text:
What does sati mean?
This normally gets translated as mindfulness.
In particular, does it mean remembrance, as in to actively think using words about the past.
Or is it about thinking about the present, and not the past.
Or is it about suppressing ones internal dialog.
If the meaning has changed, is it a relatively modern thing, or does it trace back to some sort of new development in the history of Buddhism.

The way it's used in Buddhism, sati/smrti means continuously remembering something, being mindful of something, continuously keeping something in mind. The traditional metaphor is the mindfulness of hunger -- when you are very hungry you don't forget that you are hungry.
If I remember correctly, before Buddhism, in Hinduism (or whatever that conglomerate of teachings and rituals can be called) smrti used to refer to rote learning. So basically, you repeat some Vedas text until you memorize it by heart.
Here we have two components: keeping something in mind, and repeating something until it sinks down. This is basically what smrti is. Specifically, kayagata-smrti -- mindfulness rooted in the body -- is continuous awareness of one's bodily sensations, first and foremost somatic components of emotions. ana-apana-smrti -- mindfulness of breathing in and out -- is continuous awareness of the breathing, again mostly because breathing is always the picture of one's state of mind. Both of these can be both meditation as well as post-meditation activities -- and it is the post-meditation that is referred to as smrti, because the challenge is not to forget it, as you are walking about your business.
Again, the important thing to remember that smrti is never just mindfulness (as in, open-ended awareness) -- it is always mindfulness of something. It does matter what we are mindful of, because whatever it is, the more you feed it the stronger it gets.
Usually in Buddhism we train to remember whatever our teacher deems useful for us to remember at this particular stage. It could be the lower abdomen, could be the diaphragm, could be the face, could be the hands, could be the feet, could be the head and shoulders, could be Buddha-Nature, could be Emptiness etc.
More broadly, at "hinayana" stage the training is focused on very low level immediate experiences: so what you are "remembering" (paying attention to) is the whole phenomenological setup -- bodily sensations (heartbeat, breathing, face muscles, posture), emotions (somatic projections aka chakras), and the state of mind (excitement level, scattering level, dimness level, viscosity level etc) -- as a whole. So basically we are learning to be more self-aware, to have a better insight into our internal condition -- via all kinds of hints and symptoms. At this level it's not just being aware though, it's fixing whatever looks unskillful/unhealthy. Noticed the heartbeat increasing -- stopped arguing and switched the strategy of persuasion. This kind of stuff.
Even more broadly, smrti means remembering Dharma at large, as the all encompassing context of our trainee's life, as opposed to letting one's inner frame of reference be force-switched by the circumstances. This mastery over one's context is developed through five levels (panca bala): faith, effort, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom.

At entry level, mindfulness starts as faith or inspiration. Inspired by an encounter with Sat-Dharma, our mind gets the bug of Buddha-fever. Unable to resist the urge to find out more, we keep thinking about mysterious Dharma.
At beginner's stage mindfulness means applying effort to constantly check one's current physical, verbal, and mental activity against the dharmic guidelines. Am I being driven by an afflicting emotion? Is my mind presently biased by an attachment? Is my current action motivated by an egoistic intent?
The next level is when staying always mindful of the context of Dharma becomes automatic and no longer requires effort, which means one is now always operating in the phenomenological context, as I described two paragraphs ago.
At middling level mindfulness grows into concentration (samadhi) which means we can now design, assemble, and maintain any context, any frame of reference, any mood we choose. If we want to feel happy -- we can contrive the context in which we will be happy. If we want to feel motivated -- we can contrive the frame of reference that will make us passionate. And so on. This is also known as generation-stage meditation. The role of smrti here is to keep the contrived context on.
Finally, at advanced level mindfulness becomes wisdom (prajna), which means seeing all contexts at the same time and freely juggling their elements as required by a situation at hand. This is like being a lawyer, in the sense that you see every situation from all possible angles at once, can speak from the perspective of a certain frame of reference, depending on whom is it that you're addressing, and even speak in multiple frames of reference at the same time. Why this is still smrti is because it involves staying mindful of all those different contexts.

The word Sati (Smrti in Sanskrit) literally means remembrance or recollection, but as with many Buddhist technical terms has a more specialized meaning in a meditative context. In the context of meditation the word Sati has a more general meaning to set the mind on the object of meditation. For example, the meditation in which one contemplates the attributes of the Buddha is called Buddhanusati.
However quite often when people say Sati, they mean a specific kind of Sati. That is to say, Samma-Sati, or right mindfulness, which is the seventh factor of the Noble Eightfold Path. The Suttas define Samma-Sati as follows:

And what is right mindfulness? 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 in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself...
  mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is
  called right mindfulness.

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html)
So with right mindfulness one is specifically directing the mind to the body, feeling, mind, and mental qualities. The word which the translator translates as Alert is the term Sampajanna, which others often translate as "fully aware" and quite often when people say mindfulness, they are actually thinking of Sampajanna although they aren't totally distinct, as you need Sampajanna to have Samma-Sati.

For one, please do not suppress anything!  Sati is not a crushing energy.  You should not try to actively suppress thoughts when they arise.  Simply take note of them, let them be, and watch them appear and vanish.  The operative word here is watch.  When thoughts arise, do not actively engage them, do not theorize about them, do not try to push them out of your mind or make judgments on them.
Getting to the definition of the word - while I've seen the word translated as remembrance (as you note in your question), personally I'm not happy with that rendering.  Remembrance has the English connotation of "recalling" as in memory.  There isn't much support for that translation where the word sati is used in the suttas.  In fact, in the Satipatthana Sutta - one of the foundational texts for the practice of mindfulness - that translation doesn't make sense at all!  I think it is better to say that sati means to "watch something with the minds eye".  It is an active form of non-judgmental, non-discursive attention.

One of the funny things about mindfulness is that it helps illuminate the fact that I don't have nearly as much choice as I thought--about whether I think or what I think about.

Oh that is so very true!

Actually from this answer, I can still see how it could be interpreted as thought suppression. Once the thoughts "vanish", isn't thought suppressed? And once they are suppressed, isn't passively watching the brains activity aiding that suppression?

I think the word suppression infers that it is an active, intentional process.  Rather than let leaves fall on their own accord, suppression connotes grabbing them out of the air and slamming them to the ground.

Not letting clouds form and reform; just watching and maintaining a clear sky. MN 117 says:

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness.
In one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path.
MN 117

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


text:
Skillful Buddhist Meditation Teachers
What teachers of Buddhist meditation can guide students skillfully? I mean, teachers who are lay or monastic, teachers who are alive, teachers who have died but left skillful dhamma works to guide students and teachers of any tradition that follow the Buddha's words from the three baskets.
*I am basically asking about teachers that might not be we'll known but the few students that do know always praise the teacher's approach as skillful.

Edited from:
It seems there are some great and unique meditation teachers out there that aren't as popular as some teachers, possibly because they shunned publicity, didn't allow teachings to be recorded, lived far from the world in hard to get to places and so on.
.    So the questions are:
1- What tends to be the differences between the more  charismatic or popular teachers and the less known but master   teachers?
2-What hard to find master teachers of Buddhist meditation are out there and what is there approach to teaching?
Thank you :)
It seems there are some great and unique meditation teachers out there that aren't as popular as some teachers, possibly because they shunned publicity, didn't allow teachings to be recorded, lived far from the world in hard to get to places and so on.
.    So the questions are:
1- What tends to be the differences between the more  charismatic or popular teachers and the less known but master   teachers?
2-What hard to find master teachers of Buddhist meditation are out there and what is there approach to teaching?
Thank you :)

First, welcome to Buddhism.SE :) Second, could you provide examples of the situation you observe? Third, questions that include language like "tends" and "are out there" are difficult to answer. Fourth, you are trying to ask several (related) questions at once, which makes this also difficult to answer. Can you simplify this to ask what you really want to know in a single, (relatively) straightforward question?

I think there is merit in asking about meditation teachers. It would be most helpful if you could specify if you want historical information or are you trying to locate a living meditation teacher. If you are trying to find someone that shuns publicity and is not interested in having a herd of followers, it is unlikely such a teacher would let themself be found.

@yuttadhammo It Always gives my practice strength to hear from you. I finally reedited the question.I hope it is OK now. Is there a FAQ for "Area 51 Buddhism"?   Thank You so much Bhante

Hmm, this could be a "soft question"/"list" and community wiki?

As far as my curiosity managed to spread to far, I think Ajaan Fuang is a great example. Not much is known about him except for a few transcribed talks and some quotes here and there, and some stories told by his students of their experiences with him.
One thing I remember about him, as far as being different goes, was that one time some Thai Monk Magazine (or something along those lines) went after him, trying to get an interview. When he heard about this, he avoided them at all cost. Finally they managed to pin him down somewhere, and asked him, "Could you give us a dhamma talk?" His response was, "Yes. Today's dhamma talk is one word: 'buddho.' If you can't keep this in mind, there really isn't any point in my telling you anything else."
Another great quote is,

If I have to explain everything, you'll get used to having things handed to you on a platter. And then what will you do when problems come up in your meditation and you don't have any experience in figuring things out on your own?

I highly recommend the book Awareness Itself available for free at DhammaTalks.org.

