths, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self, emptiness
Nibbana

While the Pali suttas do not explicitly define 'dharma-dhatu', obviously 'dharma-dhatu' are far more extensive than mere 'mental objects' (feelings, perceptions & thoughts) because they must include Truth (Insight) and Nibbana. Obviously, this is why the word 'dhamma' is used (rather than a term that is exclusively mental, such as "cetasika" or "nama-dhamma").
Originally, Bhikkhu Bodhi properly translated dhamma-dhatu (in Pali) as "mind-objects"; meaning "objects known by the mind". But recently, he has changed his translation to "mental phenomena", which is wrong (because Truth and Nibbana are not mental phenomena or nama-dhamma). The translations of Thanissaro and Sujato Bhikkhu of "ideas" and "thoughts" is also wrong.


text:
What are the canonical definitions of vitarka-vicara in the Tripitaka or related literature
The quote below defines Vitarka-vicara as:

Ardency (atappa) + mindfulness (sati) => combines to make vitakka
Ardency (atappa) + alertness (sampajañña) => combines to make vicara

As Ajaan Lee, my teacher’s teacher, once noted, mindfulness combined with ardency turns into the concentration factor called vitakka, or directed thought, where you keep your thoughts consistently focused on one object, such as the breath. Alertness combined with ardency turns into another concentration factor: vicāra, or evaluation

Head & Heart Together, by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, Chapter: Mindfulness Defined
No citation from the cannon have been given in this discussion.
What are the Tipitaka, commentary, sub commentary sources, including primary, secondary or tertiary source with citations, which defines Vitarka-vicara as such?
Are there other definitions of Vitarka-vicara from Tipitaka, commentaries, sub commentaries, including primary, secondary or tertiary source with citations?

also see the quotes in Bonn's answer here

From Khuddaka Nikaya's The Questions of King Milinda (translation mine):

‘Venerable Nagasena, what is the characteristic mark of vitakka*?’
‘The characteristic mark of vitakka is "placing" (Appanā), Your Majesty.’
‘Give me an example.’
‘For example, Your Majesty, like a carpenter takes well-finished boards of wood and places (appeti) them in position.’
Mil 3.3.13

*ideation, reasoning, putting forward ideas, postulating a premise

‘Venerable Nagasena, what is the characteristic mark of vicāra*?’
‘The characteristic mark of vicāra is pondering/mulling over (anumajjana), Your Majesty.’
‘Give me an example.’
‘For example, Your Majesty, if you strike on a copper vessel, it then rings for a while, it responds with a sound. Here, Your Majesty, the strike is a simile for vitakka and the reverberation is a simile for vicāra.’
Mil 3.3.14

*investigating a premise, considering an idea to weigh its implications

Do you know where it says Ardency (atappa) + mindfulness (sati) => combines to make vitakka and Ardency (atappa) + alertness (sampajañña) => combines to make vicara. Also which section and page do the above come from?

Vitakka here: https://suttacentral.net/mil3.3.13/en/tw_rhysdavids Very good, Guru Volkov. Thank you for this.

@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena RE: atappa, I think the meaning is, not any vitakka, but the right arya vitakka is ardent mindfulness of dharma (sati), and right arya vicara is ardent "clear awareness that comes from having penetrated dharma" (sampajanna). In other words, ardently thinking about dharma is proper vitakka, and ardently keeping overall dharmic awareness is proper vicara.

See SN 46.3
http://lucid24.org/sn/sn46/sn46-003/index.html

sati-sambojjhanga remembers Dhamma-teaching, then thinks (vitakka) about that Dharma.
Dhamma-vicaya-sambojjhnaga investigates that Dharma-teaching recollected by sati, by means of vicara (evaluation) paññāya (same word as the sampajano, what B. thanissaro translates as 'alertness').

ātāpi = ardency, is equivalent to the 3rd awakening factor vigor/viriya, also equivalent to 4 aspects of right effort.
So what Ajahn Lee is saying sounds idiosyncratic at first, but it is solidly based on EBT sutta.

SN 46.3 very good. However, the claims about Ajahn Lee solidly based on EBT sutta is questionable.

I think the citations from SN 46.3 and the Milindapañha provided in the other answers are sufficient for answering this question.
However, it think they may not explain the meaning of vitakka & vicara in respect to jhana, let alone in respect to samadhi,  because Ajahn Lee Dhammadharo's ideas would imply there is ardency (atappa) in the 1st jhana and no ardency (atappa) in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th jhanas.
However, MN 111 does not distinguish any different supporting mental factors among the different jhanas. Also, MN 19, for example, appears to say a meditator abiding in the 4th jhana has ardency (atappa), however subtle, indirect and/or automatic:

