text:
Is Mr. S. N. Goenka's Vipassana Meditation a Buddhist tradition?
It appeared that most students learning Buddhism will automatically assume Vipassana Meditation taught by Mr. S. N. Goenka synonymous with Buddhist meditation, methods taught by the Buddha, is it so?
=====
Remark Added 15/03/2017
The knowledgeable Suminda (@Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena) pointed to an article which attempted to establish the "U Ba Khin Vipassana method told by Mr. Goenka" its connection with Mahayana (of the Chinese Lineage), this should definitely be refuted. Mr. Goenka himself with his entire Insight Movement is completely unrelated to the Mahayanist teaching.
In the article Ven. Analayo wisely drew inspiration from the Mahayanist Sutra however, it's uncertain under what circumstance someone provided him an incorrectly translated work:

念諸息遍身, 亦念息出入, 悉觀身中諸出息入息, 覺知遍至身中乃
  至足指遍諸毛孔, 如水入沙, 息出覺知從足至髮遍諸毛孔亦, 如水
  入沙.

Mindfulness [during] all breaths pervades the body, [while] being as
well mindful of the out- and in-breaths. Completely contemplating the
inside of the body [during] all out-breaths and in-breaths, awareness
pervades and reaches inside the body up to the toes and the fingers
and pervades every pore [on the surface of the body], just like water
entering sand, aware from the feet to the hair [while] breathing out
[and in], pervading every pore as well, just like water entering sand.

This should read as (translation is mine):

Set the mind to all the breaths be aware of their permeating the whole
  body (念諸息遍身). Also be mindful of the breath going-out and going-in
  (亦念息出入). Thoroughly observe all the out-going and in-going breaths
  inside the body (悉觀身中諸出息入息), be conscious of their permeating from
  inside the body unto the toes and fingers even pervading all the
  pores, as if water entering sands (覺知遍至身中乃至足指遍諸毛孔, 如水入沙). [When]
  breath going-out, be conscious of it from feet unto the hairs
  pervading all the pores, also as if water entering sands
  (息出覺知從足至髮遍諸毛孔, 亦如水入沙).

It definitely has nothing to do with Mr. Goenka's "body-scanning" technique.
Here breath 息 is not simply the air coming in-out the nose-mouth that we do in breathing. Ānāpānasmṛti (Pali: Ānāpānasati) meditation taught by most of the general media is incorrect. There are at least 3 stages: counting, following, stillness; progressed gradually.

Goenka tradition seems to be most close to meditation instruction sourced directly from the Suttas. A course is divided into  parts:

Anapana - cultivation of Samadhis (1/3 of the length of the course)
Vipassana - cultivation of Panna (slightly less than 1/3 of the lenth of the course)
Metta - (1 or 2 days depending on the length of the course.)

Anapana closely follows that of the [Maha] Satipatthana / Kayagatasati Suttas.
In the Vipassana part, the main instruction is whatever the sensation contemplate its impermanence and be equanimous towards it.

Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether pleasant, painful
  or neither painful nor pleasant.
As regards to those feelings,
he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;
he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;
he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;
he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).
When he dwells contemplating impermanence in them, contemplating dispassion in them, contemplating
  ending in them, contemplating letting go,
  he does not cling to anything in the world.
Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.
He understands,
  "Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, done what is to be done, there is no more for this state
  of being."

Pacalā Sutta
Similarly there many more Suttas which similar instructions re occur throughout the whole cannon. E.g.: Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2, Dīgha,nakha Sutta, Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta

Bhikshus, just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth, so that there
  would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating
  the body with a pure, bright mind. There is no part of his entire body that is not pervaded by pure, bright
  mind.

Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta
also

so, too, a monk reviews this very body, wrapped in skin and full of various impurities, from the
  soles of the feet upwards and from the crown of the head downwards

Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta, Sati’patthāna Sutta

As below, so above [upwards from the soles of the feet, and downwards from the tips of the hairs.]

Iddhi,pāda Vibhanga Sutta
This is similar in tone to the head to foot scanning technique.
In Buddhism, common term is letting go. The Suttas on Letting Go sheds more light on how to do it. They are: Pahāna Sutta and Avijja Pahana Sutta 2. This is the exact way that is being taught by S.N.Goenka.
Also an interesting read might be: The Ancient Roots of the U Ba Khin
Vipassanā Meditation by Ven. Analayo, which quotes some parallel in the Mahayana Tradition which you (@Bhumishu 米殊) are from I believe.
Instead of intellectually debating on whether the course is this or that why not take the course and clear you doubts. You can apply through: http://www.dhamma.org/en/index and course are conducted in many centres around the world. You can choose a location convenient to you.
What matters if the techniques works for you or not than is it this or that. So best is just try it.

No comment on Ven Analayo's article - I don't have time to read it. By the title it's U Ba Khin's method, not Mr. Goenka's - equate a student's = the teacher's this is illegitimate analogy. U Ba Khin didn't speak English nor Hindu, I bet. No Comment + doubts on the claim "some parallel to Mahayana" - almost all the Mahayanist teachings (based on the Sutras) are not available in English or other language.

Mahayanist by tradition is dispassionate to scholastic interpretation of any Sutras, for those scholars usually not having real practice and direct experience in any Buddhist teachings. Mahayanist has a term for them: 文字般若 (wisdom on the lips).

I don't call myself Mahayanist or related myself to any school, I learn from direct reading the Chinese Classical Sutras. I read some Agama Sutras, which composed most of the Theravadist canon. At the same time I'm scrutinizing the Chinese source too.

It seems this answer has NOT directly answered the OP if Mr. Goenka's a Buddhist tradition. In meditation there are many shared grounds, incl. the modern chic taught by the health clubs, spas, beauty salons, so are those traditional Indian Brahmic ones, not to mentioned the 四禪八定 (4 Dhyana 8 Samadhi) are shared among all meditators.

I can't understand why Mr. Goenka's "wheel" logo is of many spokes and pressed. If it's a Buddhist sect, the Dharma Wheel is 8-spokes and a perfect circle, in this case Mr. Goenka's wheel is wrong, unless he has explanation about it which I haven't heard of. Further, is Mr. Goenka ever proclaimed in public he is a Buddhist? A Buddhist take refuge in the 3-jewels: The Buddha, The Dharma and the Bhikkus. But in the Mr. Goenka's one only said: Thanks dhamma. Why?

response posted at "Remark Added" after reading the Ven. Analayo article since it's rather complex.

@Bhumishu米殊 Re. the "Remark Added", all StackExchange sites designed for Question-and-Answer and not designed (nor intended or suited) for discussion or dialog. If you and Suminda wanted to discuss this topic, with a bit of back-and-forth dialog, it would be better to use a chat room for that (I can create a room for you if you like).

@Bhumishu米殊  U Ba Khin was speaking perfect english.

@BlackSwing You missed my point - my point is not about if U Ba Khin spoke English or not, he spoke Perfect English as you claimed is also perfect - it's about all we can have a glimpse of U Ba Khin is Mr. Goenka's presentation of U Ba Khin. Do you get it? In my OP I stated  "U Ba Khin Vipassana method told by Mr. Goenka" (I will bold it, thanks for the reminder), that's stated with intention to be as much as close to fact.

The point, obviously, is that the "feelings" mentioned in the suttas (vedana) would not equal to "physical sensations", but point to their pleasant/unpleasant/neutral quality. In theory one can do a vedananupassana without focusing on his body. You find the equation, "vedana = physical sensations", almost only in Goenka-related translations (VRI etc).

Very simple answer.
Mayahana is not Buddhism, it is a branch / sect of buddhism. Similarly Theravada is also a branch / sect of Buddhism. Buddithing is far from sectarianism. Buddhism teaches a universal law applicable to everyone.
The Dhamma transmitted by Goenka come from the Theravada tradition. There is no connection with the school of Mahayana.
Goenka never defined himself as a buddhist and considered the Buddha's teaching in a very practical way.

the OP is about if Mr. Goenka's method belongs to any Buddhist tradition - it's interesting you stated that "Dhamma transmitted by Goenka" at the same time you "Goenka never defined himself as a buddhist". I am unconcerned if Mr. Goenka teaching his own style of meditation, but an 'un-buddhist' (Mr. Goenka) teaching "Buddha's teaching..." is absurd, illogical.