Ajaan Fuang is the teacher that sparked this question, I thought that he can't be the only one. Thanks

When looking for a skilful teacher you have to look at:

Instructions
Teaching

Instructions

easily understandable
easily actionable without abstraction or philosophy
theory backed by practice - Dhamma is to be realised at the experimental level. If there is too much theoretical teaching which is not matched with practical experience this will be a issue as your understanding will be flawed

Teaching

Teaching should be traced backed to the Suttas
Should be taught through what has been practice and experienced
Should deal with the following in some stage of advice:

Calming the fabrications - actionable and practical instruction to do so
Being equanimous to sensations with the understanding of its true nature
Practical and actionable way to reduce perception / view as means to calm the creation of fabrications
Analysis of mind and matter, aggregates, faculties with a view to understand and clam the fabrications
Develop understanding of cause and effect
Identify fabrications, how they are created and how they dissolve

I don't know... when I think I should have observed all this when I began to contact with the buddhism (sangha and literature) I could not have done a single step forward. How should I have discerned that a teaching conforms to the suttas or not before knowing them? A single example only: actually I've overcome my scepticism against misleading because of completely "external" reasons, for instance because I could read about Thich Nhat Hanh and his peaceful practice in the Vietnam war - and that met my (already relatively matured) own pacifism. After that I could proceed and check him.

You can check Anapanasati Sutta and Maha Sathipatana Sutta and some other selected Suttas. But this is one of least important of the items. What you should see is what your are taught a way to experience what is been taught. By practice you experience is what is been taught is in fact in line with reality. The key is way and method to experience and empirical verification.

By learning a bit about them. At least the above 2 are a must.

@Gottfried Helms Some teachers won't say much about the suttas. They rarely talk about the Dhamma. Instead, these teachers will guide  you to focus on your experience. They know that one's own direct  experience is the best teacher of Dhamma. Just to make it clear, this approach is in harmony with the Pali Suttas

@user535875: after the remark "Some teachers won't say much about the suttas" how should one interpret Suminda's criterion: "Teaching should be traced backed to the Suttas" ... and so on... When I try to remember how I felt as a "newbie": that was just left on my own, if you understand what I mean. Twenty doctors, everyone critizising the other one, and I'm dying before getting medicine - and whom of all of them can I trust... and I should decide who is the correct one , this was really rude and its still the same today...

Need not quote the Suttas extensively. What they say should be consistent with the Sutta.

@Gottfried Helms Just because a teacher doesn't mention the suttas much doesn't mean they haven't studied them. It doesn't mean they aren't following them. I hope all is well and you get your medicine :)

at @user535875 : maybe you didn't understand me. It is not that me or you know that, but the question was from the perspective of a newbie: what someone should tell a newbie , and what the newbie should consider. And I find it rude to tell a newbie either, "look that the teacher conforms with the suttas" or "but the teacher need not mention the suttas explicitely" or... or... or... and in fact never rely to the question and the abilities of the newbie - but insist on criteria which only an experienced one can check out. But I think I step out of this, don't expect progress here.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the meaning in the Buddha walking seven steps?
When Buddha was born, he walked seven steps and then stopped without stepping the eighth step, and at every step there was a shower of rain. I ask: what does the seven steps symbolize?

Just see this link, Seven steps at 1:55

According to Mahāpadānasutta, when he was born he stood firm on both feet, then with his face to the north took seven strides while a white canopy was held over him. There is no mention of a shower at every step though.
According to Mahāpadānasutta commentary, standing firm on both feet is a portend for achieving the four iddhipada (Intention, Effort, Consciousness, Investigation). Facing north is a sign that he'll rise above others, the seven steps he walked is a portend that he'll achieve the seven factors of enlightenment (satta bojjhaṅgā) and finally the white canopy held over his head is a symbol that he'll achieve nirvana.

Number seven is very important number. Music has seven fundamental notes (vibrations), Light too has seven fundamental colors (rainbow colors), so does a human. In yogic tradition enlightenment is about opening up seven Chakras. It is also considered lucky in many countries. Therefore human evolution is a seven step journey in yogic traditions of India. Buddha was born in India/Nepal steeped in spiritual/yogic traditions. Walking seven steps is a metaphor which implies enlightenment (Nirvana) as the destiny of the boy.

simple meanings of buddha's seven steps:

unhappy and painful realm/ hell/narka ko samsara
hungry and thirsty realm /small mouth if foods and water available /pret ko samsara
animal's realm /fearful life/dar ra trass ko samsara
angry and quarreling realm/ ris ra jhagada ko samsara
normal human realm/nuetral/sadharan manab ko samsara
exit to the heaven realm/heaven/sworga ko bato samsara
bodhisattwa's realm/ heaven/ buddha ko samsara

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


text:
What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom?
I keep on long wondered the difference between wisdom and knowledge. I do not understand why the Buddha refers only to the intellect without talking to intellectuals?

Knowledge is conceptual, it is information, opinions and views read from books or spoken by others, whereas wisdom is the truth within the experience. Experience can not be conceptualized,  for example....try to explain what water is, then go drink some water or stand in the rain, the conceptualization and the experience are completely different, this is the difference between knowledge and wisdom!!
I hope this has helped.
Metta.
"For things to reveal themselves to us, we need to be ready to abandon our views about them."
~ Thich Nhat Hanh

There's a definition of 'wisdom' here: The Way of Wisdom --
The Five Spiritual Faculties
I found that definition difficult to understand, for example it says,

"Wisdom penetrates[25] into dharmas as they are in themselves. It disperses the darkness of delusion, which covers up the own-being of dharmas."

Other parts of it which might be easier to understand are the conclusion, which includes,

Delusion, folly, confusion, ignorance and self-deception are the opposites of wisdom. It is because ignorance, and not sin, is the root evil that wisdom is regarded as the highest virtue. A holiness which is devoid of wisdom is not considered impossible, but it cannot be gained by the path of knowledge, to which alone these descriptions apply. The paths of faith, of love, of works, etc., have each their own several laws.
As the unfaltering penetration into the true nature of objects, wisdom is the capacity to meditate in certain ways about the dharmic constituents of the universe. The rules of that meditation have been laid down in the scriptures, particularly in the Abhidharma, and a superb description can be found in the latter part of Buddhaghosa's Path of Purification.

In summary I think it suggests that you might want to read the Abhidharma and/or Path of Purification for further knowledge about that.

Another introduction to wisdom exists here: The Integrity of Emptiness

For all the subtlety of his teachings, the Buddha had a simple test for measuring wisdom. You're wise, he said, to the extent that you can get yourself to do things you don't like doing but know will result in happiness, and to refrain from things you like doing but know will result in pain and harm.
He derived this standard for wisdom from his insight into the radical importance of intentional action in shaping our experience of happiness and sorrow, pleasure and pain. With action so important and yet so frequently misguided, wisdom has to be tactical, strategic, in fostering actions that are truly beneficial. It has to outwit short-sighted preferences to yield a happiness that lasts.

So knowledge might come from reading or listening to Dharma, whereas wisdom is when you are able to act on that knowledge and apply it skillfully.

Wikipedia's article Wisdom in Buddhism claims that wisdom is "insight".

That in Theravada it means concentrated (Samādhi) insight (Vipassanā) into the 'Three Marks of Existence' and the 'Four Noble Truths'.

That in Mahāyāna it means with same, with Karuṇā (compassion) in addition.

knowledge can be wrong, "panna" translated loosely as wisdom, is a technical term unlike conventional meaning of english word wisdom, the Panna is a faculty, it can not be wrong, it can be weak or strong, intense or dull, it can be trained and has discernment as it s function.
The semantics of these two words are completely different. Like comparing functional muscle strength of a person to knowledge about physiology.
As for the english word "Wisdom" it self, it s definition is very abstract, having asked 100 people you will get different answers with more or less overlap depending on enviroment, their views and access to dictionaries.
It is important not to attribute english semantical meaning to pali words after translation otherwise the model will be completely confusing and irrational.
The model i mean like how humans gather data about themselves and reality forming a model of the system to make sense of it. Better model, better discernment, more control essentially, less unexpected results. Like having a better map of the territory.
Imo the teachings are like a map, when u have the map u can see the path, when u see the path you can go there, once gone there you posess the knowledge of teritorry. Territory is not the map, map is not the territory, knowledge of the territory is not like knowledge of the map.
People s problem becomes thus that they have a shitty map and they project falsehood onto the territory, claiming a mountain is a lake, north is south, giving wrong directions, following wrong directions, getting into unwanted situations and getting others into unwanted situations.
People do this, no sane person wants there to be war and conflict, it stressful. Yet because they are projecting their ignorance and views onto real world they are prey to their own intellect faculty in this sense.

Generally - wisdom defends good manner in truth. Therefore knowledge describes general experience we get in the world. Knowledge can be overdoing but wisdom is self defensive information that can aim you into better understanding :) tiwigi(CR)

Knowledge is simply that there is information about the world that we can conceptualize, but wisdom is understanding that there is nothing to know.
Wisdom is understanding the concept of emptiness, or shunyata in Sanskrit.

Knowledge is about knowing, learning, gathering. Wisdom is about seeing.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. Could you could elaborate a bit on the "seeing"-part?

I guess that "seeing" is a reference to Right View, which is associated with Wisdom.

Seeing is right view when you take it form a buddhist context. In a buddhist context you can learn four nobel thruths, condition arising, and the entire cannon for that matter. And even teach. Thats knowing. Bikku Potila in Buddas days can be an example of someone who knows but havent seen. But if you start seeing all of the above in your own life, you will start to see the delusion and ignorance inyour self. And seeing that allone will cause them to start fading. IMO that is seeing.

Huh?? The Buddha mentioned  intellect?
He did mention that one who only studies the Dhamma and never actually practices is not one who lives by the Dhamma.
Why do you need the Buddha to talk to intellectuals? What makes you think he didn't talk to intellectuals?
We all cling. We cling to chocolate ho-hos and to things like the intellect, not that the intellect can't be put to good use.
The intellects can get the wrong idea like the intellect is more important than wisdom or the intellect is the only mental faculty that exists.
The Buddha's teaching is about experiencing the raw  data coming through your senses. If you think it's about intellectualism then you have been dipped in materialistic, western belief systems for way too long or you are too intelligent to to allow yourself to be wise.
Intellect when not balanced with faith equals doubt and wrong view.