With the giving up of pleasure and pain, and the ending of former
  happiness and sadness, I entered and remained in the fourth
  absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and
  mindfulness.
Sukhassa ca pahānā dukkhassa ca pahānā pubbeva somanassadomanassānaṃ
  atthaṅgamā adukkhamasukhaṃ upekkhāsatipārisuddhiṃ catutthaṃ jhānaṃ
  upasampajja vihāsiṃ.
When my mind had immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright,
  flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and
  imperturbable — I extended it toward recollection of past nivāsā.
So evaṃ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe vigatūpakkilese
  mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇāya cittaṃ
  abhininnāmesiṃ. I recollected many kinds of past lives, with features
  and details.
So anekavihitaṃ pubbenivāsaṃ anussarāmi. Seyyathidaṃ—ekampi jātiṃ … pe
  … iti sākāraṃ sauddesaṃ anekavihitaṃ pubbenivāsaṃ anussarāmi.
This was the first knowledge, which I achieved in the first watch of
  the night. Ayaṃ kho me, bhikkhave, rattiyā paṭhame yāme paṭhamā vijjā
  adhigatā;
Ignorance was destroyed and knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed
  and light arose, as happens for a meditator who is diligent, keen, and
  resolute.
avijjā vihatā vijjā uppannā; tamo vihato āloko uppanno; yathā taṃ
  appamattassa ātāpino pahitattassa viharato.
MN 19

In my personal experience, vitakka & vicara in respect to samadhi are not as Ajahn Lee Dhammadharo proposed because mindfulness & sampajjana have no direct relationship to vitakka & vicara. Any relationship is merely an indirect consequence that fades in the 2nd jhana.
The function of mindfulness in respect to samadhi development is to maintain sampajjana (situational wisdom), which culminates in keeping the mind free from unwholesome states and making the mind still. Mindfulness establishes a centre point or 'anchor' for the mind.
The result of this mindful stilling of ordinary mental activity is consciousness automatically begins to flow towards or get involved with/land on (upaya; appatiṭṭha; refer to SN 22.53) the in & out breathing.
This automatic non-volitional movement of consciousness towards the breathing is 'vitakka'. The tracking & hugging (anumajjana - lit: 'rubbing') of the breathing by consciousness (which allows the experiencing, feeling & evaluating of the breathing) is 'vicara'.
In the 1st jhana, there remains some subtle movement of consciousness towards (vitakka) and exploration (vicara) of the factors of the 1st jhana, which Ajahn Brahm has described in his book (linked below) as the "Jhana Wobble". However, this vitakka (movement towards) & exploration/ looking around (vicara) cease in the 2nd jhana, where the mind is perfectly still (ekodibhāvaṃ).
Ajahn Buddhadasa said (page 203-204):

Bhikkhu Sujato noted on page 169:

...in some Buddhist works, vitakka and vicāra ‘are apparently looked upon as special faculties in the first jhāna, not as mere thought remaining from ordinary consciousness’.

Ajahn Brahm said on PDF page 30:

Some commentators explain the pair, vitakka and vicára as “initial
  thought” and “sustained thought.” While in other contexts this pair
  can refer to thought, in jhana they certainly mean something else.

It is clear to me as sky on a bright sunny day, what Vitakka and Vicara in jhanas mean. They mean that the first jhana is achieved with help of deliberate reflection used as a kind of autosuggestion, and the subsequent jhanas do not involve this.

Sorry but no Andrei. SN 48.10. Jhana born from letting go/surrender (vossagga). The only volition is letting go rather than thrusting/poking/pushing like when a man has sex. Its like a woman using volition to open her vagina. No hammer on nail or hitting a bell or anything like that. Its not macho.

Yeah, in the first jhana it is letting go of the craving for and aversion to worldly experiences. This is what autosuggestion type of reflection is used for. Then the second jhana is exactly letting go of these autosuggestions. No vagina. Try it.


text:
What are the canonical definitions of common terms used in the context of satipaṭṭhāna from the Tripitaka or related literature
What are the canonical definitions of the following words (sati, sampajañña, appamada, atappa, manasikara, satipaṭṭhāna) from the Tipitaka, commentaries, sub commentaries, including primary, secondary or tertiary source with citations:

Image source: Sati (Buddhism)

Mindfulness is not "awareness". Mindfulness is remembering, as follows:

When one has heard the Dhamma from such bhikkhus one dwells withdrawn
  by way of two kinds of withdrawal—withdrawal of body and withdrawal of
  mind. Dwelling thus withdrawn, one recollects (anussarati) that Dhamma and
  thinks it over. Whenever, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwelling thus withdrawn
  recollects that Dhamma and thinks it over, on that occasion the
  enlightenment factor of mindfulness (sati) is aroused by the bhikkhu; on thatoccasion the bhikkhu develops the enlightenment factor of mindfulness;
  on that occasion the enlightenment factor of mindfulness comes to
  fulfilment by development in the bhikkhu.
https://suttacentral.net/sn46.3/en/bodhi