I think his main idea was too a avoid -ism and religious organisation to be as open as possible to everyone. It is in that sense that he didn't wanted to define the centers as buddhist centers, but as vipassana meditation center. As far as I know if you go check his predecessors it goes back to Ledi Sayadaw https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledi_Sayadaw

Thank you. But teaching the Buddha's teaching yet avoiding to be viewed as Buddhist is - absurd (sorry I can't think of a better alternative). Buddhism distinct from other religion is that it never seeks to promote/propagate - no Crusades, no Holy Wars. To put Buddha at some dark corner while claiming spreading Buddhist teaching is - absurd. Dharma is the gift for the ears love Buddha, else those ears are not ready to receive the gift. Btw, Mr. Goenka's "body scanning" is likely misinterpretation of the Sutta, if you read Ven. Analayo's article compared with my translation.

@Bhumishu米殊 If you teach the law of physics discovered by Eistein at university? Are you an eisteinist? No. You teach it because it widely accepted as a valid teaching that allowed us to make a lot of discoveries.

to complete the response, regarding Ven. Analayo, he apparently himself practiced Goenka method for ten years and stated it as a "correct but not the only one" way to practice vipassana.
source:
http://www.wiseattention.org/blog/2012/09/07/learning-meditation-from-the-buddha-a-meeting-with-ven-analayo/

Do u want to learn from the barber how to do medical surgery? Both use knives. In Ven. Analayo's article he found the Goenka method disagreed with Buddhaghosa - Theravadist, he turned to find Mahayanist Sutra in it he thought that was teaching similar method like Goenka's. But it was due to Ven. Analayo took an incorrectly translated eng. version of the Sutra to come to such analogy. The Classical Chinese Sutra instead does NOT teach "body scanning". Pls read faithfully of all the words before promoting any argument.

You were answered previously by another member regarding this. Goenka stated himself that there is more than one way to practice but that this way worked well for him and the students and teachers before him. whether it follows the suttas by the letter or spirit, or if it is an oral tradition is not that important.

I'm not here to win a argument. I have followed zen soto teachings for many years and experienced myself a 10 days retreat. In Shinkantaza there is no breath observation at all, it is still  nonetheless called buddhism, and the label matter little to me. As for the barber analogy, you are right,  I rather indeed listen with a bit more confidence to someone who had a well recognized and established teachers and most of the time satisfied students then someone who just show clear egotic behavior and pretend to have experienced surpernatural experience.

If you enjoy personal attack that's indeed purely your own liberty. Pls stick to the OP, it's about if Mr. Goenka's method a Buddhist tradition. It's not about what are the meditations methods, or if breathing is the only "lawful" Buddhist meditation method. As intend to be as factual as possible to response your comment I read a lot more that I like to using google - the more I read I get the sense there are a lot articles floating promptly there written by the supporters of Goenka or the organization.

I thought you appreciate analogies so I gave one back to you. (i.e: your analogy was very insulting and condescending, I make you taste your own food)

The Goenka method seems to not be the same method as taught by the Buddha:

The method of the Buddha is based in 'letting go' (vossagga), as stated at the end of the Anapanasati Sutta, which states mindfulness & other factors have a quality that results in 'letting go' (vossagga). This 'letting go' is most clearly stated in SN 48.9 & SN 48.10, which state the noble disciple reaches jhana (meditative absorption) by making 'letting go' (vossagga) the meditation object.
When 'letting go' is properly established, the breathing in & breathing out will become the primary meditation object and will accompany the arising of other primary objects, such as pleasant feelings (vedana), mental states (citta) & the ultimate truths of the three characteristics & cessation (dhamma).
Goenka's primary method is based on body scanning of mental sankharas or stress, which Goenka mistakenly calls 'vedana' or 'sensations'. These 'sensations' are mental formations of stress born from greed, hatred & delusion rather than 'vedana' ('feelings'). In reality, 'vedana' are pleasant & unpleasant 'feelings' rather than mental formations stored in the physical body.
The Buddha's method is summarised as the development of samatha-vipassana (tranquility & insight) in tandem (MN 149). The Goenka method seems to not have enough scope for the development of tranquillity & the resultant rapture.
The Buddha's method aims for the four jhanas, because they are pleasant abidings (with rapture). The Middle-Way of the Buddha is a way of happiness of pleasant feelings from meditation, avoiding sensual pleasures & self-torment. The Goenka method has elements of self-torment, where it focuses in unpleasant or painful feelings (rather than aims for pleasant feelings of jhana).
The Buddha taught meditation in all four postures, namely, sitting, walking, standing & lying down. The Goenka method seems to mostly or only focus on sitting meditation.

3 - the method is body scanning and awareness to any sensation that arise, pleaseant or unpleasent. There is no emphasis on pain, stress, or any other feeling.

4 - peace, harmony, equanimity and awareness are often emphasised in Goenkas teaching.

5 - there is no focus on unpleasant feelings. It is also emphasised that the technique isn't about self torture. I think Goenkas courses are different from one place to the other, but at least in some, students are specifically told to move if they experience too much pain

6 - after improving focus through sitting meditation, students are instructed to keep practicing in all postures and situations.

I have been to a course of Goenka vipassana in Japan, and the comments made by Roy are correct, there is no such thing as focusing on the pain or self-torture. We were allowed to change posture if we couldn't bear the pain. It was in many ways a lot less strict and painful than some zen retreats I experienced.

I think Goenkas courses are different from one place to the other. This is not the case. All courses run in all centres have the very same instructions. There is no variance.

@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena you are right sir, And equanimity in pain and pleasure is the highest priority in Goenka's Teaching.

According to the Buddha should pain be avoided during meditation? I think observed with equanimity with a reminder that this is also going to change.

Pain is not mentioned as a specific object in the Anapanasati Sutta or teachings about jhana.

@Dhammadhatu The Anapanasati Sutta is only about the breath, not about mindfulness of the body. The vedana discussed by Goenka is not the same as mental formations which would be sankhara. Goenka decidedly does not focus on unpleasant feelings. Goenka recommends mindfulness during daily life as well.

Your comment is wrong. Goenka is wrong. Kindly read the actual Anapanasati Sutta and delete your comment. Thanks

@Student Perhaps what you're saying would be clearer if you posted a new, separate answer of your own.

I read the book of The Art of Living: Vipassana Meditation by S.N. Goenka something like 15 years ago. My memory may be wrong.
The man who advised me this book, told me that it was the teaching of a very special branch of Buddhism, completely deprived of religious mythology, which was a only found in some remote temples of Myanmar/Burma.
The man also told me that it was the closest to the true teaching of Buddha, because it was not poluted by a deification of the man Siddharta Gautama as can be found elsewhere.
Sorry for the biais of my answer, since I cannot cite my sources, and I quote another man, from memory. And sorry if you think it's incorrect.

Thank you anyhow. I read that book too, before my learning Buddhism. I'm pretty sure Mr. Goenka's is not Mahayanist, now by asking this question with more resources pulled from Theravadist I come to close to conclude that Mr. Goenka's related to none of the Buddhist tradition. More so after reading the article I stated in my OP "added remark", that Ven. Analayo's article instead gave hint that Mr. Goenka has wrongly interpreted the Sutta, his method is not even agreeing with Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga.

Your remark makes me think you are thinking that all written witnesses of Buddha's time were more correct that Buddha's speech instead. Just like Jesus or Lao-Tz, they have not written anything in definitive written text form. There may be a reason for that, maybe. I think so.

Obviously u misread my comment and u have neither read Ven. Aanalayo article nor my OP. Regards


text:
Will 10,000 hours of Vipasanna be enough for Enlightenment?
As studies says 10,000 hours of practice usually makes an expert in your field, be it athletes, musician, doctors, engineers or any profession.
So I was wondering if I start doing 10 days course every month and practice 10 hours of meditation daily, so it will take 8.33 years to complete 10000 hours of meditation, which may not enlighten me but for sure it should make me an Expert.
How logical is that because I really want to know myself more, and I know that story of boy asked how much time will it take and master said 10 years and then he said what if i do more hard work he said then it will take 20 years, what is the essence here.

It depends on how committed you are to the practice of the noble eightfold path - as at the very least it takes only seven days, and it takes only seven years the most. It is a "Dharmatha" - a Principles of Dhamma - A natural phenomena. If someone could expand on this, it is much appreciated.

It's the conclusion of the Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10).

This is a very thought provoking question for me. I'm not sure it has a clear answer, but maybe the question could be "should I spend as much time as possible meditating in order to achieve enlightenment" :) That seems much better than "does 10,000 = enlightenment". I hope this comment helps!

@DoritoStyle you are right, I have been hearing a lot about Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 Hour Rule, So I asked this question and please don't be angry as buddha said "anger is like drinking poison and expecting other person to die" .... :) thanks

So long as there is clinging and attachment to the destination (enlightenment), the journey is forever incomplete.  Additionally, conflating enlightenment with expertise in a technique is a fallacy.