There is a difference between Information and Knowledge. Information means something we read from the books or somebody passed his knowledge to somebody else.
But after testing that information whether is true or not we get something i.e. Knowledge.
For Example- Water- H2O is a equation. Hydrogen 2 + Oxygen 1 = Water. This is given in Books which we learnt but i.e. just an information but when we actually experiment it in laboratory and we test that equation in reality we found that this H2O equation is true. Then that becomes our knowledge.
Buddha says: Knowledge is useless if it is not in our daily life action.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. Could you provide a quote to this statement: "Knowledge is useless if it is not in our daily life action".


text:
Does eating eggs break the precepts?
On the Buddhist days for eating vegetarian, as laypeople is it okay if we eat eggs? I hear people say that eggs grown for eating are not devoid of life. If eaten, is one guilty of killing?

I'm going to make a wild guess and suppose you looking for an answer from a generally pro-vegetarian standpoint? (Since you are from Viet Nam, which does have a tradition of combining Buddhism and vegetarianism)

As a vegan i can say i think its not moral (wholesome )  to eat eggs -  i think most places if not all of them to date are killing male chicks  - do i think its a break of the first precept to eat eggs ? no - but i do think its not moral (unwholesome)
about the egg contain a living being i am pretty sure it does not

There is are few incidents mentioned in Buddhism about egg consuming leading to bad karma.
Explanation - "How could eggs be bad"
Recognition of life in Buddhism is not only walking talking life,it also includes potential life(like an egg).An egg is not a creature,true.But if correct conditions are given it turns to life,So it is potential life.And killing things alive or killing potential life is recognized as bad Karma.
People mentioned to have suffered from bad karma(From the consumption of eggs)when Lord Buddha was alive.
"One day a prince invited  Lord Buddha to his new castle.He laid a carpet thinking if i will have children Lord Buddha will enter my palace walking on this carpet.When Lord Buddha arrived no such thing happend.Lord Buddha skipped the carpet and set foot on the ground.In the end the price asked why.Lord Buddha said i knew your wish,unfortunately you two will have no children so i didn't used the carpet.And Lord Buddha went on to describe why.
Lord Buddha said once in a previous life you were a merchant sailing across the sea to do your business.One day a storm took your ship and you were washed up to a beach of a small island.there was nothing but bird nests.
You,fearing for your life consumed eggs of those birds.Because of that Karma you generated you will have no children"
This prince never had children as Lord Buddha said!
If you look you would find many tales of such incidents,we are Buddhists from birth in my country (Sri Lanka) and we are not in a common understanding about Farmed eggs (the white eggs you see in the market) because they supposedly have been modified to not to give bith.But most of us keep away from eggs unwilling to take the risk.

Extending the example of consuming eggs, how this play out if you were to kill a cockroach?

A cockroach is a living being so obviously there is a violation of the first (avoiding harming any form of life).But this should be understood with some extra details. Even though Buddhism do not see a difference in the size of a being to value its life (all lives are equally valuable in Buddhism) the amount effort of effort and planing dedicated to a killing would define the force of negative (Bad karma) it would generate. @Lanka

Taking eggs directly from a bird nest is stealing their chance to have offspring. But buying eggs from the supermarket doesn't count as the deed is done by another

Not the stealing, yes but the buyer is the one who breaks the egg and end all possibilities of a birth @SankhaKulathantille

Eggs at the supermarket are not living beings

There are two types in the market you know! :) by the way I've heard people say that those white eggs are different but never knew how. do you know? @SankhaKulathantille

They say nearly all eggs sold commercially are produced by hens that have not mated. So i wouldn't worry about it.
https://www.chowhound.com/food-news/54729/whats-the-difference-between-fertilized-and-unfertilized-eggs/

Buddhism does not have a clear, universal doctrine on being vegetarian: see for example,

Are all Buddhists vegetarian?
Says that it varies from one tradition to another.
Food and Drink
Theravada monks 'must' beg for their food, 'must not' eat after noon, and 'may choose' to be vegetarian

If he wishes to be a vegetarian, he may choose from among the food placed in his bowl, although where he receives only little, this will be very difficult for him.

Vegetarianism

Today it is often said that Mahayanists are vegetarian and Theravadins are not. However the situation is a little more complex than that. Generally Theravadins have no dietary restrictions although it is not uncommon to find monks and lay people in Sri Lanka who are strict vegetarians. Others abstain from meat while eating fish. Chinese and Vietnamese monks and nuns are strictly vegetarian and the lay community try to follow their example although many do not. Amongst Tibetans and Japanese Buddhists, vegetarianism is rare.
Buddhists who insist on vegetarianism have a simple and compelling argument to support their case. Eating meat encourages an industry that causes cruelty and death to millions of animals and a truly compassionate person would wish to mitigate all this suffering. By refusing to eat meat one can do just that.
Those who believe that vegetarianism is not necessary for Buddhists have equally compelling although more complex arguments to support their view: (1) If the Buddha had felt that a meatless diet was in accordance with the Precepts he would have said so and in the Pali Tipitaka at least, he did not. (2) Unless one actually kills an animal oneself (which seldom happens today) by eating meat one is not directly responsible for the animal's death and in this sense the non- vegetarian is no different from the vegetarian. The latter can only eat his vegetables because the farmer has ploughed his fields (thus killing many creatures) and sprayed the crop (again killing many creatures). (3) While the vegetarian will not eat meat he does use numerous other products that lead to animals being killed (soap, leather, serum, silk etc.) Why abstain from one while using the others? (4) Good qualities like understanding, patience, generosity and honesty and bad qualities like ignorance, pride, hypocrisy, jealousy and indifference do not depend on what one eats and therefore diet is not a significant factor in spiritual development.
Some will accept one point of view and some another. Each person has to make up his or her own mind.

Buddhist cuisine

Eggs are seen as almost meat and many Buddhists avoid them.

(However Wikipedia provides no citation/reference for the above statement.)

If you follow the argument listed in "Vegetarianism", above, you might like to avoid eggs, for example because (so far as I know) egg production includes killing most of the male chickens as soon as possible.
On the other hand it does seem to vary from one tradition to another; if you're following a specifically-Vietnamese tradition you might want to ask this question of a specifically-Vietnamese Buddhist.

I'm 90% certain this is a Mahayana question looking for a Mahayana answer.

@MatthewMartin Do you think that I should add a Mahayana tag to the question, and delete from my answer the 2nd reference which mentions the Theravada Vinaya rules? I agree the OP is probably asking for a Mahayana answer. This is only the second question on this site tagged [tag:vegetarianism].

I don't want to encourage anyone to self delete, but you might want to widdle your answer down to the mahayana part. Tagging is a good idea as vegetarianism as an open question is very controversial. Once you are on one side of the fence or the other, then it is a technical question of where to draw the lines-- even carnivores draw the line at eating their own species and unfamiliar species like roaches and frogs.

I know you've said that the 'vegetarianism' topic has resulted in arguments at other web sites; and maybe it was controversial even in Devadatta's day; but if or because the question is untagged I don't think it's wrong, I hope it's beneficial, to say that what is commonly-accepted varies from one tradition to another.

My point (if it fits in this small box) is that "Should Buddhist be vegetarians?" leads to flamewars. But "Given one has already decided to be vegetarian, what is on the acceptable list?" is comparatively answerable and if someone answers it with "Well, I enjoy steak" then it is a bad answer, but cromulent to "Should Buddhist be vegetarian at all". (Likewise "Given one has decided not to be vegetarian, what is on the acceptable list?" could be dispassionately answered, imho.)

I'm guessing you are asking what the boundaries are for Vietnamese Buddhism (which is generally similar in practice to Chinese & Korean Buddhism, at least with respect to how the dietary precepts are practiced).
The vegetarian precepts come from the Brahma Net Sutra and the Upaseka Sutra. These precepts discourage animal husbandry of any sort. So on that ground, it would imply animal products are off the menu.
The precepts related to preservation of life make it pretty clear that the problem with meat and animal products is that a sentient being must be killed. In modern agriculture, to make eggs, the male chicks must be killed, they are economically useless. The old hens are killed when they stop laying.  The calves from cows are killed and sold as veal. The dairy cows in turn are killed when they can no longer produce milk.
I've heard of a no-kill dairy in India, but I've never heard of a no-kill egg farm.
The internet seems to say eggs and milk were sometimes allowed for monks in China, Korean and Vietnam, but I'm not finding a lot of good references. Milk was probably not consumed much anyhow, since lactose intolerance is very common in Asia, outside of Mongolia.
In the case of eggs, one Buddhist concern is can an unfertilized egg yield a living being. In some species, yes, sometimes. And for fertilized eggs, it certainly can yield a living being.  This is much the same sort argument you see in the abortion issue.


text:
What is the meaning of the lotus?
On the altar when entering a Buddhist temple I see the Buddha sitting on a lotus, but frankly I do not understand the symbolic meaning of the lotus image? Everywhere you look in the temple you see lotuses. Can anyone explain this to us?

The lotus flower blooms in muddy water and spreads its leaves and petals out just centimeters above the surface of the dirty water.
Buddhist renunciates, saw themselves as being outside of the muck of the world they had renounced, or at least, in the mud but not dirtied by it.

Well there are more than one meaning to the lotus image. It is a multi-layered symbol.
http://buddhists.org/buddhist-symbols/the-meaning-of-the-lotus-flower-in-buddhism/
the meaning of the muddy waters, physicality being the ground out of which the nirvana experience grows.