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter (upasampajja) & remain (viharati) in right
  view: This is one's right mindfulness (sati).
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html

"What is sammasati? Sati means to bear in mind or bring to mind. Sati
  is the state of recollecting, the state of remembering, the state of
  non-fading, the state of non-forgetting. Sati means the sati that is a
  Spiritual Faculty, the sati that is a Spiritual Power, Sammasati, the
  Sati that is an Enlightenment Factor, that which is a Path Factor and
  that which is related to the Path. This is what is called sammasati."
  Vbh.105, 286

Sampajanna (saṃ + pajāna) is active supervisory wisdom. It means ready wisdom, situational wisdom, to thoroughly understand. Sampajanna is not Western/Jewish 'bare zombie awareness'. When SN 47.35 briefly defines ‘sampajana’, it uses the word “vidita” (pp. of vindati), which means “to understand” or “understood”, as Bhikkhu Bodhi properly translated as “understood”, as follows:

And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here,
  bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu feelings are understood as they arise,
  understood as they remain present, understood as they pass away.
  Thoughts are understood as they arise, understood as they remain
  present, understood as they pass away. Perceptions are understood as
  they arise, understood as they remain present, understood as they pass
  away. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu exercises clear
  comprehension.

Because I understand the diversity of faculties as it applies to this person.
Indriyavemattatā hi me, udāyi, imasmiṃ puggale viditā.
MN 66

However, I have recognized individual differences.
Api ca mayā puggalavemattatā viditā”ti.
SN 12.17

Manasikara is manas or thought. Thus it is attention directed by thought or intention (rather than mere or pure consciousness/vinnana). For example:

Hearing the good Dhamma, becoming full, fills up faith. Faith, becoming full, fills up careful attention. Careful attention, becoming full, fills up mindfulness and clear comprehension. AN 10.61

Satipaṭṭhāna, according to Bhikkhu Sujato, means establishing of mindfulness.

The function of satipaṭṭhāna as support for jhāna is suggested in a
  very common Sutta idiom, whose significance tends to be obscured in
  translation. The term satipaṭṭhāna (establishing of mindfulness)
  resolves into sati and upaṭṭhāna. The alternative resolution into sati
  and paṭṭhāna, though favoured by the commentaries, is spurious. The
  difference between the two is that while upaṭṭhāna expresses the
  subjective act of establishing or setting up mindfulness, paṭṭhāna
  would refer to the ‘foundations’ of mindfulness, the objective domains
  on which mindfulness is established. The basic meaning of upaṭṭhāna is
  to ‘stand near’, and it is commonly used to mean ‘serve’, ‘approach’,
  even ‘worship’. Taranatha Tarkavacaspati’s Sanskrit dictionary
  gives the meaning of ‘causing to remember’...,
  which would be identical with sati, but as this does not seem to be
  attested in any early text it is probably under Buddhist influence. We
  have already remarked that the closest parallel in the Upaniṣads is
  the term upāsana. Page 185


text:
Are Good Qualities Proportional to Our Efforts?
I mused that clearly, certain efforts are necessary for the path. But, I can easily imagine a person exerting lots of efforts towards a detrimental goal, or a person exerting a bit of effort towards a wholesome goal. So, effort in itself seems not directly related to good qualities.
Another example is a proficient meditator for whom meditation might be easier, but more potent and pleasant; this contrasts with the beginner who struggles and must apply effort. The experienced meditator might generate more effect with less effort.
What is the relationship in Buddhism of effort to its resulting benefit? Is it indirect?
Thank you

From MN 117, we read that Right Effort (samma vayamo) must go in the right direction:

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is
  one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve:
  This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This
  is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This
  is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right
  livelihood: This is one's right effort."

Not just the right direction, but also the right amount of effort - not too much and not too little.
From AN 6.55 (a vina is an indian stringed musical instrument):

"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too taut,
  was your vina in tune & playable?"
"No, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too loose,
  was your vina in tune & playable?"
"No, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were neither too
  taut nor too loose, but tuned to be right on pitch, was your vina in
  tune & playable?"
"Yes, lord."
"In the same way, Sona, over-aroused persistence leads to
  restlessness, overly slack persistence leads to laziness. Thus you
  should determine the right pitch for your persistence, attune the
  pitch of the [five] faculties [to that], and there pick up your
  theme."

Any action which requires more effort or planning requires more volitional thoughts. This compounds the karmic effort. E.g. killing a mosquito is quite reactive and requires little thought relative to going hunting for larger game. Therefore, killing a mosquito has fewer consequences. Similarly for meritorious deeds.
In meditation, when one is struggling this is either lack of concentration, mindfulness or defilements surfacing. An experienced mediator may experience only lesser about of such negative states and more positive states. Therefore, a more experienced meditator may accumulate more merit in the course of meditation.
Ultimately what matters is the times one generate wholesome/unwholesome volitional activities when taking action.
With regard to right-effort, one must put effort into the Four Right Exertions. More the effort more the merit. But one should aware that this effort is not excessive, in which case will make you stressed.