Last part of the Maha-satipatthana Sutta

"Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this
  way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either
  gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of
  clinging-sustenance — non-return.
"Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of
  reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two
  years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four...
  three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits
  can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there
  be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return.
"Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of
  reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be
  expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any
  remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return.
"'This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the
  overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain &
  distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the
  realization of Unbinding — in other words, the four frames of
  reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said."
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in
  the Blessed One's words. DN 22

So basically, depends on the individual!

what are four frames of reference and what is the meaning of remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return

"There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings... mind... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world." - Body, feelings, mind and mental qualities. Remnant of clinging is any attachment, or aversion (?) to any of the four.

Why do they repeat one thing so many times, I still do not understand, please write yourself this seems to be pasted from else where

It's from Digha Nikaya 22 (the small link in the original quote). The repetition is due to the fact the Pali Canon was an oral tradition and really had to be memorised. In addition, the Buddha's message was not convoluted - the Four Noble Truths, which revolve around Impermanence, Suffering and non-self are 'quite short' in exposition, relative to Essentialist or Nihilistic philosophies, which have to justify their beliefs with contrived logic and reason. Once Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta are accepted, attachment to any condition of being is inherently counterproductive.

@Rishi I'm don't think it would be useful to expand each individual tenant or rephrase entire passages on this site. That seems to fit squarely in the "too broad" close reason (although I'm not yet sure how this beta site plans to address that concern).

As an alternative though, if this age-old advice seems convoluted then maybe you need to ponder it more.

@DoritoStyle you are right

I think you are coming at this from the wrong place.  Enlightenment isn't something that we add to ourselves.  It's best not to approach meditation as another skill to master or the dharma as another field where we might gain expertise.  It really doesn't make sense to count your practice in hours, days, or years.  Buddhism isn't a transaction - it's an offering that can't be measured by any metric.  Ultimately, there is no upper limit to how much we can sacrifice ourselves.

Load Buddha (Maha Bodhisattva) practice 7 years, but failed. He realised that is not the path for purification. So he give up arnapana practice (pranayama meditation). Then he change his practice to Anapanasathi practice, describe as Ariyapariyesana suttha, sathipattana suttha and other suttas in Tripitaka.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
I'm interested in precise piece-by-piece translations of the 5 precepts
I recently saw a post on this website by Andrei Volkov that discussed the term Kāmesumicchācāra, breaking it down into it's constituent parts and discussing the full meaning of the word.
It led to me creating an account here, as I'm interested in having a similar discussion about the 4 other precepts - specifically the words Pāṇātipātā, Adinnādānā, Musāvādā, and Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā.
I'd be grateful for any insight.  Thanks.

Hate to break it to you, but kamesu is the only really interesting one.  The rest are pretty literal. :-/

The Five Precepts (pañca-sila)
These basic training rules are observed by all practicing Buddhist lay men and women. The precepts are often recited after reciting the formula for taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha.

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

Pānātipātā: ‘the killing of living beings' can be further broken down into destruction (atipata) of life (pana)
  veramani: ‘to refrain from’
  sikkhāpadam: ‘the Precept’
  samadiyami: ‘I undertake

Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

Adinnadana: ‘taking that which is not given’;  adinna+adana includes bribery, burglary, forceful acquisition of property, invasion of somebody else's territory, fraud, theft etc.
  veramani: ‘to refrain from’
  sikkhāpadam: ‘the Precept’
  samadiyami: ‘I undertake

Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.

Kamesu: ‘sexual’;  micchacara: ‘misconduct’
  veramani: ‘to refrain from’
  sikkhāpadam: ‘the Precept’
  samadiyami: ‘I undertake

Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.

Musavada: ‘lying’ (One word); this is similar to....  slandering (pisunavaca), harsh speech (pharusavaca), and frivolous talk (Sampappalaapa)
  veramani: ‘to refrain from’
  sikkhāpadam: ‘the Precept’
  samadiyami: ‘I undertake

Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness. This is a compound made up from sura + meraya + majja + pamada + thana

Suramerayamajja: ‘sura = fermented liquors made with powdery substances, merya = distilled liquors made with nectar / sweet liquid secreted from flowers or plants, majja = intoxicating liquors made by fermenting the above two types (ie. Sure & Meraya)
  Pamadatthana: ‘causes heedlessness'; Pamada = delay;  thana = state / condition
  veramani: ‘to refrain from’
  sikkhāpadam: ‘the Precept’
  samadiyami: ‘I undertake

The most important bit of information regarding the five precepts that very few of the Buddhists are aware of is the meaning of these three words … aarati virati pativirati…  veramani. The five precepts as we know and practice is the worldly right view and worldly right conception. The distinction made in the discourse between worldly right view and the right view that is above the world (supre-mundane) is that, in the case of the latter, this means Complete Abstinence, expressed by the use of these three more terms - aarati virati and pativirati. Such abstinence applies to right action and right livelihood as well. An explanation of it is found in the MN 117 Mahācattārīsaka Sutta - The Great Forty.
One who takes the five precepts with an aim of walking the Noble Eightfold Path, towards attaining Path-Fruition aim for the aarati virati pativirati level of abstinence.

I think the OP is asking for an analysis of the words, e.g. Musāvādā is made up of Musā + vāda.

Yes, I understand now @ChrisW.. I will try to elaborate more on those Pali words....

I just changed the; 1 to: destroying living beings & 4 to: refrain from lying . Though great job :-) Dhamma for Nibbana.

Post on his
website by Andrei
Volkov that discussed the term Kāmesumicchācāra, breaking it down into
it's constituent parts and discussing the full meaning of the word.

I have read these kinds of discussions often however the Pali suttas seem to only describe 'kāmesumicchācāra' as 'sexual' misconduct, since the only definition of the precept is about sex.

He is given over to misconduct in sexual desires: he has intercourse with such (women) as are protected by the mother, father, (mother and father), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also with those that are garlanded in token of betrothal.
MN 41

For example, there are suttas for laypeople, such as AN 4.62, which discuss: "the proper season, on the proper occasions, for a householder partaking of sensuality (kāmabhoginā)".

As for the other precepts:
1st precept: 'Pānā means 'breath', such as in the term 'Ānāpānasati'. Atipāta = destruction.
2nd precept: adinn ādāna. ādāna' = seizing; grasping. 'adinna'= not given; not allowed.
4th precept: 'Musā' means 'falsehood; lie'. Therefore the 4th precept is only about lying or dishonest speech and is not about the harsh, divisive & frivolous speech that are included in the definition of Right Speech in the Noble Eightfold Path.

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


text:
Did the Buddha tell how to visit another part of universe via meditation?
Based on this answer I came to know that the Buddha has spoken about life on other planets; so did he ever explain any method, how to visit those places while doing meditation?
Weirdly I have read this in Hinduism as well: that it's easy to visit another planet using your mind, instead of wasting more time and resources by physical means, but I never find a method to do so.

The Buddha mentioned many supernatural powers called siddhi but he did not teach them. He mentions that samadhi is required to developing siddhi but since siddi do not help to end dukkha the Buddha doesn't explain exactly how to develop siddhi.

one of his monk show to people that he can fly and when buddha came to know he told him not to show it again , right ?

As for what I have heard in Dhamma deshana, if a person keeps such an intention in mind while meditating that person won't be able to achieve that. You need to lower your expectations to achieve such peaceful levels in meditation. Or else those extreme desires will be hunting your mind without letting you meditate in the proper way.
So if you meditate with the pure intention of ending the sansara,  Such things will come to you automatically.


text:
What does the Pali canon say about "death"?
I'm just clinging to this notion that the small death (of prthagjanas) is never reversible, and never incomplete.
Leaving aside the notion of "karma" and "rebirth" and "continuity", what does the Pali canon say about "death"?