The lotus flower represents one symbol of fortune in Buddhism. It
  grows in muddy water, and it is this environment that gives forth the
  flower’s first and most literal meaning: rising and blooming above the
  murk to achieve enlightenment.

and the second meaning refers to how the pure flower is when its roots are in the mud and the earth

The second meaning, which is related to the first is purification. It
  resembles the purifying of the spirit which is born into murkiness.

Rather than faithfulness to a doctrine, what it implies is faith in the process so that at all points of development from a shoot out of the mud, to blooming, it is the process of awakening.
The third meaning refers to faithfulness. Those who are working to rise above the muddy waters will need to be faithful followers [of the process] (note added by soulsings)
Each color implies a different quality of the buddha mind.

The color bears importance in the meaning of the lotus flower in
  Buddhism. A white lotus flower refers to purity of the mind and the
  spirit. If a lotus flower is red, it refers to compassion and love.
  The blue lotus flower refers to the common sense; it uses wisdom and
  logic to create enlightenment. The pink lotus flower represents the
  history of Buddha and the historical legends of the Buddha. A purple
  lotus flower speaks of spirituality and mysticism. Finally, the gold
  lotus flower represents all achievement of all enlightenment,
  especially in the Buddha.
  and regarding colors also see
  http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/b_lotus.htm

and the symbolism of the stages of growth.

The stage of growth the lotus flower is in represents a different
  stage of enlightenment. A closed lotus flower represents the time
  before a Buddhist follower found Buddha or enlightenment. A lotus
  flower fully bloomed and open represents full enlightenment and
  self-awareness.

Rising out of the mud of materiality into the emotions (represented by the water)
the path of awakening eventually leads to the opening of the lotus flower before the sun of compassion and wisdom.

The lotus flower sits atop the water but is not moistened by it. It gets its water from roots embedded below the water.
The analogy implies we can be in this world yet free of worldly desires.

The already submitted answers explain the symbolism of the lotus very well. I'd like to add some important references to the lotus in Buddhism.
I'd often seen the lotus used in Mahayana Buddhist art such as this painting of Amitabha:
The Lotus Sutra is an important Mahayana sutra studied by numerous schools.
Om mani padme hum is a well known mantra which is translated various ways but a well known translation is "Praise to the Jewel in the Lotus."
The lotus holds an important place in Pure Land Buddhism as seen in this excerpt from the translator's introduction to The Three Pure Land Sutras:

The Buddha told Ānanda to worship Amitāyus. At once Amitāyus manifested
  himself with a majestic appearance and his light shone everywhere, so
  that Ānanda and all the others in the assembly clearly saw the Pure Land. They
  witnessed two types of birth: 1) that of those born from within the lotus flowers,
  and 2) that of those remaining in the lotus buds. Those aspirants who have
  accepted the Buddha’s wisdom with pure faith are to be born by instantaneous
  transformation and fully enjoy the highest bliss, but those with doubts must
  remain in the lotus buds for five hundred years (section 43).

But I wondered about the importance of the lotus in my own tradition of Theravada and whether there were references to the lotus in the Pali Canon. Here's what I found:
From AN 4.36

"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me, brahman, as 'awakened.'
"The fermentations by which I would go
  to a deva-state,
  or become a gandhabba in the sky,
  or go to a yakkha-state & human-state:
      Those have been destroyed by me,
      ruined, their stems removed.
  Like a blue lotus, rising up,
  unsmeared by water,
  unsmeared am I by the world,
  and so, brahman,
  I'm awake."

From Samyutta Nikaya 22:94:

"Just as a water-lily or a blue lotus or a white lotus, born in water, growing in water, having arisen above the water stands unwetted by the water, similarly, bhikkhus, the Tathaagata, brought up in the world and conquering the world,[64] lives unsullied by the world."[65]

This poem by the Elder Udayin from the Theragatha

As the flower of a lotus,
Arisen in water, blossoms,
Pure-scented and pleasing the mind,
Yet is not drenched by the water,
In the same way, born in the world,
The Buddha abides in the world;
And like the lotus by water,
He does not get drenched by the world.

The translator's note from the above poem states:

Awakening (represented by the lotus blossom) is something that happens again and again in all different places and times, and is not limited to a single occurrence of it among the Sakya's of ancient India.

The various Buddhist traditions don't agree on everything. But the usage of the beautiful lotus flower as a symbol for enlightenment cuts across traditions.

This is very comprehensive. Thank you for this.


text:
Fate and karma same or different?
I do not understand the difference between karma and fate; are they the same or different?

All the things happen is not a result of Karma.
Actually in Buddhism there are Fivefold Niyama where as Karma Niyama is a just one of them.
The Fivefold Niyama is as follows
uthu-niyama: the caloric order, the climate of the geographical location.
bija-niyama: the germinal order, things you inherited from the genes.
kamma-niyama: the moral order, is the one you are talking about.
chitta-niyama: the psychical order.
Dhamma-niyama: natural phenomenal sequence. we all get old and we all die its a natural thing for all of us
more details: http://www.buddhivihara.org/niyama.htm

I don't know what tradition your word for 'fate' comes from, but I'll try to answer anyway.
Fate usually means something which happens that is decided in advance, perhaps something that's decided before you were born, perhaps decided by God.
Whereas Karma is what happens as a result of your actions or your choices.
In summary:

The gods (for example this or this) decide what your 'fate' is
You (the choices you make) decide what your karma is

I simply say it is the same, But buddha has taught it in the name of Karma.
Simply there is one rule in the world.

If you do something you will get the return. (This is simply known as
the rule of Nature) This has been there for all of the buddha sasana
for millions of years.

ex: If you hit somebody he will get a chance to hit you, may be in the next life that doesn't matter
The Fivefold Niyama says the same principle. That is why buddha has told to do good deads, So the next one will help you.


text:
Tradition and purpose of prostration practice
In the triratna Buddhist community (who I practice with) there is a prostrations  practice for those going through the ordination process. I'm sure we have taken this practice from another tradition.I'm fairly certain it is Tibetan but can anyone give details of the exact place in the Tibetan practice this comes from and also what is the purpose of this practice. How does it fit into the system of practice and what effects this practice has on the practicioner.

In Tibetan Buddhism, according to Chogyam Trungpa prostration is a practice of surrendering one's ego, to the triple treasure exemplified by the guru. A student full of oneself is compared to an upside down pot or else to a full cup, and prostration is seen as either turning the pot right side up or emptying the cup.
In Korean Zen, the purpose is supposedly getting one's body and mind in sync with each other, although I will be damned if my Zen Master ever explained this explicitly, you have to figure it out yourself from the various cursory remarks. Getting body and mind in sync means if your body is bowing your mind is bowing as well.
My present teacher (a modern non-sectarian master) explains bowing as the practice of sincerity, which relates both to the mindfulness of body/energy, but also to a sincere attitude towards the triple treasure. This in turn leads to the experience of selflessness and interbeing.

Some texts attribute the original authorization of prostration to the Buddha himself, although they are clear to differentiate between the Hindu Bhakti and guru worship.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel206.html

However, He did lay down three forms of reverence for bhikkhus;
  wearing the robe with the right shoulder bared, kneeling down, and
  holding the palms of the hands together in the gesture of reverence.
  Prostration at the feet of the Buddha is also mentioned many times in
  the Suttas. Lay people are free to show their reverence in any
  suitable way and people of those times were recorded in the Suttas as
  expressing their reverence variously:
So the Kalamas of Kesaputta approached the Lord. Having approached
  him, some prostrated towards the Lord and sat down at one side; some
  greeted the Lord politely, and having conversed in a friendly and
  courteous way, sat down to one side; some raising their hands in
  añjali to the Lord sat down to one side, some called out their names
  and those of their clans and sat down to one side; while others saying
  nothing sat down to one side.
— Kalama Sutta, Anguttara-nikaya iii 65 (PTS edition). See A Criterion
  of True Religion, Mahamakut Press, Bangkok, and The Kalama Sutta,
  Wheel No. 8, BPS, Kandy, Sri Lanka.

And additional evidence of the Buddha accepting prostrations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostration_(Buddhism)

In the Pali canon, laypersons prostrating before the then-living
  Buddha is mentioned in several suttas.[3] In Theravada Buddhism, as
  part of daily practice, one typically prostrates before and after
  chanting and meditation. On these occasions, one does typically
  prostrates three times: once to the Buddha, once to the Dhamma, and
  once to the Sangha. More generally, one can also prostrate before "any
  sacred object of veneration."[4]

But is there evidence of prostrations by religions previous to Buddhism?
http://www.chayas.com/qidah.htm

Bowing, kneeling, yoshev la'areS, qidah & prostration [to the one G-D]
  originated in authentic Torah Teachings (the Torah of Moses). It
  certainly preceded Islam and Christianity. It is still practiced (to
  some extent) today and is/was retained by a minority of Jews, even
  during the Middle Ages. And while portions of this original practice
  may (or may not have) been copied by other religions, anyone familiar
  with ancient practice knows we still preserve the original method of
  prostration. In my opinion, a popular return to proper Jewish
  prostration or qidah, (which brings about focused, meaningful prayer)
  will result in a greater level of shifa for the Jewish people (and the
  world). This translates into a greater level of Divine protection
  (based on concepts in 'The Guide' / Moreh Nevukhim).

So there may be evidence of your particular Buddhist sect deriving the tradition, but if your question is where was prostration first introduced there is evidence that others preceded Tibetan traditions.

Bowing is a matter of course. Natural expression of respect for buddha and his thinking and this lead to a harmony with mind of buddha

At a Korean Zen meditation center I visit occasionally, a practice of 108 Bows is held for special occasions with the focus being on repentance.