Another example is a proficient meditator for whom meditation might be easier, but more potent and pleasant; this contrasts with the beginner who struggles and must apply effort. The experienced meditator might generate more effect with less effort.

There're many other examples we see in our daily life. Weren't you surprised and maybe even a little bit envious of that super genius friend of yours back in 4th grade who aced all the math exams without spending much time doing his homework assignments, while you only got a passing grade even after working your behind off on those homework exercises? How about that music kid in 6th grade who breezed thru Mozart's Concerto No.21 while you still struggled with your Yankee Doodle! So the key point is, unless you believe in complete sheer chance, a completely random rolling of the genetic dice, Or succumb to the idea of a God who, in his own mysterious way, made those friends of yours way smarter or way more talented, then you will have to question where all those potentials came from? If they weren't by chance, by some mysterious force, or came out of thin air, then there always exists the possibility that your math/piano buddies had already worked their behinds off at some point in their previous lives, while you, back then only spent most of your days fooling around, right? So bottom line is, think of efforts like the law of conservation of energy, as long as one invests in it in a good wholesome way, it won't be a wasteful investment.

One aspect of effort translates from the pali concept viriya. It is included in

the ten perfections (dasa pāramiyo)
the seven factors of awakening (satta bojjhaṅgā)
the five strengths (pañcabalāni)
the five spiritual faculties (pañc' indriyāni)

Just as you concluded yourself, viriya is bundled with the other perfections/factors since it isn't enough on it's own.
For instance, it is not a coincidence that equanimity (upekkha) appears alongside effort/viriya. Effort on it's own runs the risk of becoming unwholesome craving (tanha), and is more wholesome when tempered by the other wholesome factors mentioned above, especially equanimity. This is elaborated on in Visuddhimagga:

if the vigor faculty is too strong, the faith faculty cannot perform its function of convincing, nor can the rest of the faculties perform their several functions. So in that case the excessive strength of the vigor faculty should be reduced by cultivating (the enlightenment factors of) tranquillity, concentration and equanimity.


text:
Are there Bad teachers? Is Mara in the Sanga?
I have had an experience with a top teacher, Regional Assistant Teacher, and Center Manager acting in ways very disturbing to the path. Later I saw clearly that they were controlled by Mara or had energy in the Mara realm, may be interested in making very difficult Sankhara. How can a serious student navigate these dangers to reach liberation? If the Sangha has lies, killing beings, Traps students and Practitioner s in a the type of life a student of Buddha seeks to be free from? Are these dangers in monks? Can we admit and face what influence we have acting upon us or act out ourselves or will this lead to more ego I am, I am not... Etc. More confusion and controversy.

Good to think about why one meets such, goes after such, as such is a matter of Upanissaya. Cunda Sutta. Why does one seek for Dhamma among businnes and trade. Look there disciples quote even without giving reputation.

There have always been bad men robed as monks. If we have clear moral discernment, we will avoid them.

There are many evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe. These wicked men will be born in states of woe because
  of their evil deeds.
It would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball, blazing like fire, than as an immoral and uncontrolled monk to eat the alms of the
  people.

Dhammapada

Be committed to the path. The solution lies in the quality of consciousness. Just like Metta Sutta says that Metta drives off anger or angry people, you keep investing time and energy in spiritual advancement and you will have no problems with any kind of negative people.

"Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one." -- Metta
  (Mettanisamsa) Sutta: Good Will

I have been living in ashram in India for two years. There have been many deviations from teachers instructions, cheating, politics and hinderances imposed by neophyte students. The best is to be committed to your path so if someone becomes bad or whole Sanga crashes, you will still be on the path making spiritual advancement.

And become red...

What's red? It that an acronym?

Yes: affection, love, hate, blood, fire, marxism, communism: in short Mara within the sangh(khara).. But usually they would see them burning and promoting it.

I think that's @SamanaJohann commenting on (reacting to, disliking) the colour of your avatar.

It's orange iwth a letter "U".

I think he complained about "red" previously e.g. as a comment to this answer and this answer.

Doesn't make sense.


text:
5 Skandhas / 5 aggregates
My question is what is the action each of the 5 aggregates perform. If I was not clear about the question please drop me a message here I will try to be much clearer. Please provide a Sutta as a reference.