“Paticca Samuppada” is a discourse on the process of birth and death. As per the scriptures, a being is a stream of Mind connected ‘ Nama-Rupa’. When a person dies, no soul departs. The stream of consciousness ( viññana) upon death, becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new set of five aggregates of clinging (Panca Upadana Khandas)  elsewhere.  In the Attakara sutta, you will find that you do exist. But there is no permanent self in you and the five clinging aggregates (panca upadanakkanda) which constitutes you is beyond your control, and therefore Anatta (non-self). (read  Anatta Lakkana Sutta).
The understanding of death &  impermanence is an antidote to desire and ill-will, is an encouragement to our practice of Dhamma, and is a key to understanding the ultimate nature of things, the way things really are.
Remembering death especially is said to be like a friend and a teacher to one, as it acts as a discouragement to excessive desire and ill-will. While death itself is certain, the time of death is uncertain. We can die at any moment. Life is like a candle in the wind, or a bubble of water. At any moment it may be snuffed out. At any moment it may burst. Thus, we ought to practice the Dhamma quickly so that we may not waste this opportunity and this precious human life.
The Buddha once gave a discourse on the impermanence of life at the village named ‘Alavi’. He admonished, 'Practice meditation on death. Reflect mindfully: Uncertain is my life, certain is my death, certainly one day I have to face death.'
The Buddha also exhorted his listeners to be always mindful and to strive to perceive the true nature of life. He also said, 'As one who is armed with a stick or spear is prepared to meet an enemy and some other poisonous and dangerous animals, so also, one who is ever mindful of death should face death mindfully. He will then leave this world for a good destination. – “Blind is this world. Few are those who clearly see. As few birds escape from a net, few go to a blissful state.” '
In many a suttas it is shown that beings in the un-ending Samsara (cycle of birth-and-death) are bound to eye as ‘me’ (considering eye as ‘me’). In a similar manner, beings are bound to ear as ‘me’, nose as ‘me’, tongue as ‘me’, body as ‘me’, and mind as ‘me’.
As long as they are bound to all these faculties, they are actually bound to Māra. In order for one to free from this bond of Māra, one needs to investigate the notion of ‘me’ about each faculty (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) separately.
We should see that there is nothing permanent in rūpa (figure), vēdanā (feeling), saññā (perception), sanskāra (intention; volitional effort), and Viññāna (consciousness). But, we are bound to these five groups of clinging because of the thought of ‘me’. That binding results in a birth. That binding results in our death. That binding results in getting another life (birth) after our deaths.

Death is about leaving a physical body, and continued to the another process of transformation according to your doings by the whole lives as you lived in after you existed in this repeating worlds.
This phenomenon takes 2 things to another transformation
1 - Your doings on good or bad (fate)
2 - sticky or holdings of your mind (such as hobby,habitat,interests,achievements)
(1) is cleared.
(2) to explain briefly, eg. everybody can speak native speaking without trying hard, this is a stack from your last lives. And you will have a skillful on something without trying hard or even not trying as the other are affording on it. Like feeling you auto understanding on it, you will see 2nd step of facts while learning on 1st step on something.
Why, because you already achieved and learned on those things. Much achievements can bring more powerful of mind success on it.
Death brings 2 of those things to your new life.
But according to Pali Pidagat, it cannot be assumed as bringing them to new life. There is no bringing in buddhism nature, all factors are appearing as new.
Like a flame on a candle, water from the stream , the flame now burning on you watching is not the same as 3 sec ago flame. and the water too, not the same as you touch on second time.
Like that, there will also be a change ,if how much you can take from the last lives. Eg, how much you are proficient at education on before this life, if you are not trying in this life, you will fail.
Buddha theories are very complicated and never get perfect on it.
There is numerous factors that can cause dynamic fate on death. But I think it should enough about death.
Thank you. My answer will not contain details about death, dying.

Can you reference specific bits of the Pali canon? I think that's what the question is asking for.


text:
How to let go during meditation?
During meditation, how do you let go? I focus on my meditation object but thoughts come in and with them is an attachment to any particular thought. Is this okay, should i just keep my focus on the object and eventually it will float away?
Thank you again my friends.

Bring it back, again and again is the practice anyone can follow. It develops the capability of concentration to present reality.

The way you deal with it depends on the type of meditation. But for beginners, whether you cultivate Samata or Vipassana does not make so much difference in that respect.
It is usually advised to beginners to emphasize the application of alertness. Alertness is like a spy: it is a mind that check where you find yourself, how you are doing, whether you still focus on your object and in what way. The more alert you are, the less inattentive you are. When you are not alert at all, you wander without noticing that you are wandering. In other words, it is advised not to try to hold onto the object very tight, but to often check how you are doing. In the beginning, you will lose your object of concentration a great deal, so you will have to realize that you lost your object as often. This is bound to happen. You can not simply set out to stay with your object without loosing it in the beginning, for that would not be realistic. So, your goal as a beginner ought to be something like "I will notice every time I lost my object", "I will not wander for too long", "I will not be inattentive and dive into objects mindlessly" rather than "I will hold onto my object so tight I will never ever loose it." It is a way of saying that on the outset, the cultivation of alertness is more important that that of mindfulness.
There are exercises you can engage in, that will show you how "funny" your mind is. Hopefully they will help you find a way to cultivate concentration. For instance, sit for half an hour in a meditation posture, and tell yourself "Whatever happens, wherever my mind goes, it's fine by me. I will not interfere, I will not judge, I will not try to change its course. I will simply step back and observe." When you do that, your mind behaves surprisingly well. But as soon as you stop observing it, it goes wild. There is an idiom that goes "When the cat's away, the mice will play".
On the opposite side, you can try to not think of an elephant for a couple of minutes. Set out to purposely not think of an elephant, for two minutes. Try very hard. The more you purposely try not to think of an elephant, the more you think of it. In fact, once, I received this instruction "not to think of pizza for two minutes", and I managed quiet well when, instead of setting out to not think of a pizza, I told myself "It's okay if you do. Just observe your mind." Why? It is because when you do that, you take a step back, you disengage from the external object, you do not dive into it. Whereas when you plan to not think of this or that, you will tend to dive into whatever you are not supposed to think of. It shows you that, if you lost your object of concentration because you were thinking of something else, it will not get better if you are forceful and beat yourself up, and regret loosing your object, etc.
Of course, you mind wanders because it lacks habituation. Actually, it's used to jump from one thing to the next. It's good news: there is nothing that doesn't get easier through training. Another thing is that your mind wanders because you do not see things the way they are. That is why, even if you want to cultivate Samata, it is good to sometimes engage in analytical meditation on death, impermanence, suffering, and so forth. Because this will support your non-attachment, non-anger, etc. Not attached, your mind will wander less. Not angry or frustrated, when you will loose your object, you will not want to be separated from your "failure" so badly that it will hinder your concentration.

One trick i am learning to use is to see it as i am a soul who entered this person body. I can hear, see, feel, taste everything he does but i can not act or give orders as its not my body and it wont repond. Then i just meep focusing on my object. No matter what mt mind say i cant act on it even if i wanted as its not mt body. So i am forced to be the watcher. When thoughts enter my mind its okay as long as i have the object in mind. This takea the control awau from my mind. No more doing what ever my thoughts tell me. Thank you for your reply.

@DeusIIXII It is not your mind either ;-)

For me, letting go is practised by directly being vigilant of the mind itself (and thus having no intention of observing any other meditation object such as the breath).
The path to letting go is practised by being vigilant of the mind itself to ensure it is not grasping at anything, not desiring anything or not judging anything in terms of 'positive' & 'negative'.
When the mind is well-established in such letting go, stillness & quiet - the breathing by itself may automatically come into that quiet awareness.
If the breathing automatically comes into awareness, the mind should not grasp at the breathing but continue to maintain itself in the state of non-desiring & letting go.
The mind should always keep itself detached towards the continued awareness of breathing.
This is an advanced practise.
Once can start with soft open eyes & be vigilant of the quiet watchful clear mind at the eyes.

I try to be vigilant. Maybe that the problem. Just let it flow. Just let it happen

If the clear spacious mind itself is watched, it may be easier to be vigilant. But deliberately trying to watch the breathing may result in a loss of vigilance towards the mind.

DeusIIXII, I believe that as long as your intentions are honorable, based on serious desire and morality, you will be guided from within as to what to do next. There is no rush, you have all eternity to work this out. Time is not measured by revolutions by the earth around the sun, but time is a concept and doesn't really exist.  We have all eternity to realize we are more than a human, experiencing this dream-state-reality. Our limited mind cannot grasp that this experience is both a dream and reality.  But we can intuit it by using: trust.
Your internal response to the answers posted here, or anywhere are from your own internal guide. You will discriminate and decide, only limited by your sincerity as to what is right and wrong for you at your stage of development. Trust and love your internal guide.  It's the only way to "let go" as you are seeking.  Concepts and thoughts remain as only finer objects.  A brick in your hand or a thought in your mind are of the same substance; both objects. You are much greater than all of this.  Just let go into meditation with the trust that this is the true reality.  Anything else is an object and has no permanence, or importance, as it will all end in nothingness in the end. You will intuit through your heart the realization of the endurance of your true self. Eventually, you will see this dream-life, that is real, and is only the passing show. Have no fear is so important. Learn the meaning of Dharma. Trust.