108 Bows of Repentance and Renewal
  Reflection on unwholesome states, body, speech and mind and rededication to wholesome practice to eliminate suffering through the practice of 108 full prostrations.

In fact, even more ambitious practices of hundreds and even thousands of bows are done at this center although they are split up over a period of days or weeks.
Here is a simple explanation from another Zen Center as to the purpose of this particular prostration practice of 108 bows. (source: http://www.providencezen.org/why-we-bow-108-prostrations)

We always bow one hundred and eight times. One hundred and eight is a number from Hinduism and Buddhism. That means there are one hundred and eight defilements in the mind. Or, sometimes they say one hundred and eight compartments in the mind. Each bow takes away one defilement, cleans one compartment in your mind. So our bowing practice is like a repentance ceremony every morning. In the daytime, in our sleep, our consciousness flies around somewhere. Also, we make something, we make many things in our consciousness. Then, we repent! So we do one hundred and eight bows; that’s already repenting our foolish thinking, taking away our foolish thinking.

This is a fairly strenuous practice for someone who hasn't been doing this type of activity regularly. My own "foolish thinking" that I could do them all at once without working up to it lead to quite a bit of soreness the next day. :)
Here's a video from youtube on what this looks like. Joyful, disciplined, and humbling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1tpD9ZnE4#t=14


text:
Is there a story or a mentioning about masturbation in the Buddhist teachings?

Is masturbation wrong? In what exact way is it wrong? I just need to know if the act of masturbation is wrong. This may include watching nudity while masturbating. Even though it's an addiction, I was wandering if it hold more or any negative karma than another general addiction, like addiction to food. I just need your opinion in this backed up by references to the teachings.
Is the act of masturbation a barrier towards mental concentration or samadhi? Will I have more mindfulness and concentration if I get rid of this addiction? I'm talking about the samadhi gained through annapanasati.
In what way can I get rid of this addiction if it is leading me away from the path? Please give instructions to one who is somewhat deeply ingrained in it.

I am not here to discuss about an 'embarrassing' topic, rather a plausible problem (affirmed by many Buddhists) that a majority of people in the western world have. I am also here to see if my addiction can be a cause for any other negative habits, like many Buddhist say so. That being said, thank you very much for the help. I honestly will appreciate the answer you give me, since this idea have haunted and caused inner conflicts within me for the past 2 years.

I could tell you a story mentioning masturbation while teaching some aspect of Buddhism.

To say that masturbation is wrong, and that somehow sexual intercourse is right, is to completely miss the essence and understanding of what Buddhism is.

Sexuality is mentioned and that does include sex between man and woman, same sex partners and self pleasuring.
But there is a clear delineation between monks who have take their vows and lay people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexuality

To lay people Buddha advised that they should at least avoid sexual
  misconduct which meant following generally accepted norms of sexual
  morality and behavior. From Buddha's full-time disciples, the ordained
  monks and nuns, strict celibacy (called brahmacarya) has always been
  required.

But what is the issue with sexuality. Shakyamuni Buddha had been married and surrounded by women before he was married, per his father the king's devices to keep Shakyamuni interested in assuming the throne after the king died.
So Buddha spoke from experience. What is he trying to tell us?

In the Buddha's first discourse he identifies craving (tanha) as the
  cause of suffering (dukkha). He then identifies three objects of
  craving: the craving for existence; the craving for non-existence and
  the craving for sense pleasures (kama). Kama is identified as one of
  five hindrances to the attainment of jhana according to the Buddha's
  teaching. Throughout the Sutta Pitaka Buddha often compares sexual
  pleasure to arrows or darts. So in the Kama Sutta from the Sutta
  Nipata Buddha explains that craving sexual pleasure is a cause of
  suffering. —Kama Sutta, Sutta Nipata[1]

So really the issue is not sex or no sex, but what to do with craving. As lay people, a long term relationship is one way of expressing these cravings, but even so sex is not the answer to our deepest longing to awaken to Buddha consciousness.
Buddha goes on to explain in greater detail what is the problem.

If one, longing for sexual pleasure, achieves it, yes, he's enraptured
  at heart. The mortal gets what he wants. But if for that person —
  longing, desiring — the pleasures diminish, he's shattered, as if shot
  with an arrow.
  —Kama Sutta, Sutta Nipata[1]

So the aspirant is shot with the arrow of disappointment. But this disappointment can be a prod to try harder to see beyond the lie that sensual satisfaction will really give lasting fulfillment. It isn't a matter of whether the rules say to do or not do sex, but what will this act do for my practice.
There is another post on onions and garlic and how those are best avoided. So there may be things one can do to lessen the craving. What was the motivation for the prohibition on eating onions and garlic?
Buddha then goes on to say:

So one, always mindful, should avoid sexual desires. Letting them go,
  he will cross over the flood like one who, having bailed out the boat,
  has reached the far shore.
The 'flood' refers to the deluge of human suffering. The 'far shore'
  is nibbana, a state in which there is no sexual desire.
The meaning of the Kama Sutta is that sexual desire, like any habitual
  sense pleasure, brings suffering.

So that is the crux of the matter "any habitual sense pleasure, brings suffering."
So that gets us back to the Four Noble truths. And now we are in the heart of Buddhism, finding a way out of suffering.

Thanks for the detailed answer. You have convinced me through the reference to Kama Sutta that masterbation foster craving for sensual pleasures, thus suffering eventually follows. Eventhough I agree with you today, I am however unable to get rid of or tone down my craving when the time comes. As said on the third question, I would really like some clear instructions or the reference to the "post on onions and garlic and how those are best avoided" you were talking about.

I added the link to the answer and here it is

http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5325/what-was-the-motivation-for-the-prohibition-on-eating-onions-and-garlic     sorry there used to be an edit button for comments but here is the link

Alex468, upon further reflection on this, it seems that contending with human passions does not lead to cessation of suffering, so rather understand that we are hard wired for passion and our practice is finding ways to be mindfully present so that we can appreciate life and whatever challenges we face.

This is a tremendous answer, so thank you @soulsings for assembling it! I have found this also to be true, that the key is to avoid this habit being a source of dukkha by the most convenient means, rather than approaching it from an absolutist viewpoint. Accept what is happening and remind yourself to be mindful. Remember that satisfying this need will not solve your problems, while also forgiving yourself for doing it. Avoid doing it as a result of aimless craving (e.g. to avoid other problems!) and instead look for chances to do something wholesome with that time (e.g. meditate!)

Re: pornography (which you implied?) -- Porn crosses a variety of ethical boundaries that are not just sexual. If you feel it is hurtful to people out in the world (exploitation etc.) and thus you "believe it's wrong" then you will generate negative kamma as a result of watching it. Be mindful of WHAT you are looking at/thinking of while having sexual pleasure (alone or otherwise) and like with all actions, follow the 8-fold path as best you can while you masturbate too. Practice metta and harmlessness in your fantasy life, and you will be working on mindfulness and decreasing your suffering.

Sorry, no links to texts, just my personal experience/ingisht:

Is masturbation wrong?

It's not exactly wrong, rather it is a symptom of an underlying issue. The issue is probably deep craving for positive emotion, for love, for acceptance, for appreciation. This deep craving could be a result of child trauma. This trauma may affect other areas of your life, such as your relationship with success and challenge, your interpersonal relationships etc. So even though masturbation in and of itself is not bad, the issue behind is serious and must be analyzed with all seriousness, and then a strategy for overcoming should be developed and worked on.

Is the act of masturbation a barrier towards mental concentration or samadhi?

Not a permanent barrier, but definitely a negative factor. Samadhi, or ability to generate and maintain a certain context and mood, relies on power of will (along with other powers, such as imagination etc). The power of will is a direction of energy opposite to the desire of satisfaction/relief. So training to channel your energy into e.g. physical endurance exercises instead of habitually releasing it, will do miracles to your ability to deal with stress, to control your focus and therefore your perspective and your mood.

In what way can I get rid of this addiction?

Learn to always be in a positive mood, and it will naturally subside. When you are bright and shining, your brain will continuously produce the same hormone that is released during orgasm. Do abdominal exercises.