"And why do you call it 'form'? Because it is afflicted, thus it is
  called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger &
  thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles.
  Because it is afflicted, it is called form.
"And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called
  'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it
  feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called
  feeling.
"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is
  called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it
  perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it
  perceives, it is called perception.
"And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate
  fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they
  fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they
  fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness,
  they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of
  perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of
  consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated
  thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called
  fabrications.
"And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it
  is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is
  sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, &
  unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.079.than.html

My comments:

I think the description of 'perception' above is to highlight the perception of 'difference', 'contrast', etc. Thus, it could include shapes, length, sound frequencies, texture, sensations, etc.
The meaning of 'sankhara' above is question in itself. However, the key term is 'abhisaṅkharonti' ('fabricate'; a verb), which generally refers to 'attachment' in the suttas (eg. SN 12.51) and is also used in suttas about 'kamma' (eg. SN 12.25). Therefore, the description of 'sankhara' above appears to refer to 'mentally constructing' ('abhisaṅkharonti') each of the aggregates as 'self' and 'pertaining or belonging to self'. It appears to mean 'mental constructing' ('abhisaṅkharonti') each of the aggregates into something much more than they actually are. For example, SN 12.2 refers to 'producing' (abhinibbatti) views of 'beings' (sattānaṃ) in respect to the 'appearance or manifestation of the aggregates' (khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo).
The description of 'consciousness' above & below, in terms of both 'tastes' (above) and 'feelings' (below) appears to highlight consciousness as a 'sensory impact'.

'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be
  'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It
  cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It
  cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'
Discernment (wisdom) & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not
  disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the
  other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one
  discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html

'The six classes of contact should be known.' Thus was it said. In
  reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there
  arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact.
  Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear.
  The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the nose & aromas
  there arises consciousness at the nose. The meeting of the three is
  contact. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness
  at the tongue. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the
  body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. The
  meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the intellect & ideas
  there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three
  is contact. 'The six classes of contact should be known.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html

At Savatthi... There are these four nutriments for the maintenance of
  beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search
  of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined;
  contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, and
  consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the
  maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of
  those in search of a place to be born.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.than.html

Great job , just short about perceptions do they only percieve colors or also other things, and also when it is said conciousness cognizes pleasant,unpleasant and neutral it is referring to feelings right. What is meant here And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they fabricate form as a fabricated thing same with feelings and perceptions and conciousness what is meant by "for the sake of formness"

Hi. I will add comments to the post. Regards

My question is what is the action each of the 5 aggregates perform.

Source: (Dve) Khandhā Sutta

Form is the range of the Impingent (what is tangible and fluid) and what is of and is derived from the impingent. Derived form is the impinged(ie sensitive body) and the qualities of form such as the range of body sensibility and qualities of form such as decay, nutriment, maintenance and impermanence. The element of Space is also thus derived.
Vedana - It feels and is born of contact.
Perception - It perceives and is born of contact.
Consciousness - It cognizes what is felt, discerned and perceived. Is one of the three involved in the meeting of the three; The impingent, the impinged and the associated class of consciousness.
It arises as one thing and ceases as another. It is both requisite for contact and is resultant of contact; is conjoined with feeling and perception.
It is also called mind or intellect.
Fabrication - It fabricates; form as form, consciousness as consciousness, the impingent as impingent and the impinged as the impinged.
The six classes of intention are fabrications and are born of contact.
References are; mn43, sn22.57 the form interpretation is based abhidhamma exposition on form. The Sutta has form as 'body' sometimes ie sn12.61 but mostly pins form as four properties and form derived from those.

5 skandha are empty. There is no real person living. But due to ignorance the individual take it as real and attach to it. As he attach, there arise fuel for becoming. Becoming produce birth, old age and death.
So can one give simple explanation about skandhas? Yes.
It's as follows;
Think that you have to create a living puppet which feel, discriminate, think and act. You put together mass of form or substance to build the body first. So, 1st skandha in form. Now you put feelings into it. This is 2nd skandha. You go on to put notion of "I" into it. It's 3rd skandha as Sanna. After you put behavioural pattern attributed to previously planted "i". It's 4th attribute as Sankhara. The last step is you put intelligence so that it come alive. This is 5th skandha as Vinnana. So puppet is ready. Now he think he is born, now act and think.
But the most important question remains? The intelligence you put in the puppet belongs to whom? It belongs to the one who created the puppet. He trojen intelligence into it.
These are 5 skhandas. And there is also higher intelligence who have took this form.
We are just puppet made by Absolute. For the  Absolute Buddha termed as Anatta. And for 5 skandhas as Anitya.
Knowing that we are just puppet. There is no one here that lives or die, the sorrow comes to an end. This is awakening.
Nor 5 skandhas is real you nor the absolute is you. So, you are annihilated totally. No more becoming, no more fuel. No more puppet, no more pain. May all awaken to it!


text:
Why Do Moments of Mindlessness Occur?
I noticed that at key moments, such as when I am using social media in a passive way, or when I am between tasks in daily life, I tend to enter a kind of 'habitual' mode of being. On social media I click aimlessly around, almost compulsively. In my house, I just walk around without much planning or purpose.
What could cause such mindless behaviour?
I am also wondering whether merely paying close attention to lapses in attentiveness and to distracted moments can ultimately lead to the elimination of such habitual behaviours.