For a simple answer to your question:
What I do in order to let go of a thought is to recognize it as a thought and then simply think, "Let it go," with all of my conscious effort.
I think this in an actual way, feel it, and then notice whatever my thoughts are going on about fall away as the result.
Then I think something like, "Become one with the breath," or, "Become the breath," with all of my conscious effort.
I am no expert, but this seems to help.

The question itself, "how do I let go?" is a sort of koan: if someone could tell you how, it would be a contradiction! The issue is the "I" that must let go, its perspective has to change. It is like me asking, "how can I move your arm?"
When you see that the me is not yours (or you just forget it) then it happens. Of course then the seeing won't be by you. Soon or late, it will.


text:
How is liberation achieved?
If the path leads to liberation then liberation should be conditioned and impermanent. But nirvana is beyond extremes so the path cannot lead to nirvana. How does it work then?

The eightfold path is said to be conditioned, as follows:

To whatever extent there are phenomena that are conditioned, the noble eightfold path is declared the foremost among them. AN 4.34

Where as Nirvana is said to be unconditioned:

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. Ud 8.3

What is plainly obvious is the liberation of an arahant (from suffering) is permanent (until the ending of the life of the arahant).

Tassata sā vimutti sacce ṭhitā akuppā hoti.Tañhi, bhikkhu, musā yaṃ mosadhammaṃmosa taṃ saccaṃ yaṃ amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ
His release (liberation), being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever is deceptive is false; Nirvana — the undeceptive — is true. MN 140

Therefore, liberation (from suffering) must be unconditioned, just as Nirvana is unconditioned.
In summary, the eightfold path does not create or condition Nirvana. Instead, the eightfold only removes the obscurations to Nirvana (which was always there but unknown due to obscurations).

It is just as if a man, traveling along a wilderness track, were to see an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by people of former times. He would follow it. Following it, he would see an ancient city, an ancient capital inhabited by people of former times, complete with parks, groves & ponds, walled, delightful.
In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of... cessation...
Nagara Sutta: The City

I like the Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15) which uses "going to a park" to illustrate it.
Incidentally (and I don't think this is the main point of the sutta) I think that "park" was the same word as used for "monastery", because in earliest times the monks were in parks rather than monasteries.

In much the same that water is wet regardless of whether you are swimming or standing on the beach, you still have to jump into the ocean to know for certain.

The meaning of nirvana being unconditioned is that nirvana does not arise due to causes and conditions. This is because nirvana is a negative phenomena, since it is the final true cessation.
However, we say that the achievement of nirvana is caused by path.
In the same way, the absence of John in the room is permanent and unconditioned. If John leaving the room caused the absence of John in the room, it would follow that John's absence would start a moment after John left, since a cause and its effect are not simultaneous.

Because we are in fact, in Nirvana, but we - don't know about it. Thus we are spending all our lives wandering around. The path is that finally one decided not to wander but taking a path one believed that's the right path to go home; going through this path from beginning to end we then be shown that in fact, we are actually all the time already in Nirvana. That's why the path should be abandoned at the end of the path; or sometimes the path is metaphorized as the boat ferrying one to the other side of the ocean. So... How does it work then? hmmmm... it's working like, a minus minus 1 will be a 1 {-(-1)=1}.
Or, following Tenzin Dorje's, it's like, "John is not home". However, to realize the fact for oneself, one must walk (The Path) from where he is back home, open the door, then, "Ooops, John is really not home!"
=====
§。Sequel。§
By sheer chance, this someone has the Mahayanist mind, thus the story continues:
He looks up the wall the portrait of John The Great staring back at him like Da Vinci's Mona Lisa the enigmatic smile. With disbelief slowing he turns to the mirror on the table, examining his face, "Goshhh... I'm John The Great!" He then once again reaches into his pocket re-took the key out, fondling it in his hand, musing, "Holy crap... all those years since I lost my mind I was wandering around in delusion, believing I'm John Lemon... "
§§§ 。。。balloons 。popcorns 。sob 。applause 。tears-snots-saliva 。 ...The End 。。。§§§

This Path is a process where the practitioner goes from the Conditioned to the Unconditioned. Stream Entry represents the point at which the gravitational pull of the 'Unconditioned' exerts a greater force than that of the 'Conditioned'. A Stream Entrant's practice is likely to be less affected by the conditions around them; this would depend upon an individual's propensities so, for example, someone who had a tendency to over-indulgence in food may become less bound by that desire even when delicious food is around, or someone who always became angry when contradicted may find it easier to hold their temper in check under that condition.
What follows after Stream Entry isn't merely the tidying up of a few loose ends, but rather undertaking the complete and radical overhaul of our ethical lives, of body, speech and mind, to the point of perfection. When viewed in this way, the attainment of Stream Entry begins to look like the beginning of the principal task of the spiritual life. The Once-Returner is no longer dominated by hatred or craving, that there are no longer any times in their lives when they are overwhelmed by such unskillful emotions. These emotions may arise occasionally in a weakened form, and only in the midst of awareness – they don't dominate.
When it comes to the next level, in addition to having broken the first three fetters and possessing an unshakeable faith in the Three Jewels, the Non-Returner has attained complete ethical purity. It's not that they don't conceal their unskilfulness, they just don't have any, whether of body, speech or mind. They are almost flawlessly motivated by generosity, love and wisdom.
The last five fetters remain of course, but these are exceptionally subtle in comparison to what has been broken in the fourth and fifth fetters. Also, because Non-Returners are not subject to any hindrances, the Eight Jhānas are readily accessible to them. There are examples of both monastic and lay Non-Returners in the Canon. There is the figure of Gatikāra the Potter, for example, who remains in the household life to care for his ageing parents, but he is an extraordinarily holy man.
Then there is the example in the householder Ugga of Vesālī (Anguttara Nikāya VIII,21) who had four young wives before he attained the state of Non-Returner, at which point he told them he could no longer remain their husband. So he asked them to choose between remaining in his house and “doing good deeds”, returning to their former families, or marrying another man of their choice. When his first wife said she wished to take another husband he gave her to the man she indicated, reporting that on doing so he felt no change of composure in his heart. This seems to imply that, although he had attained ethical perfection and equanimity on becoming a Non-Returner, prior to that, as a Once-Returner, he had still experienced craving and thus fell short of the highest ethical standards. This shows that going from the Conditioned to the Unconditioned is a process.

The Noble Truths are conditioned because they require the experienced world to be empty of Essence (the Truths would not hold in a world where an independent Self was perceived and directly knowable in the here and now). The path is conditioned as it is an Eightfold Path, requiring right view, right though etc. Nibbana is unconditioned, but when brought within the confines of thought or language it will be conceived as conditioned, because language and thought are conditioned experiences.
A subject's direct knowledge of the cessation of the 'sphere of neither perception nor non-perception', and that there is no thing further beyond that, does not fit into language very well if you wish to use the verb 'to perceive' with regards to what the subject is experiencing! Because this is the point at which all mental fermentations cease (whether perception or non-perception), the mental state is beyond designation, if being reasonable. I would say it is fair to say that it is unconditioned in the here and now of that individual. The process of arrival to it however, must be conditioned on previous meditative states. And because the mind that experiences direct knowledge is still conditioned by the body, there will be an exit from the perception of cessation. So yes, the experience of Nibbana is impermanent (as any and all experiences must be), the knowledge of it however can carry through beyond the experience, and remain 'permanently' with the Arahant until their parinibbana. (That's my thought, but I am still thinking it through to be honest!)
In Majjhima Nikaya 1 it is stressed that conceiving any thing beyond the direct knowledge of that thing (going beyond impermanence, suffering and non-Self, or not 'treating this as this and that as that' in short) is effectively wrong view. The direct knowledge of Nibbana must therefore be unconditioned, because only conceptual construction brings it down into the forum of the conditioned, and otherwise its 'being' and its 'perception' would not equate, which would be delusion for the subject of the perception.
https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth is a very interesting article on the logic within the catuskoti that may provide some clearer information too!

MN 1 seems to refer to conceiving things as 'self'.