I applaud your effort to ask this matter so candidly.
I have not read a Buddhist story that directly discusses the matter of masturbation but, as a Chinese Buddhist, there are many Chinese influences/wisdom, that we also study as electives, that discusses the matter of masturbation.
Chinese Buddhists often build our foundation with some aspects in Confucianism and Daoism, before diving into Mahayana. Historically many Buddhist masters are not only expert in Buddhism, but often are highly educated in Confucianist and Daoist scripture and skills.
The matter of masturbation and sexuality in general are often discussed in the context of Chinese medicine, which is a Daoist influence (I often think of Daoists as ancient Chinese scientists and engineers). Chinese medicine consider masturbation highly detrimental to one's health, and people should refrain from frequent sexual conduct to conserve more energy.
Whilst most modern medicine I encountered asserts masturbation is harmless, as the only vital material that is lost from the human body is protein and nutrients, which easily regenerates over time. Chinese medicine speculates beyond matter (i.e. semen), understands the world is composed of matter, energy, and information, and with each ejaculation a lot of energy is lost, which does most damage to the kidneys. For men aged between 30 ~ 40, this energy cycle takes about 2 weeks to replenish, and as we get older the cycle takes even longer. Chinese medicine highly recommend men to completely abstain after the age of 60, if you wish to enjoy longevity. In short, don't do it, it's good for your health.
Masturbation is also considered unwholesome sexual conduct. Confucianism teaches filial piety as the top priority of being a virtuous person. Our bodies are born from our mothers, through months of labor and hardship through birth, and then nourished and nurtured carefully by our parents. Therefore, Confucianism considers looking after our health as an essential component of filial piety. Not only is masturbation an unhealthy act, but it is also a shameful scene to behold if one were to be accidentally exposed to the public.
Based on the above, I do believe masturbation is a great hinderance towards samadhi.
Lastly, like any worldly attachments, I believe such an addiction can be resolved by practicing Buddhism diligently. Meditation does wonders. I have a Hare Krisna friend whom, after practicing meditation, naturally lost interest in meat and became a vegan with ease.
There are many ways and teachings in the Buddhist scriptures so simply find a way that is most suitable for one's circumstances. One of the most recommended approach is through 'Disgusting Thoughts' (asubhānupassin), by visualizing our fleshy bodies in separate parts in high details (the brain, stomach, skin, fecal matter, blood, pus etc) and see through what our bodies are really made of. The essence of desire is emptiness and relative. A mosquito would find another mosquito sexually attractive, but another creature, e.g. us human-beings, or a dog, would have no interest. In the eyes of the Devas, even the most attractive super models are merely foul hideous apes.
Please allow me to be frank (sorry everyone for the TMI) but, I too, had the same addiction for over 10 years. I was under the pretense it is harmless, but in retrospective, this behavior had adversed affected me psychologically. I was often shrouded with shame, I lack confidence, it warped my expectation with relationships and I could not experience satisfactory relationship.
I dropped the habit 'magically' after a few weeks practicing Buddhism. I have always admired and respected Buddhism, and when I first started to study it seriously, many of my bad habits just naturally faded. I deleted all adult material, eat healthy, went vegetarian, and now married and become a first time dad.
Sorry if the above sound a bit cliche. I'm still afflicted by lingering wandering thoughts, but at least I have not broken action precepts. I hope in time, and through diligent practice, all these anxiety will turn into Bodhi.

What makes something "right or wrong" in Buddhism? The answer is, are your thoughts and actions leading towards or away from purification and liberation of the mind, if your actions are leading to freedom from suffering then the act is "wholesome" but if your thoughts and actions are leading you away from purification of the mind, then your actions are " unwholesome" ( The Noble Eightfold Path)
So, to answer your question on masturbation, will masturbating lead to purification and liberation of the mind? The answer is clearly no. The action itself is leading to more craving and desire of an action which doesn't support your journey towards freedom from all pain and suffering!
The answer to the 3rd part of your question is....simply to meditate. Once your mind becomes more focused, more concentrated ( mindfulness) within each and every moment, then when the desire and craving for masturbation arises, you will see the arisen phenomena earlier and earlier, which means the "hook" of the craving and desire has a less hold on you each time. Just meditated and increase your AWARENESS!!
I hope this has helped.
Metta.

Thanks for the answer. I do understand that masturbation foster craving when it’s done in the wrong way. Meditation (referring to mindfulness on breathing here) is indeed helpful in toning it down a bit. But the habit always comes back since we as lay people don't really have all the time to meditate. I was wandering if there was any other Buddhist meditation or any sort of practice that is very effective at specifically getting rid of lust.

With regard to this question, I would like to offer the following essay, too long to re-post here, done a decade ago concering the topic: Sex and the Lay Buddhist.
http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/bd_dhammatalk/ethical_culture/sex_andthe_lay_buddhist.htm
There are some very efficacious practices for ending the habit of sexual indulgence described in this essay. In addition I would now add:
There comes a time when one's detachment is such that temptation to sexual pleasure of any sort does not even enter the mind. Prior to that there is a period when there is sufficient detachment from sexual pleasures to allow one to say on the first even very tiny approach of temptation: "No thank you, thank you very much." Prior to that there comes a time when one is sufficiently detached that although allowing confrontation with temptation one is able to extract one's self before it gets out of hand ... so to speak. Prior to that there is a period when one indulges for a time, for a longer time, for a very long time but without going so far as to ooze any liquid (see simile for the first jhana).
I would also suggest, in addition to the suggestions in the article cited: eliminate any props. You do not want to end like a certain actor, hanging upside down on a cross with a noose around your neck from a coat rack in a second rate hotel in Thailand. Keep it in your head. Use the Eightfold path. This sort of thing, most purely sexual fantasy requires violence. Violence is to be let go. Get rid of the props, then get rid of the violence from the fantasy. If the fantasy can be made into a love or romantic fantasy, it becomes very alian to an outright sexual fantasy.
Another thing: Keep at it. That is the effort to abstain. Look at the spaces, not the failures. Extend the periods between failures.
It can be done.

While this question is 5 years old, i feel i have to add my answer.
Masturbation is definitively wrong as it harms the body by constantly depleting its ressources and energy, especially for males.
Sperm is a high value product in your organism and as long as it isn't expelled the body can re-use it. It builds up subtle energies, and while being young one might not suffer too much from it but as time passes the after effects of sexuality are much more heavy on the body.
So yes masturbation is very harmful, to your energy level, focus level, overall health and vitality. I am aware western dogmas teach otherwise but i had to learn myself the hard way. Excess of sexual activity falls in the same category with even more possible consequences (unwanted pregancies, std, emotional turmoils...)
edit:I see that people dislike my answers. Proof enough to me that it hurts their cravings and make them uncomfortable. If you don't agree with me go read what tradition chinese medecine, ayurveda, tibetan medecine has to say about it.

Your view is partially correct as masturbation does indeed deplete our energy but I don't think it's "wrong". It definitely doesn't help in following the Noble 8 Fold Path, right and wrong isn't defined by some God in Buddhism it's more of a self exploration as Buddha didn't lay a precept for Laypeople to abstain from masturbation.

yes saying it's wrong is a bit of a moral judgment. Sexuality is a part of life, but people need to realize that it consummes a lof of their energies, and can lead to serious health issues long term. Moderation is the key

I am trying to follow the noble path. My thoughts on this topic is like this. If you are in need of physical release and that need is hindering you from keeping a calm mind. Perhaps it is best to release for the sake of removing the need so that one may easily return to a calm mind. It can be done without fantasy when the need for release is there. The beauty of it is that the need can be relieved by one's own self and without harm to one's self or others. Immediately afterwards the craving is gone just like one is no longer hungry after one eats. Remember the Buddha learned that starving was not the way. Remember we are all trying to remove suffering, not live with it when the solution is so simple. Relieving one's self and lusting is not exactly the same thing. Lusting can no doubt cause the need and should be avoided, but unfortunately I believe the need is going to arise as surely as we are all going to get hungry, especially for a man.
If one has a headache, one could more easily keep one's mind at peace if the pain is relieved. So take an aspirin.


text:
Has any pilgrimage customs formed in North America?
In Asia there are the 8 pilgrimage locations based on places the historical Buddha did things.
Has any North American Buddhist organization, sangha, or the like created a list of pilgrimage destinations?
Anyhow, the BNS specifically mentions rules for travel #37, I haven't figured out if this means one is supposed to go on a pilgrimage.

Do you mean pilgrimages to North America or pilgrimages from North America to places such as India?

In North America (not in India).

I am not sure there are any place in North America that people would pilgrimage to. Perhaps here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Ten_Thousand_Buddhas

Maybe Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche's stupa in Colorado?  http://www.shambhalamountain.org/great-stupa/

It's been a while since I asked this question, here is what I learned since then.
In ancient China, there was a system of itinerant monks who went from monastery to  monastery. You couldn't stay forever, but you could stay a short amount of time at any monastery. Travel could be dangerous, so the rules were in place to discourage recklessness.
In Japan, after political consolidation, it became safe to travel all over the place. Since temples were popular destinations, this created demand for lodging and restaurants at temples. Some of these still exist. The restaurants were vegetarian restaurants and served vegetarian temple food. Both in Japan and China, they followed Mahayana and were not conflicted about it.
In the US, you can find some faint echos of these pilgrimage traditions, like Hsi Lai Temple, in Hacienda Heights has/had a restaurant. I haven't found any that offer short stays for pilgrims.
What we do have in the US is a retreat system, where people travel to a retreat center for a week or two for housing, food and organized activities. These are too numerous to list here. It isn't quite like stupa pilgrimage in India, because there isn't anything special about the location.
Speaking of special locations, in the US, the closest thing we have to religiously significant locations are the Stupas, such as the The Great Stupa of Dharmakaya. In Hawaii there are Japanese temples built in the traditional style and Ling Yen Temple in Canada, but I think it is safe to say we are no where near the scale of temples you find in Asia.

Anyhow, the BNS specifically mentions rules for travel #37, I haven't figured out if this means one is supposed to go on a pilgrimage.

I agree with Matthew's answer.
Note that the reference for #37 says (unlike most of the other precepts),

Traveling in Dangerous Areas
[As a cleric], a disciple of the Buddha should engage in

So I think this is explicitly for clerics, who have "gone forth", i.e. are homeless and are maybe (instead of living in a fixed place/home) travelling from place to place, perhaps begging and so on, i.e. where travelling is their usual way of life.
Those customs (annual "ascetic practices") are not only Mahayana/Chinese -- Wikipedia's Vassa article says,

The Vassa tradition predates the time of Gautama Buddha. It was a long-standing custom for mendicant ascetics (see Sramana) in India not to travel during the rainy season as they may unintentionally harm crops, insects or even themselves during their travels. Many Buddhist ascetics live in regions which lack a rainy season. Consequently, there are places where Vassa may not be typically observed.

The Śramaṇa article mentions,

It was as a śramaṇa that the Buddha left his father's palace and practised austerities. ...
The Buddhist Sramanic movement chose moderate ascetic lifestyle. This was in contrast to ...
The śramaṇa idea of wandering began to change early in Buddhism. The renunciates started living in vihāras, at first during vassa, the rainy season, but eventually permanently. In medieval Jainism the tradition of wandering also waned, but it was revived in the 19th century. Similar changes have regularly occurred in Buddhism.