If ever have been mindful, such would be actually no question. As to the question how to reach such areas: Dana, Sila, Dana, Sila and Dana Sila, and from time to time, talk on Dhamma, reflecting it.

The hindrances are causes of not being mindful: eg. interest in the world.

In short, the five hindrances disrupt mindfulness.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_hindrances
Also related to the five hindrances are the general defilements (kilesas), which also hinders mindfulness.

I am also wondering whether merely paying close attention to lapses in attentiveness and to distracted moments can ultimately lead to the elimination of such habitual behaviours.

It’s a good start. However, one needs to purposely commit to the entire eightfold noble path in order to completely eliminate those behaviors.

In the following talk, it is described that the five hindrances, namely, sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, and doubt, do not just affect a person in meditation. It also affects a person at other times. The five hindrances obsess the mind and enslave the mind. They also appear habitually.
The speaker says that people who commit acts of crime like raping their own daughter, are strongly deluded and enslaved by the hindrances.
Only after attaining and mastering the first jhana, do the five hindrances reduce to a very low level that is not significant enough to be considered hindrances any more. After attaining the fourth jhana, the five hindrances are nearly completely eliminated.
The speaker says that a person who has overcome the five hindrances is capable of yoniso manasikara (focused attention or careful attention). With this, a person could attain stream entry simply by listening to the true Dhamma (teachings) attentively and reflecting on it. This is based on SN 55.5.
So, why do moments of mindlessness occur? It's due to the presence of the five hindrances.
In the YouTube video entitled "Characteristics of a Sotapanna" at timestamp 25:52, Ven. Dhammavuddho Mahathera stated (with some paraphrasing):

The third condition, this word - yoniso manasikara, which I
  translate as focused attention. It is also known as careful attention.
  This word means that when you listen to the Dhamma, you are focused on
  listening to the Dhamma. In other words, at that time, you don't have
  the five hindrances. If that is so, then you can understand the Dhamma
  and attain stream entry.
So who are the people who do not have the five hindrances? In the
  suttas, it is stated by the Buddha that as long as a person has not
  attained piti and sukha which are secluded from unwholesome
  states, which are secluded from sensual pleasures, the five hindrances
  will obsess him and obsess him habitually.
So, there are two types of persons who do not have the five
  hindrances. The first is the one who has attained the first jhana
  (i.e. he who has attained piti and sukha). When a person has attained
  the first jhana, he has eliminated the five hindrances and the Buddha
  says that the five hindrances no longer obsess that person habitually.
  ...
So there are two conditions if a person has the hindrances. Firstly,
  it obsesses your mind, it enslaves your mind. Secondly, it is
  habitual, it is very often there. That's why when
  somebody rapes his daughter or rapes his granddaughter,
  it's because he cannot control these hindrances. His
  hindrances overwhelms his mind, obsesses the mind. After a person
  attains the first jhana, the Buddha says that the five hindrances are
  eliminated.
A lot of people don't believe it because they don't really understand
  the hindrances. If I ask you what are the hindrances, a lot of people
  will say sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and
  worry, and doubt. But these are not the five hindrances. These are
  called the five hindrances only when they obsess your mind, when they
  enslave your mind and they recur habitually. Only then they are called
  the five hindrances.
When a person attains the first jhana, these five hindrances reduce to
  a low level. They are still there but they are not called hindrances
  any more. It's just as if you walk through a jungle, you may
  encounter seven foot high long grass obstructing you. It's a
  hindrance because when you try to go through it, you cannot see in
  front of you. Secondly, it cuts or injures your skin. So, it's a big
  hindrance. But if I cut down that long grass to 12 inches, it is no
  more a hindrance. But it is still observable.
So, when a person attains  the first jhana,
  it's as if the seven foot high long grass has
  been cut down to 12 inches. When he attains the second jhana,
  the 12 inches becomes 8 inches.
  When he attains the third jhana, it becomes 4
  inches. When he attains the fourth jhana, it becomes one millimeter.
  So there is a big difference between the first three jhanas and the
  fourth jhana.
That is why it is said that once a person attains the first jhana, the
  hindrances are (nearly) eliminated,
  meaning generally (nearly) eliminated for good.