Don't know if it entirely fits here, but I think it shows that an Ararant simply does not designate any aspect of their experience -  Nibbana is unconditioned but even the conditioned part of experience is only seen as impermanence and non-Self (as ignorance/stress has been abandoned with regards to all phenomena).. By the time you attain cessation, no aspect of your perception will be based on the extremes of attachment or aversion, so saying you are jumping from a conditioned experience to an unconditioned one is ignoring that the trainee is abandoning a reliance on conditions as a process.

the key  unwholesome term in MN 1 appears to be 'maññati' ,which can be connected to conceit. MN 140 explicitly refers to maññati as 'conceiving self', as follows: "Asmī’ti, bhikkhu, maññitametaṃ". The tides of conceiving (maññassavā) do not sweep over one who stands upon these foundations. Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving (maññita); ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; MN 140. .  maññita pp. of maññati   https://suttacentral.net/define/ma%C3%B1%C3%B1ita

"If the path leads to liberation then liberation should be conditioned and impermanent. But nirvana is beyond extremes so the path cannot lead to nirvana. How does it work then?"
This is the fundamental difference between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism.
As noted, that due to dependent origination, all changes are impermanent, hence there is no permanent cessation or attainments of any kind.
As the Heart Sutra stated:

There is no suffering, no accumulating, no extinction, no way, and  no
  understanding and no attaining.

Without it seeming like some kind of crazy wisdom what it is saying is:
Suffering is ultimately impermanent.
Accumulation is ultimately impermanent.
Cessation is ultimately impermanent.
The Noble Eightfold Path is ultimately impermanent.
Wisdom is ultimately impermanent.
Attainments are ultimately impermanent.
Nirvana as cessation is relative to existence of suffering. The end of suffering is itself Nirvana. Both of them are impermanent.
This is the clarity of the Prajna Paramita which will cut through any metaphysical claims of Nibanna being a magical unconditioned deathless dimension, a birthless state of no further fabrications etc.
If Nirvana is permanent, the Buddha and his Arahants would never have to meditate ever again. Yet in all the scriptures they are seen to practice constantly even after the attainment of Arahantships.
This is why during the Early Buddhist Schisms, a big point of debate was made over whether Arahants could regress. Yes theoretically they could certainly regress if they stop all their Dharma practice. However, knowing this, a real Arahant with Superior Right view would never stop practicing the Noble Eightfold Path. And hence can end suffering indefinitely (but not permanently).
This is also why Mahayana move away from the four discrete stages of Enlightenments (Stream Entry, Once Returner, Non Returner, Arahantship) to one of continuous practice - a Bodhisattva.
If you pay attention to the description of the four stages of enlightenment, you will realize they describe the Threefold factor of the Eightfold Noble Path, namely Ethics, Concentration and Wisdom. Hence a stream enterer is one who has attained Right View and Right Intention to practice the Noble Eightfold Path. A once returner is one who has cultivated his ethics. A non returner is one who is accomplished in meditative concentration able to hold off lustful cravings indefinitely. And an Arahant is one who attained Superior Right View and Superior Right Intention with understanding of the causes and conditionality that gave rise to the afflictions in the first place and end them, attaining the end of suffering Nirvana. You can see similar descriptions of the Ten Oxherding pictures.

And he passes far beyond all confused imagination and reaches Ultimate
  Nirvana.

Of course the catch is that every step along the way is conditional and indeed reversible. There is no sabhava or permanent nature to any of these states. Hence no one could truly be said to have attained anything. This is why things are said to be Non-Dual in Mahayana, it is not that ignorance and wisdom are the same, but that they are both impermanent and cannot be permanently separated from each other.

no  ignorance or ending of ignorance

So if everything is impermanent why practice Buddhism at all. Because it is useful! A person who does not practice will suffer indefinitely because of the cause and contions for mental afflictions are there. The Dharma is still a very useful medicine to treat your mental afflictions! A table is very much impermanent and having no essential 'table nature', but it is still very useful to put your things on.


text:
Online Sangha groups
What Internet-based Sangha groups are out there?
For the Plum Village tradition there is a list on plumline.org
Are there any other lists of online Sanghas you can share?
Grateful for help and with kind regards,
Tord

There is a Theravada group which is run by monastics at Bhavana Society. They run the group through Discord, they do group meditations, sutta readings and book study sessions. You can join their Discord server here
There is also an online meditation group who use google hangouts. They usually do meditations twice every weekday. They aren't affiliated with any Buddhist tradition although there is a monastic who hosts meditations regularly. This is their google plus page

Venerable members of the Sangha, Ven. Fellows, valued Buddha-Parisata, Householder Tord, interested,
asked about Sangha online, (Buddha-Parisa would denote mixed or lay-assemblings), there is a tiny online monastery, dedicated for the Sangha of the eight directions and devoted follower and also open for all interested: Virtual Dhamma Vinaya Vihara, with all possibilities for practicing and "socializing" with the Tripple Gems, lesser common the many Buddhist-Social-places. (objectives, development and online since some 6 years, surely not most modern and up-to-date technics, 100% trade-free and nearly free of use of third part recources, not public areas, proper for each kind of relationship).
There are surely planty of merely privat and mostly lay communities, but since having seen that there is another question in regard of sozial-networks, thought to not start to list much here.
Some Venerables individually run there own groups.
"Physical" Monasteries mostly run such as email-groups if even, or present them via fb or similar.
My person is not aware of any similar, aside of the mentioned Australian. There are some "closed up" in German languages.
Looking forward that such get in given form and proper run more frequently so that many may have possibilities to often meet monks, the Sangha of the Buddha and be able to practice even when no physical near.

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


text:
Mendicants in the 21st century
Is a life of begging and poverty well suited to the modern world (21st century capitalism)? Not just the will to give it up, but to not suffer for it.
Aren't Buddhist monks traditionally mendicants?

What does "well suited to" mean? Are you asking whether and how monks' lives are in fact sustained? And what is "21st century capitalism"? If an answer explained how it works in (for example) modern-day Sri Lanka, or France, would that be answering what you're asking about?

@ChrisW that would go some way to answering the question. Or a discussion on what the Buddha said about alms. Or (especially) what if any differences there are betwene his advice then, and the ideal now

A bhikkhu is literally 'one who lives by alms'. However, it is not the same as a beggar because the laity that provide the alms get something in return - access to the wisdom and insight of the bhikkhu. Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta gives the Buddha's words to a confrontational Brahmin who refuses to give alms to the Buddha because he does not believe the Buddha 'works for it'.
The conditions for surviving on such alms depends on a laity that is interested in learning about the Dhamma (and hence supporting those that strive to gain direct knowledge of it). Really, the world is much more interconnected, there are far more people, and finding some who would be interested in your message would not be that tough imo! Finding a quiet and secluded spot would be more difficult imo! Here's a story I found: https://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/alms-round-in-america/ I guess if the cultural knowledge is not there, it is a matter of educating your laity and getting them into the practice!

It isn't entirely a work-for-hire quid pro quo though, is it ... I think that alms-giving and Dharma talks are separate/distinct transactions, because Dharma isn't sold. Maybe that's reflected in the sutta you referenced, "What I receive by reciting verses, O brahman, I should not eat". I think it's true though that part of what motivates a monk is to be worthy of alms: for example, maybe, clean hands.

That's a good point, just spotted it too! Maybe saying the exchange is done in charitable good-faith rather than as some sort of contractual obligation of alms-for-insight is better!

Aren't Buddhist monks traditionally mendicants?
Yes I think that's clear from stories told in the suttas, as well as in the Vinaya.
what if any differences there are between his advice then, and the ideal now
I think that tradition is still followed by Theravada monks (and laity), with results including like this.
Or this: The Food of Kindness

My heart grew bright with compassion. I knew that I was standing there to let my bowl be filled again and again by those who love Truth. Hungry or not, I had every right to receive what they freely gave. I was not abusing that beauty because it was not for me that they filled the bowl.

A corollary is that these monastics can't abide where the lay community won't support them.
I think that a lay community will sometimes invite a monk to come and establish themselves in a place.
Also, over the centuries some non-Theravada schools of Buddhism have, by necessity, abandoned alms-going as a means of support. I suppose that's how stories like No Work No Food come to be.

This answer might sound idyllic. Sometimes it's a difficult life, for example you might find Laughter Through the Tears: Kosho Uchiyama Roshi on Life as a Zen Beggar is worth reading.
Conversely there's also a monograph called The Broken Buddha which suggests that, sometimes, monks and monasteries are given what could be seen as an over-abundance.

Traditionally monks are allowed to receive the "four requisites", for example food, but not money. That remains true in some schools; but not true in others (hence a story like, Tetsugen and the Sutras).
A monastery might have lay people, who help administer  money associated with a modern monastery (to pay for electricity for example).

I also recommend this paper (it's on-topic to your question): Growth and Development of Buddhist Organizations: An Organic Process of Cooperation. It's written by a Theravada monk, from Sri Lanka, who established a society and monastery in the United States. It details ways in which customs/expectation of lay society were (in around 1985) different in the States than in Malaysia or Sri Lanka, and some experience with asking or not asking for money.