Here's more about it from The Bhikkhus' Rules -- A Guide for Laypeople,

The Rains Retreat
The bhikkhu's year is structured around the three months from July to October. In Asia this is the time of the monsoon season — the central period of the agricultural year — when the paddy fields are flooded and the main rice crop is planted. In the Buddha's time (and until modern times), people were less likely to travel around during this period because the roads were bad and there was a danger of crop damage. So the bhikkhus likewise suspended their mendicant wanderings and had to settle in one place.
A bhikkhu must make a formal determination to be resident at dawn every day in that place for the whole three month period. (There are exceptional circumstances when he may be allowed to be away, but even then he should return within seven days.) These three months are often a special time of study or meditation and so are sometimes known as the Rains Retreat or Rains Residence. This is also the normal time when the young men of South East Asia become monks for the traditional three month period (see above).
A bhikkhu often measures the length of time he has been a monk according to how many Rains Residences he has undertaken. Therefore instead of saying he has been 'ordained seven years' he might say he has been ordained for 'seven Rains.'

Like the referenced 37th precept, the Buddhist Monastic Code (Patimokkha Rules) also contains various references to avoiding danger, including,

However,
the origin story to this rule indicates that this period was a dangerous time for
bhikkhus living in wilderness areas, as thieves were active—perhaps because
they knew that bhikkhus had just received new requisites, or simply because
now that roads had become passable it was time to get back to their work.


text:
Is it too much focus on awareness in regular daily life a bad thing when beginning mindfulness?
Does the attempt to bring awareness into all aspects of life as a beginner have a greater potential of producing negative affects when starting.
I'm wondering if too much practice can come as a shock to the mind if awareness fades. Or is it the case that mindfulness always produces positive results as long as it doesn't battle the mind and ones practice continues with a calm nonjudgmental refocusing of the mind when it wanders?

Being aware of what you are doing while you are doing it never seems like a bad idea in my opinion. I do not think that throughout the day you should deliberately lose awarness (such as daydreaming about the beach while making dinner) as an attempt to ward off negative affects.

@ChristopherLee This is where I get slightly confused though. Some of my greatest insights have come around when I have fallen from a period of awareness and allowed my mind to wander. This is typically pretty important to me since I'm a programming. I suppose the mind has a gravity to it so there should be no reason to fear too much awareness since it's not like I won't be able to eventually allow my mind to wander when I need to. At least I hope that's the case.

Not to get to off topic, but what would you consider a "great insight"? Perhaps it is merely your perspective of insight and mindfulness that is causing this confusion.

@ChristopherLee I guess that a'ha! moment when you ruminate over a problem and the solution suddenly comes when you least expect it. I might be confused about when the solution arises but the rumination is still necessary to begin the process, and part of that seems to be the mind wandering.

Yeah but what is a specific example of one of these insights? For instance, I cultivate insight into what an apple is, only when I am mindful of the apple and eat it while practicing mindful eating. I have never been able to cultivate insight about an apple while I am eating it and watching a movie.

@ChristopherLee Good point. Even during my pondering it is an intention focus on a set of abstract ideas, not just pure mind wandering.

Once again, you are using vague terms. Lets talk about specific instances since it is in specific instances that we experience the present moment. I encourage you again to think of a specific insight, and through mindfulness, investigation, and concentration seek out the nature of that insight.

Also, pondering is not against mindfulness. There is mindful pondering.

@ChristopherLee In context maybe he's referring to insight into a software programming problem: sometimes, when you stop trying to think about a problem, then you see (suddenly have insight into) a solution. That can happen for example after you stop work, stop thinking much, and are just walking home. But maybe you're letting yourself daydream (about work) while walking, not forcing yourself to be actively aware of your present/physical surroundings.

Perhaps, but typically when we talk about insight in Buddhism we are speaking of Vipassana. From Wikipedia: Vipassanā (Pāli) or vipaśyanā in the Buddhist tradition means insight into the true nature of reality,namely as the Three marks of existence: impermanence, suffering or unsatisfactoriness, and the realisation of non-self.

I am also a software developer, and I often put down a project to go and work on another so I can give some time before coming back to the initial problem. However that does not mean I am not mindful. "Stopping" and "Resting" are a part of mindful living. When you stop to think about a problem, you can still cultivate mindfulness.

Mindfulness, mindfulness -- what is this mindfulness? There seems to be a big and unfortunate misunderstanding about this.
For some reason many people think mindfulness means to intensely stare at whatever we are doing until our eyes pop out. "I must be aware! What am I doing now? I'm driving, I'm driving... I'm coding, I'm coding... I'm pooping, I'm pooping..." -- but this is not mindfulness, this is generation of anxiety.
The right mindfulness is mindfulness of the subconscious. Mindfulness of our "guts", mindfulness of our feelings, mindfulness of our mind "weather", mindfulness of our non-verbal intellect. When we always maintain such deeper connection with ourselves we can learn to heal our mental and emotional neuroses and recover our Buddha-nature -- our inborn power and sanity.
And in 21st century this means first and foremost recovering awareness of our body, because body is not just the window on the subconscious -- body is the subconscious. I recommend you to read the book "Touching Enlightenment. Finding Realization in the body" by Reginald A. Ray, Ph.D. a favorite student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche.

When you are mindful you should be be mindful of the 4 Frame of Mindfulness. These are all tied with sensation. If you are looking at bodily posture or movement you sense this through your sense faculties. In once if comes in contact with the sense faculties you get a sensation as per dependent origination. Similarly for other frames of Mindfulness. You have to be mindful of the arising and passing away of sensations being equanimous. This has a very soothing effect.
Even a circus girl has to be mindful in order not to hurt or kill your self. This type of mindfulness does not reduce stress but creates more stress. So you should practice the right type of mindfulness which takes you out of misery than create more misery.

If you use mindfulness to become aware, it is a likely occurrence that eventually things or events that have been buried will emerge. Some of these may be unpleasant but they must be faced or they remain as unfinished business.
If mindfulness is practiced to the point where you can't do your job, relate to your friends and family, take care of your body, and lose the joy of living, then this is overdoing whatever you are practicing.

I would venture to say, that if mindfulness of the present moment causes you to lose the joy of living, then perhaps you are not being mindful. Happiness is born in the present moment. Only in the present moment can we be free, and freedom is the only condition for happiness.


text:
Is self-immolation murder?
Buddhism teaches prohibits murder, but some Buddhist monks self-immolate. Is this inline with Buddhist teachings or contrary to them?

Human life is very rare and precious. Also when doing this the chances are that your last thought will not be good leading to rebirth in a lower relm. So in my opinion and general consensus in my tradition is that this should not be done. Also in doing this the following conditions of killing is met:

You know that yourself is a living being
You device a method to for self immolate
You follow through with the intention
As a result you die


text:
How can one verify reincarnation?
The Buddha something about what evidence you need to believe something. So how can one verify reincarnation?

Now I know you're just pasting. You'll have to do better than this if you want us to understand what you are asking (and quoting).

That google translate?

This does not make any sense to me, no offense.

I fixed the incoherent part of the question so now it at least matches the answers.

In the Avatamsaka sutra, one of the powers that a Bodhisattva gains on the path is the ability to remember past lives.

While striving to attain Bodhi,
  I will gain the knowledge of past
  lives in all destinies.

Ref: http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/pxxyp/
Which actually is a very Buddhist sort of proof, proof comes from personal experience. This is certainly not scientific proof, and for me isn't all that convincing.
This question here discusses what happens to Buddhism if we dispense with reincarnation: What if there is no rebirth?
I think the system holds up well without reincarnation. That said, the cosmology, with the six realms, King Yama & all make for a vivid way to discuss actions and consequences, more so that just talking in abstractions.

I know my answer might be perceived as silly but the argument I'm going to put forth really does convince me.
Martin Heidegger (one of the greatest philosophers of the last century, according to most) had a concept called Geworfenheit. This is translated as "throwness". It relates to the feeling we have that we feel "thrown" into this world.
If I have already experienced myself "thrown" into a world (this one) I think it's sound to believe that it might happen again!

If you want verification, then at least do yourself a favor and obtain the verification yourself, i.e. by doing insight-meditation (vipassana).
If you obtain verification by an external source, e.g. a scientist, another meditator, a Buddha, a teacher, a newspaper, the internet etc., then how can you know if its true? It could be false.
Go test it for yourself and obtain direct, experiential knowledge of reality.
If you do not know how to meditate or would like to learn it, Ven. Yuttadhammo has made a video series that might be beneficial for you.

Simply think that we haven't proved that.
Try to explain:

Why there are animals if you see a life form in them why they can't be human.
Why there are gods protecting the mankind, and how they are formed
If we go to Heaven after we die, what happens next
If every people is created equal why there is poor and rich
For billions of years the world have existed when will the human kind end after all people go to heaven and hell. Is that the end?
If math can explain the universe,  the number line has also got 0 beside of negative and positive then what is that in real life. Is there anything.
If you Don't do good and you won't do bad so what will be your destiny.

These are the usually explained stuff in Buddhism.

Nowadays net is full of evidences that claim reincarnation and children who insist they were someone in their previous life with the exact explanations of their personality in the previous life which sometimes are shocking. Because some of these children had many secrets in their previous life that is confirmed with those relatives and friends that know the secret.
Just search YouTube for "Reincarnation".
"Mommy, Why am I Not a Boy This Time?" - a Story of Reincarnation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQJXCBknbtQ
Reincarnation in America - Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19SwRpJz0I


text:
Can one practice meditation to gain knowledge about the universe?
The Buddha knows everything in this universe via his mind alone. Can I do the same? I want to know what is inside a black hole.