You're off to a good start, in that you are aware of periods when mindfulness is absent. When does this awareness occur? Much later, just after, or during? Try to catch it sooner. Be like a detective, and trace mindlessness back to it's source. See if you can remember what conditioned it. The sooner you catch it, the easier the trace will be.
Everything is conditioned. If we can observe mindlessness non-judgmentaly (or anything else) as they arise, the conditions that give rise will become known. Know what gives rise to it's coming, and what gives rise to it's disappearance. Know what it is like during mindfulness, and what it is like without. Observe keenly, as though you were expected to report on it later. Develop a keen interest in what's actually happening, and experience it fully for yourself.
It is not enough to simply hold the object with your attention, one must "rub" into the object, so to speak, to understand it moment to moment. Observe how it changes and disappears. The conditions that give rise to mindlessness will become obvious. Often, it is the hindrances - clinging, aversion, sloth, restlessness, and doubt. The hindrances are simply the mind out of balance. Rebalance yourself in the middle way and mindfulness will become more effortless.
For example, becoming mindless while browsing the internet is probably both sloth, aversion, and craving - to lazy to do something else, desiring a good story to make you laugh, aversion towards being bored, etc.


text:
Vipassana retreat while in post acute withdrawal?
It's a hell of state to observe moment by moment. I mean nothing is really life threatening with PAWS so does a retreat somewhere accommodate this condition?

Sorry I don't know about retreats, specifically. Here (e.g. here) is a list of many local meetings, perhaps people there might know more of what's out there.

Try it. Hard but will fix all issues. When other could do it, why not yourself? And the task will be itself a means for cure.

While every body is different, and every path of recovery unique, I would generally advise against this. I have seen folks attempt retreats while not firmly secure in their sobriety, and the anguish was rather intense. It tends towards failure. Building up some stability and skillfulness with sobriety off the cusion before attempting the marathon of a retreat is the recommended path for success in every case I have personally and professionally seen.
Edit: You know your path of recovery and stability in sobriety probably better than anyone. Trust what you know. Perhaps look into finding a good MBRP instructor who is familiar with incorporating mindfulness and recovery before exploring a retreat? All the best...
Source: Extensive retreat experience and am an active and licensed mental health and substance abuse counselor.

I think a lot of what is attributed to paws can be attributed to weakened intellect, sluggish or scattered mind and other unskillful qualities which are well established in one who does not tend to mind development much. For example when one dispels the hindrance of drowsiness one needs little sleep if any. As for anxiety a lot of it resolves when one has little plans, few projects and is well disciplined for non-regret.
Not saying it doesn't come into play somehow (the paws) but i think one can definitely do some training and see what happens.

Ask the people arranging the retreat. If they lack experience and/or accommodation for dealing with withdrawal I’d advice against participating.

I recommend against it. You better off spending time in the nature, IMO.

As someone who has attended Goenka's meditation retreat as well as a few other Theravada meditation traditions, this is my experience

Different styles appeal to different people. What works well for one person may be terrible for another
DO NOT attend any meditation retreat if you have untreated conditions
Assuming we are talking about Vipassana meditation, it is NOT a method to cure mental illness

Anapana-satti and vipassana are methods (or vehicles) for us to understand ourselves and reality as it is, to let go of our suffering. It is not meant to treat any conditions. Having said that, if you are under the care of a healthcare professional, taking medications or therapy and you have informed the meditation course/retreat organizer, you can participate in meditation retreats.

Ask the ATs at a Vippassna Center. Send an email, someone can tell you more about doing a ten day retreat. I am sure the meditation will help dramatically with addiction and withdrawl. In the long run especially, but also especially the short run. It will help you.
    Personally, it has helped me a lot. Cigarettes, were very hard, and even the sankharas of feeling them between my fingers, lips, all eventually had/has? to come backout.


text:
Can I attain to Satori in Walking Meditation?
I like the walking meditation more than doing sitting Zazen. I want to ask if satori is possible while walking?

You can attain satori while sweeping the floor. But sounds like you need to study more?

I like walking meditation more than doing sitting Zazen.

The concept of egotistic self or 'I' is inseparable to doership. 'Satori' is in the understanding of non-action without understander. 'Satori' is a deep intuitive understanding of egolessness of your being devoid of any egotistic identity. Out of egolessness arrives non-action, then walking would happen without the central 'I'. Then there won't remain 'I' what to talk about its likes or dislikes?
Huineng said,

Bodhi is no tree,
  nor is the mind a standing mirror bright.
  Since all is originally empty,
  where does the dust alight?
  Explanation: Huineng pointed out that to see the mind as a "thing" to be kept pure by constantly "sweeping away" defilements is to miss the elemental truth that mind is in itself buddha (awakened, enlightened), and is therefore inherently pure.

Yes. But the walking must be done with 'empty mind' so consciousness illuminates.


text:
Simplest version of anapanasati
Anapanasati is usually described as "mindfulness of breathing" but I've seen a member of this site describing it as "mindfulness with breathing".
Sati or mindfulness (as seen in the parable of the bowl filled to the brim with oil, of SN 47.20) is keeping the mind on the task, and not allowing the mind to become distracted.
What is the simplest version of anapanasati?
I found a very simple instruction set in SN 54.3 (quoted below). There may be other suttas too. But I find this description from SN 54.3 insufficient and requires elaboration.
While breathing, what is it that one is mindful of? Is one mindful of the breath, or mindful of something else?
The sutta states: "They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe in observing letting go.’ They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe out observing letting go.’"
What does "breathe in observing letting go" and "breathe out observing letting go" mean? Letting go of what? Do you let go, or do you observe the letting go? How do you observe the letting go (rather than letting go)?
What is the simplest instruction for the practice of anapanasati? Especially for people who are not well-versed in the teachings and maybe even non-Buddhist? Such people may not have the patience for lengthy and complicated instructions.
From SN 54.3:

“Mendicants, when mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated
  it’s very fruitful and beneficial. And how is mindfulness of breathing
  developed and cultivated to be very fruitful and beneficial?
It’s when a mendicant has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a
  tree, or to an empty hut. They sit down cross-legged, with their body
  straight, and establish mindfulness right there.
Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out. …
They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe in observing letting go.’ They
  practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe out observing letting go.’
Mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated in this way,
  is very fruitful and beneficial.”

The SN 54.3 linked is not a "simple version". The link is merely abbreviated because the 16 stages are listed in previous suttas.

Anapanasati has 4 tetrads with 4 steps each making 16 steps in total:

Different Suttas cover all 16 or a subset of them. E.g. Maha Satipattana Sutta / Satipattana Sutta covers only the 1st tetrad.
In this context let go, the translation followed by Piya Tan is:

(16) He trains himself thus: ‘I will breathe in, contemplating the letting go (of defilements)’;
He trains himself thus: ‘I will breathe out, contemplating the letting go (of defilements)’;

(Ānâpana,samādhi) Kimbila Sutta
So what needs to be done is to contemplate letting go of defilements.
Many comprehensive works on Anpapana is are a bit lengthy in nature. These might be helpful to one who might want to learn and follow it thought books:

Mindfulness of Breathing and Four Elements Meditation by Venerable Pa-Auk Sayadaw
Anapanasati: Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Ven Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
The true power of Kannī meditation by Venerable Sumańgala Edited by Eunsook Cha

The SN 54.3 linked is not a "simple version". The link is merely abbreviated because the 16 stages are listed in previous suttas.
If per SN 47.20, mindfulness is keeping the mind on the task, since the body breathes automatically via its own nature, how can breathing be a ‘task’ to keep the mind on? There can be no such thing as mindfulness ‘of’ breathing.
As for Sujato’s translation of “letting go”, this is the 16th step. Letting go of the 16th step is a result of 13th step experiencing impermanence. The simultaneous knowing of breathing occurs in the background.
The Pali here is paṭinissaggā. When impermanence & not-self is clearly experienced at 13th step, the 16th step is paṭinissaggā, which means to give up viewing anything as self. Ajahn Buddhadasa translates it as throwing or tossing back.
Paṭinissaggā above is the final step of practice. However, the type of letting go that serves as the initial step of practice is called vossagga. MN 118 at the end says each factor of enlightenment matures as vossagga. SN 48.9 & 10 say jhana is reached by making  vossagga the meditation object.
Vossagga is letting go of craving & ambition. This is the supramundane meditation object or task of mindfulness.
If you try to focus on the breathing, the progress will be very limited. The focus is on vossagga. The task is vossagga. Mindfulness is mindful of vossagga.
When there is mindfulness of vossagga, the knowing of the breathing will occur automatically, without an act of will (AN 11.2). This is why anapanasati means mindfulness with breathing.

Comment might be a bit late, but if in meditation mindfulness is connected to vossagga, how does a novice then go about this? Especially if we have learned to always focus on the breath. Should we let go of this intention? Where should then our attention be?

As i understand the 16, i think it is a comprehensive outline of both the directed and the undirected developments of mind up to the highest attainment wherein physical formations cease first, followed by verbal and the mental cessation.
I personally take the 16 to be a collection of the aspects to be developed by one who undertakes that training, to be developed progressively and tandem. I think that as one starts training one will first develop mindfulness and concentration and when one gets mindfulness and concentration; feelings, lights and visions will become manifest and these are also to be investigated and the released mind is to be reflected on.
So the way i see it is that the 16 are there to build a comprehensive tool kit and instill the foundations of development toward the progressive levels attainment and a general development which is undirected.
In other words i think one can learn to use these instructions to develop the mind general and for example the work in the 4th tetrad i take to be desctribing the general development of the perception of impermanence.
I think that one can develop the Anapanasati so that it realizes the highest attainment and that one can modify one's approach based on the circumstances.
Perhaps one would want to contemplate more for investigation and to counter something unwholesome; perhaps the stilling of the breath is hard to achieve if one's approach is too active and in that circumstance a more tranquil approach can be implemented where one is noting and thinking less for tranquility etc.
Most simple way to start  is probably just trying to not lose awareness or the breath from start to finish and ignoring all other thoughts,  feelings and sensations. The drawback is lesser extent of insight development and that this will be a hit or miss kind of session to the extent that ignoring distracting stuff often  doesn't work and there is then a need for other counter measures.