You may wonder how the Theravada monks can do all these things, because we believe in strictly following the Vinaya. We did these things only to get the temple started, and the rules we broke were only the rules that do not hurt anybody, such as not handling money and not to drive a car. Actually, there was never any rule against driving a car, of course; the Buddha told the monks not to ride animals or be pulled in a cart by animals, out of compassion, because they are living beings. With the modern car, you are the only animal.
Some of the rules are just tools of etiquette. So among these minor rules, it may be acceptable. These must not be rules which concern our main principles of non-harm, non-greed, and non-hatred.

Aren't Buddhist monks traditionally mendicants?
Yes, it was so in the past. It is so in the Theravada Tradition in the present, and it will be so in the future as long as the true dhamma is alive. The scriptures itself describe that way of life as:

”A monk is content with his robes to protect his body and alms food to sustain his life; whenever he goes out he sets out taking only his requisites along with him. Just as a bird, wherever it goes, flies with its wings as its only burden; in the same way a bhikkhu is content with robes to protect his body and alms food to satisfy his belly.”

In the recent past when Ajahn Sumedho asked Ajahn Chah’s permission and blessings to establish a ‘Vihara’ in London, England, UK., he emphasized that the bhikkhus should go out into the streets on a daily alms-round – to keep the bhikkhus tuned in to the principle of alms-mendicancy. (What no one expected was that this would result in the sangha being offered a sizeable tract of woodland in West Success – as a result of a chance encounter with a jogger crossing Hampstead Heath in 1978).
Is there any difference in principle between then and now?
It is not so for the true disciples of the Supreme Buddha who walk this Noble Path. For them it is a form of giving for those fortunate few laypeople who will get this rare opportunity to give alms to the Sangha. The scriptures (The Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta) state that alms given to recluses who follow the Noble Eightfold Path yield great results just as seeds sown on fertile, well-prepared, well-watered fields produce abundant crops. The sutta gives a list of persons to whom alms can be offered and the merit accruing therefrom in ascending order.

A thing given to an animal brings a reward a hundredfold. A gift given to an ordinary person of poor moral habit yields a reward a thousandfold; a gift given to a virtuous person yields a reward a hundred thousandfold. When a gift is given to a person outside the dispensation of Buddhism who is without attachment to sense pleasures, the yield is a hundred thousandfold of crores.

When alms food is given to one on the path to stream-entry the yield is incalculable and immeasurable. So what can be said of a gift given to a stream-enterer, a once-returner, or a non-returner?


text:
Generosity in Buddhism - When does giving become unwholesome?
Buddha said that generosity is essential for enlightenment.

O monks, if people knew, as I know, the results of giving and sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would they allow the stain of stinginess to obsess them and take root in their minds. Even if it were their last morsel, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared it, if there were someone to share it with. But, monks, as people do not know, as I know, the result of giving and sharing, they eat without having given, and the stain of stinginess obsesses them and takes root in their minds.”
  – Itivuttaka 26: 18-19 (tr. Ven. Bodhi)

Lets take an example . If there is a material object that I want to donate , and it will be used for a very good cause. However , I really like this material object and I feel I might want it ( definitely don't need it for my survival or anything like that) . The thought of giving this object does not make me happy. If I force myself and give up this object , will my giving (generosity) be unwholesome?

When does giving become unwholesome?

When donation is helpful it wouldn't be unwholesome but, Buddha teaches true sacrifice.

I really like this material object and I feel I might want it (definitely don't need it for my survival or anything like that).

Buddha was once asked: “Who is the richest man in the world?” Buddha replied: “He who has much satisfaction (with what he has) is the richest man.” To the question, “Who is the poorest man?” Buddha replied: “He who has many desires.”
A Maharaja, who was listening to Buddha’s sermons on contentment and renunciation, wished to earn the approbation of Buddha.
Buddha used to keep with him always a rattle-drum. His disciples once asked him: “Master! Why are you always keeping this rattle-drum by your side?” Buddha replied: “I shall play on this drum the day a person who has made the greatest sacrifice approaches me.” Everyone was eager to know who this person would be. Such persons are often the forgotten men of history.
Wishing to attain this distinction, a Maharaja loaded his elephants with considerable treasure and went to Buddha. He hoped to offer the treasure to Buddha and earn his praise.
On the way, an old woman greeted the Maharaja and pleaded: “I am hungry. Will you give me some food?” The Maharaja took out a pomegranate fruit from his palanquin and gave it to the old woman. The old woman came to Buddha with the fruit.
By then, the Maharaja had also come to Buddha and was eagerly waiting to see when Buddha would sound the rattle-drum. For a long time Buddha did not use it. The Maharaja stayed on.
The old woman approached Buddha staggering on her legs, and offered him the pomegranate fruit. Buddha took it immediately and sounded the little drum.
The Maharaja asked Buddha: “I offered so much wealth to you. You did not sound the drum. But you rattled it after receiving a small fruit. Is this a great sacrifice?”
Buddha replied: “Maharaja! In sacrifice, it is not quantity that counts. It is the quality of sacrifice that matters. It is natural for a Maharaja to offer gold. But what great sacrifice is made when a hungry old women offers the pomegranate fruit to the Guru(teacher) despite her hunger. She did not care even for her life and gave the fruit. What greater sacrifice can there be? It is not sacrifice to offer what is superfluous for you. True sacrifice means giving up that which is most dear to you, that which you value most.”
So when you have to donate you must be give it either you need it or not,
just like an old lady who despite her hunger for one dearest. That's would be great sacrifice. When Maharaja offer just snippet of his treasure for Buddha. But old lady gave that half fruit without caring her hunger. Maharaja don't need his remaining treasure as you said I really like this material object and I feel I might want it (definitely don't need it for my survival or anything like that). at the end he became disciple and truly sacrifice his hunger.

Where is this story from? I can find it on the 'net (on Facebook and blogs etc.) but only without reference to any source.

I had read this story In the book Buddha and His Dhamma of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.

Sorry I don't see it in that book.

I had read it in Marathi version of book. I tried find out in English but couldn't find. Also I missed Marathi version of this book. Sorry. But I remember I had read in this book.

Unwholesome actions are those which are based on the three poisons: greed, anger and delusion. When giving is wholesome it is an act of renunciation and it reduces the three poisons.
Giving becomes unwholesome if it is based on the three poisons. Perhaps you want to be famous for giving money so you are willing to give all your cash to charity; in this case you would effectively be buying fame and it is fueled by greed. This kind of giving is like a trade, you still want money but you've decided that fame is worth more; this type of giving is not renunciation.
You can come up with similar examples where the act of giving increases anger or the delusion of self-view, they would all be unwholesome giving.

People say that the proper motive for giving is with the thought that, "This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind".

@ChrisW wow I really like that sutta. It shows that seeing giving as a support for the mind leads to the greatest benefit while other wholesome acts of giving lead to lesser benefits.

The major definition of generosity I believe as Gawtama Buddha said was "Willing to give" ,not "try to give".
It comes from combination of not stacking mind on objects as that you own them and sympathy on others.

This question presents two issues that must be decoupled and the hidden (second) question must be addressed first.

"However , I really like this material object and I feel I might want it ( definitely don't need it for my survival or anything like that) . The thought of giving this object does not make me happy."

While veiled in introspection, the main (generosity) question is consumed in a cloud of questionable morality and, more importantly, indicates diminished  sammā-ditthi (right view).  More simply, this is a question about generosity that conceals a more desperate question about clinging and attachment.
To the question surrounding the object:
The Noble Eightfold Path begins with samma ditthi (right view). In the Noble Eightfold Path, samma ditthi (right view) is defined as knowledge of the Four Noble Truths. The complete definition is the knowledge of suffering (dukkhe nanam), the cause of suffering (dukkha samudaye nanam), the cessation of suffering (dukkha nirodhe nanam) and knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of suffering (dukkha nirodha gamini patipadaya nanam).
Your hidden question concerns craving to sensual pleasure(s) and is the tip of the (dukkha) spear.  Clinging and craving are introduced to us in the Nidanasamyutta:

"And what is clinging/sustenance? These four are clingings: sensuality
  clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of
  self clinging. This is called clinging.
"And what is craving? These six are classes of craving: craving for
  forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes,
  craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called
  craving.