Do you want a Mahayana or Theravada answer?

Why do you want to know what is inside a black hole? And why is buddhism where you are looking to find this out? there is an astronomy stack exchange with a lot of great answers about the content of what is within a black hole. Due to hawking radiation leaked by a black hole one could in theory use the information leaked to determine the information inside the black hole.

@MatthewMartin both

The question in the title is easy and the answer is yes. The text of the question is more specific and more tricky. . .

Why not! You will see what is there for sure. But that is not a very good motivation for advancing in Buddha's path. That kind of desire doesn't foster real advancement; if steers your attention to some secondary things. Buddha knew the entire universe. That's what it means to be all-aware. The prime focus in the Buddhas path is Metta or loving kindness for all living beings. It's amazing to think about that: what all physicists of the 20th century were striving to understand was available to ne man Buddha.

Please consider having a better look at MN 63. Here's an excerpt which might be relevant for you:

It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.

Buddhist meditation is about understanding misery and the way out of misery. Main aim is to get understanding of this process 4 Noble Truth.
You will get other insights in the process. I am not sure about whether you will get insights on what you are seeking. But this is a by product than a goal of Buddhist meditation.

The Therevada stand has been covered. The details of a black hole are metaphyiscal speculations, which in general discouraged, or at least set aside as irrelevant to the Buddhist path.
In Mahayana, in the 10 grounds of the Bodhisattva path, the first seven grounds mostly are paramitas, the 8 fold path, but the last three stages you become essentially a celestial Buddha with the same powers and abilities of pretty much any mythical god-- including omniscience. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Stages_Sutra
Now what one would wants to do with this Sutra is a different story-- on one hand, you can look at it as being literally true and spoken by a meditation master who saw this while meditating and therefore it has to be true.
(now entering my personal opinions) Or you can look at it some otherway-- I suspect the real point of the possibility of becoming a celestial Buddha was to emphasize how valuable & worthy it is to be enlightened, a way of encouraging Bodhichitta (the motivation to strive on the Buddhist path) in the readers.
Elsewhere in the Avatamsaka, readers are encouraged to study all sorts of topics including mathematics-- so astrophysics would be on the list-- although the value of academics in Mahayana Buddhism appears to be its value in being of use to others, less so the intrinsic value of just knowing a lot.

I do not recall any teaching where the Buddha is said to know what is inside a black hole. In fact Buddha specifically states not to spend time with contemplating the heavens. The Buddha focused his attention on the present moment, which rarely includes black holes.

We go beyond outward appearances or signs and come to "signlessness."At first, we think that the members of our family are separate from one another, but afterwards we see that they contain each other. You are the way you are because I am the way I am. We see the intimate connection between people,and we go beyond signs. We used to think that the universe contains millions of separate entities. Now we understand "the nonexistence of signs."
  -Thich Nhat Hanh, The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching

The Buddha knows everything in the universe because he understands interbeing. He undersands that everything is interdependent on each other thing. There is no separate independent black hole in the center of the galaxy that is separate then the keyboard I am using to type this response. The Buddha can look at this keyboard in front of me and see the trees, the sun, the people who designed and created this keyboard, the black hole in the center of the galaxy holding us all together, and even you and me.

The Buddha said, "Dear friends, I have seen deeply that nothing can be by itself
  alone, that everything has to inter-be with everything else. I have seen that all beings are endowed with the nature of awakening."
  -Thich Nhat Hanh, The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching

Are you sure that "The Buddha knows everything in this universe via his mind alone."? And if so, where do you know from?
If you want to know what is inside a black hole I recommend a textbook on general relativity like
"Thorne, Kip: Black holes and time warps".
A bit more speculative is
"Susskind, Leonard; Lindesay, James: An introduction to Black Holes, Information and the String Revolution. The Holographic Universe".
Susskind gives some information about the subject in his talk "Inside black holes" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMRYZMv0jRE
Since the classical solutions of Einstein's field equations by Schwarzschild, Kerr and Kruskal we know a lot about the geometry of spacetime inside black holes. But the current conjectures about Bekenstein-Hawking entropy seem to me still a field of active research.
Nevertheless I assume that you want to know "everything" about black holes. Physics cannot fulfill this desire. But in my opinion, nobody can.

You have to practice to become a Buddha in order to reach your goal and not just a silent Buddha but a fully enlightened Buddha. A fully enlightened Buddha can know everything and anything he directs his mind at, e.g. The Four Imponderables or the black hole phenomena.

Yes, through proper (read Theravadin) Buddhist practice, an intellectual person, curious of many things will unwittingly, effortlessly gain understanding of many things about himself and the universe.
He can intentionally direct his prajna wisdom to any subject and understand it completely.
This is all I will share/write because there is so much information available. You can research the rest about the different types of prajna wisdom on Bill's meditationexpert.com site and most importantly cultivate mindfulness meditation (samatha) and vipassana. (When you have a question in your mind after stabilizing your mind through meditation, the answer will come--unless you crave the answer too strongly.)

On the other hand, if you want to experience whatever is in consciousness, Buddhism is a path to awakening consciousness.
The problem is what you think is a black hole now stands in the way of your experiencing it in meditation.
If you think of a black hole not as a vortex as it is often depicted, but as part of the dark matter and energy that scientists say compose 96% of the invisible universe. So Buddhism can lead you beyond the 4% of the visible to the 96% of the invisible and possibly unknowable by intellectual means. However consciousness has no such limits.
So getting back to your question, if you want to study black holes scientifically, then other sites and practices would be better.
On the other hand if your curiosity is even bigger to experience all there is in consciousness, then Buddhism offers you a way to get there.
Meditation is the most likely tool you would want.
Here is one type of meditation that you could practice
http://zmm.mro.org/teachings/meditation-instructions/
If this seems suitable to you, then I would most definitely read a few pages a day of Shunryu Suzuki's treatise on meditation that goes even beyond concepts of Buddhism.
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf
If you want just the meditation, mindfulness could be a useful practice:
https://thebuddhistcentre.com/text/mindfulness-breathing
For whatever sincere reason you have to start practicing, I heartily endorse your entry. If it is right for you other doors will open. And in any case you will learn the most basic practice of being alive through being aware of the breath.

What buddha taught is know as the ultimate truth

He discovered way to out of the misery through that.  Hinduism
explains something about 6 chakras which controls the whole universe,
they say that if you unlock the all the chakras you will gain access
to ultimate truth.
It is said that budhha tried everything in the Dambadiwa or Simply
India, but everything was useless then only he self discovered the
ultimate truth.
The main excersise he did was Ana-pana-sathi, which concentrate on
the breath.

You can't directly jump to this you have to go throught Samatha then Vidarshana to Anapanasathi.

One could practice meditation until arriving at the knowledge of what is inside a black hole.  However, it is less clear how long such a meditation could take.  Perhaps it may take a million years or more to reach such extended awareness.
Along the way, one's meditation may lead one to understand other things closer to home.  Perhaps on the way one acquires awareness of why a teacher never replies to emails, or just exactly what is down in the crack between a car's seat and the center console, or where one's taxes go after they are sucked in by the IRS.
One may even become aware of why one wishes to acquire knowledge of black holes, and find that the answer to this question is even more valuable than knowing the contents of black holes in the first place.  At this time, one could choose to set aside the search for such knowledge, and continue along a path of one's choosing.
The choice is always your own.

I think it is possible to know everything in universe by meditating. Our mind has many un-explored powers. The kind of visualization that we generate during our dreams while asleep is a demonstration of this. Ofcourse,  that happens unintentionally but it is my firm belief that we can visualize anything intentionally by meditating on it. In the starting it would feel like we would be thinking of the topic of interest (black holes in this case) by LOGIC based on whatever we know of it but as we keep continuing our meditation on that subject, we will eventually reach a state of thoughtlessness. The first level of transformation which Buddha says will be that we will forget about our own body but still have a feeling that "I" am meditating of the "Subject". The second level of transformation which Buddha says will be that "Subject" is being observed. The third level of transformation will be that "I" am "Subject". I think when we reach to the third level, all the knowledge of the "Subject" will transfer to our mind and we will magically know everything about something alien like black holes. Hindu mythology gives a lot of examples that our "Rishis" knew about Astrology, electricity, magnetism just by meditation.
I think this is the only way to know the truth behind all science.

Mindfulness Buddhist practice is about what is in your experience and what is in harmony with your experiential reality as it is in the present moment. Experiencing reality like this as much as possible, through all the sense doors, moment by moment, with good morality and concentration,  will soon turn mundane awareness of reality into something supermundane, something  like experiencing the center of a blackhole but even more useful.

OP, I get why you're curious. Check out the work of Nassim Haramein. He has many lectures on youtube and some documentaries you can stream through Vimeo or Amazon.
Best.

You are a Westerner, yes?  The path of the Westerner (or anyone from the Hebrew story) is different from that of a Chinaman (or anyone from the Native American bloodlines).
The latter can view the universe from on high, like an eagle.  The Westerner's story is of eating from the Tree of Knowledge which gave you a mind there.  You have to climb that Tree through study or travel and dialog to get to the top -- you cannot do it through meditation without betraying yourself.
Meditation, for the Westerner, is for breaking out of dualism that often runs the mind.  The path here, in most cases, is synthesis or rejection to leave the dualism.
You will not find this in any Buddhist text, because the Buddha does not deal with the Westerner.  I'm telling you from mastery of Zen, as a Westerner.  Synthesize or reject as you wish.

+1 for a brilliant answer. Who is that retarded down-voter? Get the MRI to see if mud is in thy brain