(Ref: "Nidanasamyutta" ["Connected Discourses on Causation", SN 12] - see Bodhi, 2000b, p. 535 or online at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html)
The metaphorical spear itself is dhukka. Samma ditthi (right view) is at the very core of the Buddha's philosophy.  Your hidden question obfuscates understanding of causation.
Views are not without complexity. In "The Philosophy of Desire in the Buddhist Pali Canon", David Webster suggests,

"What is so wrong with the holding of opinions? It may well relate to
  the consequences of their possession, in the context of the manner in
  which they are held." "For example, in the Mahaparinibbana sutta, the
  Buddha tells the monks of views leading toward nibbana, that they
  should be: yayam ditthi ariya niyyanika - 'continuing in the noble
  view that leads to liberation'"

There is a distinction throughout Canonical texts (e.g. at M.III.73) between the status (rightness or wrongness) of views. The explorer is left to determine from context whether to uplift or condemn a view. However, it seems clear; if a view is connected with one of the four manifestations of Upadana (clinging or grasping), then such a view is worthy of condemnation.
Therefore, the thrust of this answer rests in the tainted shadow cast upon alms or generosity. Though, not entirely without potential for merit (see below), I believe greater iterative, honesty is suggested.
In retaining possession of a sense object, are you liberated?  In relinquishing possession of a sense object are you liberated? Is it the sense object itself that is the source of the suffering; or is the suffering within you?
It is important to confront and/or abandon the clinging to the sense object. The path of liberation is illuminated in the Culasihanada Sutta:

"Now these four kinds of clinging have what as their source, what as
  their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds
  of clinging have craving as their source, craving as their origin,
  they are born and produced from craving.[a] Craving has what as its
  source...? Craving has feeling as its source... Feeling has what as
  its source...? Feeling has contact as its source... Contact has what
  as its source...? Contact has the sixfold base as its source... The
  sixfold base has what as its source...? The sixfold base has
  mentality-materiality as its source... Mentality-materiality has what
  as its source...? Mentality-materiality has consciousness as its
  source... Consciousness has what as its source...? Consciousness has
  formations as its source... Formations have what as their source...?
  Formations have ignorance as their source, ignorance as their origin;
  they are born and produced from ignorance.
"Bhikkhus, when ignorance is abandoned and true knowledge has arisen
  in a bhikkhu, then with the fading away of ignorance and the arising
  of true knowledge he no longer clings to sensual pleasures, no longer
  clings to views, no longer clings to rules and observances, no longer
  clings to a doctrine of self.[b] When he does not cling, he is not
  agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana."

(Ref: "Culasihanada Sutta" ["Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar", MN 11] - see Nanamoli & Bodhi, 2001, p. 161 or online at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html)
To the question of generosity:
According to Mahasi Sayadaw, the Bhara Sutta (The Burden of the Five Aggregates), of alms and generosity,

"There are four kinds of such purity, as follows: (a) When a person
  practicing morality gives alms to one not practicing it, the giver
  earns merit. The gift is pure. (b) When a person not practicing
  morality gives alms to one practices it, the gift remains pure from
  the point of view of the recipient. The giver, therefore, earns merit
  all the same; and the merit is all the more great. (c) When both the
  giver and the recipient of the gift are immoral, the gift is impure;
  and the act of giving is to no avail. Even when the giver shares his
  merits to the petas [c], the latter cannot receive them and will
  not be released from the world of petas. (d) When both the giver and
  the recipient of gifts are pure in morality, the gifts will also be
  pure, and merits accruing from such giving will earn the highest
  merit."

Two closing thoughts:

Generosity with an expectation/anticipation of merit is a
view worthy of challenge.
Generosity bereft of willingness is an empty act for the giver and a potential source of suffering for the receiver.

Footnotes:
a This passage is explained in order to show how clinging is to be abandoned. Clinging is traced back, via the chain of dependent arising, to its root-cause in ignorance, and then the destruction of ignorance is shown to be the means to eradicate clinging.
b The Pali idiom, n'eva kamupadanam upadiyati, would have to be rendered literally as "he does not cling to the clinging to sense pleasures," which may obscure the sense more than it illuminates it. The word upadana in Pali is the object of its own verb form, while "clinging" in English is not. The easiest solution is to translate directly in accordance with the sense rather than to try to reproduce the idiom in translation.
c peta [Skt. preta]:
A "hungry shade" or "hungry ghost" — one of a class of beings in the lower realms, sometimes capable of appearing to human beings. The petas are often depicted in Buddhist art as starving beings with pinhole-sized mouths through which they can never pass enough food to ease their hunger.

And, could you overcome stinginess, now a year later asked back, asked so that you might answer your question by your self and mark it as solved?
Share merits or reflextion, of course, works also hard against stinginess and uncover defiled arguments and thoughts.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other low trades and just exchange for the world.]

Well I have always felt that when a person gives you something and at any point in time brings it up as a example it immediately becomes unwholesome because we should give not to get ,but give so that we may live for to with hold is to parish and better yet is there not anything sweeter than to receive and we are all receivers .giving is fulfilling when your receiver sees value in what you have to give ,that's why we must grow and that's what buddha in my opinion teaches. Buddah illuminates the potential within all of us ,so  that you can grow and have something of value to give to the next so that you feel  fulfilled because giving is the secret to living .pay it forward with no strings and with joy having gave when in season because all that you have shall one day be your inheritors.


text:
Insight guidance
During meditation I focus on breath and when mind wanders I bring it gently back to breath. I have been doing this for 6 years. Most of the time there is this continuous noise. It's a mishmash of words, sounds, visuals going on. I do catch the thoughts quite early before too much proliferation most of the time but it's never ending and not long before its off again.  Sometimes I notice that I enter a more calm state where the mind doesn't seem to wander as much and it feels nice, kind of relieving. I'm not sure what I should do once I get there?
I sort of just watch and note things.
Sometimes usually towards the end of the hour(I have a timer), I start to get this really awful feeling like a mixture of restlessness, impatience, boredom, and anticipation. I just want it to end so badly. I am very tempted to open my eyes when I feel this as its so uncomfortable.
I'd basically just like a little guidance. Does this all sound right what I'm doing? How do I move into insight practice?   I'm unsure

It sounds normal. Do you have a meditation teacher? Questions like these are best dealt with by someone in person. I had years of what you describe, and also negative feelings that were hard to bear. A supportive teacher will know what to do.

No don't have one. Been to sanghas but haven't managed to find a regular teacher that I can contact to ask stuff

All of your problems - the issues that you have listed will go away, the day you begin to walk this Noble Eight-fold Path. I say this because if a person go about practising meditation in an orderly manner he/she can acquire the results that can be obtained from meditating. It is because Dhamma is alive - not sterile. Suddhamma has the quality of “Akalika” (not belonging to time). There are some things that can be done mechanically but not meditation. Meditation is something that has to arise within oneself. So firstly one has to have the confidence, and has to  come to the conviction that it has to be done in an orderly manner. The person who has a strong belief that the path to Nibbana exists in this Dhamma, meditates carefully. What is meant by carefully is that s/he will dedicate the entire life for it. It takes a long time to do something carefully and in an orderly manner, not just a few years. Then there is a sense of calmness that prevails in you.  The negative effects of hurrying will subside and a quiet calm and wakefulness arise in its place. Only a person who has unflinching belief in this Path and the Dhamma will develop this trait.

What you said is all normal and nothing wrong.
"During meditation I focus on breath and when mind wanders I bring it gently back to breath"
This is exactly what you have to do, completely right.
"Sometimes I notice that I enter a more calm state where the mind doesn't seem to wander as much and it feels nice, kind of relieving"
This is the state your concentration improved up to a new nana stage.
"I'm not sure what I should do once I get there?"
Once you get at that point, just before another sitting meditation, make strong wish to get to a higher nana stage you never been before especially dedicated to or in front of your esteemed meditation master.
"Sometimes usually towards the end of the hour(I have a timer), I start to get this really awful feeling like a mixture of restlessness, impatience, boredom, and anticipation. I just want it to end so badly"
This is also you achieving certain nana stage what you have to pass through
Dharma is impermanence, and you wish to control it, actually you cannot and must not. Another advice at this stage is you just increase your sitting meditation time not stopping at that point and paying more attention what is going on but with a mind of letting go. You will surely achieve a higher nana stage towards nirvana.
Everything we do, think and speak, if it is done with good will, it will have good result. Without strong and fervent wish, one cannot attain nirvana. Buddha exemplified just like making fire out of rubbing wood or stick, you think about it. Once you reduce your effort, you cannot make fire out of rubbing. Only with ardent and zealous wish, one will work hard putting constant effort and will get enlightened. Rounds of birth passed through without any nana, future life with uncertainty, even then less effort will not work. Like that encourage oneself and go on towards nirvana without any disappointment.

Thank you for your advise.  Wouldn't making a wish to get to a higher nana stage constitute desiring a certain outcome and then having expectations and craving for this higher stage followed by dissapointment if I do not get there?